Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter TedG
- Start date
As I said before, if it were proven, it wouldn't be a "theory".
And scientists for years have realized that the "Missing Link" idea was silly.
And scientists for years have realized that the "Missing Link" idea was silly.
Damien
Emperor
i said in my 1st post.
It was discovered that we don't stem from the chimpanzee but from the ancestor of the humans,the chimpanzee n other monkeys;a monkey that doesn't exist anymore.We sought the missing link but there's no missing link.We didn't know that the pre-human gave birth to other monkeys as well.So the theory is not a theory anymore,it's a fact.
It was discovered that we don't stem from the chimpanzee but from the ancestor of the humans,the chimpanzee n other monkeys;a monkey that doesn't exist anymore.We sought the missing link but there's no missing link.We didn't know that the pre-human gave birth to other monkeys as well.So the theory is not a theory anymore,it's a fact.
I know what he is trying to say:
People were looking for a missing link between apes and humans - there isn't one.
Humans and apes share a common ancestor, humans aren't descended from apes as we know them today.
Kind of like looking for the missing link between, to make one up off the top of my head, hippos and whales. There isn't one.
Whether this is a valid argument against needing a missing link or not I don't know.
People were looking for a missing link between apes and humans - there isn't one.
Humans and apes share a common ancestor, humans aren't descended from apes as we know them today.
Kind of like looking for the missing link between, to make one up off the top of my head, hippos and whales. There isn't one.
Whether this is a valid argument against needing a missing link or not I don't know.
Yes, creationism does fit in evolutionism. The problem with that is that you are adapting religion believes to make sense with the facts of the modern science.
Sure, the theory of evolution I just a theory. However, there's so much material evidence of it that if you separate what we have in a thousand rooms, you would be able to reasonably demonstrate it a thousand times.
Science has to live with the possibility of it being wrong because in science's very fundaments lies the idea that you can never accept anything as absolute, and that every idea can be confronted and proved wrong. However, in the case of evolution, it's so strongly demonstrated that the odds of it being wrong is simply hypothetical. Man, How can someone go to a museum, see the skull of a saber-toothed, or of an Australopithecus and don't believe that species evolve?
Anyway, evolutions basic ideas are rather simple, logical and practical. They dont take much to be understood, but are virtually impossible to stand against. I should know, I simply love to discuss that matter (Im a seeker of controversy, as you can read above my avatar). I already discussed it with dozens of people, and no one ever EVER produced a single reasonable argument, except for the fact that its not proven out of the scope of reasonable doubt.
Its true. In fact, itll probably never be, as most science theories. But let me ask you this is creationism proved beyond reasonable doubt? No! And, if you have two unproved theories, one backed up by tons of material and evidence, the other by nothing, you should at least lean to the backed up one. Come on, people, for the sake of minimal coherence.
Anyway, creationism guys, just one more thing There are thousands of religions and thousands of different Gods that could have created the world by thousands of different ways. Why is just the christian monotheism theory being considered here? What about the others?
There is always this people that says that there must be a God because the universe couldnt have come from nowhere. So, the universe cant, but God can, right? It leads us to the plain fact that either we dont know where the universe cam from, or where did God came from.
Mystery for mystery, I say that I dont know about the universe. I need no intermediary to the acceptance that Im ignorant.
Sure, the theory of evolution I just a theory. However, there's so much material evidence of it that if you separate what we have in a thousand rooms, you would be able to reasonably demonstrate it a thousand times.
Science has to live with the possibility of it being wrong because in science's very fundaments lies the idea that you can never accept anything as absolute, and that every idea can be confronted and proved wrong. However, in the case of evolution, it's so strongly demonstrated that the odds of it being wrong is simply hypothetical. Man, How can someone go to a museum, see the skull of a saber-toothed, or of an Australopithecus and don't believe that species evolve?
Anyway, evolutions basic ideas are rather simple, logical and practical. They dont take much to be understood, but are virtually impossible to stand against. I should know, I simply love to discuss that matter (Im a seeker of controversy, as you can read above my avatar). I already discussed it with dozens of people, and no one ever EVER produced a single reasonable argument, except for the fact that its not proven out of the scope of reasonable doubt.
Its true. In fact, itll probably never be, as most science theories. But let me ask you this is creationism proved beyond reasonable doubt? No! And, if you have two unproved theories, one backed up by tons of material and evidence, the other by nothing, you should at least lean to the backed up one. Come on, people, for the sake of minimal coherence.
Anyway, creationism guys, just one more thing There are thousands of religions and thousands of different Gods that could have created the world by thousands of different ways. Why is just the christian monotheism theory being considered here? What about the others?
There is always this people that says that there must be a God because the universe couldnt have come from nowhere. So, the universe cant, but God can, right? It leads us to the plain fact that either we dont know where the universe cam from, or where did God came from.
Mystery for mystery, I say that I dont know about the universe. I need no intermediary to the acceptance that Im ignorant.
Graeme the mad
Certified Maniac
I voted other - Im sort of undecided though I definetley do not believe in Creationism I have seen a few things that make me question standard evolutionary theory though I imagine it is quite likely to be correct I think its one of the more tenuous things in modern science
Originally posted by D.Shaffer
Both.
Evolution is simply one of the tools God used to shape the world
Creation says that God created the man as he is.
Evolution says that the man came from the development of a different, ancestral species.
Therefore, they can't be mixed, because they are completely opposite.
Your post leads me to believe that you do believe in EVOLUTION, even if you think it was handled by God.
I believe that if evolution happenned then this was the method by which creation (of life) was achieved. That God created using the mechanism of evolution.
Thats if evolution is correct. It probably is.
Akka, I agree with you. I would like to add that as I believe that a creator exists outside of the universe (it must to have created it) then it is not subject to the time and so would realise what the laws it used to operate the universe would result in. So it could fine tune these laws to create conscious beings.
Just because it has been proven that there is no missing link does not prove evolution is true, just removes one more reason for believing that it is not true.
Thats if evolution is correct. It probably is.
Akka, I agree with you. I would like to add that as I believe that a creator exists outside of the universe (it must to have created it) then it is not subject to the time and so would realise what the laws it used to operate the universe would result in. So it could fine tune these laws to create conscious beings.
Just because it has been proven that there is no missing link does not prove evolution is true, just removes one more reason for believing that it is not true.
Technically, it's 'Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible. ' I take a more liberal view of Creationism in that I beleive those passages are more allegorical, but still essentially true. Thus, while man may have been created in 'a day', the day is more an allegorical day.
And yes, I do realise not everyone agrees with my interpretation of it.
Is your idea anything around those lines? Because if so, I think you are one of those people that are religious and, still, reasonable.
I do not agree with that oniric aspect being added to the evolutionism, but I have no reason to oppose to your vision. We simply think differently.
Regards
.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
I fear Vry is right, but I will post this one thing, and then skulk away, and look back with a telescope:
The data collected by scientists to support the theory of evolution can be as easily used to paint the picture of Creationism. Where the gaps are filled by magic beneficial mutations and a sentient, Gaia-like Natural Selection in Evolution(IE two events in nature doing the exact opposite of what we can observe them to do), Creation is supported by this evidence as well.
How? Because if God did make the Universe, and did start life with the intent of one day populating the earth with a creature made after His own likeness, then God would have wanted that creature to have a pleasant and surviveable environment.
Therefore, after the planet He made cooled, He would have seeded it with algae and such to convert the atmosphere, and then other microscopic life to make a food supply for the gradually more complex life He intended to introduce. This would leave a series of progressively larger animals to leave fossils behind when chance dictated that they would.
Rather than leaving the progression of species to a combination of a blind DNA editor who, in reality, would kill most everything he touched, and relying on some sort of God-variant Natural Selection that took care to only kill off the stuff that was not intended to carry on, and left the newer versions intact, I think that once God was done with a particular species, he had its females become pregnant with the next step in their ecological niche, and give birth to their own replacements.
Where Evolutionism relies on blind chance and a 'god' (Natural Selection / Gaia the Pruner), Creationism only relies on God.
As far as 'proving' any of this goes, that is futile. God wants faithful believers, not people only will only do the right thing after every other option has been exhausted. To attempt to prove Creationism or the existence of God, one has to be a better detective than God is a 'criminal'. Can't be done.
I've said my piece, and while I will look at replies, once again, all flames will be redirected to my gigantic hairy butt.
The data collected by scientists to support the theory of evolution can be as easily used to paint the picture of Creationism. Where the gaps are filled by magic beneficial mutations and a sentient, Gaia-like Natural Selection in Evolution(IE two events in nature doing the exact opposite of what we can observe them to do), Creation is supported by this evidence as well.
How? Because if God did make the Universe, and did start life with the intent of one day populating the earth with a creature made after His own likeness, then God would have wanted that creature to have a pleasant and surviveable environment.
Therefore, after the planet He made cooled, He would have seeded it with algae and such to convert the atmosphere, and then other microscopic life to make a food supply for the gradually more complex life He intended to introduce. This would leave a series of progressively larger animals to leave fossils behind when chance dictated that they would.
Rather than leaving the progression of species to a combination of a blind DNA editor who, in reality, would kill most everything he touched, and relying on some sort of God-variant Natural Selection that took care to only kill off the stuff that was not intended to carry on, and left the newer versions intact, I think that once God was done with a particular species, he had its females become pregnant with the next step in their ecological niche, and give birth to their own replacements.
Where Evolutionism relies on blind chance and a 'god' (Natural Selection / Gaia the Pruner), Creationism only relies on God.
As far as 'proving' any of this goes, that is futile. God wants faithful believers, not people only will only do the right thing after every other option has been exhausted. To attempt to prove Creationism or the existence of God, one has to be a better detective than God is a 'criminal'. Can't be done.
I've said my piece, and while I will look at replies, once again, all flames will be redirected to my gigantic hairy butt.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Time for my tuppence worth!
I don't think the creationist faction can answer the mystery by
saying that a god created the universe,
They are trying to put their argument beyond the scope of dismissal.
Well I don't buy it.
Creation certainly hasn't won the initiative over Evolution on any of these threads...ever.
None of you know how the universe was created...yet.
A volcano was aquitted to the wrath of a god in ancient times.
Then it was discovered why the lava from beneath the earth erupts, A natural occurance.
The universe is the same, only awesomely more vast and more mysterious.
And one day our learned civilisation will discover our cosmic origin.
It is the scheme of things...the march of discovery always moves on.
Faith fills the gap, until knowledge fills it, it has always been this way.
Eventually there will only be one question left...our purpose.
I imagine there will be always room for faith...humans always must have hope in something.
I don't think the creationist faction can answer the mystery by
saying that a god created the universe,
They are trying to put their argument beyond the scope of dismissal.
Well I don't buy it.
Creation certainly hasn't won the initiative over Evolution on any of these threads...ever.
None of you know how the universe was created...yet.
A volcano was aquitted to the wrath of a god in ancient times.
Then it was discovered why the lava from beneath the earth erupts, A natural occurance.
The universe is the same, only awesomely more vast and more mysterious.
And one day our learned civilisation will discover our cosmic origin.
It is the scheme of things...the march of discovery always moves on.
Faith fills the gap, until knowledge fills it, it has always been this way.
Eventually there will only be one question left...our purpose.
I imagine there will be always room for faith...humans always must have hope in something.
medwynn
Chieftain
Evolution.
Couldn't agree more CurtSibling!
Couldn't agree more CurtSibling!
Akka
Moody old mage.
Well said, Curtsibling.
Could not have said it better
Could not have said it better
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I don't particularly like this statement, as it seems to imply that religion is based on ignorance.
knowltok2
Deity
Originally posted by CurtSibling
Time for my tuppence worth!
I don't think the creationist faction can answer the mystery by
saying that a god created the universe,
They are trying to put their argument beyond the scope of dismissal.
Well I don't buy it.
Creation certainly hasn't won the initiative over Evolution on any of these threads...ever.
None of you know how the universe was created...yet.
A volcano was aquitted to the wrath of a god in ancient times.
Then it was discovered why the lava from beneath the earth erupts, A natural occurance.
The universe is the same, only awesomely more vast and more mysterious.
And one day our learned civilisation will discover our cosmic origin.
It is the scheme of things...the march of discovery always moves on.
Faith fills the gap, until knowledge fills it, it has always been this way.
Eventually there will only be one question left...our purpose.
I imagine there will be always room for faith...humans always must have hope in something.
Enemy Ace strikes again with a great statement.
Did you read my mind?RM: In my view, a lot of religion is based upon ignorance. We don't know what happens after you die, religions try to answer that. We don't know why we are here, religion steps in again. Where did we come from? Religion in again to save the day. Why did that volcano just flatten my home? Religion tells me it was an act of the Gods.
Of course, I also think religion is largely based upon social engineering. Want your society to grow and gain power, tell them to go forth and multiply. Trichinosis <sp> killing people? Tell them that God says not to eat pork. Too many drunken fights and killings, forbid alcohol. Want to know what is going on in the town, have people tell you all the bad things they do.
Not saying that all of this is bad, but it does cover my view of where religion comes from.
