Evolution or Creation?

[SimplyCosmic]

That's one of the downsides of religious fervor: you lose the ability to laugh at yourself.

Here, let me show you how it's done: "Did you know there's an atheist holiday? April 1st!"

 

[W0RF]

Yeah, cause an eleven-page discussion on a far range of scientific issues that prompted me to spend almost two weeks doing research and posting probably my longest posts ever, just smacks of hilarity.

I laugh at myself plenty. I simply do it where it's appropriate. Like in other threads. You know, where such things don't derail possible serious discussions or marginalize my attempts to find some genuine answers.

But hey, don't let me hold you back. It's your Internet, too. Be funny wherever you want, I guess. Just don't act so surprised when I'm more selective about it.

 

[O.S.T]

Here, let me show you how it's done: "Did you know there's an atheist holiday? April 1st!"

good one

 

[SimplyCosmic]

Yeah, cause an eleven-page discussion on a far range of scientific issues that prompted me to spend almost two weeks doing research and posting probably my longest posts ever, just smacks of hilarity.

Actually, an eleven page argument about a subject in which lots of words are exchanged and yet not one mind is changed, in which people demand to be shown facts that disprove their beliefs and then completely ignore those facts when presented three minutes later so that they can continue yelling at someone who's just as unlikely to change their worldview as they are is the very height of comedy.

The fact that you actually believe this is a discussion between two well-reasoned viewpoints and not a gruge-match between people with incompatible worldviews who are only here to throw themselves against the poorly misguided fools on the other side of the cage is pretty clearly an example of dark humor.

To quote Shakespeare, this thread, "is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

 

[W0RF]

Why do you think I went and did all this?

duh...

 

[Mute]

I'm not going to explain why, but both.

"Both" sits best with me and my nebulous views on religion as well.

 

[Zarkazm]

Both is not an option because Creationism in its original and only true form is defined through its opposition to Evolution. It is not the belief in a creator but the belief that all species have been created in some mystic way directly by god, as opposed to the scientific explanation of Evolution.

I am aware of different neo-Creationist concepts, but these just serve to dilute and obfuscate the debate. They also allow the original Creationists to associate themselves with a broader base, to make it less obvious that they are just a tiny deluded group hanging on to a generally discarded belief who lost this very debate ages ago.

 

[Mute]

No, "creationism" has a strictly biblical connotation. I think both is a valid response if you don't believe in the validity of any of the major religions. I'm certainly not subscribing to the "Maybe God created the earth and faked its age" trite garbage. I just believe that someone way back when set everything in motion and let evolution do it's thing. A holy lab experiment if you will. There's no reason to not answer both.

If the the question was simplified to only: "Do you believe in creationism?" I wouldn't have to say "both".

 

[W0RF]

Both is not an option because Creationism in its original and only true form is defined through its opposition to Evolution. It is not the belief in a creator but the belief that all species have been created in some mystic way directly by god, as opposed to the scientific explanation of Evolution.

I am aware of different neo-Creationist concepts, but these just serve to dilute and obfuscate the debate. They also allow the original Creationists to associate themselves with a broader base, to make it less obvious that they are just a tiny deluded group hanging on to a generally discarded belief who lost this very debate ages ago.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

First of all, I believe God created the universe. How is that not Creationism? And how does that in any way negate anything I wrote? Is there a single item above that I can acknowledge and not say that God created?

Second of all, apparently, you're not aware that there's a continuum of ideas with several points on which people find themselves. Either that or you're being deliberately ignorant which is even worse. I guess by your reckoning, people who think the earth is round (read: oblate-spheroidal) but still believe in God are just obfuscating a debate that was lost 400 years ago? Or maybe the debate over whether to circumcise Gentiles just obfuscated a debate that was lost before Jerusalem ever fell?

This is exactly the kind of stuff that I was talking about earlier, the REAL issues that are obfuscating the debate, and that continue to be dragged up for God only knows what reason. I took great care to point out that the age of the earth is a separate argument from the question of creation, but it keeps being unduly associated with it and OH LOOK! it's being used as a straw man to avoid the question again. From that I can only gather that a). you didn't read, b). you read but didn't comprehend, or c). you read, comprehended, and are deliberately trying to destroy any chance of having a genuine discussion. If you want to stand by the idea that man crawled out of the primordial ooze, based on the specimens we have available, you go right ahead and do that, but to try and turn this upside-down all over again... I can only hope there's just a misunderstanding here.

 

[O.S.T]

wth?

 

[Zarkazm]

No, "creationism" has a strictly biblical connotation.

Whoa, Sherlock! Of course it does.

I just believe that someone way back when set everything in motion and let evolution do it's thing.

Which is what most Christians believe anyway. Do you believe all Evolutionists at the times before the theory was generally accepted were atheists? The debate has from the beginning been between the supporters and opponents of the theory of evolution. Two sides, and two simple terms to describe what they stand for. Naturally, many Evolutionists were Christians. Do you think they all gave up the idea that God created the universe or initiated life? You must enjoy thinking you got a 'special' position.

I can also try a different approach to disproving your colossal fallacy. First of all, you have shown little understanding of how language works. Not every possible interpretation is automatically correct. The original intention matters. Creationism is not called so because of a generic link to the concept of Creation, but rather as distinction to the concept of Evolution. Of course it refers to Creation. The direct ACT of Creation.

Secondly, the different forms of Creationism unify concepts that differ so much on the scientific level, that some are actually closer to Evolution than the other forms of Creationism. Oh sure, they have this belief in God the Creator in common. Except metaphysics don't belong in this debate. Neo-Creationism minus spiritual belief equals what? Oh yeah, Evolution.

Thirdly, although already touched on, your definition of Creationism isn't compatible with Evolution which is stictly scientific, physical, and does not try to explain where life comes from or even how it was instigated. God "setting things in motion" is metaphysical and outside the theory. That's outside this debate in not one, but two dimensions. You cannot argue "God set everything in motion" vs. Evolution. Part of your belief is on a completely different level than the theory of Evolution and therefore doesn't belong in the debate.
So what remains from your belief if you subtract the part that doesn't belong?

There's no reason to not answer both.

Yes there is, you just don't want to give up your "special" position.

If the the question was simplified to only: "Do you believe in creationism?" I wouldn't have to say "both".

GREAT JOB! Creationists have used a similar argument for years to demonstrate acceptance of their belief. Except it isn't really ONE belief, it's a mix of incompatible beliefs that contradict each other more than Evolution, yet Creationists have used it to claim that Creationism should be teached in school alongside or even in place of Evolution. Creationist activists only care about "both" as long as it allows them to add to their statistics. And how would you teach Creationism in biology class anway? I can imagine this: "Kids, this doesn't really belong into this class but thanks to activists and ignorant morons I have to make this statement: Some people believe in a a metaphysical force setting things in motion. More on that in philosophy class, now back to biology: The theory of Evolution."

Edit: I am a light-blinded fool! I missed the obvious: You are asking the wrong question. Whether or not you believe in Creation is irrelevant to Evolution and Evolutionists. What this debate is about, at least for the main driving force, the "Special" Creationists bent on "disproving" Evolution, is the REAL question:

Do you believe in Evolution?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

I could assume total ignorance and intellectual incompetence, but I think you have suffiently demonstrated that you misdirect and confuse debates for sport.

And how does that in any way negate anything I wrote? Is there a single item above that I can acknowledge and not say that God created?

Did I reply to you? No. Naturally, I didn't even try to negate anything you wrote, so I'd not be surprised if I failed.

First of all, I believe God created the universe. How is that not Creationism?

By definiton. It doesn't even make much sense to assume the simplest interpretation is correct. I'd find it much easier to argue this in German where I can easily find countless examples of words that must not be taken literally, but I am certain they exist in English even though I don't know any offhand.
If you interpret Creationism as metaphysical concept, the whole debate becomes obsolete. The concept of "Creationism vs. Evolution" makes only sense if Creationism indeed contradicts Evolution on a physical level. God created the universe? God created life? Good for you, but it doesn't concern Evolution.
Heck, the creation of the goddamn universe isn't even close to being part of a debate about Evolution. Evolution is about species, not Big Bang. What was that you said about dragging up seperate arguments and strawmen? You really are an expert in that field.

Second of all, apparently, you're not aware that there's a continuum of ideas with several points on which people find themselves.

Funny you say that. Yeah, I am not aware of it, hence I dedicated a paragraph to it.
From that I can only gather that a). you didn't read, b). you read but didn't comprehend, or c). you read, comprehended, and are deliberately trying to destroy any chance of having a genuine discussion.
Thanks for making the statement for me.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that I was talking about earlier, the REAL issues that are obfuscating the debate, and that continue to be dragged up for God only knows what reason.

You are so right, boiling down a debate to basic concepts that present a clear position is really confusing.

I took great care to point out that the age of the earth is a separate argument from the question of creation, but it keeps being unduly associated with it and OH LOOK! it's being used as a straw man to avoid the question again.

Yes, by yourself, right now. My argument is and has been mechanics.

Oh, whatever. SimplyComic was right, this debate is a joke. I'll refrain from further interruptions, carry on.

 

[W0RF]

Two sides, and two simple terms to describe what they stand for. Naturally, many Evolutionists were Christians. Do you think they all gave up the idea that God created the universe or initiated life? You must enjoy thinking you got a 'special' position.

All is a strong term, but some pretty strong language has been attached to Evolution by some of its most ardent supporters.

- On the centennial anniversary of Origin, Julian Huxley spoke at a celebratory convention and said, "In the evolutionary system of thought there is no longer need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his lonelinessby creeping for shelter into the arms of a divinized father figure for whom he himself has created."

- Aldous Huxley wrote, "Like so many of my contemporaries, I took it for granted that there was no meaning [to the world]. This was partly due to the fact that I shared the common belief that the scientific picture of an abstraction from reality was a true picture of reality as a whole; partly also to other non-intellectual reasons. I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. . . . For myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever.

- Richard Dawkins created an entirely separate field of study, memetics, to apply evolutionary concepts to sociobiological thought, in essence promoting atheism through science.

I wish there were more people like you and Gould who at least respected religion enough to understand it can co-exist with science. But like I said in the first of my two megaposts, some people felt the young-earth theory needed to be dragged up again, that to refute naturalistic philosophies they had to attack the science attached to them.

Whether or not you believe in Creation is irrelevant to Evolution and Evolutionists.

I wish I could share your scientific idealism. See above.

I could assume total ignorance and intellectual incompetence, but I think you have suffiently demonstrated that you misdirect and confuse debates for sport.

Then I must be every bit as moronic as you claim, because I can't fathom a single reason I would write those megaposts as a means to misdirect or confuse.

Heck, the creation of the goddamn universe isn't even close to being part of a debate about Evolution. Evolution is about species, not Big Bang. What was that you said about dragging up seperate arguments and strawmen? You really are an expert in that field.

I'm aware I made a number of cosmological points earlier. The point being that one can believe in Creation without having to argue for a 6,000-year-old earth. Why on earth would I want to do that? Well, look back a few pages at what most of the discussion centered around. If you agree with me on that point, then good, great, fine, peace brother. But I wrote it to close the issue, not to recycle it.

Funny you say that. Yeah, I am not aware of it, hence I dedicated a paragraph to it.
From that I can only gather that a). you didn't read, b). you read but didn't comprehend, or c). you read, comprehended, and are deliberately trying to destroy any chance of having a genuine discussion.
Thanks for making the statement for me.

I think that would have to be b). read but didn't comprehend, because you said

Yeah, I am not aware of it

right after you said

I am aware of different neo-Creationist concepts.

You are so right, boiling down a debate to basic concepts that present a clear position is really confusing.

OVERsimplifying positions do not clarify them. I've already demonstrated that there are other, more complex positions that your two cut-and-dried concepts don't account for. It would be nice if cosmology weren't even a factor, but if nothing else, I should think closing the book on young-earth arguments would serve to narrow the range of ideas and bring together people who probably shouldn't even be arguing in the first place.

Er, I mean, misdirect and confuse debates for sport.

Yes, by yourself, right now. My argument is and has been mechanics.

That sounds strangely familiar to me. The beautiful irony of that is, that post is right smack in the middle of a discussion with Aegeri about the issue, and look what the assumption was: Creation = 6,000-year-old earth. He and I came to terms in our discussion because we tried to be clear and fair in our arguments, and we each were polite enough to give the other the benefit of the doubt that he was doing the same. Despite your predilections about me, I very much enjoy discussions where the flames are left at home.

Oh, whatever. SimplyComic was right, this debate is a joke. I'll refrain from further interruptions, carry on.

That's too bad, you were finally starting to make some salient points. You're much better to talk to when you do that.

 

[Mute]

Zarkazm, I never said I felt I enjoy a special position, and you come perilously close to flaming and a personal attack.

I said that evolution can occur with creationism. I'm not playing games with grammar or vocabulary. I used both terms literally. I understand the intent of what Dark[NSF] wanted to ask which is why I made clear how I would respond to a varient of the question. The question as asked is not an either/or situation TO ME, and all I did was state my opinion and you felt that is was necessary to tell me how special I must feel. I feel that you are more interested in a fight than a discussion, so please follow your own advice.

 

[Metakill]

I for one, applaud the efforts you took Worf. As has been demonstrated, there are no genuine scientific arguments refuting evolution, nor can any really be made supporting creation. Arguments supporting Creation (or ID, or what have you) can and should be made based on philosophy, metaphysics, and aesthetics, all legitimate fields of human work.

I have always believed science is a more reliable tool for achieving truth than religion, simply because it is verifiable, but those who claim science somehow refutes God piss me off as much as those Creationists who try to present their work as legitimate science. Both do a disservice to the cause of truth.

Incidently, the miraculous rarity of life and the precarious preconditions neccessary are often challenged by the scientific community, who after finding new ecosystems in an undersea methane pocket, are now wondering if the physical laws of the universe might be geared to make life quite common.

Of course, we won't really know until we find some.

 

[W0RF]

I for one, applaud the efforts you took Worf. As has been demonstrated, there are no genuine scientific arguments refuting evolution, nor can any really be made supporting creation. Arguments supporting Creation (or ID, or what have you) can and should be made based on philosophy, metaphysics, and aesthetics, all legitimate fields of human work.

To be clear, a lot more of my efforts were to point out that the discussion doesn't have to center around young-earth arguments. Like aegeri said, a lot of them are scientifically untenable. It's perfectly fine if you want to believe that God just poofed the universe into existence aged 10 billion years, but don't expect to have that conversation with scientists. Unfortunately, there was also a tendency to push the argument back to the people who argue young-earth and make them the spokespeople of all creationists.

I just wanted to lay out a series of theses that showed you can accept what science observes, and also believe what the Bible says; that they are not necessarily at odds all the time, which has been true historically as well as at present, and often the difficulties are due to interpretations that people don't want to let go of. My example of Galileo was pertinent because the Roman Catholic muckety-mucks felt the downfall of a geocentric system/universe somehow directly impacted the validity of the Bible (not to mention their control over the laypeople). Unfortunately, as shown above, now some of the SCIENTISTS are claiming their research will squash the Bible. I may not agree with trying to reinterpret the earth as young, but I can understand the snap reaction to what was being suggested.

As far as no arguments refuting evolution, technically that's true, most of the general tenets have yet to be falsified. However, there are some bridges I'm not yet ready to cross, because it also seems the more research that's done, the more the real picture is clouded. It is also technically true that there are no scientific arguments for Creation, in that young-earth science isn't holding water, and in that a fair amount of old-earth science relegates religion to the philosophical and metaphysical (which for the most part it should be). But the more I learned about our place in the universe, the more I was awed by the statistical absurdity of it all.

Science suggested to me that the earth could not possibly have been forged in six 24-hour days, but it also suggested to me that we are in no way accidental happenstance.

 

[UY]

God created man ...and in His own image. God is a spirit....not flesh.

It can be feasible to suggest that at some point in man's evolution God implanted his Spirit (the soul) in man...and therefore made man in His image. This would explain why man is so much more aware and different than even the smartest of other species.
This would also be in harmony with evolution.


Of course it would be going out on a limb for anybody to know "why" God created man. It's not like He needed us for anything.

Or did He?

 

[Metakill]

Of course it would be going out on a limb for anybody to know "why" God created man. It's not like He needed us for anything.

Or did He?

Since God is spirit, he needs our bodies for sexxorz.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

God created man ...and in His own image. God is a spirit....not flesh.

Could you please back this up with some, at the very least, biblical proof??

Of course it would be going out on a limb for anybody to know "why" God created man. It's not like He needed us for anything.

You do realize that most of the leaders of major world religions believe that God is the father of us spiritually, right? In Psalms 82:6

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High

and in John 10:33-36

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Wouldn't you suspect that, like a father on this Earth, God would want us to be able to become like him? I know it's another discussion altogether, but yah.

 

[O.S.T]

This would explain why man is so much more aware and different than even the smartest of other species.

so, if a person is more stupid than the smartest monkey, they have no soul and are no image of god?
I knew retards have no soul!

 

[W0RF]

From what I could tell...

Humanity is unique on the planet for its spirituality. This spirituality manifests itself as conscience (awareness of right and wrong), yearning for purpose and hope, our desire to learn and discover, our ability to extrapolate both into the past and the future, and most importantly, our propensity for worship.

In this regard, intellect does not seem to be the defining characteristic. I would even go so far as to say that the pure nature of some retarded people outshines some of our best intellectuals.

Yes, I saw the . Yes, I have a sense of humor. I thought it bore mentioning because one of the things that so drastically altered my perspective on things was seeing the world through the eyes of my wife. She's not the sooooper-geeeeenius that I am and she doesn't concern herself with geochemistry or socioeconomic policies or global theology, but sometimes I think she sees the world MORE clearly than I do. She has this uncanny gift to see right into a person's soul. She has spent time with the disabled and seems to enjoy their company almost as much as (if not more than) they do, something many people despite their best intentions don't feel comfortable doing. Seeing that really shows you the tunnel vision in which you can trap yourself if you let it happen.

Of course it would be going out on a limb for anybody to know "why" God created man. It's not like He needed us for anything.

Ars gratia artis