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?"
1102 Reply 6 Referrals
First Previous Page 8 of 56 Next Last
Doreen
Reply #141 Friday, September 12, 2003 8:12 PM
Kona other Religions that are different from yours are not occults they are merely other humans like you searching for the answer... nothing more nothing less

Doreen goes searching for my bed early tonight.

kona0197
Reply #142 Friday, September 12, 2003 8:16 PM
OK I believe different but do not wish to futher argue so I will drop it.


Sugaree
Reply #143 Friday, September 12, 2003 8:20 PM
nothing
[Message Edited]

Satans Child
Reply #144 Friday, September 12, 2003 8:25 PM
http://www.godlovesgays.com/bibcont.htm

Tiggz
Reply #145 Friday, September 12, 2003 8:26 PM
@ Jafo - he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy

Satans Child
Reply #146 Friday, September 12, 2003 8:31 PM
John 8:44

IPlural
Reply #147 Friday, September 12, 2003 8:36 PM
boring? Why it isn't as if we knew everything we would stop killing each other wholesale for various ignorant reasons..



But if it was known, it might force people to accept their actions as their own and not have something else to blame, or it might cause them to stop in fear of pissing something larger than life or death off.

paxx
Reply #148 Friday, September 12, 2003 9:05 PM

I suggest some people read about the apocryphal books. There are a number of books from the old and the new testament that the Counsil rejected. For example, the New Testament as we know it, only contains 4 books, the 4 evangelists. But in reality, many more were found, I think it's about 12 or so. But when deciding upon the final version of was to be the Bible, the Counsil made the decision to select only those 4 because the other books sometimes contained information that didn't comply with what the Church wanted people to believe in. Those books exist. Some of them are still in the archives of the Vatican, other have been destroyed long ago.  I don't want to start an argument about the content of the apocryphal books and what they were saying. My point here is that Ingui's arguement that "One book, written over the course of millenia, by many different authors, still maintaining a common theme and surviving intact for some 2,000 years" is not quite true, because those 4 books were SELECTED because of their similar message and because that message was the one the Church wanted.

But for the curious minds out there, do a little research, dig up a little bit, and you might find that the Bible could have been quite different.


paxx
Reply #149 Friday, September 12, 2003 9:15 PM

Oh and one more thing. To people that think that the World is so perefct, so it MUST have been made by a higher being. This reminds me of a part in Voltaire's "Candide" where there is this guy, a "metaphysicist" (what they called then a philosopher), who is just so amased that everything is so perfect. He gives as an example how just amasing it is that glasses fit just perfect on your face. Had we had no nose to hold the glasses on, they would have been impossible to wear!!  Very funny. But anyway, back on topic. The World we live in may be complex, but it certainly isn't perfect. We find it so because that's what we're used to. And yes, it is complex, because it's taken billions of years of shaping.

Take billions of years of accidents. The bad accidents disapear, the good accidents live on and proceates. BILLIONS of years. Little things here and there. And yes, eventually to come up to somehing that is quite complex and quite well adapted for survival in our environment.


Bangkokboy
Reply #150 Friday, September 12, 2003 10:06 PM
studying DNA from older civilizations seems to strongly indicate that the "genetic load" ( totality and frequency of genetic defects ) in the human race has increased dramatically and steadily with time. we're not evolving, we're devolving with each century. the average athenian in ancient greece was more intelligent than the average citizen living in any country on the planet today. ( how's that for a flagrant assertion that i cannot prove, and you cannot disprove).

UBoB
Reply #151 Friday, September 12, 2003 10:21 PM
The topic of religious language proves to be exceptionally diverse. One of the reasons that I choose to post on this topic is due to a passage that I read from Jewish Rabbi Harold Kushner several years ago. Kushner was discussing the power of speech and compared it to the concept of perpetual motion within physics. If I wave my hand through the air, the energy that is generated from that movement moves through the universe without ever ending. Permanent energy is therefore created in the universe. He questioned why the concept would be so much different with the use of language. If I speak something into the universe, an energy is created. This energy now exists forever in the universe and I am responsible for it. The importance of language is made manifest in this thought. That the seen and unseen world is created by language as much as anything else. In an article entitled "Glory" by Thomas Dooling he states, "The problem is that we have made words cheap, and in so doing shouldn’t be surprised that they no longer have value." This sentiment is a particularly disturbing one if we consider for a moment that in fact, words create value, and if we have made them cheap then our creation is also cheap.


[Message Edited]

Ingui
Reply #152 Saturday, September 13, 2003 5:15 AM
Hey paxx, how's you? I dont know much about Voltaire, and MY nose is far from perfect

But I'll give you a billion years, 4 Billion... forever even. shake that bucket around the whole time. Its NEVER gonna me more than a mix of parts rattling around in a pail. Chance will not bring about a working mechanism. Also, regarding chance... evolution theory is basically mutation. Probably 99% of mutations are detrimental to an organism, beneficial mutations (note, not adaptations) rarely benefit a species, further reducing the odds of chance.

A billion ? There are probably that many species of life counting the varieties of those species. With those odds,the deck would have have to be stacked. Quite heavily.


craeonics
Reply #153 Saturday, September 13, 2003 5:22 AM
If you believe tbat, Ingui, you have a poor understanding of statistics. A chance of one in a zillion does not equal never. It also does not mean you have to try a zillion times minus one to get to it. It might happen the first time even.

paxx
Reply #154 Saturday, September 13, 2003 5:46 AM
Ingui, lets talk about lotery for a bit. Imagine you have the numbers from one 1 to 100 billions. What are the chances that you would draw the number 1 at every draw? Impossible, right? But now, here's what you do. At every draw, you remove the highest number and rep,ace it with a lower number. You do that billions upon billions of times, you always remove the highest number from the draw and put a lower number instead. In the end, all you're left with is 100 billion number 1's. And from then on, you will pick the number every single time. Tha's basically what evolution is. The least fit dies and the most fit lives on, and in the end, only the fittest still exist.

Ingui
Reply #155 Saturday, September 13, 2003 5:48 AM
Hiya craeonics And no, I understand statistics. I didnt say "one in a zillion", I said "never" as I understand the difference. Are you suggesting that the pieces of a watch might actually fall together in the right order and locations, and attach themselves where needed? That any screws would eventually spin themselves into place. The gears , springs , levers all landing and securing themselves in working order?





Ricky says "I dun thin so"

Ingui
Reply #156 Saturday, September 13, 2003 5:52 AM
I understand the theory paxx, I still find it hard to believe. Just as many find creation hard to believe. Greyhaze sure picked a , umm, devilishly, irrisistable topic for debate.

sigh.

joetheblow
Reply #157 Saturday, September 13, 2003 6:15 AM
.......... and I don't think the question is WHO is God, but rather, WHAT is God.........


I wholly agree with that. At what I would call my current stage of belief, I feel that there is no question that God exists. We are within the existing universe full of reason, rules and laws that control our creation and destruction to a degree that is infinite with possibilities.

If your feeling is evolution more than creation, then it still falls to the notion that it could not happen without a set up of rules to create the condition.

If it is creation it too has to be built on laws and understanding. A combination of the 2 still means there is something that had to be set.



I think the real question is if that 'something' is a living thinking creator, or an amoeba life organism that just exists, or finally just a set of circumstances that allow other circumstances to create laws and other creators.


I prefer to believe God is a living thinking creature of total knowledge... but I have no proof of that.

hashonboat
Reply #158 Saturday, September 13, 2003 6:37 AM
I was going to stay out of this one but here goes my two cents...

I believe we were created..of which there is no proof

I also believe in evolution, but not the "Theory of Evolution"...of which there is also no proof..hence the name..

Everything changes over time to some extent, but the straight line evolution of Homo Sapien from apes to me seems too absurd to be believable. If evolution is genetic mutation over a period of time then I would expect the evolution of man to have taken a very non-linear path..

As for the different species i.e. Homo Habilus, Neanderthal etc..We were probably all around just some had their hey-day at different times. Just because no homo-sapien skull has been found from say 500,000 B.C. doesn't mean it wasn't there.

paxx
Reply #159 Saturday, September 13, 2003 7:14 AM
evolution of Homo Sapien from apes to me seems too absurd


Actually, it's not exactly like that. It's more that apes and us have the same ancestors.

Evolution will always be a theory, because according to the scientific method, it cannot be reproduced under the same conditions (The time required to reproduce it would be too great to observe), hense it will never be a law, even if all the scientists in the World were to believe it to be true.

Hus
Reply #160 Saturday, September 13, 2003 8:31 AM
I think we are monkeys. Just monkeys who have the gift of reason. The ability to make a conscience decision. Genetically we are something like 4% different from monkeys on a DNA level. Why is it so hard to believe we came from them? Here's my take on it and why monkeys still exist. If you take another species where mutations and evolution has known to occured...like the Iguana's from the Galapogos islands. Here you have lizards diving underwater eating algae. No where else in the world will you find an Iguana doing so. So then you have 2 species of the same animal. So here we are...still monkeys...only we lost our hair because we didn't need it anymore, we lost the 'oooh oooh aahh ahh' sounds because we didn't need it anymore...and those monkeys that did not evolve like we did are still there. Make sense?

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!
Login
First Previous Page 8 of 56 Next Last

Home | About | Privacy | Upload Guidelines | Terms of Service | Help
Copyright © Stardock Corporation. All Rights Reserved.


web-wc01