Evolution or Creation

[Binzhoubum]

Evolution teaches that all people came from rocks.

How do you know we didn't?

:smokin:

I guess the only person who really knows is God...LOL :stoned:

[forwonderbear]

btw: the hebrew would strongly indicate actualy 24hour days. it's rather blatant in that regard. would be very uncharacteristic of ancient hebrew writing if the author meant something other than earth-days.

[Binzhoubum]

yes, biogenesis is the problem: biogenesis means life only comes from life. but all "laws" aside, the hard part of macro-evo is the "amino acid soup" idea. once evolutionists take their theories back to the part of "genesis" you still have tremendous problems with a living organism arriving out of innanimate parts.

What are the tremendous problems you are speaking of? So, you are actually saying that the conditions for the beginning of life as posited by proponents of evolution have tremendous problems in regards to their explanation of genesis?

I would say that creationists AND evolutionists both have a problem when it comes to this issue. Whatever you say at this point will inevitably beg the question.

If I say the universe was created by God and God is the alpha and omega, I am begging the question, "Who created God?"

If I say that the universe began in virtue of a tremendous explosion about 15 billion years ago and that at this point all energy and matter was contained within one point in space, I am begging the question, "Where was the cause of this explosion? And where did it come from?"

What exisisted prior to the creation of the universe is completely unknown and is simply a matter of pure speculation. Anyway you look at it. :smokin:

but forget about that: what about where even that innanimate MATTER came from? scientists talk about the big bang. but the problem there is that there had to be SOMETHING there to "bang" in the first place. scientists call this moment the singularity. but no one will talk about what happened before the singularity. where did that tiny piece of matter come from?

now, you of course would have the same problem with god. where did god come from? my point is in the end either you have eternal god (living being) or eternal matter (eternal matter). my point is in the end it's not more "scientific" to believe there is "no god". in the end you have to take on faith where EXISTANCE came from in the first place.

I find it ironic that you basically contradicted yourself by admitting that one will invariably encounter this problem of begging the question whichever way one choose's to swing on this issue, yet bring up the issue of faith.

What is faith? Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational, illogical thought and is often regulated by human emotion.

Why would God make faith seem so illogical if it were in fact something we should all have and believe in?

I don't see a strong case for faith in my everyday life. It seems to me that if I don't go to work but have faith my boss will pay me, I never get paid. Conversely, it seems to be the case that if I actively pursue a salary I always get paid.

It also seems to be the case that people who choose faith to cure their cancer die at higher rates than those who choose contemporary, Western medicinal treatments developed through a system of logic, trial and error, and formulation of hypotheses known as Science.

Science always seems to give me results. In fact, if it weren't for science I wouldn't be able to use this computer and post this reply to this thread. :thumbsup:

there are many parts of evolutionary science that i find very valid: survival of the fitest/genetic change through selective breading etc.

As you should because such theories are logical and there is evidence to support this.

i am a christian, and i will also not say i have scientific proof of god. i admit readily that i believe in god on faith, not because it has been proven to me. i do however feel god's influence everywhere, but once again this is subjective of course

How do you feel God's influence? If you don't mind me asking... :smokin:

btw: i love science. i'm a biology/neurobiology student and i find scientific learning fascinating, of course especially living things (bios=life; ology=study)

I find botany interesting. :stoned: HEHEHE....:smokin:

blah blah good luck to y'all and peace!

Peace to you too! :smokin:

[Binzhoubum]

btw: the hebrew would strongly indicate actualy 24hour days. it's rather blatant in that regard. would be very uncharacteristic of ancient hebrew writing if the author meant something other than earth-days.

What is an "earth-day"? Not every culture, country, society, etc. measures time in the same way. I am not an expert on Ancient Hebrew methods of time-telling, but are you sure they were using the same calendar and the same method of telling time as we use today?

[monki]

Evolution teaches that all people came from rocks.

ok big guy how does evolution teach that all people comes from rocks?

please justify so i can blow your obvious total lack of understanding of the process of evolution clean out the water.

[Oneironaut]

yes, biogenesis is the problem: biogenesis means life only comes from life. but all "laws" aside, the hard part of macro-evo is the "amino acid soup" idea. once evolutionists take their theories back to the part of "genesis" you still have tremendous problems with a living organism arriving out of innanimate parts.

Well, what do you expect? No matter how you look at it, deliberate creation or not, it must have been an extremely complex chemical process that happened about 3.5 billion years ago. We have no traces of exactly how the first cell came about; all the evidence has been destroyed by billions of years of decay and erosion. I have a hard time believing that just because it must have been really complex and because we have hardly any evidence of what exactly went on, that it had to have been purposefully created by a cosmic supergenius. Intelligence is the most complex thing we know of, the result of the tremendous complexity of the human brain, which has been shaped by millions of years of Darwinian natural selection. This complexity is the very thing we are seeking to explain. I can't see the explanatory power of the idea that something as complex and intricate as intelligence (and not just any intelligence, an infinite intelligence!) just popped out of nowhere for no reason. It just makes the problem of where complexity came from that much more baffling.

but forget about that: what about where even that innanimate MATTER came from? scientists talk about the big bang. but the problem there is that there had to be SOMETHING there to "bang" in the first place. scientists call this moment the singularity. but no one will talk about what happened before the singularity. where did that tiny piece of matter come from?

Well, there's always going to be the problem of "why is there something instead of nothing?" Nobody's been able to find a satisfactory answer to that question, and I doubt anybody ever will. We just have to accept that the universe exists, and we don't know why since there's no surviving evidence of what (if anything) happened "before" the Big Bang. Some have even argued that such a question can't even meaningfully be asked, likening it to asking what is beyond the edge of the universe.

now, you of course would have the same problem with god. where did god come from? my point is in the end either you have eternal god (living being) or eternal matter (eternal matter). my point is in the end it's not more "scientific" to believe there is "no god". in the end you have to take on faith where EXISTANCE came from in the first place.

Take on faith? The scientific answer would be "we don't know what, if anything, caused the universe to exist, because there's no conclusive evidence". Saying "although there's no evidence, I know for a fact that it was Jehovah/Allah/Vishnu/whatever that created the universe" is fundamentally anti-scientific. The scientific method rests on accepting only what the evidence points to, and taking that only as provisional truth, a working theory that is always open to change or even complete rejection in the light of new evidence. There is nothing scientific about having faith in that for which there is no evidence. There is something scientific about asking for evidence that a proposition is true, however, and ignoring hypotheses that are non-falsifiable.

there are many parts of evolutionary science that i find very valid: survival of the fitest/genetic change through selective breading etc.

i am a christian, and i will also not say i have scientific proof of god. i admit readily that i believe in god on faith, not because it has been proven to me.

Good. I hate when people try to "prove" that God exists with material evidence. It just doesn't work, and you can hardly ever get them to see the flaws in their logic.

i do however feel god's influence everywhere, but once again this is subjective of course

Yeah, I remember when I used to feel "God" too, until I realized I could create the same tingly sensation by listening to Pink Floyd alone in a dark room. It's all in how you interpret the feeling.

btw: i love science. i'm a biology/neurobiology student and i find scientific learning fascinating, of course especially living things (bios=life; ology=study)

blah blah good luck to y'all and peace!

Have a good one.

[baisez le monde.]

spontaneous combustion












sorry i was watching soujttht park

[bhouncy]

evolution or creationism?.... whatever happened it's totally crazy. The past doesn't mean much to me. I like to be in the here and now and then zooooom forward into the future in my mind. Buzzzzzzziiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnn.

[Oneironaut]

well, other than leviathin i don't think they're mentioned in the bible. there is the "gap" theory that there is an amount of time between genesis 1:1 and 1:2. the hebrew has some interesting clues here. i'm not sure if i believe it or not. there is also the theory that the "days" of creation are not literal 24hour days. i used to believe strongly that they were 24hour days, but now i'm not so sure. god created the sun and moon on the 4th so it seems a bit strange to me if the previous three days were 24hours. not sure where i stand on that

I think that Genesis is just a creation myth of an ancient agricultural people who had no idea why the world was the way it was, and invented a story in order to have some kind of explanation. I think the funniest part about the whole myth is that God spends all this time carefully designing the earth and the things on the earth and the inhabitants of the earth, and then the sun and moon so the earthlings can have night and day, and then, as an afterthought, finishes by spontaneously constructing the trillions and trillions of galaxies, gas clouds, black holes, supernovas, quasars, dark matter, etc. that make up 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of the matter and energy in the universe...just so the earthlings could tell the time and season.

Who can blame them for thinking the universe was created for them? It certainly looked that way, from a pre-scientific mindset.

[Hamlet]

I'm a little confused....is it whichever opinion wins the pole gets to be true? I didn't know we could vote things into reality but I like the possibilities