creation and evolution
why are so many people choosing between creation and evolution? firstly evolution is not creation. maybe it's been created to evolve.
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Doomflower · 36-40, M
If it were it was a psychopathic deity that did the creation. Real life isn't Pokemon. Evolution happens because those who are less fit to survive DIE before they pass on their genes. And if they happen to have a trait that won't outright kill them before they reproduce that trait will not be selected against.
This is why the babirusa exists. As it ages the tusks grow into their head and can pierce the skull.
This is why the babirusa exists. As it ages the tusks grow into their head and can pierce the skull.
View 12 more replies »
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Doomflower My personal definition of life is that it’s a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.
I suppose we could squeeze AI into that, perhaps?
I suppose we could squeeze AI into that, perhaps?
ElwoodBlues · M
@newjaninev2 [quote]My personal definition of life is that it’s a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.[/quote] Very clear! I might add the proviso "in the appropriate environment."
I haven't taken a side on the "are viruses alive" question, or maybe "when can a virus be said to be alive," but [i]if[/i] they can be said to be alive, the only environment in which they're alive is inside a living cell.
I haven't taken a side on the "are viruses alive" question, or maybe "when can a virus be said to be alive," but [i]if[/i] they can be said to be alive, the only environment in which they're alive is inside a living cell.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2
Just IMO (but there are also others) the alive - not alive distinction may be useful but is not (let´s say) enough clear. Still haves some smell of vitalism.
May be the concept of complex adaptative systems can put some wider light on it.
The recent finding of volvanic glass crystals (Earth and Mars) providing near to complete ARN predecesors seems interesting.
Just IMO (but there are also others) the alive - not alive distinction may be useful but is not (let´s say) enough clear. Still haves some smell of vitalism.
May be the concept of complex adaptative systems can put some wider light on it.
The recent finding of volvanic glass crystals (Earth and Mars) providing near to complete ARN predecesors seems interesting.
DocSavage · M
@Millerdog
Not quite. Usually, the arguments about creation and evolution involves not so much as how everything got here, but how much was made as is.
Creationist like to believe god created all life that you see, exactly as you see it. Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life .
Not quite. Usually, the arguments about creation and evolution involves not so much as how everything got here, but how much was made as is.
Creationist like to believe god created all life that you see, exactly as you see it. Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life .
lumberjackslam · 41-45, M
because science itself is somewhat like religious dogma. strictly science believers 'I believe in science' to shame red state folks. this shows that they are willing to accept the mainstream science theories with little question. for now it's the Big Bang/Big Crunch, let's say. that could change, when the science establishment changes it. there is little room for compromise in their belief system. in that regard it isn't much different than religion.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@lumberjackslam [quote]the average person never looks at evidence and just repeats what he read someplace and repeats it as if it were scripture[/quote]
I don't have the equipment or knowledge set to radiocarbon date archaeological artefacts, but when I heard that a researcher had changed the index scales for testing in the Levant, I didn't see that as a failure of the science. I saw it as an improvement in the technique.
One thing I won't do is refuse to accept the evidence if it doesn't fit into my religious belief. Therein lies the difference; dogmatic people refuse to accept the evidence if it disagrees with their beliefs. Those who accept science are able to adapt their beliefs to the evidence.
I don't have the equipment or knowledge set to radiocarbon date archaeological artefacts, but when I heard that a researcher had changed the index scales for testing in the Levant, I didn't see that as a failure of the science. I saw it as an improvement in the technique.
One thing I won't do is refuse to accept the evidence if it doesn't fit into my religious belief. Therein lies the difference; dogmatic people refuse to accept the evidence if it disagrees with their beliefs. Those who accept science are able to adapt their beliefs to the evidence.
Millerdog · 56-60, M
@Bushranger and for many people science is one of the path's to the Creator
DocSavage · M
@lumberjackslam
I’m curious.
[quote] but the average person never looks at evidence and just repeats what he read someplace and repeats it as if it were scripture[/quote]
Granted the average person, isn’t a scientist.
Bill Nye, is an engineer. He did in fact repeat what he read. But he repeated information that had been confirmed and validated by scientists in that field. And a consensus of others.
Ken Ham’s statements had been debunked. Because they were based on scripture. Given the source, which one do consider more reliable ?
I’m curious.
[quote] but the average person never looks at evidence and just repeats what he read someplace and repeats it as if it were scripture[/quote]
Granted the average person, isn’t a scientist.
Bill Nye, is an engineer. He did in fact repeat what he read. But he repeated information that had been confirmed and validated by scientists in that field. And a consensus of others.
Ken Ham’s statements had been debunked. Because they were based on scripture. Given the source, which one do consider more reliable ?
[quote]why are so many people choosing between creation and evolution?[/quote]
Because creation typically refers to an ideology which demands special creation of life in its present form in opposition to evolution. Especially with reference to human beings.
[quote]maybe it's been created to evolve.[/quote]
If indeed a creator god exists and is the progenitor of life then life created and subsequently evolving is the only rational position.
Because creation typically refers to an ideology which demands special creation of life in its present form in opposition to evolution. Especially with reference to human beings.
[quote]maybe it's been created to evolve.[/quote]
If indeed a creator god exists and is the progenitor of life then life created and subsequently evolving is the only rational position.
smileylovesgaming · 31-35, F
Got to love millions of years of evolution.
Millerdog · 56-60, M
@smileylovesgaming but it had to be here to evolve
smileylovesgaming · 31-35, F
@Millerdog there is some really good videos about the mass extinctions on earth on YouTube. Kind of gives u idea of what was on earth before the mass extinctions. Humans are pretty new if u think about it
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 46-50, M
Maybe where you live they do. I remember my eyes popping out of my head when an E. European atheist scorned evolution