Question regarding evolution and creation?

[ChrisBradford]

I mean, ithe creation of adam was a miracle as shown here: about this by way of direct revelation The direct creation of Adam (can neither be confirmed nor denied by science in any way. This is because the creation of Adam was a unique and singular historical event. It is a matter of the Unseen and something that science does not have the power to confirm or deny. As a matter of the Unseen, We say the same for the miracles. Miraculous events, by their very nature, do not conform to scientific laws and their occurrence can neither be confirmed nor denied by science. I wonder, how is evolution a reason to doubt creationism.

as well, some people believe in the virgin birth of jesus, so why not creation of adam? People are born with parents, so does that mean god is giving evidence against jesus birth?

However, regarding virgin birth, I have been shown this:

Note that the virgin birth of Jesus does not directly contradict any observations we make. It does make one wonder where his Y chromosome comes from, but one can argue that it was created ex-nihilo of magically copied from Joseph's.

and this: The difference between the two is that the virgin birth does not have an a effect on our present and cannot be proved to be true or wrong, on the other hand the creation myth couldn't have happened because our current reality contradicts it, hope this clears it up

I mean, does current scientific evidence contradict the creation story, unlike the virgin birth as stated here?

Overall though?

[Endy0816]

With evolution you don't require deities to be involved at any point in the process. There's plenty of fossil and genetic evidence at this point.

 

Honestly, I feel the whole highly similar asexual mitochondria should be enough to sway anyone. If your own cells provide evidence against your belief, good time to rethink your position.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Endy0816

[ChrisBradford]

Did you see my point on the virgin birth and the thing via evolution? It reads this:

 

Note that the virgin birth of Jesus does not directly contradict any observations we make. It does make one wonder where his Y chromosome comes from, but one can argue that it was created ex-nihilo of magically copied from Joseph's.

and this: The difference between the two is that the virgin birth does not have an a effect on our present and cannot be proved to be true or wrong, on the other hand the creation myth couldn't have happened because our current reality contradicts it, hope this clears it up

I was wondering, is this true? I read it from a site but it has biases against religion so I wanted to ask here to get a more neutral answer.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Religion has no place in mainstream science discussions. I need to move this to Religion, where you can continue to discuss the subject comprehensively.

[DrP]

It says in the book that she was "visited by an angel in the night"... So it is clear as to where the Y chromosome comes from really... ;-)

[Endy0816]

For some species virgin births are the norm. They have never been observed in humans though. Either way don't need to involve a deity.

[ChrisBradford]

Let me elaborate. The claim is that the virgin birth is not contradicted by observable evidence. So what I ask is, the idea of the story of adam contradicted by observational evidence?

[DrP]

Also this 'night time visitation' by the angel sounds a bit suspicious.

 

Also - re: Adam - you just need to count ribs to know that the storey is not true. We were taught at sunday school that a man has 1 less rib - which of course isn't the case.

Edited January 26, 2017 by DrP

[Lord Antares]

What do you mean it isn't contradicted by observable evidence? You mean to say we cannot refute it because we haven't seen it?

In that case, I postulate that there is a tiny, microscopic goblin cruising around the universe creating black holes and that's where they come from. You cannot refute it, so there's no reason to believe it's false, right?

 

Anyway, evolution DOES refute creationism because the eath has been proven to be older than 6000 years. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that anything else that creationism states is true.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Lord Antares

[DrP]

I think that is a good argument L.A... The book clearly states that the earth is 6k years old and it clearly isn't. It talks about creation, which has been proven to be wrong by evolution. It talks of miricles, but no-one has ever reported one that cannot be explained away by coincidence or lies. So - it's full of errors from chapter 1, so why trust it further as LA suggested above.

Edited January 26, 2017 by DrP

[Sensei]

I mean, ithe creation of adam was a miracle as shown here: about this by way of direct revelation The direct creation of Adam (can neither be confirmed nor denied by science in any way. This is because the creation of Adam was a unique and singular historical event. It is a matter of the Unseen and something that science does not have the power to confirm or deny.

Typical question on religion lesson:

if Adam was the first man (and the only created, as you stated, in "unique and singular historical event"),

and Eve was the first woman (suppose to be made of Adam's part of body),

and they had three sons Cain, Abel and Seth,

where did their wives come from.. ?

(it could be repeated over and over for later generations)

 

After that question the most of priests/religion teachers are starting reproving student..

 

According to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

Genesis 5 is introducing sister and wife of Cain named Awan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awan_(religious_figure)

and there is Azura, also sister of Awan, so at the same time sister of Abel and Cain and Seth..

So Adam and Eve had to have at least 5 children..

 

And they together "exchanged their genes"..

 

That's pretty unhealthy and since at least couple thousands years even forbidden in majority of societies.

 

One may ask, how can somebody forbid it, if Bible clearly started from it (as long as, taking it literally, word by word)... ?

 

Miraculous events, by their very nature, do not conform to scientific laws and their occurrence can neither be confirmed nor denied by science.

For majority of world population miracle is even how computer, electronics, TV, generally world, how they work. Because they are poorly (or none) educated.

 

I wonder, how is evolution a reason to doubt creationism.

Depends on whether somebody treats Bible literally, or not.

 

Take for instance creation of Adam.

"God fashions Adam from dust"

Isn't very similar to creation of organic matter from non-organic matter and Earth rocks.. ?

You can create organic matter by yourself performing this experiment:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

 

"The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment)[2] was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions. The experiment confirmed Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that putative conditions on the primitive Earth favoured chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1952[3] by Stanley Miller, with assistance from Harold Urey, at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.[4][5][6]

 

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life"

Edited January 26, 2017 by Sensei

[ChrisBradford]

Actually I am arguing from an islamic point of view. It does not detail the age of the earth.

 

2nd, here is this from islamic tradition:

 

 

Allaah The Exalted created Aadam (Adam ), from a handful that grasped all parts of the earth. Hence, the Children of Aadam have varied (in appearance and traits) according to the nature of the earth. There came from them the white, red, black and (others with colors) in between, and (there also came from them) the wicked, kind, lenient, harsh, and (others with characteristics) in between." [Ahmad, Abu Daawood, At-Tirmithi. Al-Albaani and other narrators considered it as a Saheeh (Authentic) Hadeeth]

 

This Hadeeth shows that differences in the color of people's skin varies according to the differences in color of the earth from which Aadam was created.

 

Neither the Sharee‘ah nor experience accepts the saying that the skin color of some people has became black due to the heat of the sun. Any wise person obviously knows that. It is a fact that climate and heat affect skin color, but they do not affect the genes because when a black man moves to a cold region, the black color of his skin does not change. Also, when a white man moves to a hot region, his skin color becomes darker and when he returns to a cold region, his skin becomes whiter again.

[Sensei]

Neither the Shareeah nor experience accepts the saying that the skin color of some people has became black due to the heat of the sun. Any wise person obviously knows that. It is a fact that climate and heat affect skin color, but they do not affect the genes because when a black man moves to a cold region, the black color of his skin does not change. Also, when a white man moves to a hot region, his skin color becomes darker and when he returns to a cold region, his skin becomes whiter again.

They will change skin color, but it takes many generations to preserve.

It's adaptation to environment.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin

"In humans, melanin is the primary determinant of skin color."

"The melanin in the skin is produced by melanocytes, which are found in the basal layer of the epidermis. Although, in general, human beings possess a similar concentration of melanocytes in their skin, the melanocytes in some individuals and ethnic groups produce variable amounts of melanin. Some humans have very little or no melanin synthesis in their bodies, a condition known as albinism."

Read also "Human adaptation" section.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanocyte

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albinism

Edited January 26, 2017 by Sensei

[Delta1212]

I think that is a good argument L.A... The book clearly states that the earth is 6k years old and it clearly isn't. It talks about creation, which has been proven to be wrong by evolution. It talks of miricles, but no-one has ever reported one that cannot be explained away by coincidence or lies. So - it's full of errors from chapter 1, so why trust it further as LA suggested above.

Point of interest: The Bible doesn't at any point state that the world is 6k years old. That's an approximation made by various creationists by attempting to build a timeline of events based on the ages of all of the people listed in the Bible and the few provided relative dates of events.

[swansont]

Let me elaborate. The claim is that the virgin birth is not contradicted by observable evidence. So what I ask is, the idea of the story of adam contradicted by observational evidence?

 

 

Humans as a species are not the same age as other animals, who were purportedly created the same week (in Genesis, at least).

[DrP]

QUOTE: Delta1212: "....doesn't claim the world is 6k years old.."

 

Yes, sorry - but it does point to humans (from Adam) being on the earth for about that time. Which is clearly false as we have human fossils way, way older than that.

 

re: the 6 days... I always thought of them as 6 time periods... each one could have been a different length and could have lasted millions or billions of years. Various people have furiously argued against this though from both sides of the creationism argument though and I don't really care to argue about it. There are enough errors in the book to invalidate it as a whole imo. I used to believe differently.

[ChrisBradford]

Well,does our data disprove human creation, I mean the idea that humans and apes have a common ancestor?

[Arete]

Well,does our data disprove human creation, I mean the idea that humans and apes have a common ancestor?

 

 

You have the concept of burden of proof backwards. It's not up to our data, or science, or anyone to disprove biblical creation. Ala Russel's teapot.

[Asphalt Alligator]

The chances of life ever starting on our beautiful planet even though it is in the 'Goldilocks' zone for life to exist, was extremely remote to put it mildly and yet we are here in all our splendour. This being the case I am still firmly of the belief that it is quite possible that there is no life anywhere else in the universe. We could be totally on our own. What does anyone think about that? - it is a sobering thought and does make me anyway start to think that some kind of higher force has had a hand in our creation though I do think evolution is true and exists.

[Memammal]

Point of interest: The Bible doesn't at any point state that the world is 6k years old. That's an approximation made by various creationists by attempting to build a timeline of events based on the ages of all of the people listed in the Bible and the few provided relative dates of events.

The approx. 6,000 years refer to the biblical genealogy going back to the time that biblical Adam & Eve would have walked this earth. It can be stretched back to maximum 10,000 years according to most of the sources that I have read. The time line (6,000 to 10,000 years) fits in well with the Genesis narrative against a Neolithic backdrop. As such one can safely argue that biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans. Not sure how relevant this is to the Quran though...

 

Well,does our data disprove human creation, I mean the idea that humans and apes have a common ancestor?

Although "disprove" is the wrong word to use, the fact is that the scientifically established origin of our species is well supported by a plethora of evidence. If somebody wants to assert that our species was created ex nihilo, it will indeed contradict science.

[Ophiolite]

The chances of life ever starting on our beautiful planet even though it is in the 'Goldilocks' zone for life to exist, was extremely remote to put it mildly and yet we are here in all our splendour. This being the case I am still firmly of the belief that it is quite possible that there is no life anywhere else in the universe. We could be totally on our own. What does anyone think about that? - it is a sobering thought and does make me anyway start to think that some kind of higher force has had a hand in our creation though I do think evolution is true and exists.

This is off-topic. It has been discussed in numerous previous posts. I recommend, if you wish to discuss it further, start a new thread. In the meantime note that we are currently unable to place a meaningful number on the likelihood of life emerging. You assert the origin of life on Earth was an extremely remote possibility. Jacques Monod, Nobel Laureate, asserted it was a unique event. Christian de Duve, Nobel Laureate, asserted life is common and abundant throughout the universe. So, at this time, all we can can say is "We don't know".

[mistermack]

Both the genetic evidence, and the fossil evidence, indicate that humans evolved.

If the story of Adam were true, it's highly unlikely that there would be fossils of apes that waked upright, in various stages of the evolution of the upright stance, and enlarging brain.

 

So the evidence is abundant that man evolved from a small brained, tree living ape.

 

That doesn't disprove the story of Adam. Nothing can disprove such stories.

But if the story of Adam is true, the overwhelming evidence says that he would have met up with many bronze-age humans who were already enjoying the Earth.

[DrP]

 

So the evidence is abundant that man evolved from a small brained, tree living ape.

 

That doesn't disprove the story of Adam. Nothing can disprove such stories.

But if the story of Adam is true, the overwhelming evidence says that he would have met up with many bronze-age humans who were already enjoying the Earth.

 

But the story claims he was the first man..... so the overwhelming evidence you speak of point against the story being true, no? Is that not dis-proof as far as can be reasonably achieved?

[Daecon]

Why are you focusing on only Christian creationism and not creationism from any other religion? Each religion has just as much evidence to support it as the next, so what's influencing this bias for Christianity over everything else?

[mistermack]

 

But the story claims he was the first man..... so the overwhelming evidence you speak of point against the story being true, no? Is that not dis-proof as far as can be reasonably achieved?

I don't think the word proof or disproof is appropriate to such questions.

Overwhelming evidence is what it is. It doesn't need to be bumped up to proof status.

The evidence is overwhelming, both in quality and quantity. That's good enough for me.

 

The evidence for the Adam and Eve story is some scribbling in an old book, from a very superstitious time long ago, by some very superstitious bronze-age people.

 

There's no comparison.

Edited January 28, 2017 by mistermack