Creation vs. Evolution

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
But I have every confidence that our questing human minds will find out the answers in the future...

Curt, the above statement demonstrates that you are hopelessly biased against any acceptance of even the possibility of a god.

Once again, and without the volcano stuff this time, so you won't have an excuse to fixate on that and totally ignore the meat of my post:

Why do you think {random mutation + a god} is more believeable than just God?

Civ1Addict and FredLC, you can feel free to answer this one too.

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Civ1Addict and FredLC, you can feel free to answer this one too.

I'd be delighted.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Why do you think {random mutation + a god} is more believeable than just God?

I don't believe that and I don't think Curt believes it too (without trying to speak for Curt as well). What I believe is that evolution by random mutations is more believable than just the actions of a god. In my opinion god is involved in evolution.
Feel free to have another opinion I won't criticize you for it!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by civ1-addict

I'd be delighted.


I don't believe that and I don't think Curt believes it too (without trying to speak for Curt as well). What I believe is that evolution by random mutations is more believable than just the actions of a god. In my opinion god is involved in evolution.
Feel free to have another opinion I won't criticize you for it!

Yes, but in evolution, we are told that the good mutations are kept by natural selection, and it is given some form of selectivity, making it sentient, and therefore, since it too is timeless, a god of sorts (Gaia the Pruner). That is a god AND random mutation, instead of just a god.

People say that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. I sort of agree, but would instead say that God makes evolution obsolete. Evolution is just a shadow cast on the wall by God's hands as He makes new life. Just a picture that one can see a pattern in. I'm not being as articulate as I'd like to be, but I think I'm getting the message across, am I?

 

[Zwelgje]

I don't think I understand what you mean sorry. Just giving it a try though: you say that a random mutation has a will of its own? That it is controlling something? Enlighten me please!

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Hmm, this thread is the Scopes monkey trial in reverse.

I think it's interesting how the two sides of this have changed places, 80 years ago Creationism was universaly accepted and Evolution was just a theory (actually, it still is, but that's another kettle of fish), and now we see evolution is universaly accepted and Creationism is an unproven theory.

I wonder if it will change again in the future, or if something else will supplant both.

At any rate, it's irrelivent because we will ALL find out someday, one way or the other.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by civ1-addict
I don't think I understand what you mean sorry. Just giving it a try though: you say that a random mutation has a will of its own? That it is controlling something? Enlighten me please!

No, the 'god' in evolution is Natural Selection, which I refer to as Gaia the Pruner, since it is attributed with the good sense and foresight to only eradicate the evolutionary dead-ends in the ToE.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Curt, I didn't say this!
I think you mean Fearless. AoA
Curt, the above statement demonstrates that you are hopelessly biased against any acceptance of even the possibility of a god.
Once again, and without the volcano stuff this time, so you won't have an excuse to fixate on that and totally ignore the meat of my post:
Why do you think {random mutation + a god} is more believeable than just God?

No offence, Fearless one, but who are you to put me on trial here?
You forget yourself!

Yes, I have never in the least been convinced at the possibility of a god, as you full well know.
I do however, have respect for others faiths nowadays, including yours.
But only if you display the proper respect, as I accord you respect!

OK. Here are some points; I do plan to repeat myself, so read carefully!

1. For starters, I used the volcano image to make my argument clear to you and others,
I do not fixate on concepts; so kindly do not insult me.

2. I have not chosen to ignore the 'meat' of your argument, simply because I wasn't part of it.

3. I have never offered that 'random mutation and god' are part of any of my arguments.
In fact, I have never held up anything as my big answer to the debate.

4. I merely have stated what makes sense to me,
And why the ancients used the divine to explain the mundane.

5. I have not offered any answer to the debate.
And neither in my opinion has anyone else,
As most prefer to get involved in the trench warfare of faith versus faith.

6. It is not for me to arrogantly presume I am the fount of knowledge,
I find Evolution more convincing to me as a human than the creation tales.

7. That said, I am in the dark about the true nature of the cosmos as much as you, FL2.
Although you enjoy giving the impression that you know more than us mere mortals.

Smugness and mild arrogance are no way to win respect for your opinions.

8. To conclude, I would appreciate if you would kindly cut me out of your long-running battle with your adversaries.
Since I have said nothing to offend either faction here,
I see no point in having to defend myself.

Good day.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
At any rate, it's irrelivent because we will ALL find out someday, one way or the other.

I'm with the noble Greek General on this one.
This has been my opinion all along!

FearlessLeader2, please take note!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

AoA:
If anyone ever proves Creationism, they will have proven the existence of God, and invalidated faith. I think that He will have taken steps to prevent that from happening, as He prefers faith to doubt.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Curt. if I believed for one second that you were a neutral territory in this debate, I'd give you the non-combatant status you overtly request. The fact is, you want that status while you snipe from well behind Evolution lines at Creation. Treating you as a non-combatant in this debate would be akin to leaving a live enemy behind me while my army marched. No sane general would do so, what makes you think I will?

I will make you this bargain: if you stop taking pot-shots at myself and other theists with the various anti-god comments you've made in the past, like the one I quoted above (and yes, it is anti-god to assume that man will someday know everything), I will stop lumping you in with the evolutionists when I call in fire missions. Agreed?

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
No, the 'god' in evolution is Natural Selection, which I refer to as Gaia the Pruner, since it is attributed with the good sense and foresight to only eradicate the evolutionary dead-ends in the ToE.

My final try to understand this, if I don't understand it right please rephrase the above in English a non-native speaker can understand too.
You're saying evolution is thought out by god for creatures to change itself after being created by him?

I'm having a hard time understanding some peoples posts here as it seems when talking about controversial issues people tend to use "complicated" words....

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Curt. if I believed for one second that you were a neutral territory in this debate, I'd give you the non-combatant status you overtly request. The fact is, you want that status while you snipe from well behind Evolution lines at Creation. Treating you as a non-combatant in this debate would be akin to leaving a live enemy behind me while my army marched. No sane general would do so, what makes you think I will?

I will make you this bargain: if you stop taking pot-shots at myself and other theists with the various anti-god comments you've made in the past, like the one I quoted above (and yes, it is anti-god to assume that man will someday know everything), I will stop lumping you in with the evolutionists when I call in fire missions. Agreed?

Agreed. But I will stick to my opinions of course.
And I will watch from the sniper vantage point.

As you know I see no side as the victor in this debate.
For now I am happy to sit it out.

March on!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by civ1-addict

My final try to understand this, if I don't understand it right please rephrase the above in English a non-native speaker can understand too.
You're saying evolution is thought out by god for creatures to change itself after being created by him?

I'm having a hard time understanding some peoples posts here as it seems when talking about controversial issues people tend to use "complicated" words....

Sorry, I tend toward verbosity. <---at myself

Ok, on my side, Creation, we have just God. I say that He followed the laws He put in motion when He created the universe, and gradually built up the complexity of life. In the process, chance events caused a few of those older lifeforms to be fossilised. The discovery of those fossils led men to speculate that life evolved from simple to complex without any guidance, even though there was not enough evidence to support that theory.

Evolution suggests that the gradual increase in complexity in life that is hinted at in the incomplete fossil record is caused by a combination of completely random alteration of DNA (mutation), that is carefully pruned and sorted by Natural Selection. I think that those who support evolution are asking far too much of 'Natural' Selection for it to be regarded as natural. This leaves them in the position of adding a god-like agent (Gaia the Pruner) to their supposedly naturalistic theory.

So, in answer to your question, yes, I think that God made the changes to the DNA of the older models in vitro and caused their children to become their replacements. I can't prove this, but it does have the merit of being consistent with what has been written about God, describing Him as patient and eternal. Those who side with evolution just plain can't prove it, and have no such model for previous behavior to compare their theory with like I do with God as described in the Bible.

I'm sorry, but that's about as 'layman' as I can get with these concepts. We are dealing with a very complex subject, and unfortunately, it requires some complexity in the language that describes it.

 

[philippe]

Well then Fearless leader give us proof.
AND a 4000 year old book isnt proof.
If it was proof we would be all rather hindoest becuase its a older religion.

 

[Zwelgje]

OK, FearlessLeader now I understand what you mean (thanks for the explanation), I'm sorry but I won't agree with you on this one. I believe in evolution and not in your theory. I find your theory rather silly actually and this is why.

When evolution was first described "the church" was completely against it, the world was created as it is now by god, just look in the bible and you'll see how he did it. Now fossils emerge from the ground and well people can just see that what is there in the bible is just not true, the earth wasn't created as it is now, it looked entirely different in the beginning and is much older than what the bible says.

So now new theories arise (your theory) that try to explain that god still has it all planned out and he is controlling it all.

Well, I don't buy it!

Another reason to not believe the bible: it is giving false stories about how earth and life on it was created and I still have to believe the rest? Nah.......

But if you want to believe in god and the bible, just go ahead, I won't bother you.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by philippe
Well then Fearless leader give us proof.
AND a 4000 year old book isnt proof.
If it was proof we would be all rather hindoest becuase its a older religion.

Ok, here's a thought. When you decide to reply to one of my posts, read the whole thing first. If any of the words are ones you don't know, get a dictionary, or ask a friend to help you. If you still don't understand, don't guess at what I meant, ask me to explain, because you;re guesses have a pretty poor success rate thus far.

I'm not going to respond to your request, because if you had read my post, you wouldn't have made it. People who don't read my posts/listen to my side aren't worth talking to.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by civ1-addict
OK, FearlessLeader now I understand what you mean (thanks for the explanation), I'm sorry but I won't agree with you on this one. I believe in evolution and not in your theory. I find your theory rather silly actually and this is why.

No need for hostility.

Originally posted by civ1-addict
When evolution was first described "the church" was completely against it, the world was created as it is now by god, just look in the bible and you'll see how he did it. Now fossils emerge from the ground and well people can just see that what is there in the bible is just not true, the earth wasn't created as it is now, it looked entirely different in the beginning and is much older than what the bible says.

So now new theories arise (your theory) that try to explain that god still has it all planned out and he is controlling it all.

Well, I don't buy it!

Well and good except for one problem. The Bible describes the earth as being formed in six distinct stages that mesh completely with the description given by science. First the universe, then the solar system, then the earth cools, then water and land, then life in the sea, then on land, plants first in both cases. The Bible does not say that God waved a magic wand and out popped the modern Earth. It describes a lengthy process, so long that it wore out a God.

Originally posted by civ1-addict
Another reason to not believe the bible: it is giving false stories about how earth and life on it was created and I still have to believe the rest? Nah.......

But if you want to believe in god and the bible, just go ahead, I won't bother you.

Thanks, but your argument is flawed as I have stated above.

 

[philippe]

Or you just dont have the answer.You are just avoiding the question,thus so i am right becuase you cannot find a answer

 

[philippe]

No need for hostility?look whos talking:Look, I don't consider pantheism even remotely worthy of my attention. That lets out Hinduism and near every other Eastern philosophy. People have talked about the Tao with me, and I had to make an effort to be polite and not laugh. AFAIAC, if you have more than one god, you should be a primitive tribesman, in a primitive tribe, and if you don't have any, or the universe is your god, you don't have a religion.
Its a quote from you fearless.You can read the hostility here

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Ok Phillipe, since you are too lazy to read and use a scroll bar...

So, in answer to your question, yes, I think that God made the changes to the DNA of the older models in vitro and caused their children to become their replacements. I can't prove this, but it does have the merit of being consistent with what has been written about God, describing Him as patient and eternal. Those who side with evolution just plain can't prove it, and have no such model for previous behavior to compare their theory with like I do with God as described in the Bible.

Had you read this, you would not have demanded 'proof', since you would know that I already acknowledged that neither side can prove its story. I also pointed out why mine has more merit.

I do not intend to spoon-feed you knowledge that the smallest effort on your own part can provide you with again. If I find myself in the position of either enlightening you because you are too lazy to do it yourself, or leaving you to wallow in your own ignorance, you will remain ignorant.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by philippe
No need for hostility?look whos talking:Look, I don't consider pantheism even remotely worthy of my attention. That lets out Hinduism and near every other Eastern philosophy. People have talked about the Tao with me, and I had to make an effort to be polite and not laugh. AFAIAC, if you have more than one god, you should be a primitive tribesman, in a primitive tribe, and if you don't have any, or the universe is your god, you don't have a religion.
Its a quote from you fearless.You can read the hostility here

Call it what you like. I examined the philosophies offered, found glaring flaws, and wrote them off. I used that tone to indicate that I did not consider those avenues worth pursuing.