DARWIN VS. GENESIS

Post Reply New Topic

Evolution proves God exists. Since simple life forms evolve into more complex He is unavoidable. No valuable, desirable ecological niche stays empty forever. That is what the next five to ten billion years of evolution are for. Did you think it had stopped? Due to relativity, the past is reachable, so it is quite easy for God to create the Universe He evolved out of. The Anthropic Principles and the Gaia hypothesis are the same. Life always regulates its environment to keep it life bearing.

Form follows functionality. There is only 1 best, ultimate, fittest way to survive in the Multiverse. Wherever the Supreme Being evolves He will reach that 1 best, ultimate, fittest way & thus become the exact same Being. Multiple starting points also would not stop this from happening and He would encourage as many starting points as possible just as many life forms have multiple births. As for defining God, you have got to be kidding! No one can even define life yet. We haven't seen enough examples of it yet, so far, only what is on this planet.

Evolution IN Bible. 1 Corinthians. 12:27. We are body of Christ, individually members of it.. Ephesians 4:15 Rather speaking the Truth, In Love, we are to grow up in ALL WAYS into the Head, into Christ. John 15:1-2 I Am the vine. My Father is the Vine-dresser. Every branch and me that does not bare fruit He takes away. Every branch in me that does bare fruit He prunes so that it may bare more fruit. Luke 13:9 It is like a mustard seed......it grew and became a tree, & the birds of the air perched in its branches.

There is much fossil evidence for evolution. The astronomer Fred Hoyle calculated the known mutation rates + number of mutations necessary for the evolution of man is so huge the Universe would be over before we evolved. Evolution required tweaking to speed up its progress for us to come along (also most any complicated life). So while survival of the fittest does work to a certain degree, there are other not quite understood factors at work. Check yourself. If you are not a lower vertebrate please thank the Vine-dresser!

As for life forms going extinct, they must in order to make room for new models. Different models of cars come out every year and different models go extinct. Cars definitely evolve as they adapt to their environment: Humanity. I wonder when the mutation of "cup holder" occurred? You wil note most models of cars without them have gone extinct. If every Model T that rolled off the assembly line were still chugging up and down our roads we would not be driving minivans and sports cars today. But there is compensation for death. Heaven; a place that is being built right now.

It is the goal of science to learn everything and preserve everything. Most every model of car that ever existed is "saved" in some museum or other somewhere. In just the same way, part of the body of Christ (scientists) are working towards saving all life. The ultimate goal is Heaven. Every doctor working to prolong life is working towards eternal life. Every scientist building better computers is building Heaven.

But if unperfected individuals were allowed into Heaven, it would soon have as many problems as the beta test environment we live in today. That's why any soul (operating system) that hopes to enter Heaven someday must allow Christ to indwell them and perfect them. That's what becoming Born again is all about. It is no different than any computer being debugged before it is connected to a network. The only difference is, we have free will so it would be wrong for Christ to entier us without permission, so we must give Him that permission. Christ is that Galilee Carpenter the same one who build tables and chairs. Someone must run Heaven. It must not be an anarchy. The Carpenter wants to run it and much of humanity wants Him to run it. That is all that is necessary for future Humanity to make it so. We can tell from reading both their words Christ wants the job and Buddha did not.

The salvation and debugging prayer. (Can be sung to Danny Boy)

Jesus Christ we thank You for Your sacrifice
Come live inside my busy, restless mind.
Forgive my faults and fix the flaws that sadden You.
Help me forgive the ones that did not treat me kind.

*pulls on hair* I knew I should have listened to that little voice in my head that said "don't post on this thread!"

First, I would like to reinforce the fact that I do not support or believe in the creationist theory. I'm as atheist as you can get. I see no problem with that. Some people are religious. I see no problem with that either.
To me, the evolutionist theory is much more feasible, with evidence. I'm not trying to argue in favour of one theory or another here, I just don't really see the point in it. What I've been trying to say since the beginning is that there really is no point in it. Why can't we all just get along without all the "my theory is better than your theory" discourse? (Sorry, this is my utopical side talking;)) Arguing over personal religious or non-religious beliefs is just as pointless and unproductive as arguing over personal musical tastes!

As for the China example. I understand there is more more involved, such as all the political, geographical, historical and all the other -icals, but today there is a nation called China. There might not be one tomorrow, but no one can deny there is one today. No one can also deny that 1+1 does not equal 3. I admit I shouldn't have used a mathematical example, since China, as a politically defined nation, is "abstract" whereas 1+1=2 is extremely "concrete" and exact. I used it to try and draw a parallel between the two.

We made those laws, they are our description of the order we perceive in the universe. They are elegant and simple because we've favored elegant and simple descriptions.



Evolution theory did not postulate that simple life forms evolve into more complex ones. It even denies the existence of any form of hierarchy, or any form or plan or ordering in the evolution of life.




He made a few mistakes it seems, as explained by Dawkins and Musgrave, among them were overlooking that there were many, many possible outcomes and assuming that early life started out as complex as life forms are today.


Again, you assume a plan, an ordering that isn't there. In evoltuion theorie species become extinct because they've become less efficient in reproducing their genes. In other words, they become extinct because they no longer fit for their environment.

Oh, I'm sorry if you percieved my post as offensive or otherwise in any way distressing, SilverProteus. It was not intended. I just couldn't restrain myself from wording -er- whatever it was that I ended up wording.

My main point was just to point out that existence of China is not in fact as certain as certain as the truth in, say, "2+2=4". China could be a hoax. That would be an unfalsifiable statement, and thus stupid to even bring up. I apologize for actually bringing it up. But it is only in order to compare it with the statement "1+1=3", which IS quite falsifiable.

I'm ranting, but "2+2=4" is true on a whole other level than "China exists".
Sorry I turned this into another rant, I began writing this just to apologize.

Well, I am a freshman in college and i study physics. One must be a little bit adventure to confirm or deny the existence of God. Specially because science is strcutured over axioms, which are things that are just assumed to be true in order to understand or studying a specific issue. I don't believe in a man-like God with a big white beard, watching our actions and thoughts. I'd rather thought about Him as a set of one way universal rules, which sooner or later we'll have to assume they are true per se and that there's nothing underlying them.

Einstein also probably anthropomorphized the rules of the universe into a unity he referred to as God. If you accept this then the ceremonies surrounding religion seem inapplicable. One cannot pray to the law of gravity nor appeal to its sense of mercy with any sane expectations of a response.

This whole Evolution vs Creation quarrel is just excuse for pushing belief system on other by using arguments that are allegedly based on 'science' and 'objectivity'.
Anyway,most Evolutionist people are Atheists,while all Creationists are Theists.

This argumentation has to do with Atheistic and Theistic belief system,and has nothing to do with science or scientific method.


Sad fact is that many people can have great knowledge of one or more scientific branches,but have no philosophical concept of scientific method.

And the fact is that both Evolution and Creationism goes beyond what can be observed,and speculate about nature's past,about facts that existed before existence of observer.
Speculations based on fossils and other things are not scientific,since these fact can be interpreted in various ways.

Since scientific method was born out of philosophy,I believe I can say few words about it.

Although many people speak about 'scientific method',many of them actually don't know what they are talking about...
If one thing appears reasonable,that doesn't mean that it is scientific.


And I don;t want to quote myself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Creation or Evolution cannot be tested,since they are not scientific theories,but they are actually ideological framework of general interpretation of things.

While some events may appear to support one of them,they can be also be interpreted in another sense.
But since Ev. and Cre. are frameworks of interpretation they can never be tested in whole,and therefore this quarrel may continue in infinity.

Since people that believe in Evolution and Science already made up their mind,before even tried to test their believes,they would interpreted events in accordance to their own belief system.

On other side,science of biology research organism that exist here and now,not speculations about origins of these organisms.

P.S

Evolution may appear more scientific then Creationism,since it use causal argumentation that appear 'rational' at first glance.
But their error is just big as Creationist one.
Although we have various life forms,and simple and complex one this does not imply causal relation between them.
Its not scientific to claim that complex organisms have developed from simple ones,since they make methodological error of induction.

Theories like origins of species,origins of universe...are all based on inductive thinking,while science in general is based on deductive thinking.

To illustrate this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction








But main problem is that most scientist don't give a damn about philosophical basis of their methods,and then create speculative theories that may appear reasonable to average consumer of scientific popular literature.
So,nonsense theories like 'big bang' may pass in public that is fascinated by science in general.

P.P.S

Therefore both Evolution and Creationism are not scientific,and belong to the area of metaphysical speculation.
Such theories were created,when some biologists started to speculate about 'nature of things' without critical examination of their own methodology.
To put it simple-they want to believe in these theories,since these 'theories' are just justifications for their own belief systems...Atheism and Theism.

In real sense we don't have right to speculate in such manner,and to claim that these speculations are scientific.
But some people can't stand this fact,and have to believe in something.

Evolution or Creation?

Answer is..We don't know and will never really know.

A mistake many make is equating "evolution" with "improvement." Actually to evolve means merely to adapt to the environment. You might enjoy Stephen Jay Gould's Planet of the Bacteria in which he pretty succintely explodes that notion.



So you want to bring religion into a scientific debate without defining the terms of the debate? You want to argue a point without defining the terms of that point?

If you want to have an argument, you have to define the terms of that argument. You need to clarify which God you're talking about. There are literally thousands. Be specific. The ID people like to use the cop-out of a "higher power" without specifically saying "The Christian God", as if everyone doesn't know that's exactly what they mean.



No it didn't. Homo Sapiens have been on earth for a bare whisper of a moment. Previous life-forms have outstripped our time here by millions upon millions of years. Our time may very well be already drawing to a close. That's a pretty sorry showing for the so-called highest- life-form the world has ever seen.

Humans think in terms of hierarchies, but life doesn't operate that way. This very simple concept is so difficult for humans to grasp, yet it remains the truth: we are not evolving in any particular direction. There is no up nor down to the evolutionary ladder. There is only the environment as it exists, and those organisms which adapt or fail to adapt.

The mistake of hierarchical thinking leads to placing humans squarely at the top of the world and in charge of everything. It gives us the right to play fast and loose with the well-being of all life as it exists now, and makes it possible to say things like "As for life forms going extinct, they must in order to make room for new models. Different models of cars come out every year and different models go extinct."

That is exactly the sort of argument that makes ID so terrifying. Such sloppy thinking allows for ideas of inherent superiority, and from there it's only a hop skip and a jump to ideas like ethnic cleansing and eugenics. Thinking that all life is guided by a hand that ultimately was only trying to create human beings allows us to imagine that not only do we somehow comprehend the will of God, but that God's will is ultimately in line with our own selfish, short-sighted, greedy, life-destroying desires. Wanna lay waste to the Amazon to create pasture for McDonald's to graze cattle to feed the hugely overweight American populace? What about all the organisms that will be driven to extinction by the destruction of their habitat? Hey, it's okay! GOD WANTS TO GET RID OF THEM TO MAKE ROOM FOR SUPERIOR LIFE-FORMS!!

Because of the manner in which the poll question was phrased, I selected the most popular choice, i.e., evolution without supernatural intervention. I do, however, distinguish between evolution (which should, IMO, be the province of biology, not theology) and creation. As I see it, creation refers to the divine purpose, or purposes, behind the particulars in the universe.

In my view, evolutionary biology (and paleontology, physical anthropology, etc.) should remain entirely separate from theological questions.

Cheers,

Mark

You have not applied that principle to evolution. What you criticise is not the theory of evolution but a weirdly distorted caricature of the theory. You will have to do some reading before you can make an informed judgment. If you want suggestions for reading, send me a pm.



Have a look at flying squirrels or something rather weirder, flying snakes. Controlled jumps turning into glides are one possible use for wings that are too small for true flight. Increasing traction while running uphill is one use you can see today in young ground living birds that haven't yet learned to fly (I think they were quail, but I am not sure). Increasing speed on the water is another. Have you never seen a water bird that wanted to move faster than it can swim, but doesn't bother to take off? They use their wings for extra thrust. They could get that function from wings too small for flight. Flight has evolved often enough independently that it is possible that all these effects have contributed to the evolution of true flight at least once each.

Ah, as in Deus Sive Natura, you mean? "Actual Event" and "Meaning of Actual Event"? That is a very useful distinction.

Evolution does not belong to biology,since it is based on induction and not deduction..therefore it is a form of pseudo-biology.
Same goes,off course to creationism.
The fact that some rules may be applied and observed in present does not mean that these same rules 'worked' in past.
This is classical error of induction.



Actually evolutionary 'biology' is quite involved in theological questions since,like creationism goes beyond observable experience and gives metaphysical statements about nature of reality,although atheist one.
When you are saying that word was created through natural processes,you make an anti-theological statement,and thus you are involved directly in sphere of belief.

The fact is that those 'natural laws' are our own interpretations of natural phenomena around us,that exist here and now.
Implying these same interpretations on past is not science,but science fiction.



Yes they could...but yet they also could not.
Its possible too,but science is not about possibilities...science fiction is.

Science is not about guessing but about observation and testing.

In your sentence you go from speculative guessing to conclusion without any real solid evidence,and then you put causal relation between existing species to extinct ones,without any possible way to really determine this.


P.S

Its so funny to see people that give advices to others,and claim to be scientifically educated,while in the same time they don't know nothing about basis of scientific methods.
Evolution is not science (like Creationism) but very cunning sophism masked in 'rational' speculation.
But these speculations can occur when most of modern scientists are just over specialized freaks that don't know nothing about philosophy or scientific methodology.

Well, yeah, Witt, you're not wrong, but there is very little we can actually know with such absolute certainty. For all I know, everything could just be an irrational notion that sprung into existence what I will for arguments sake call "5 minutes ago".

We would be left with nothing about which to talk...

Evolutionary biology, unlike theology, forms hypotheses which can be falsified. For example:
If the bones of a mammal are ever found in cambrian strata, evolution is false.
on a more recent level:
If molecular evidence does points to some other phylum than annelida as the closest relative of the Arthropoda, then the hypothesis that the arthropoda are offshoots of the annelida is false.

This last actually happened; the arthropoda are, shockingly, more related to the Platyhelminthes than to the Annelida.

Regarding birds without wings to fly with:

rhea
ostrich
emu
kiwi
penguin

flight is not the only use for feathers.

Yes,but its far greater possibility when I claim that a sun will exist the next day (since I can verify this later with observation),then to claim causal relation between two things that are separated for millions of years.

I indeed can know with absolute certainty is when I'm observing a phenomena,I indeed have sense data of phenomena.Interpretation of this phenomena is not certain,since this phenomena can be illusion.

Evolution(and Creation) cannot be proofed,since they are basically framework of interpretation in biology,and not object of biological research as such (like existing organisms).

Evolutionists and Creationists existed even before creation of scientific method.
Greek philosopher Anaximander claimed that humans developed from lower species,like fish.
In same time we have Biblical genesis.

Jean Baptiste Lamarck,already had his theory of Evolution (Lamarckism) before Darwin.
This is yet evidence that Evolutionary framework of interpretation existed before 'evidences' for Evolution.
And,when you have ideological framework,you can put any empirical fact in it,so that it can 'fit' in this framework.
But framework can never be tested as such.

P.S

True fathers of scientific method,like Descartes,David Hume and Immanuel Kant were very skeptical about any speculation that goes beyond immediate empirical observation.
Kant said that theories of origin of man and nature appear very attractive,but they go beyond scientific method,and thus cannot be really verified.
Great tragedy is that modern scientists don't read any books on scientific methodology and behave like 'rational' storytellers.

But such 'stratas' are just interpretation of sediment rocks.
And since my brother is geologist,I know that sediments can be created in just few seconds,and this can be testified with experiment.
Claiming that one sediment belong to particular era is inductive speculation.

Creationism is not theology as such since it also claims hypothesis based on material evidences that can be falsified.

But both theories cannot be falsified,since they are world-views not science.

P.S



Polystrate fossil tree passing through sedimentary rock
suggesting rapid deposition. Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Geological Survey of Canada, 1910. Neg. 15092.

From: http://www.creationism.org/books/Taylor ... IMMd04.htm

And as we can see Creationists may create interpretation that can appear 'scientific' as well.

P.P.S


Correlation does not imply causation...