jump to last post 1-35 of 35 discussions (152 posts)

Creation v Evolution - The Objective View

  1. 60
    fallenangel666posted 6 years ago

    I do not pigeon hole myself as a Creationist, Agnostic or Atheist, but rather as a person who attempts to retain an open mind. Any talk of proof either way is simply delusional. Kurt Godel, the greatest logician who ever lived, prooved beyond doubt, within the strict boundaries of mechanistic principle, the limits of rationality, not all truths can be proven, Einstein concurred. I have always found it extremely absurd to see great intellects like the late Jacques Monod attempting to validate their atheism by dismantling religious fairytales, as though deconstructing the Biblical account of creation and pointing out that if God is responsible for evolution, it must be a cruel God, provided in itself proof that there is no 'higher intelligence' and man must be the be all and end all of the Universe. Human ignorance is only surpassed by human arrogance. Nature has far more complexity than we have powers of observation. In the end we must all be wrong, otherwise there can be no advancement.

    1. Rafini profile image86
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I could have told you that had I wanted to be negative.


      More importantly, is it really all that important for us to determine the truth behind why we are here and what the purpose of the world really is?  Not to me.  I made my choices through my beliefs and that's where they'll stay.  If I'm wrong, I'll be wrong. big_smile

    2. 0
      crmhaskeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      After 75 posts I'm sure this thread is already off track, but I really don't feel like reading 75 posts so I'm just going to respond to the OP's original thoughts.

      I agree completely with your basic premise.  To insist one has with certainty metaphysical answers is quite naive, I dot not agree however that it is delusional to try and prove one is right.  That is just simply human nature.

      Regarding creationism and evolution - the probability that they are either wrong or right is ambiguous since we speculate barely a dot on the infinite plane of possibilities.

      1. 60
        fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Not bad but rather vague considering you are arguing that we should attempt to ascertain the truth, you didn't give your own argument for or against.

    3. pisean282311 profile image58
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      why can't god and evolution theory co exist..problem occurs when religion is brought in.religion , god are two different things...life existed much before bible or vedas and would exist even when people forget about books...

      i dont nullify god but i dont think religions are divine..religion is one of way of understanding things but this way is man made ...if religions were divine , they would have had many records which are missing and science have discovered...now either god had bad memory that it forgot to mention important species like dinosaur which ruled the world for so many years or those who wrote books were not aware that dinosaur existed...

      evolution theory and god can go together..why can't god devise system called nature which facilitated evolution?...

      1. 60
        fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I assume English isn't your first language.

  2. 60
    fallenangel666posted 6 years ago

    If ignorance is bliss how come so many people are unhappy?

    1. Rafini profile image86
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol  too much required education. lol

  3. chatpilot profile image77
    chatpilotposted 6 years ago

    I personally don't consider calling myself an atheist pigeon holing myself. I have been on both sides of the fence and after careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that the existence of the biblical god or any gods for that matter is irrational. I am of the opinion that gods are the creation of man due to his ignorance about the world around him in earlier more primitive times. Mankind has worshiped everything from imaginary gods to nature, animals, ancestors, etc.

    When it comes to objective evidence I feel that there is more evidence against the existence of god than there is for it. Although I do agree that there are things that are outright mysteries to us and may remain unknown to us. I just don't think that god is one of those mysteries.

    1. pisean282311 profile image58
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      i completely agree with you...

  4. 60
    fallenangel666posted 6 years ago

    The 'evidence' you refer to is based on subjective, philosophical interpretations and is by no means 'Empirical'. What you are basically saying is that your conviction in atheism is based on blind faith, same as the Creationists.

    1. chatpilot profile image77
      chatpilotposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution by the process of natural selection is a scientific fact. Of course there are holes that have not yet been filled but the fossil record alone speaks volumes. All of the worlds so called sacred texts are nothing more than the musings of man claiming divine inspiration. It's funny how they all claim to be divinely inspired and yet differ so much.

      Science unlike creationism does not base itself on faith but on a process of investigation that leaves theories open to later discoveries that may either prove even further the theory or disprove it, in which case it is discarded and we go back to the drawing board.

      Creationists claim absolute truth basing themselves on some unknown persons revelations not on known facts. Also a revelation is only a revelation to the one claiming to have experienced it. To the rest of us it is just hearsay.

  5. TruthDebater profile image59
    TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago

    Kurt Godel in your quote is saying there is no objective view, only subjective. It makes perfect sense because if there was one objective truth, everyone would come together and agree, much like agreeing that the earth exists. But even the earth existing can be subjective. The subjective is why everyone wants one unified theory of purpose to bring everyone to one objective reality of unity.

    1. chatpilot profile image77
      chatpilotposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      TruthDebater that will never happen. As long as there are so many ideas and so many individuals and cultures and societies there will be as many religious beliefs and theories regarding objective reality.

  6. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    There are to many holes in Evolution for it to be considered anything more than the, THEORY, it is.

    It cannot explain all the seeming adaptations and inventions of nature in the Animal world.... never mind explaining were We came from.

    yes a good story... but not much proof to support the wild assertions of Evolutionary Biologists. They should go back to teaching thier 7th grade science classes.

    1. TruthDebater profile image59
      TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think it is the subjective thoughts that create the physical changes and inventions. I think the error of evolution is leaning that life doesn't have purpose or design. Survival of the fittest is not a unifying theory.

    2. pisean282311 profile image58
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      but same applies to all religious books too..too man holes , miracles as such things..good stories but not rational..

  7. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    Truth... you do know the theory of the "Survival of the Fittest, and the, "Theory Of Natural Selection Through Evolution", are two different theories.

    Just wanted to make sure that is clear. Alot of people mistake them for the same theory. They are not.

    1. TruthDebater profile image59
      TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Survival of the fittest is also mentioned in Darwins origin of species. I would think most modern theories after origin of species came from the same train of thinking. What are the main differences in them?

  8. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    read them..., they are two very different mechanisms of selection. Though many may combine them... and many lines of thought may have streamed from that combination... they are not the same.

    And I don't see science as at odds with the Bible or creationism. That is not the intent, nor has it ever been, of science.

    1. TruthDebater profile image59
      TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That didn't answer my question. Darwin mentions survival of the fittest as those that adapt traits most beneficial to their survival making them the fittest. What does survival of the fittest theory suggest?

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I am not going to play school with you truth. Your chumming the waters.. go find another fish.

        If you do not know they are two different theories... then I cannot help you. lol lolllllll

        Chummin for chumps... it was a simple, truthfull, statement... "Two different theoiries".

        Nothing more, nothing less.

        You said... "Survival of the fittest is also mentioned in Darwins origin of species"

        So your well I aware I am correct.

        1. TruthDebater profile image59
          TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Herbert Spencer first used the phrase - after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species - in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

          I think you are speaking on things you haven't read of, this is why you won't answer the question.

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You can think whatever you want truth.lolll

            1. TruthDebater profile image59
              TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know what more proof you want. I just pasted where the saying came from and you still won't admit fault in your assumption.

              1. TMMason profile image74
                TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Two...

                1. TruthDebater profile image59
                  TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Whether it was Darwin or Spencer, they seemed to agree. What is your source on the origin of the term?

          2. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps now he will actually read something before trying to discuss it!  You are correct in your statement concerning "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest."  Otherwise he would have answered your query,

            1. TruthDebater profile image59
              TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thank You

    2. chatpilot profile image77
      chatpilotposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The bible was never meant to be a treatise on science, what passes as in the bible for science has been in general systematically dismantled by modern science. If you analyze the scriptures and science you will find alot of disparity between the two.

  9. 60
    fallenangel666posted 6 years ago

    Objective unity is impossible without sacrificing our individuality, which makes us human, in exchange for the innate,pure automatism of insect societies. The point is that everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but claiming to know such truth is tantamount to claiming to be God oneself.

    1. TruthDebater profile image59
      TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The subjective of God hasn't brought everyone together so far, why would it in the future?

  10. David Stone profile image76
    David Stoneposted 6 years ago

    Evolution has been proved. Even creationists admit that, their arguments having been reduced to whether or not humans are a special case (God's creation) evolving separately from other creatures. No serious person, given the evidence, disputes evolution. Yes, it's called a theory, but so is gravity. Neither process has been completely described because important evidence is either missing or beyond our abilities to discover. Nevertheless, evolution has been shown again and again to successfully predict future events. Countless examples are on the record. Jerry A. Coyne's "Why  Evolution Is True" is a good source book for covering the arguments. I wrote a hub reviewing it.

    That said, there is no reason why evolution can't be seen as the mechanics of creation. Even creationists have to concede that there are mechanics involved. Maybe some all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful being set it all in motion. We don't know that, but if it helps so many people who seem desperate for Gods, let them have that.

    There is much more to evolution than "survival of the fittest," which by the way is a phrase Darwin didn't come up with or use. Survival of the most attractive to the female of the species is more likely to be the larger tale. And by attractive, it means able to provide the healthiest, most vibrant offspring that will survive the many dangers nature uses to cull weakness.

    Finally, quoting Kurt Vonnegut: "If there is a God, He's got some explaining to do."

    1. 60
      fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      God cannot be an object of knowledge, because in the act of knowing man cannot rise above God.
      Nikolai Birdyaev.
      Perhaps Vonnegut could rise above God.

    2. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Even creationists admit that, their arguments having been reduced to whether or not humans are a special case (God's creation) evolving separately from other creatures."

      That is not exactly accurate... Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of the theory of evolution thought from the start that though evolution may indeed apply to the animal kingdom, it may not apply to us.

      He, Alfred Russel Wallace, created a list of attributes that to this day have not been explained by evolution. To state creationists arguments have been reduced to such is not right. That opinon has been front and center for as long as evolution itself. None of his questions have been answered thus far... matter of fact the scientific community has made a concerted effort to erase his name from the journals.

      lol... we are not talking about a fact... accepted by a greater majority of scientists and pronounced from the mount. We are talking about a THEORY which has not been proven to be anything more.... and which is full of holes and racked with suppossed evidence which is full of holes.

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar … history_14

      It was not some great new break-through of thought.

      1. TruthDebater profile image59
        TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Wallace likely had more religious support than Darwin, but didn't get as much publicity? Why? Because Darwin had the most explanatory theory. With all of our biological similarities with other animal life, only a religious defender will deny evolution.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't deny Evolution exists... those are your words. I do deny that it has been proven in the way most Athiests and Godless people want it to be. I can watch evolution occur... I can see it's results... but I do not see that as excluding God and supporting the atheistic view of Evolution.

          Evolution in no way challenges God... Atheist Scientists do.

          1. skyfire profile image72
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So where exactly you see hands of gods behind evolution ? I mean seriously what keeps god on such-lengthy process of evolution ?

            1. TMMason profile image74
              TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I see Evolution as another tool of God's.

              It is not God that is taking so long... it is man.

              And I do not think it applies to Man. There are way too many attributes and traits to man that cannot be assigned to Evolution.

              Yes... I have heard the old... "Look at the great apes", and the... "Look at pre-modern man"... etc, etc. but I will say this. There are far, far more difference between apes and man, then there are similarities.

              Many, many, many more.

              Also... how many times have we heard of evidence of Evolution, only to find out it has been faked or lied into existence. Shall I post them all?...

              Evolution is not all that it is taught to be.

              1. TruthDebater profile image59
                TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                What separates us from ape besides our brains, language, and writing?

                Many animals that evolve from one another look completely different from one another, looks are purely subjective. Do you think humans evolved first and all animals came from us? There is gradual improvement in evolution, the smartest and most intelligent doesn't come first.

              2. skyfire profile image72
                skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Assumption


                for example ? please elaborate.


                Lol,why not post it ? we can give you many more evidences that are free from creationism propaganda. There are many evidences of evolution and i never heard of any which is faked unless any creationism preacher popped that up on his own.

                1. TMMason profile image74
                  TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  The pilt-down man was faked... Glued together... the black peppered moth experiment was faked... The embryology drawings were faked... many, many things done to prove evolution were faked and fudged.

                  I bet you still believe Miller Urey proved they could create life. lol

                  http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_ … peculation

                  1. skyfire profile image72
                    skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    big_smile

                    conservepedia links ? or more like pro-creationism encyclopedia links ? big_smile

                    Bring it on some more... i'll buy that i promise  tongue

            2. Medora Trevilian profile image79
              Medora Trevilianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Perhaps the gods are also subject to evolutionary forces. They change as well from one generation to the next. Is not Zeus superior to Chronos, or Athena a cut above Zeus?

              1. TruthDebater profile image59
                TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, I think so. That is a mind opening idea.

              2. skyfire profile image72
                skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                In any case, extra-ordinary powers don't take time if used for species development then why creator selected evolution(as per escapist creationism assumption) ? it looks like creator is bored to death and want to take his time with evolution.

                1. TruthDebater profile image59
                  TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't think they was talking about actual powers, I think they are talking about the powers people evolved or suggested them as having as time went on.

                2. Medora Trevilian profile image79
                  Medora Trevilianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Not every god claims to have created the universe. Most gods don't have any such pretensions. A majority of the gods are the sons of gods who are also the sons of other gods. Even in the Christian pantheon, the son cannot have been the creator. As for the father, well, he also had a father.

                  1. skyfire profile image72
                    skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Looks like ad-infinitum to me...

          2. TruthDebater profile image59
            TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            To keep mocking that evolution is only "THEORY" implies that you deny it as being part fact. Evolution does challenge the religious definings of God while not challenging creation or design from an unknown.

            1. TMMason profile image74
              TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It is a "Theory", truth... that is just a fact.

              1. TruthDebater profile image59
                TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                If only theory, why not deny that it exists?

                1. TMMason profile image74
                  TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  We can watch micro-evolution occur... you know that already... and I am sure you can see the results of evolution, also.

                  But to jump to that implying that there is no god and all are animals... is a very far leap.

                  And it has not been shown yet to have happened.

                  Where are the transitional fossils showing us the way of the emergence of new species. What exaclty happened to create the cambrian explosion, and why isn't it recorded in the fossil records. Along with the obvious, where did all that life come from?...

                  There is alot missing...

                  And also too many lies have been told trying to persuade the public evolution is true, for us to just believe anything said about it. from the pilt-down man to black peppered moths, life created,... shall I go on.

                  Tooo many falsities that are still taught as fact in school as fact, in the attempt to convince.

                  If it was soo true it was undeniable... then why all the lies about evidence.

                  And as too a list of differences between us and the apes, google it.

                  I am not about to try to list them all here... and they seem to delete links I post. So...

                  But if the human mid alone is not enough both physically and in it's ephemeral aspects (intellectual reflection, Art, Poetry and the need to create such things.) then I don't know what is. But there are many... too many to list.

                  To say there is not alot of questions yet to be answered to determine whether or not evolution is a fact, is just plain wrong.

                  That is why it is still just a theory.

                  1. TruthDebater profile image59
                    TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    So if you believe evolution exists, what parts of it do you think are true? There has to be some true parts for you to believe it exists right? I haven't seen you list them. Evolution isn't about the beginning of life, but you probably already know that. Fossils really aren't even needed when you observe the behaviour similarities between humans and animals. We are just higher evolved animals although some make this hard to tell.

                  2. Rishy Rich profile image79
                    Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Lets not argue over whether its a theory or fact. Because even if the scientists prove that its a fact, Im sure the believers will still walk their way & might even ask the scientists to turn a monkey into human as a demonstration roll

                    Even if we assume that Theory of Evolution is just a theory, it should be noted that this theory has much much more evidence than the Theory of God!

    3. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It has been proven but as for the exact way we evolve, that's still in dispute.

  11. 60
    fallenangel666posted 6 years ago

    Who implied it would, blind faith is leaving our fate to chance, not taking responsibility for ourselves. As Homer said:How foolish men are, how unjustly they blame the gods. They bring suffering upon themselves over and above what is fated for them, then they blame the gods.Or as fallenangel would put it: God helps those who help themselves.

  12. glendoncaba profile image82
    glendoncabaposted 6 years ago

    Just quietly watching the proceedings.  And wondering how come Mark Knowles has not turned up yet. 

    Oh...my tuppence worth...still a lot we don't know on both sides.  Sabbath day of rest reminds us every week that there is a Creator.

    Like most thinking Christians I must confess that the arguments and evidence for evolution and creation require faith. 

    This thread promises to be informative and balanced, from the look of things.

    1. glendoncaba profile image82
      glendoncabaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Boy!  Did I ever assume balanced?  smile

      Wished the creationists would develop arguments without replying to the barbs.

      But still along for the ride. 

      Predict we will hear from creation science.

      http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/mainpts.htm


      But will arrive at reasonable faith as the possible outcome.

  13. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    I suppose one can look at the theory of evolution and see if their is anything provable in the process.  Just as you can for the theory of there being a god.  There should be no difference in the way you obtain facts about either theory.

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And you know randy, I don't see a conflict or even a compition between the two. I don't know why that bothers people, but appearently it does. I also don't know why it bothers people that some people see it for what it is, a theory.

      1. chatpilot profile image77
        chatpilotposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If evolution is simply a theory then creationism is simply a myth.

      2. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This is one thing we may agree on, TM!  I never understood why some believers have trouble reconciling the two.  Couldn't their god use evolution to advance mankind?  He supposedly created a rainbow to promise no more great floods.  We understand what causes a rainbow now just as we do lightning and thunder.

        We understand these things because of science, not blind faith.  Those who do not believe any part of the evolutionary theory are just saying they know how god does or does not accomplish things.  It seems pretty bold of them to claim knowledge of their god's intent and purpose.

        These people are usually the same ones who say "we cannot know God's reasons for letting children die" or some such statement.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah we may, randy.

          As I said I don't know why it bothers some that I believe evolution to a point. Not the process... but the meaning some try to impart to it's existence. Evolution niether proves nor disproves God... or were man came from.

          So many seem to think Evoluition says man came from ape... it does not... it says we are on the same familial limb of the tree... but we are in fact a different spruot or sprig which has come forth.

          Science... I do not believe... even cares to speak to the things of God... or to the existence of God. That is not the intent of science, nor any of the fields of science. Though some would seem to want to make all believe it is.

          It isn't.

          Science never lies...

          http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_ … peculation

    2. chatpilot profile image77
      chatpilotposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There is a huge difference, God is supposedly unknowable. There is no way to put god in a test tube or get a blood sample from him etc. Everything in relation to god must be taken completely on faith. Through the various scientific methods of study we can test different theories and ideas and either accept them or disprove them based on the evidence or lack thereof.

  14. chatpilot profile image77
    chatpilotposted 6 years ago

    Evolution was never meant to be a theory on origins of life, that still remains a mystery to this day. It is rather a theory on the progression of living species on this planet. From the smallest one celled organism up to what we are now.

    Humans whether you like it or not you are all part of the animal kingdom. We are mammals and share alot in common with our earlier descendants. The chimpanzee has been shown to be the closest match to us genetically, and scientist have revealed that a chimp fetus develops exactly as a human fetus up until the 4th month. It is then that our differences begin to become apparent as separate species.

    To say that evolution does not apply to us is to display complete ignorance regarding evolution. People like to have that special place above the rest of creation but nothing could be further from the truth.

  15. chatpilot profile image77
    chatpilotposted 6 years ago

    I am of the opinion that all forms of religion that worship a supernatural being or transcendent being should be relegated to the shelf in the library or bookstore of mythology. Nothing can ever prove the existence of God or gods of any kind.

  16. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    Again... none of that changes the fact.. it is a "theory", still.

    1. chatpilot profile image77
      chatpilotposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      As usual it's like talking to the wall, no surprise here.

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes it is, but I will continue to try to enlighten you.

        1. LeanMan profile image82
          LeanManposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I had no idea you were such an expert on so many subjects.... lol

      2. 60
        fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You're all fanatics, as with all forms of extremism the reality is most likely to exist somewhere in the middle, this can be ascertained from a principle known as fallenangel's razor. I give up and bow out gracefully, please try to be more gracious to each other despite the differences in belief. Farewell and ado.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It is all good, fall... actually this topic has been quite tame.

          Been nice chattin with ya.

  17. aware profile image71
    awareposted 6 years ago

    evolution is creation .

    1. TruthDebater profile image59
      TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree, but I don't think that is going to join the masses.

  18. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 6 years ago

    What I find a bit sad in this and similar threads is the pervasive notion that to describe a postulated explanation as a "theory" somehow demeans it. This is a misunderstanding of what a theory is. Our knowledge advances not by proven facts but by un-disproven theories of ever greater explanatory power. It is to successful theories such as gravitation, electromagnetism. special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics that we owe our emergence from ignorance and superstition and our increasing power to influence events. (I'm not saying we always make correct decisions of course!) Evolutionary theory has itself evolved from Darwin's time and now goes a long way to explain much of the observable biosphere.
    The difference between a theory and 'revealed knowledge' is that the former has a place in the evolution of objective knowledge. The latter has not.

    Let's hear it for THEORIES !!

    1. TruthDebater profile image59
      TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And philosophy!!!

    2. alternate poet profile image78
      alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well put - and it is notable that creationism is not a theory but a media backed strange idea that has been concocted from the bible - not science or philosophy, both of which find it a laughable idea.

  19. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 6 years ago

    That too smile

  20. TruthDebater profile image59
    TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago

    What are the objectives that creationists and evolutionists agree on?

    1. zrichards profile image60
      zrichardsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Science and God, in my opinion, are one in the same. Evolution can still exist with creation... it had to start somewhere. Once someone can tell me how something can come from nothing then I'll certainly be listening. Until then, I highly recommend those in favor of evolution, as well as those in favor of creation to read "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder. He explains how these scientific "theories", including evolution, are actually further proven by the bible.

      That is all.

      1. TruthDebater profile image59
        TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks, but what script of creation doesn't contradict evolution? Evolution is the changes in life, not the origin, that is abiogenesis. What does Schroeder say about which came first, man or other life?

      2. Beelzedad profile image61
        Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Have you not heard of abiogenesis? Did you listen? Abiogenesis is not evolution.



        A review of that book:

        "Schroeder trots out all the old, tiresome arguments about why "life could not have stared by chance" and how the simplest forms, even viruses, are "far too complex to have originated without there being an inherent chemical property of molecular self-organization and/or reaction enhancing catalysts at every step of their development". He applies the usual creationist deception of calculating chance probabilities as if chance is the only operative mechanism, and then saying this "proves" that God intervenes along the way when they come out very low. And, of course, the "staccato aspect of the fossil record" refutes classical evolution. "These rapid changes cannot be explained by purely random mutations at the molecular-genetic level."

        1. 60
          fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Derivative and boring

  21. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 6 years ago

    Another who finds it necessary to mock theories. Sad.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It certainly lends credence to the idea that many religious people agree that evolution disproves the god of the bible/quran.

  22. Merlin Fraser profile image77
    Merlin Fraserposted 6 years ago

    In the opening shot of this forum  fallenangel666  stated;
    “ I have always found it extremely absurd to see great intellects like the late Jacques Monod attempting to validate their atheism by dismantling religious fairytales, as though deconstructing the Biblical account of creation....”
    I am not exactly sure that that interpretation of Jacques Monod is fair or correct, I accept his assertion of ‘Biblical Fairy tales’ was perhaps a little cruel and hard but a point well made none the less.
    For the true Creationist the words of the Bible are the literal words of God, and if you read the exact order of creation as laid out in Genesis then God himself would have failed his basic science exams.  It simply makes no sense whatsoever other than as a nice story told around a campfire.

    1. zrichards profile image60
      zrichardsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Can you explain why God would have "failed his basic science exams"? Also, what "makes no sense whatsoever"? You've tried to make an argument, but seem to have eluded the details of the points you're arguing.

      1. Merlin Fraser profile image77
        Merlin Fraserposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Are you reading the same Genesis that I am ?   Let me see.....

        “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

        In other words God create the planet Earth first.With me so far?

        “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”

        Which means he either invented Electricity,  or he created the Sun. Could that be the same Sun whose immense gravity the Earth and the other planets needed to coalesce into being ?

        “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.”

        Opps ! Haven’t we covered this one already or did we have two Suns and a moon ? 

        “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind.”   

        So that means that all living things were bouncing around at the same time.... No mention of dinosaurs I notice.... or pterodactyls  flying around...  Can help thinking somebody might of noticed and given them a mention in the Bible  don’t you ?   All that Egyptian and Greek writings and drawings.... Not a mention. 

        “And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.  Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.”

        Every one that findeth me ?   Where did Ever one come from ?
        Let me see ?  First there was Adam...then Eve  who had two sons Cain and Abel.  Cain beaned his brother so now we should be back to a world population of three... right ?

        “And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch”
        And she came from ....?

        Needless to say I have only taken a few extracts,  I could go on and literally take the whole thing apart, but what would be the point ? 

        Why would God have failed all his Science exams ?

        You do the Math for yourself.   If he is God, and the Bible is the Literal word of God how come he didn’t explain the Universe, the Galaxy, the Solar system and our part in it in the right order ?   

        The point I was trying to make is the TRUE Creationist belief the Bible, especially the first five books of it are the Literal word of  God.

        No exceptions, no wild interpretations, no arguments one way or the other.... it is the LITERAL word of God !

        My argument is simple,  if you accept anything discovered by man in the last five hundred years or so from Galileo, Isaac Newton, Einstein or Steven Hawking how can you still say the creation of the Earth as depicted in the Bible is correct ?

        1. zrichards profile image60
          zrichardsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I accept modern science whole-heartedly. Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Hawking are all brilliant. So brilliant that their once called theories are now accepted as facts, and I concur with their discoveries and agree that they are facts.

          I do not know your religious background nor how well you've studied the bible, from which your argument against creationist belief stems. However, I'm willing to guess you have at least a high school understanding of scientific concepts; physics, chemistry, biology, etc.. You may even have higher education in some or all of these areas, and that's great. Again, I don't know your background in biblical knowledge so I will generalize here. It's reasonable to say the general population has studied the bible or had some sort of religious education for probably 3-6 years of their life (kindergarten - 6th grade), or less. Again I'm generalizing, it's also reasonable to say the majority of the general population has studied science (physics, biology, chemistry) at least through high school, so 12 years. Opinions are based on experiences and knowledge. Based on this I can see why the general population would most likely argue for evolution and against creationism. They are simply more knowledgeable of evolution than they are of creationism. I realize I've made some large generalizations, but I feel that most people would agree with them. Luckily, I feel that I'm in a position to have a fair debate with myself over evolution vs. creationism because I have a deep understanding of the bible and continue to study it as well as a great post secondary education in science.

          With my background, experiences, and knowledge I believe that evolution and creationism are both correct.

          I'm assuming you accept the discoveries of science and therefore you surely accept Einstein's theory of relativity. By accepting this than you must accept that the perception of time is relative to the mass and therefore gravity of the object from which you are perceiving. A day on earth is 24 hours, but a day elsewhere in the universe is based on the aforementioned scientific principles.

          "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," a quote from your above post and the bible. But you left out the rest of the sentence "the earth was without form and void." It's actually not until the third day that the bible says the Earth was formed, "God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas." So first he created heaven and Earth, but later the bible refers to it as "The Earth." Your conclusions on this topic show your lack of knowledge of the old testament, and because of this I don't blame you for not believing in creation.

          You also mention how Cain refers to "everyone" despite there only being 3 humans. Again, your lack of biblical understanding is holding you back here. There was man before human. It explicitly says in the bible that God breathed into Adam's nostrils the neshama (Hebrew for soul) and Adam became a living soul. Adam was the first human because he had a soul, but man existed before him as well as during his time. This allows evolution to have taken place and man to have evolved, but it wasn't until adam was given a soul that human beings came about.

  23. Merlin Fraser profile image77
    Merlin Fraserposted 6 years ago

    It is amazing how easy it is to understand Evolution and many other pieces of scientific information when you leave God out of the equation.

      Creationalism isn't a theory, scientific or otherwise, it's a simple explanation made up thousands of years ago to try and explain an extremely complex issue to iliterate people trying hard to make sense of things around them.

      What I can't understand is that the world has moved on from there so why are there people so  whose mind is stuck in a  6000 year old time loop ?

    1. Jerami profile image76
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Both theories  Atheism and Theism are irrational when all of the facts and/or possibilities are not considered.

         Science shows us that is fossil evidence that civilization existed on the earth before the ice age that ended approx. 10,000 years ago. Creationist  must consider this fact and readjust their beliefs that Adam was the first man ever to live upon the face of the earth.
         But who is to say that their God could not have reseeded the earth so to speak,
      Re creating mankind presence upon the earth ?

         With proper consideration I believe that evolution and creationist can come together into a state of agreement.  I believe that if this is possible.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Nonsense. Making up new fairy tales to suit the facts does not constitute "proper consideration." The creation story in the bible has been proven to be wrong. Deal with it.

        And you a big fan of not interpreting God's perfect word - now you want to interpret it? Tut tut. wink

        LOL at the irrational atheist not accepting something just coz a religionists sed god sed it into his head. That is the funniest thing you have said.

        Dear me.

  24. Jerami profile image76
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    Mark Knowles  said   ..
       LOL at the irrational atheist not accepting something just coz a religionists sed god sed it into his head. That is the funniest thing you have said.
    ====
    I wish that I could take the credit for saying something funny  ...BUT .....  as usual you are saying somebody said something that they didn't say.   LOL 

    It is a shame that so many people can not comprehend what they are reading.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I understand exactly Jerami. I'm sorry - did you have some evidence of your invisible super Daddy that does not involve god speaking into your head that I missed somewhere?

      Any time.

      And what exactly is it that makes discarding the idea of a god irrational?

      Any time.

      1. Jerami profile image76
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It seems that you still can't read what have I have written.
        Do your replies have anything to do with my coment?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes.

          You said,


          What facts are these exactly? You are saying there are some facts that back up theism? Possibilities? Should we not include an infinite number of possible gods? In which case - your is pretty unlikely.

          Utter nonsense and the only reason you say this is to defend your religion.

          Please explain why deciding there is no god because of the absolute total utter lack of evidence in favor is an irrational decision.

          All there is is people like you saying there is one. But god speaks to you or whoever wrote the book you get your information out of. Does it not? Directly into your head - or the head of the person telling you what to say.

          And it is irrational of me not to take your word for it?

          Please explain.

          You said:



          Which is meaningless gibberish with no basis in rational thinking. Merely defending your religious beliefs which are based on nothing.

          Proper consideration? You mean suspending rational thought?

          Who is to say the universe was not vomited by The Star Goat?

          What am I not addressing?

          1. 60
            fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm sorry if I sound arrogant but you are all stark raving mad, you haven't even the slightest apprehansion of what an objective debate means, off the the top of my head Blake said something like:' Man views the Universe through the narrow chinks in his cavern.' Heidegger said through the trivia of everydayness we stay earthed and sane by blinkering ourselves, every one of you is akin to a race horse, blinkered in order that it can concentrate on the narrow course ahead. It's like there are numerous paths we could take but everyone only gives credence to either of the extreme paths, there's no middle ground, this is irrational, wake up and broaden your minds.

            1. Paraglider profile image90
              Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              How to win friends and influence people...

            2. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              With your obvious credentials, how can we fail not to see your superior reasoning?  Whooo!  LOL!  You are joking I hope?  If not, Whoooooo!  HA!

              1. 60
                fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                If you want to butt heads say something intelligent

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this
                2. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You first!

                  1. 60
                    fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Give us a clue

  25. secularist10 profile image91
    secularist10posted 6 years ago

    What does theism vs atheism have to do with creationism vs evolution?

    1. 60
      fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      At last a reasonable question, the answer is nothing, theism v atheism is an argument between two groups of fanatics whose conviction is based on blind faith, but then again the same could be said about evolution, no one is so gifted with perceptive genius that they can claim to know the truth, the Universe is Infinite, mans perception if finite. How come evryone thinks they're God?

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Plausible deniability? Me thinks, yes.

      2. secularist10 profile image91
        secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Lol, well I don't know about "fanatics"--that's a term I usually reserve for violent people or extremists of a belief system. But I agree there is no relation.

        So you don't accept evolution because the human capacity for knowledge is limited?

        1. 60
          fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I never implied that I do not accept evolution, of course I do, this has nothing to do with the debate about theism and atheism, if you have proof that no higher intelligence than man exists publish it, you will be more famous than Newton, Darwin and Einstein put together, if not stop pretending you know evrything and admit you don't know.

          1. secularist10 profile image91
            secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            My, such hostility! Not sure where that comes from.

            You yourself said just above that evolution is based on blind faith.

            The topic of this page--which you started--is creation v evolution. I was discussing evolution, which you indicated was based on blind faith.

            Where on earth did I pretend I "know everything"? And where did I indicate that I know or have proof that god does not exist?

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              the ignorant abhor the image of themselves projected unto others.

  26. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    objective view:

    When a human, defined by other humans as a creationist, views and agrees with the written text of genesis it does not actually conflict with the universe nor agree with it. The human knos they had no part in that event, though they fully enjoy and interact with that creation -for good or bad.

    It is however a sad idea -less then 1% of the global population- that deems non-existence of Creator. And should group of humans reach a totality of intellect, not pretend intellect (meaning information gathered from other equal humans) or book knowledge, then perhaps they have achieved their goal of proving creation incorrect. Though I don't see how it is possible for the aforementioned to conclude an argument against creation -unless of course they were there and can re-create it precisely as it was. So, that leaves them to reject/deflect from their own lack of actual intelligence. For intelligence precedes creation. Knowledge interacts with creation. They are certainly not the same.

    -James

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You must be very angry that 1% of the population does not agree there is a Creator.

      How very sad that the facts support them. sad

      Perhaps if you burned them at the stake? IDK - it worked for a while. lol

      But - Yay! How very objective you are! Yay! LOLOLOL

      1. 60
        fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Mark Knowles lets follow your argument through to its natural conclusion, the implementation of eugenics and the sreilization of everyone whose right hand hemisphere overides the left. Heil Hitler.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What?

          What argument was that exactly? Fallen Angel 666 objective?

          Sorry.

          You must be very angry that some of us don't buy the invisible super Daddy in the sky.

          Too bad. sad

          1. 60
            fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            We must be on the wrong page or a different cognitive level, I don't subscribe to religion or anthropomorphic representations of God. I simply believe that we possess intuitive knowledge beyond the rational, just like Godel and Einstein. We do not not know that there is no 'higher intelligence' than us, this has nothing to do with some gadger with a beard sitting on a cloud.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              LOLOLOLOLOL

              Yes - you are at a different cognitive level it seems.

              Too bad. sad Hitler?

              Sorry science scares you so much. I can see why you are so angry.

              I don't care what you believe - or that you are prepared to lie and make believe it is what Einstein believed. LOL

              Objective? Sure. LOL

              1. 60
                fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You obviously haven't passed through Jung's psychic birth yet and attained a higher level of consciousness, just like the people on the Jerri Springer show, If you cannot argue with the adults you should stay in kindergaten.

      2. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        no such thing as facts, lest "The Assumption of Mary, err, Marcus." tongue

        1. 60
          fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Let's try to use coherent arguments please

          1. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lol. I am just feeding Marcus his daily ration of blog-ume.

            EDIT: luci, are you actually a newbie to HP -if yes, welcome!
            if a sock puppet...ibid.

    2. 60
      fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What has all that got to do with objectivity, have you any idea what the word means?

      1. alternate poet profile image78
        alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Objectivity kinda implies god or a god-like position - there is no god and no such thing as objective - everything is subjective.

        1. 60
          fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You must have your wires completely crossed, science is the product of the objective mind, spirtualism is a product of the subjective or subconscious mind. Forget the poetry and try reading a book about psychology. Seen.

          1. alternate poet profile image78
            alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That will be you with crossed wires I think - this is about philosophy not psychology.  This is about how we understand the world around us - and we can only understand from our own view point, subjective (to our own view).  Objectivity is seeing from the viewpoint of some higher authority who sees only truth and reality, which by definition must be some kind of god.

            Colloquially we refer to the objective view as meaning standing back from the object to be able to see ourselves with the object and the relationships between us - but this is just a different (but useful) subjective view.

            1. 60
              fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Objectivity is what differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, allowing us to conceptualize and concieve of abstract ideas, this has very little to do with religion which is highly subjective as is philosophy itself. The subjective mind could never have worked out that the earth is round or that it rotates around the sun.

              1. alternate poet profile image78
                alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I think earlier you suggested that I forget poetry and try reading a book.  I would suggest that you go back to school and start again - you have a really strange idea of it all that is all your own. The ability to reason is what separates us from most other animals. I don't agree with twenty One days here but at least he has a grasp of the subject (and the object) big_smile

                1. 60
                  fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  i apologize if I was rude, but difine the difference between objectivity and reason, the big difference between us and an advanced alien civilization would be in our capability to be objective.

                  1. alternate poet profile image78
                    alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    apology accepted smile - good luck with this thread - I am out of here for the time being.

      2. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ohh, look, the sock puppet is feisty.
        to be objective is to critically view a singular or multiple perspective of a thing. When used correctly allows insights to the thing -also defined as parameters, angles, shadows, etc. As the perspective changes by self or other forces, the perspective of the insight and the object being viewed is altered, requiring the individual to either move with the changes (pro or ref) or remain still.

        The object never changes, only the parameters of the thing being viewed exemplified as: projection, absorption or reflection of the viewer, not the object.

        In the case of opine, all three qualities exist as the object, in multiple parameters of themselves by relevant or irrelevant influences -of either the object or the viewer.

        1. 0
          Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hence a true objective view has nothing to do with human capability above, equal to or beneath any creation. In the case of creation v evolution -both are identical, having the same root sequence -consciousness. So, it is one object being viewed from two perspectives/parameters, appearing to be individual items.

          1. 60
            fallenangel666posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            This is correct in the sense that our individuality is an illusion, having been seperated from the 'wholeness' we are unable to realize where we came from, why we exist or what our fate is, true objectivity probably comes to us following death.

  27. Merlin Fraser profile image77
    Merlin Fraserposted 6 years ago

    Sorry Zach old son, but you've lost me, you are now saying there were people on the Earth before Adam....

    and Cain the son of Adam had a soul but he wandered off and was copulating with lesser beings on the Planet... and you think that might lead to Evolutionary changes ?

    I bow to your superior knowledge of te Bible... I must have been off sick the day they read that bit out in class.

  28. 60
    fallenangel666posted 6 years ago

    Why do so many people think that laughing out loud has anything to do with a rational debate, shouldn't they be watching sit coms instead?

  29. lilnassau profile image78
    lilnassauposted 6 years ago

    Why all the word, whatever you believe in you believe in thats it.  It does not mater what you believe in once you have a strong belief in it.  The fact of the mater is when you take your belief and evolve it to a knowing.  thats the strong point there, a belief can be shaken and changed based on new evidence or the thoughts of someone else, but if you know the truth nothing else will matter.

  30. 60
    fallenangel666posted 6 years ago

    Open your eyes and ye shall be as God knowing good from evil

    Prince Lucifer

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Welcome to sin -the human indulgence of their own agenda -consciousness. Now, let's escape that slavery mentality, that need to know factory, and live as we are supposed to -in free will, yes?!

      Problem is former-angel, you were defeated. LOL.
      Sorry chum, no 1,000 year get out of jail free card left.
      Red Card, Game over. It was over 2k years ago -are you just figuring that out?

  31. 60
    fallenangel666posted 6 years ago

    That which has been hidden to you will eventually be brought into the light.

    Corinthians

  32. Dave Mathews profile image60
    Dave Mathewsposted 6 years ago

    the devil is knee deep in religion my friend, only he desires to corrupt it.

    1. Jerami profile image76
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And he has been going about his purpose for quite some time.
      He has gotten very experienced and good at it.
          We have been learning about the rules of the game for only our life time.

  33. 60
    fallenangel666posted 6 years ago

    We shouldn't take mythology quite so literally. Besides if Lucifer hadn't gifted us with culture we'd still be walking round naked and living in the moment, there'd be no one to worship God and no need for the church.

  34. 60
    fallenangel666posted 6 years ago

    Oh didums has everyone spat the dummy out and no longer wants to play?

  35. cathylynn99 profile image79
    cathylynn99posted 6 years ago

    i suggest we all re-read desmond morris's "the naked ape". we will be reminded how close we are to our primate ancestors.

 
working