Creation vs. Evolution

763 posts

Flag Post

Which is true?

 
Flag Post

Evolution…. For extremely obvious reasons….

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AirmanAlex:

Evolution…. For extremely obvious reasons….

Please elaborate on your reasoning…

 
Flag Post

because evolution is based on observation and backed by evidence, while creationism is based on authority and backed by idiocy.

 
Flag Post

This isn’t even a scientific argument. It’s basically extreme scientific-ignorant religious people versus the World and everything ever created from using science.

The creationist argument is as valid as an astrologists argument.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

This isn’t even a scientific argument. It’s basically extreme scientific-ignorant religious people versus the World and everything ever created from using science.

The creationist argument is as valid as an astrologists argument.

I back everything science says…. in fact I love science. But this is just one of the things I disagree with science on.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Chris2fly:

I back everything science says….

Hyperbole.

in fact I love science.

Good for you.

But this is just one of the things I disagree with science on.

Doesn’t that mean you actually don’t back everthing science says?

 
Flag Post

Universal genetic code (and similarities between every living thing), overwhelming amount of fossil records, the fact that we share 98%+ of our genetic code with primates, direct observation of evolution both in labs and outside areas (elephant population starting to produce offsprings without tusks because of human predators, reptiles that were changed to another environment and developed a different digestive system to eat the new food), etc.
Even Pope John Paul II embraced evolution. When even the biggest christian figure accepts something that contradicts Christianity, you know that shit is serious. – However he juggled words and said God orchestrated evolution and shit.
“This theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.”

 
Flag Post

Actually, the theory of Evolution, by Charles Darwin, was designed since the beggining to explain the origins of the SPECIES… Not of life itself. I do not believe he had necesserially the intent of disproving creationism as a concept, that is: The possibility that God is responsable for the existance of our world.

But, while Evolution is as proved as it can get without you actually looking at it happening, there is very little serious evidence of the Creation, as the Bible describes it. Minus the Bible itself, which doesnt really count. Not more then me claiming the sky to be red would make it red. At the same time, though… Scientists are still not sure of the EXACT process that created the first cell- Or at least, werent able to reproduce it anyway-So some form of external interference might not be impossible…

 
Flag Post

while Evolution is as proved as it can get without you actually looking at it happening

We have looked at microevolution take place. We just haven’t seen macroevolution (a species becoming a whole different species (not just a different sub-species like wolves became dogs)), however macroevolution is just a bunch of microevolutions, so by proving the micro, the macro gets proven.

So some form of external interference might not be impossible…

It is not. We have models that describe how life could have begun from non-life, however we have no evidence that it was like that – it only shows how it’s possible that there wasn’t any God involved. It doesn’t exclude the possibility of God creating life, though.
However, this discussion is about (A)Biogenesis, and not about Evolution, so I digress.

 
Flag Post

Just to get this out of the way, many Christians believe that the creation story in the Bible was simply symbolism. The main point is, God created everything. and we mean, EVERYTHING. so if someone were to prove the big bang true, Christians can easily say God caused the big bang.

 
Flag Post

so if someone were to prove the big bang true

Already done, pretty much.

Christians can easily say God caused the big bang.

They do (the ones that are aware of the immense validity of the Big Bang).

 
Flag Post

I answered this in the nearby thread:
Science has no proof that the Earth wasn’t created to LOOK as if evolution and Big Bang happened.
And religion actually elaborates on such a possibility, also bringing a logical-religious backup as to WHY – for us to have the truly full FREE CHOICE between MATTER and SOUL.
So, we have no way to truly know the answer, until we WILL.
For now, it’s just a matter of personal preferences – what each of us CHOOSES to “be true”.

I’m not the first Jew who says so.

11b …This is to be explained in accordance with the dictum of R. Joshua b. Levi; for R.
Joshua b. Levi said: All creatures of the creation were brought into being with their full stature, their full capacities, and their full beauty, as it says, And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them [zeba’am]. Read not zeba’am, but zibyonam [their beauty].

(The idea was adopted by non-Jews too.)
And yes, Jewish sources (if you’re not lazy to read a lot or even more) explicitly explain that world IS being constantly recreated (otherwise it wouldn’t be able to exist), so in “real reality” it is but a moment-old.
Thus, there is no actual difference between being created “5700 years ago” and “a second ago” – both are “unreal times”.
And again, if you can’t grasp the idea of “being born into a mature-yet-young world”, play an RPG, will you? :DDDDD
No jokes – it gives a perfect example of such a world.
Now, who says OURS is any different?
Well, technically – cause it’s obviously different moral-purposely.

 
Flag Post

You’re not the first person to claim that because it’s such an easy claim to make. Given the existence of an all powerful and all knowing being, you could basically say he just made it look however it is, or act however it acts.

The easiest argument against is that this is needlessly convoluted, and that it requires an all powerful, all knowing being to exist.

Basically, the argument is going to go in circles forever if you really want to bring religion into the discussion. I never saw the need to, simply because it’s too easy to hand-wave religion into it regardless of the truth. If evolution isn’t real, “that’s god’s design!” If evolution is real (and one finally manages to get someone to admit there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is), you get “that’s god’s design!”

Regardless, evolution and creationism aren’t about the same thing. One describes how species change over time, and the other is about how all species came about. They aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

 
Flag Post

Ketsy
Well, you ARE right – they are about different things.
Evolution makes us into lucky-to-evolve sophisticated monkeys who only answer to our personal consciousness and police – and “if not caught, not a thief” or “if I really want it, it’s permitted”.
Creation makes us into purposeful spiritual beings with the free choice of “create vs destroy” who were put here to “evolve” spiritually – and who should learn to prefer “must” over “want”.
Sure, who cares about it…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

I answered this in the nearby thread:
Science has no proof that the Earth wasn’t created to LOOK as if evolution and Big Bang happened.

Thats not true. There is massive evidence that science has against the Earth being made to look as if evolution and Big Bang happened. We have causality chains that would have to be simultaneously broken and a universe so complex but based on comparably simple rules and a simple beginning, that it would in fact be easier and a useless waste of effort on part of the all-powerful being that set up the rules to break them.
You claim is again based on faulty Solipism and a misunderstanding of science. Its like claiming we don´t have scientific proof the sun is shining on to the earth, because it could be imagined that a powerful being or even just highly advanced aliens could just make it look as if the Sun is shining on the earth.

And religion actually elaborates on such a possibility, also bringing a logical-religious backup as to WHY – for us to have the truly full FREE CHOICE between MATTER and SOUL.

Bullshit free will would be better served if reality(or what god(s) would have reality look like, which to us is(well actually can, but for this conspiracy it would be is) one and the same) would not contradict what he reveals(through indirect mortal messengers), but leave it up to grabs. An task that would not only be easier than putting lots of effort in to make everything perfectly contradict his own revelations, but it would also be smarter.
Add to that, that even if you had prove religion X was true, this would not take away freewill. Quite frankly there are Gods i would not worship and who´s moral codes i would not follow even if I believed or even knew they did exist. For me to worship and follow a God(real or not) and/or its moral code, it would need my respect for its actions and/or moral code. Something no God i know of has yet been able to gain, because all i know of are not worthy.

So, we have no way to truly know the answer, until we WILL.
For now, it’s just a matter of personal preferences – what each of us CHOOSES to “be true”.

Bullshit. One side has scientific evidence the other bets on the god(s) of the gaps with a mega Conspiracy Fantasy with the shitty and ridiculous motivation of a supposed positive effect for freewill. A freewill that would have been both easier and better served by other means that would still have left the possibility of god(s) open, but without god(s) looking like a stupid liar that plays piety games in making reality seem to contradict(and not just be neutral but contradict!!!) what he reveals of himself and his creation.
And then he goes on to demand blind faith against reason and has the audaciousness to plan on and promises punishment to anyone who is not stupid and follows reason. Like a reversed intelligence test.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

Ketsy
Well, you ARE right – they are about different things.
Evolution makes us into lucky-to-evolve monkeys that only answer to our personal consciousness and police.
Creation makes us into purposeful spiritual beings with the free choice of “create vs destroy”.
Sure, who cares about it…

I’m not convinced you read what I said. To be honest, though, I’m not interested in discussing it with you. I’ve seen too many people labor under that to be interested in doing the same.

Regardless, what the truth is shouldn’t depend on how you want to interpret the implications. If I had a wife or husband and they were cheating on me, I wouldn’t ignore it because it would be too hard to deal with. Likewise, I wouldn’t ignore the reality of the situation just because I think it makes the world somehow more bleak.

 
Flag Post

Ketsy
Read this post please.
I’m sure it will explain my point.

JBG
Well, we actually DON’T have the proof that the Sun wasn’t put there a second ago and/or that the rays are even connected to its existence.
You can call it whatever you want, but speaking honestly (not arrogantly “scientifically”) – WE DON’T KNOW NOTHING.

I see you are a good farmer – you do love manure. :DDD
Anyways, you have no clue what you’re talking about.
FREE choice implies the possibility of a WRONG choice – and, for example, I’d like to see YOU breaking into a car/house/bank IN FRONT of a POLICEMAN.
Would you?
I doubt it VERY MUCH.
The presence of any “police” immediately makes your chances to do crimes near-zero.
And if you knew that this policeman is a perfect watcher, who can’t be bribed no distracted – you’d NEVER commit a crime in front of him.
Well, this is EXACTLY why CAN’T see G-d.
We would be UNABLE and ASHAMED to do ANY SIN.
But G-d wants us to LEARN not to sin, not just BE AFRAID to do it.
So He gives us the possibility to THINK that the policeman “isn’t looking” or even “not there”.
But there is a SIGN on the wall: “police IS watching you”.
But you don’t see the policeman, so you think “who cares, I’ll do what I want”.
Is it clear NOW?
(I doubt it – the wall is really strong, as is the reward for breaking it.)

Yup, a farmer. :DDD
If G-d wanted us to be perfect, we would.
If we aren’t, this means we aren’t SUPPOSED to be, YET.
WE must GROW ourselves to become perfect, not be fed it.
Cue child education – a perfect example of what G-d wants from us and how He does it.

 
Flag Post

I enjoy hearing and reading arguments about this topic. Many people make concise and well thought arguments. I personally believe in creation, not because it has be proven, or seems ‘logical’, but because science has been unable to disprove creation. I would invite anybody to reply to this, challenging my argument, as long as it has a solid scientific structure and and is not just a negative comment.

 
Flag Post

Code
You’ll just get a “G-d isn’t provable, so why believe something our human mind can’t prove” materialistic answer…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Codered999:

I enjoy hearing and reading arguments about this topic. Many people make concise and well thought arguments. I personally believe in creation, not because it has be proven, or seems ‘logical’, but because science has been unable to disprove creation. I would invite anybody to reply to this, challenging my argument, as long as it has a solid scientific structure and and is not just a negative comment.

By this logic, you should also believe in unicorns, the tooth fairy, and any other concept that science hasn’t yet completely disproved.

 
Flag Post

I see you believe in ponies. :DDD

 
Flag Post

Why are we talking about two completely unrelated topics here?
Creation and evolution are pretty much unrelated. Related topics would be for example creation vs. abiogenesis.
It’s about time we move on from threads like that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Chris2fly:

Which is true?

Neanderthal is true probably… Sapiens is still an open debate.

edit: On a second thought even Neanderthal men could lead to different theories.. not to mention monkeys fossils that some attributes to the missing evolutional ring while others just think they were monkeys.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BoxBeat:

Universal genetic code (and similarities between every living thing), overwhelming amount of fossil records, the fact that we share 98%+ of our genetic code with primates, direct observation of evolution both in labs and outside areas (elephant population starting to produce offsprings without tusks because of human predators, reptiles that were changed to another environment and developed a different digestive system to eat the new food), etc.
Even Pope John Paul II embraced evolution. When even the biggest christian figure accepts something that contradicts Christianity, you know that shit is serious. – However he juggled words and said God orchestrated evolution and shit.
“This theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.”

Yes, I agree but there is a certain level of evolution that Christians believe on, I do believe that there are species evolving as we speak… learning to adapt to new environments that were once to harsh for them. But Christians however do not believe that the man evolved from the monkey… or that the Earth was somehow created by atomic explosions in space.