Creation and Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

[spoil]Creation and Evolution are both valid arguments. Creation in its self is an evolution. It seems obvious that as a species, we evolve over time. This evolution occurs through genetic variation, mutation, and adaptation. Within this world that we live, it has been proven that once(if) a species reaches a certain level of knowledge and wisdom, the possibility of creating new life becomes manifest. Taking a moment to imagine how I would create an intelligence, it seems logical that this senscience will be most able to survive if it is self evolving. This means to say that the entity would possess the ability to discern, replicate, assimilate, and disseminate information. So as a creature gains environmental advantage and manipulation through physical variation, it also obtains this from the evolution of mind. Evolution is much more than simply physical characteristics. [/spoil]

i would have to believe to a certain extent that creation is evolution, very keen of you to pick that up vesicapisces

I thoroughly agree with the last part about evolution not being restricted to physical traits

One point of view is very politically motivated.

Evolution is a sound scientifice theory with ample empirical evidence to support it.

Creation is a religious myth (a construct ) with no means of falsification. Therefore it can never be proven or disproven. It is therefore not science.

Argeeing with the author here.

CREATION its the whole thing,universe,the product of the Force that create the space time and matter.
EVOLUTION its how a thing changes from something to another thing,in the most disputable case,human evolution,making them stronger,more intelligent.


creavolution? lol

Evolution is thought of as something that makes things function better.

However, something that changes over time to adapt to the enviroment is said to be evolving. But this creates variation.

An example, is if an organism somehow evolves to function in an extreme in a temperature, it will not survive in the enviroment that is considered an extreme compared to the extremes that it is in.

This is called variation. Thus, "something that changes over time creates variation".

Another example of adaption is an immune system. An immune system looks more like an enhancment than an enhancement from variation.

But an immune system is probably not considered to tbe only a mere adaption since an organism cannot survive without protecting itself from being destroyed by pathogeons. An immune system may just as well be the life-form itself.

But an immune system is not fool-proof. An immune system can be deceived to attack parts of the body if a pathogeon is made up of proteins that are similar to the bodies' proteins and, therefore, a part of the body becomes a target because of the pathogen.
An immune system constantly evolves not just for variation but to protect the organism from pathogeons.

Certain pathogeons are also known to evolve to efficiently hide from the immune system.

Science, by its very nature, is also unprovable, but based upon certain (emminently reasonable) faith about external reality.

The last sentence is true, but "unprovable" used here is tricky. We know that we all can "prove" that there are five apples in the drawer. The parameters that allow us to "prove" that the five apples are in the drawer also allow us to "prove" certain statements about the world with just as much certainty.

Also, creation can be evolution, but not in the sense that people who believe in God as the "creator of all things" understand "creation". For if creation did evolve, we would no longer be the result of God himself, but God and chance.

Chance is unneccessary. God could simply use evolution as a tool towards some hidden end.

Yes, but then it would not be evolution, but God's manipulation if there is a hidden end.

That's like saying gravity would cease to be gravity if it was caused by God. It's a load of sophist hooey.

What?!? The definition of evolution is based on the fact that certain traits evolve because they are best suited to the environment, not that they evolve because God says so. Whether or not God causes it is the defining difference between the two.

Most creationists do not deny the fossil record, they deny the gaps in the fossil record by claiming that God was initiating the changes as he saw fit at each step, whic is exactly what you described up above when you say that God uses evolution towards a hidden end. That is not evolution, but creationism.

God is nowhere mentioned in the definition of evolution. Therefore, it is not a prerequisite that He not be involved in it. One could presume that God set Evolution into motion, and being omniscient and all, had some idea of what would happen. There is no conflict here.

Now, obviously you misunderstood me. If I meant that God was constantly tinkering with the mechanism, then I wouldn't have used the word evolution correctly. This is understandable, but simply an incorrect reading; I didn't write otherwise, and I didn't mean otherwise.

What I gathered from your statement was that evolution REQUIRED random events, beyond God's control; THAT was what I was objecting to.

No, God is not specifically in the definition, but the definition rules him out as a possible pre-requisite. Perhaps I do not define evolution as loosely as others do because I do not agree with the position that God started everything in motion, then let things evolve according to a plan, because then that means traits were selected beforehand, and were not a product of being an advantage.

So, yes, you can say that I define evolution as being beyond God's control, otherwise it is by design, no matter how little he tinkers around. So, no, I did not misunderstand you. There is a conflict. If someone blocks the path of a mudflow to save homes, but does not manipulate how it gathers, I would still say that the mud came down this path by design. Any manipulation that changes the outcome in a planned way is to design something. Any manipulation that changes the outcome in an unplanned way is a mistake. The only way that God could change things would have to be by design, because God does not make mistakes.