No conflict between creation and evolution

[Jori Gervasio R. Benzon]

I cannot see any conflict between the ideas of creation and evolution because creation is an act while evolution is a process. Evolution says how species arise. Creation says that something made species to arise. Creation does not say how species arise. Evolution does not say that nothing made species arise. 

[Peterkin]

24 minutes ago, Jori Gervasio R. Benzon said:

Creation does not say how species arise. Evolution does not say that nothing made species arise. 

Therefore:  God=nothing

[joigus]

You're right. There's no conflict. Google search term: God of the gaps.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Jori Gervasio R. Benzon said:

I cannot see any conflict between the ideas of creation and evolution because creation is an act while evolution is a process. Evolution says how species arise. Creation says that something made species to arise. Creation does not say how species arise. Evolution does not say that nothing made species arise. 

Your view is consistent with what I understand to be the standard view, adopted by the main Christian denominations - and any Christian with half a brain.  

[Ken Fabian]

I think the dispute becomes about creation versus abiogenesis, rather than versus evolution.

[exchemist]

9 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think the dispute becomes about creation versus abiogenesis, rather than versus evolution.

Not even that, in the main denominations. Basically, there is no dispute between thinking Christianity and science. Christian thinkers have long since worked out that it is p***ing into the wind trying to oppose science with religious argument. People like Cardinal Wiseman had already realised that, back in in the c.19th. 

[studiot]

10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think the dispute becomes about creation versus abiogenesis, rather than versus evolution.

I think that both creation and evolution are often ill specified terms thrown about with 'gay careless abandon' by 'all and sundry' , so +1 for bringing out that fact.

This is, of course, why we are more careful when talking scientifically and often 'create' new specialist words, such as abiogenesis, with precise meanings.

Create, of course, remains unspecified in this thread.

Rowling 'created' Harry Potter, but does he exist ?

[J.C.MacSwell]

Harry Potter just evolved from a long line of hairy potters.

[Bufofrog]

On 5/28/2022 at 7:48 AM, Jori Gervasio R. Benzon said:

I cannot see any conflict between the ideas of creation and evolution because creation is an act while evolution is a process. Evolution says how species arise. Creation says that something made species to arise. Creation does not say how species arise. Evolution does not say that nothing made species arise.

That seems reasonable, I don't see any way to test the idea but I don't think that is a big concern for your belief.

The creationist that believe that T. rex, Adam and Eve sat around together eating plants is when the creation idea runs completely off the rails.

[mistermack]

On 5/28/2022 at 12:48 PM, Jori Gervasio R. Benzon said:

I cannot see any conflict between the ideas of creation and evolution because creation is an act while evolution is a process. 

There's no conflict. There is just a huge difference. One is an idea, as you said. The other is both an idea and a process that has been verified to be true, hundreds of thousands of times. 

The  idea of creation is on the same level as the idea of the imaginary celestial teapot. A product of the imagination, highly unlikely, and with no evidence to date, and impossible to refute.

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 6/26/2022 at 12:23 PM, mistermack said:

There's no conflict. There is just a huge difference. One is an idea, as you said. The other is both an idea and a process that has been verified to be true, hundreds of thousands of times. 

The  idea of creation is on the same level as the idea of the imaginary celestial teapot. A product of the imagination, highly unlikely, and with no evidence to date, and impossible to refute.