Creation vs. Evolution
Thursday, September 11, 2003 by grayhaze | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I thought I'd pre-empt this discussion before Kona's comment in the other thread sparked it off there. There is concrete proof that we evolved, but no proof that we were created. What's you're opinion, and why?
To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
 |
|
Page 49 of 56 | |
|
|---|
MadIce
Reply #962 Monday, November 3, 2003 7:40 PM
Reply #962 Monday, November 3, 2003 7:40 PM
If God exists then you might wonder where God came from. On the other hand if there is no God then you might want to know where the universe came from. If that was a Big Bang then you wonder what came before that. There is theory that the universe expands from that point until it collapses and creates another big bang. That would solve that problem. If this goes on forever then there was no absolute creation point. So to me it looks like such a mechanism was always there.
Jafo
Reply #963 Monday, November 3, 2003 7:57 PM
Reply #963 Monday, November 3, 2003 7:57 PM
Matthijs....yes, I agree....the big bang theory doesn't hold water unless it is actually cyclical.....any other premise makes no sense at all.....
Chris TH
Reply #964 Monday, November 3, 2003 8:34 PM
Since in the prevailing big-bang models, space and time were created it eliminates the paradox since there was no 'before'. Time started at the big bang. Therefore if God created the Universe he/she/it exists outside of time and we have no real understanding to deal with that. It also begs the question how (even why) God can subsequently act temporally (within time) to influence human affairs.
Time (pun intended
) to re-read my Paul Davies...
Reply #964 Monday, November 3, 2003 8:34 PM
| #962 by MadIce - 11/3/2003 7:40:20 PM On the other hand if there is no God then you might want to know where the universe came from. If that was a Big Bang then you wonder what came before that. |
Since in the prevailing big-bang models, space and time were created it eliminates the paradox since there was no 'before'. Time started at the big bang. Therefore if God created the Universe he/she/it exists outside of time and we have no real understanding to deal with that. It also begs the question how (even why) God can subsequently act temporally (within time) to influence human affairs.
Time (pun intended
) to re-read my Paul Davies...
IPlural
Reply #965 Monday, November 3, 2003 8:48 PM
Which is actually something they see indications of slowing very possible. Expansion is slowing and they question if that means it will snap back upon itself. What would the implications of that end up being
It is also kind of interesting that they have found that the missing mass in the Solar system was a big wonderment up until they noticed that every Universe has a black hole, a super massive black hole at that.
Some think that they are interconnected so that they could possibly be traveled once enough understanding allowed the technology to be created to handle the crushing forces and to break away from the gravity, unless of course where one sucks another blows
Worm holes might be a very logical explanation for faster than light travel in the distant future
Then, who knows, maybe God will show up with all their buddies and complain about there goes the neighborhood
Humans, breed like rabbits, do not even come close to the communal social structure of insects and have the life span of soap bubbles.
I know Zork! Cheap labor !!
Reply #965 Monday, November 3, 2003 8:48 PM
| the big bang theory doesn't hold water unless it is actually cyclical |
Which is actually something they see indications of slowing very possible. Expansion is slowing and they question if that means it will snap back upon itself. What would the implications of that end up being
It is also kind of interesting that they have found that the missing mass in the Solar system was a big wonderment up until they noticed that every Universe has a black hole, a super massive black hole at that.
Some think that they are interconnected so that they could possibly be traveled once enough understanding allowed the technology to be created to handle the crushing forces and to break away from the gravity, unless of course where one sucks another blows
Worm holes might be a very logical explanation for faster than light travel in the distant future
Then, who knows, maybe God will show up with all their buddies and complain about there goes the neighborhood
Humans, breed like rabbits, do not even come close to the communal social structure of insects and have the life span of soap bubbles.
I know Zork! Cheap labor !!
IPlural
Reply #966 Monday, November 3, 2003 8:51 PM
Mm, time was created by human beings as a means of measurement, nothing more...
Space could very well have always been, but then again we could be nothing more than virus or bacterium like existing inside a living being.
Reply #966 Monday, November 3, 2003 8:51 PM
| Since in the prevailing big-bang models, space and time were created it eliminates the paradox since there was no 'before'. |
Mm, time was created by human beings as a means of measurement, nothing more...
Space could very well have always been, but then again we could be nothing more than virus or bacterium like existing inside a living being.
MadIce
Reply #967 Monday, November 3, 2003 9:20 PM
Reply #967 Monday, November 3, 2003 9:20 PM
Well, I tried to read up on this subject. It seems that the expansion of the universe is not slowing at all. It is even accelerating. In short that means that after a finite amount of time it will be ripped appart and the universe will end. This is known as the Big Rip. A name skinners will love.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
[Message Edited]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
[Message Edited]
kona0197
Reply #968 Monday, November 3, 2003 10:03 PM
Reply #968 Monday, November 3, 2003 10:03 PM
big Bang theory: God spoke and BANG!! it happened.
Where did God come from? No one created him, he has always been here.
Where did God come from? No one created him, he has always been here.
Chris TH
Reply #969 Monday, November 3, 2003 10:26 PM
There is plenty of evidence for 'The Arrow of Time' e.g 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy etc.
A dropped drinking glass smashed on the ground won't spontaneously reassemble itself (without a net influx of energy of some sort) yet the tendency for it to smash in the first place was all to prevalent.
The solar system (hence planets hence the earth hence life hence intelligence) developing from a cloud of gas is no violation of this either since there is a localised influx of energy (gravity->particles->friction+radioactivity->heat->light->etc) to drive the organising forces at work - at the expense of energy loss on a much more non-localised scale.
This is all (probably?) old ground discussed already...
Reply #969 Monday, November 3, 2003 10:26 PM
| Mm, time was created by human beings as a means of measurement, nothing more... |
There is plenty of evidence for 'The Arrow of Time' e.g 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy etc.
A dropped drinking glass smashed on the ground won't spontaneously reassemble itself (without a net influx of energy of some sort) yet the tendency for it to smash in the first place was all to prevalent.
The solar system (hence planets hence the earth hence life hence intelligence) developing from a cloud of gas is no violation of this either since there is a localised influx of energy (gravity->particles->friction+radioactivity->heat->light->etc) to drive the organising forces at work - at the expense of energy loss on a much more non-localised scale.
This is all (probably?) old ground discussed already...
IPlural
Reply #970 Monday, November 3, 2003 11:23 PM
Madice, some think along this line, NASA has some info as does MIT, Scientific America and Discover.
then others still have thoughts of the "Big Crunch"
NASA main page on Big Bang, studies
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html
Below is a directory listing of Lectures U-Toronto Cosmology
Below link is a Lecture from U-Toronto, Shelton Cosmology
http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~shelton/ast210s/lectures/HNAD_22w_s03.PDF
mmm, I have many more links if you've interest...
It does open up many other possible solutions to the question of Creation or Evolution..
Reply #970 Monday, November 3, 2003 11:23 PM
| The main attraction of the cosmological constant term is that it significantly improves the agreement between theory and observation. The most spectacular example of this is the recent effort to measure how much the expansion of the universe has changed in the last few billion years. Generically, the gravitational pull exerted by the matter in the universe slows the expansion imparted by the Big Bang. Very recently it has become practical for astronomers to observe very bright rare stars called supernova in an effort to measure how much the universal expansion has slowed over the last few billion years. Surprisingly, the results of these observations indicate that the universal expansion is speeding up, or accelerating! While these results should be considered preliminary, they raise the possibility that the universe contains a bizarre form of matter or energy that is, in effect, gravitationally repulsive. The cosmological constant is an example of this type of energy. Much work remains to elucidate this mystery! |
Madice, some think along this line, NASA has some info as does MIT, Scientific America and Discover.then others still have thoughts of the "Big Crunch"
NASA main page on Big Bang, studies
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html
Below is a directory listing of Lectures U-Toronto Cosmology
Below link is a Lecture from U-Toronto, Shelton Cosmology
http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~shelton/ast210s/lectures/HNAD_22w_s03.PDF
mmm, I have many more links if you've interest...
It does open up many other possible solutions to the question of Creation or Evolution..
joetheblow
Reply #972 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 5:13 AM
This is how I felt for a long time now. Almost 4 years if I am correct.
God, as far as I have put together, is a entity that exists everywhere literally and is a part of everything. The Universe as we see it (or don't see it) is an extention/part of this entity created. Sort of like my body; I am the whole body but my mind is in my head. Anything part of 'my universe' has been drawn by me (reguardless of the fact that there is something outside of myself that formed me and directed me through DNA/RNA to develope)
In some ways, because of this, I would technically say that there is a God. We exist in this univese and therefore this universe cradles us, grew us, created or evolved us and can litterally take it away.
If I am not mistaken, this is what I have taken from ancestrial tribes showing the God as more of the holder of where they live then a human life form. If I am not mistaken most believed God was female or trans-sexual.
Anyway, I just feel at this monemnt in time that God is an entity that exists everywhere and is apart of everything. When you 'die' you just become another form or a small part of the universe. You go back to or disperse into the one body of the System to be part of other things.
Not a void. Not a Heaven full of Angels, but energy maybe with a conscience of the whole Universe now that you are 'dead' (dispersed).
Just a theory... wouldn't bet my life on it.
Reply #972 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 5:13 AM
| However, all of the above notwithstanding, my position is that the anthropomorphic God described in dogma was created by man. That does not argue that God does not exist, but that the God that really exists is as far beyond the dogmatic God as we as humans are beyond the simplest single celled forms of life. |
This is how I felt for a long time now. Almost 4 years if I am correct.
God, as far as I have put together, is a entity that exists everywhere literally and is a part of everything. The Universe as we see it (or don't see it) is an extention/part of this entity created. Sort of like my body; I am the whole body but my mind is in my head. Anything part of 'my universe' has been drawn by me (reguardless of the fact that there is something outside of myself that formed me and directed me through DNA/RNA to develope)
In some ways, because of this, I would technically say that there is a God. We exist in this univese and therefore this universe cradles us, grew us, created or evolved us and can litterally take it away.
If I am not mistaken, this is what I have taken from ancestrial tribes showing the God as more of the holder of where they live then a human life form. If I am not mistaken most believed God was female or trans-sexual.
Anyway, I just feel at this monemnt in time that God is an entity that exists everywhere and is apart of everything. When you 'die' you just become another form or a small part of the universe. You go back to or disperse into the one body of the System to be part of other things.
Not a void. Not a Heaven full of Angels, but energy maybe with a conscience of the whole Universe now that you are 'dead' (dispersed).
Just a theory... wouldn't bet my life on it.
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #974 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 5:56 AM
Reply #974 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 5:56 AM
Nah, not Q, The Prophets. After all they are non-corporeal non linear entities.
From within a linear time scale it's impossible to see any other non linear existence.
Hmmm, does this mean Ben Sisko is God???
From within a linear time scale it's impossible to see any other non linear existence.
Hmmm, does this mean Ben Sisko is God???
bakerstreet
Reply #975 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 9:13 AM
Reply #975 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 9:13 AM
joetheblow said: "So you think God is Q From Star Trek??? "
Isn't that pretty much what Scientologists believe? That 'God' was really aliens, and that there are good alien spirits and bad alien spirits and all that junk?
pro: http://www.scientology.org/
con: http://www.xenu.net/
**
I'm sorry to again go off-topic, but this is very important to me. It is hard for me to not address what I consider to be church propaganda. R3fr has told people to look into the Jehovah's Witnesses, and has even asked that they contact members if they are interested. I think that demands a bit of balance, even if it is off-topic, because it endangers people's minds and lives.
I, too consider Jehovah's Witnesses ( http://www.watchtower.org/ ) ( http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/jws.htm )to be a cult.
The Jehovah's Witness hierarchy has the tools in place to punish, shun and isolate those that threaten their power, openly question doctrine, and cause 'dissent'. They are in charge of the lives of their members.
This is the main means of all cults to control.
-Envelop the lives of members.
-Make the members reliant on the church for 'fellowship'.
-Give the church authority control over the spiritual afterlife of members.
-Make it their sole authority, over and above 'earthly' powers.
-Once they have become totally spiritually dependant, threaten to 'shun' (isolate) them if they don't fall into line.
From their own site: http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/1988/4/15/article_01.htm and other examples of the JW isolation practice and 'spin': http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/disfellowshipping.htm
A black and white example: As a Jehovah's Witness, if the only means of saving the life of your child is a blood transfusion you must refuse. You are required to watch your child die. R3fr will call it a "personal choice", but not when you consider the methods above. Participation in the church *requires* a decision that is psychologically difficult after years of such psychological programming. As your secular and religious authority, they can shun you from family and friends, and even punish you in the afterlife. This is not a "personal choice".
In my opinion the Jehovah's Witnesses are solidly a cult.
[Message Edited]
Isn't that pretty much what Scientologists believe? That 'God' was really aliens, and that there are good alien spirits and bad alien spirits and all that junk?
pro: http://www.scientology.org/
con: http://www.xenu.net/
**
I'm sorry to again go off-topic, but this is very important to me. It is hard for me to not address what I consider to be church propaganda. R3fr has told people to look into the Jehovah's Witnesses, and has even asked that they contact members if they are interested. I think that demands a bit of balance, even if it is off-topic, because it endangers people's minds and lives.
I, too consider Jehovah's Witnesses ( http://www.watchtower.org/ ) ( http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/jws.htm )to be a cult.
The Jehovah's Witness hierarchy has the tools in place to punish, shun and isolate those that threaten their power, openly question doctrine, and cause 'dissent'. They are in charge of the lives of their members.
This is the main means of all cults to control.
-Envelop the lives of members.
-Make the members reliant on the church for 'fellowship'.
-Give the church authority control over the spiritual afterlife of members.
-Make it their sole authority, over and above 'earthly' powers.
-Once they have become totally spiritually dependant, threaten to 'shun' (isolate) them if they don't fall into line.
From their own site: http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/1988/4/15/article_01.htm and other examples of the JW isolation practice and 'spin': http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/disfellowshipping.htm
A black and white example: As a Jehovah's Witness, if the only means of saving the life of your child is a blood transfusion you must refuse. You are required to watch your child die. R3fr will call it a "personal choice", but not when you consider the methods above. Participation in the church *requires* a decision that is psychologically difficult after years of such psychological programming. As your secular and religious authority, they can shun you from family and friends, and even punish you in the afterlife. This is not a "personal choice".
In my opinion the Jehovah's Witnesses are solidly a cult.
[Message Edited]
IPlural
Reply #976 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 10:15 AM
Reply #976 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 10:15 AM
No that takes a bit of moderation in my opinion.
It is one thing to discuss a position, and something totally different to propergate a religion here.
As far as I am concerned, telling people to contact anyone is wrong and nothing less than pandering.
It is one thing to discuss a position, and something totally different to propergate a religion here.
As far as I am concerned, telling people to contact anyone is wrong and nothing less than pandering.
IPlural
Reply #977 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 10:33 AM
Reply #977 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 10:33 AM
I'll abstain from commenting or presenting my opinion on Joey's having worked for two different companies owned by a clutch of them.
I will say this though, Stephen one of the owners son ran as far and fast as he could when he hit 18 and they still constantly call and bother him to this day at the age of 40. I mean you would think they would get a clue from him telling them he can not wait to see the whole thing implode and has peace bonds against a number of them to keep them away from his kids, house, phone and business.
A foot note to that is they did destroy his marriage because they got to his wife and in the end he went to court to take complete sole custody of his children, and won. " They are worse than cocroaches with how they refuse to go away and leave you alone." in his words.
Hell, he is where I learned the term Joey
With Clearwater just a few miles north of me, Hubbards Science-Fiction Cult is a constant in the news. a freaking joke too, though they did Murder a lady a few years ago so they are not much of a Ha Ha joke.
I will say this though, Stephen one of the owners son ran as far and fast as he could when he hit 18 and they still constantly call and bother him to this day at the age of 40. I mean you would think they would get a clue from him telling them he can not wait to see the whole thing implode and has peace bonds against a number of them to keep them away from his kids, house, phone and business.
A foot note to that is they did destroy his marriage because they got to his wife and in the end he went to court to take complete sole custody of his children, and won. " They are worse than cocroaches with how they refuse to go away and leave you alone." in his words.
Hell, he is where I learned the term Joey
With Clearwater just a few miles north of me, Hubbards Science-Fiction Cult is a constant in the news.
a freaking joke too, though they did Murder a lady a few years ago so they are not much of a Ha Ha joke.
bakerstreet
Reply #978 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 10:36 AM
Reply #978 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 10:36 AM
IPlural: Yup. R3fr said in post #821 "Also, if there is a question or questions that you would like a better answer or to be answer in private, please write to your local branch office (for fastest reply) Link "
I think R3fr's posts go beyond 'C vs E' debate. I don't want anyone to think that I have a problem with his personal beliefs. I am fine as long as every individual has the right to choose. Kids can't make informed decisions, though, and the adults face serious censure by the JW leadership. I don't consider this a 'choice'.
As long as he keeps posting doctrine from a particular angle, and pasting huge amounts of watchtower doctrine with little or no citation, I think a balancing perspective is required. I wish he would cite more often that his is the Jehovah's Witness perspective.
It took me 30 full minutes once to get a visiting JW to tell me the truth about 'shunning' and their beliefs on blood transfusions. That is a sad way to proselytize, in my opinion.
I think R3fr's posts go beyond 'C vs E' debate. I don't want anyone to think that I have a problem with his personal beliefs. I am fine as long as every individual has the right to choose. Kids can't make informed decisions, though, and the adults face serious censure by the JW leadership. I don't consider this a 'choice'.
As long as he keeps posting doctrine from a particular angle, and pasting huge amounts of watchtower doctrine with little or no citation, I think a balancing perspective is required. I wish he would cite more often that his is the Jehovah's Witness perspective.
It took me 30 full minutes once to get a visiting JW to tell me the truth about 'shunning' and their beliefs on blood transfusions. That is a sad way to proselytize, in my opinion.
Doreen
Reply #979 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 10:46 AM
Reply #979 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 10:46 AM
Baker that's probably why focusing on Bibles, Churches and Religions is not a good idea cuz ppl get so wrapped up in them they completely lose site of God, they fight w/ each other over these "tools" that are suppose to assist in learning about God and get all messed up & lost over it...
"IF" there really is a God who made this earth it would only take (1) God not all these lil Gods that ppl have created themselves that are the ideal God that suits them and their needs, and I "think" the real God is not always a comfortable God and he's not for us to question but accept in faith "if" that is what our choice is.
this thing about transfusions is strange to me since in the Bible I could have sworn it says "not to eat blood" to me there is a big diff there in transfusions to save a life and eating blood w/ your mouth, I think branching off from the Bible into your understanding of it and creating yourself a separate name or Religion is kinda getting lost in the Bible and losing site of God...
"IF" there really is a God who made this earth it would only take (1) God not all these lil Gods that ppl have created themselves that are the ideal God that suits them and their needs, and I "think" the real God is not always a comfortable God and he's not for us to question but accept in faith "if" that is what our choice is.
this thing about transfusions is strange to me since in the Bible I could have sworn it says "not to eat blood" to me there is a big diff there in transfusions to save a life and eating blood w/ your mouth, I think branching off from the Bible into your understanding of it and creating yourself a separate name or Religion is kinda getting lost in the Bible and losing site of God...
bakerstreet
Reply #980 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 12:52 PM
Reply #980 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 12:52 PM
Doreen: very, very true.
As I said before, this should not be a religious discussion. In that frame of mind the Creationists must convince Evolutionists of the truth of their *scriptural* beliefs, basically converting them. In turn, Atheists must convince Creationists there is no God, and therefore no Creation. Neither side is really addressing Evolution.
If so, why not just change the debate to "Atheism vs. Ultra-Conservative Christianity?" No other religion is really getting anything more than lip-service anyway. Every religion that addresses the origin of the universe is gonna have a few adherents that differ with the Atheistic/Evolutionary view. If you are gonna discuss religion, why half-ass it?
...of course, it is more difficult, and less fashionable, to call the Dalai Lama a hillbilly. Hrm, I guess I can see the benefits of using such narrow definition of religion after all.
As has been said, there are many ways Creation and Evolution can reside in the same system of beliefs, and you need not be a religious person to differ with Darwinism. That invalidates the topic of the discussion, imho. To be a valid debate, the topic should simply be 'Evolution', and then debate the merits of the theory.
[Message Edited]
As I said before, this should not be a religious discussion. In that frame of mind the Creationists must convince Evolutionists of the truth of their *scriptural* beliefs, basically converting them. In turn, Atheists must convince Creationists there is no God, and therefore no Creation. Neither side is really addressing Evolution.
If so, why not just change the debate to "Atheism vs. Ultra-Conservative Christianity?" No other religion is really getting anything more than lip-service anyway. Every religion that addresses the origin of the universe is gonna have a few adherents that differ with the Atheistic/Evolutionary view. If you are gonna discuss religion, why half-ass it?
...of course, it is more difficult, and less fashionable, to call the Dalai Lama a hillbilly. Hrm, I guess I can see the benefits of using such narrow definition of religion after all.
As has been said, there are many ways Creation and Evolution can reside in the same system of beliefs, and you need not be a religious person to differ with Darwinism. That invalidates the topic of the discussion, imho. To be a valid debate, the topic should simply be 'Evolution', and then debate the merits of the theory.
[Message Edited]
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 49 of 56 | |
|
|---|
Reply #961 Monday, November 3, 2003 7:19 PM
story of my life...