Other Creation or Evolution?

[Ember Spark]

Thoughts anyone? And this isn't to bash on anyone. I believe in Creation with a bit of evolution.


Just a friendly debate you could say.


Please dont be offended.

 

[LegoLad659]

It always confuses me why these two sides have to fight. The two can exist together, y'know; Unless you can find some reason why God absolutely cannot design his creations to evolve and change based on their surroundings.

 

[Snotslime]

Ehh evolution sounds more plausible but I guess we'll never know *funky mystery music starts playing*

 

[Ember Spark]

My whole thing is, when you look at animals and humans we all have very similar structure. Two eyes a nose below them and lips below that. That has to be some type of evidence of one being creating us.

 

[Mykinkaiser]

[QUOTE="Ember Spark]My whole thing is, when you look at animals and humans we all have very similar structure. Two eyes a nose below them and lips below that. That has to be some type of evidence of one being creating us.

[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, if things came from a common lineage it makes sense that they'd share similar traits.

 

[Ember Spark]

Yea but everything? That just doesn't seem likely to me.

 

[Mykinkaiser]

Personally it's more likely than some guy in the sky deciding to make everything. But hey, to each their own.

 

[Mr Djallal NAMRI]

[QUOTE="Ember Spark]My whole thing is, when you look at animals and humans we all have very similar structure. Two eyes a nose below them and lips below that. That has to be some type of evidence of one being creating us.

[/QUOTE]
and we breathe in the same air ... drink the same water ... eat the same fruits ... the same flesh ... etc,etc, ... we're the same but behave differently to some extent ...

 

[Teabags]

for me there is no reason to dedicate myself to creationism when there's a perfectly logical (not to mention proven) answer out there already.

 

[adrian_]

Well, i believe in evolution.


And i'd like to highlight how Humans evolve, which is different from other animals.


Since the late Neolithic ages it seems like we don't change our bodies, but more our personality. Very strange in my opinion.

 

[Lokipi]

Evolution for me, but that's not just because I've studied Archaeology and Osteology, although I guess that has shaped my outlook but that comes hand in hand with the type of research I do. However, I know one or two archaeologists who believe in creation, and that is their choice, fair play.


As for changing personalities, I don't think we have. We are very much the same people just with new toys and tools and an environment that we have shaped to benefit us.

 

[Idea]

As far as I can see it, I agree with @LegoLad659 on this matter. The sides aren´t mutually exclusive. I would go further down, though and say that the distinction itself is fully aritificial, as they don´t even discuss the same topic. Evolution involves the progress anc change, under certain laws, of things that are already there. Creation involves going from nothing to something. The only thing that really sets creationists and those who believe in evolution apart is whether they believe things were created in their current state or whether they changed over time through a set of regulated laws.


To dismiss a common myth, however, (and @Teabags , you might wanna read this), evolutionism isn´t proved. Not in the slightest and especially as a scientific theory. By nature, even if you had a time machine, you still couldn´t really justify in any way that the mechanisms expressed for the evolutionary theories are what condition change in any way. Absurd as it may sound, you can´t even justify the belief that change happened by any mechanisms at all. The fact is that, evolution is as much of speculation as creationism, perhaps even more.


But lets assume here that everything science found so far it´s true or that it´s progress gets it closer to the truth indisputably. Science itself even is based on the basic belief of natural constants, that is, that nature behaves in a constant and regular way through it´s whole extention. If that´s true, then something must be holding those constants. Let´s say, the laws of physics. What is keeping them constant? They are behaviors, there is no reason why they wouldn´t be able to change if they were isolated. To justify them being able to stay constant, if science ever gets that far, it will need another constant principle. And another to justify the constancy of that one. And so forth.


Even if it´s true that we don´t know exactly where that leads, I think we can agree that true absurdity ensures if accept as a plausible solution an infinite regression of principles. Of causes. Of anything.


If anyone takes interest in what I just said, I may later come and detail more on why I think that any belief in an objective reality implies the belief in God.


thank you

 

[Mykinkaiser]

As far as I can see it, I agree with @LegoLad659 on this matter. The sides aren´t mutually exclusive. I would go further down, though and say that the distinction itself is fully aritificial, as they don´t even discuss the same topic. Evolution involves the progress anc change, under certain laws, of things that are already there. Creation involves going from nothing to something. The only thing that really sets creationists and those who believe in evolution apart is whether they believe things were created in their current state or whether they changed over time through a set of regulated laws.
To dismiss a common myth, however, (and @Teabags , you might wanna read this), evolutionism isn´t proved. Not in the slightest and especially as a scientific theory. By nature, even if you had a time machine, you still couldn´t really justify in any way that the mechanisms expressed for the evolutionary theories are what condition change in any way. Absurd as it may sound, you can´t even justify the belief that change happened by any mechanisms at all. The fact is that, evolution is as much of speculation as creationism, perhaps even more.


But lets assume here that everything science found so far it´s true or that it´s progress gets it closer to the truth indisputably. Science itself even is based on the basic belief of natural constants, that is, that nature behaves in a constant and regular way through it´s whole extention. If that´s true, then something must be holding those constants. Let´s say, the laws of physics. What is keeping them constant? They are behaviors, there is no reason why they wouldn´t be able to change if they were isolated. To justify them being able to stay constant, if science ever gets that far, it will need another constant principle. And another to justify the constancy of that one. And so forth.


Even if it´s true that we don´t know exactly where that leads, I think we can agree that true absurdity ensures if accept as a plausible solution an infinite regression of principles. Of causes. Of anything.


If anyone takes interest in what I just said, I may later come and detail more on why I think that any belief in an objective reality implies the belief in God.


thank you

Again, not necessarily. Just because all the factors needed for the earth to be as it is doesn't imply that any sort of god exists at all. Given how vast the universe is it is entirely reasonable for the factors to have aligned by chance and that it just happened to be here.


Completely agree with evolution being just a theory though, albeit one with loads of support and evidence.

 

[LocoMetal]

Far too much evidence for me to even contemplate this. Evolution.

 

[Idea]

Completely agree with evolution being just a theory though, albeit one with loads of support and evidence.

[/URL]

 

[Grandelder77]

Man, why can't it be both? None of us really know how we were created. We might all have been created by God as a rough draft, and we as animals (yes humans are animals too) evolved through the years. Everything evolves to adapt. So, we might have been popped into existence, then the training wheels came off.

 

[Tapadero]

The funny thing is, though, that evolution´s "evidence" isn´t supporting of that theory. Hence me calling it speculation.
similarities on fossils, extinction of species, even if we accept those are entirely true (which not everyone does), don´t point towards any one specific mechanism. Neither do embryological similarities, or those of body or function. All of those is what is known as circumstancial evidence. It´s true that, assuming a given mechanism of evolution or even evolution itself, is true, then the evidence support the mechanism. But it holds up with practically every mechanism anyone makes up. If I say that it´s the orientation of the stars that define how species change over time, it is just as supported by the "evidence". What part of the evidence suggests natural selection? None. And that is just one of many examples.


Evolution is what is called "pseudo-science". It falls into the same category as, say, Marxism, in the sense that is a theory that cannot be proven wrong, not for being necessarily right, but because it can change it´s views on things without changing the contents of it´s beliefs.


Evolution is speculation. The phenomenon and "evidence" only support it for being interpreted in a given away, inherently they don´t point towards that direction.


Ok, let´s admit for a second that the universe beat all the impossible odds of chance and created itself or was always there, and everything fell into place exactly the way it did. How long do you think that would last. Here´s the answer:


View attachment 303053


That´s how long a universe with no constant laws to speak of, where everything is made of pure chaos lasts. After that exact interval of time, or less, the universe´s laws would no longer be the same, and the entire universe would dismantle itself.


I may be mistaken about this part, but if I recall, that time right there isn´t even enough for the big bang to start and finish.


Now, let´s say that the universe has constant laws. What sustains those laws? They can´t be self-sustaining or they wouldn´t be constant. Things can only be constant because something else makes them constant, at least, as far as things without inherent reason go. There must be something sustaining the laws of physics. And admitting no God does it, then something else must be causing THAT. The fact is, unless you admit the frankly ridiculous idea of an infinite regression, the conclusion will always lead to something that sets everything else AND has a reason AND has a will. You´re not too far from the concept of God right there.

Couldn't agree more!!

 

[Idea]

Couldn't agree more!!

thank you

 

[Mykinkaiser]

The funny thing is, though, that evolution´s "evidence" isn´t supporting of that theory. Hence me calling it speculation.
similarities on fossils, extinction of species, even if we accept those are entirely true (which not everyone does), don´t point towards any one specific mechanism. Neither do embryological similarities, or those of body or function. All of those is what is known as circumstancial evidence. It´s true that, assuming a given mechanism of evolution or even evolution itself, is true, then the evidence support the mechanism. But it holds up with practically every mechanism anyone makes up. If I say that it´s the orientation of the stars that define how species change over time, it is just as supported by the "evidence". What part of the evidence suggests natural selection? None. And that is just one of many examples.


Evolution is what is called "pseudo-science". It falls into the same category as, say, Marxism, in the sense that is a theory that cannot be proven wrong, not for being necessarily right, but because it can change it´s views on things without changing the contents of it´s beliefs.


Evolution is speculation. The phenomenon and "evidence" only support it for being interpreted in a given away, inherently they don´t point towards that direction.


Ok, let´s admit for a second that the universe beat all the impossible odds of chance and created itself or was always there, and everything fell into place exactly the way it did. How long do you think that would last. Here´s the answer:


View attachment 303053


That´s how long a universe with no constant laws to speak of, where everything is made of pure chaos lasts. After that exact interval of time, or less, the universe´s laws would no longer be the same, and the entire universe would dismantle itself.


I may be mistaken about this part, but if I recall, that time right there isn´t even enough for the big bang to start and finish.


Now, let´s say that the universe has constant laws. What sustains those laws? They can´t be self-sustaining or they wouldn´t be constant. Things can only be constant because something else makes them constant, at least, as far as things without inherent reason go. There must be something sustaining the laws of physics. And admitting no God does it, then something else must be causing THAT. The fact is, unless you admit the frankly ridiculous idea of an infinite regression, the conclusion will always lead to something that sets everything else AND has a reason AND has a will. You´re not too far from the concept of God right there.

From pretty much everything I've heard you have it a bit backwards (not trying to attack you or anything) as Intelligent Design is considered the pseudoscience whereas evolution is the more widely accepted theory (again with loads of support). Also, you state that evolution has no concrete evidence but neither does the existence of any higher power.


In the end I'm no expert and you're free to believe as you will. I just fail to see the logic in your claims is all.

 

[Lokipi]

Just add, as like you Kink, I have to politely disagree with some of things said. I can understand the logic which is presented but some of the statements made do not sit right.


Evidence for natural selection is actually abundant. With the peppered moth study, taught in most high schools here, being a pretty good start for that. But there's other academic papers (publish, ie peer reviewed) which support such things.


Secondly to add, evolution isn't a pseudoscience in any form. Although I guess it depends on which text book and source you choose to draw from. However I do need to define something to avoid confusion.


Evolution isn't a theory. It is a scientific theory. The two have very different meanings.


*will edit with my explanation. Phone is dying and I'm on my way home.*

 

[Idea]

From pretty much everything I've heard you have it a bit backwards (not trying to attack you or anything) as Intelligent Design is considered the pseudoscience whereas evolution is the more widely accepted theory (again with loads of support). Also, you state that evolution has no concrete evidence but neither does the existence of any higher power.
In the end I'm no expert and you're free to believe as you will. I just fail to see the logic in your claims is all.

I don´t have much time right now, so I´ll put my answer in topics:


1. Support is irrelevant to truth, reality, whatever you want to call it. This one is famous, but most of the world thought it was plane, and it turns out, completely wrong.


2. As I said my words were to "dismiss a common myth". Intelligent design isn´t pseudo-science, because it doesn´t claim to be science at all.


3. Intelligent design wasn´t the argument I was using. The one I was using is more similar to one of Thomas Aquinas, where I show that by simple necessity, a creator (God) must exist. My argument, in a nutshell, was that factually speaking, the universe wouldn´t exist without constancy, but the things that keep the constancy of other things, like the laws of physics dictate the behavior of the universe and keep them constant, cannot be keeping themselves constant, as the mathematical probability of that happening is literally 0 (the limit of 1/infinity, which is the number of numbers above 0). However whatever keeps those things constant would also need something to keep them constant. Nomatter how many more causes we find, there is always another one, until we reach one that has the essential traits of omnipotence, rationality and will, and is independent from anything else, thus also being infinite and eternal (as it couldn´t have just created, it had to keep the constants constant).


4. By itself, stating either of us don´t have evidence isn´t enough to disprove anything and much less to support your argument. Furthermore, in case of doubt, unbiased reason accepts the things at their natural, original state or at their highest probability. Considering the fact that the initial probability of something somewhere in the universe (by the extention you mentioned yourself) or beyond it, is always higher than that of it not existing, and the aforementioned argument of Intelligent design, the belief that God doesn´t exist looses on both those fields. If we go into the "neither side can prove it´s point" field, then the belief that God exists still remains at a higher probability, even if neither side has conclusive evidence.


5. I will have to explain again why I claim evolution is pseudo-science and not actual science when replying to @Lokipi

 

[Idea]

Just add, as like you Kink, I have to politely disagree with some of things said. I can understand the logic which is presented but some of the statements made do not sit right.
Evidence for natural selection is actually abundant. With the peppered moth study, taught in most high schools here, being a pretty good start for that. But there's other academic papers (publish, ie peer reviewed) which support such things.


Secondly to add, evolution isn't a pseudoscience in any form. Although I guess it depends on which text book and source you choose to draw from. However I do need to define something to avoid confusion.


Evolution isn't a theory. It is a scientific theory. The two have very different meanings.


*will edit with my explanation. Phone is dying and I'm on my way home.*

Don't worry, I realize you have not yet explained things the way you want to, though I wish to clarify a mistake regarding my statements and to reinforce something I said.


as per your first point, it is true that there is plenty of evidence for natural selection, I agree on that aspect. However, I find those as circunstancial evidence. All of it. For the simple reason that the evidence only supports the theory once put into light of it. You must first accept the truth of the theory before accepting the evidence support it. I´m sure I´m gonna get bombarded with examples, so I won´t bother giving any more right now, and I´ll just take my time with whichever you choose to present.


As per your second point, pseudoscience, as per the definition of the very person who coined the term is "any theory that claims to be scientifical, but is not falsifiable". You can´t prove evolution wrong. Even if you went back in time you couldn´t prove it wrong. Nor right, for that matter. The only thing we see is the after effect, which we have no way beyond speculation to associate with the process itself.


I am looking forward to your explanation and replies.

 

[Mykinkaiser]

I don´t have much time right now, so I´ll put my answer in topics:
1. Support is irrelevant to truth, reality, whatever you want to call it. This one is famous, but most of the world thought it was plane, and it turns out, completely wrong.


2. As I said my words were to "dismiss a common myth". Intelligent design isn´t pseudo-science, because it doesn´t claim to be science at all.


3. Intelligent design wasn´t the argument I was using. The one I was using is more similar to one of Thomas Aquinas, where I show that by simple necessity, a creator (God) must exist. My argument, in a nutshell, was that factually speaking, the universe wouldn´t exist without constancy, but the things that keep the constancy of other things, like the laws of physics dictate the behavior of the universe and keep them constant, cannot be keeping themselves constant, as the mathematical probability of that happening is literally 0 (the limit of 1/infinity, which is the number of numbers above 0). However whatever keeps those things constant would also need something to keep them constant. Nomatter how many more causes we find, there is always another one, until we reach one that has the essential traits of omnipotence, rationality and will, and is independent from anything else, thus also being infinite and eternal (as it couldn´t have just created, it had to keep the constants constant).


4. By itself, stating either of us don´t have evidence isn´t enough to disprove anything and much less to support your argument. Furthermore, in case of doubt, unbiased reason accepts the things at their natural, original state or at their highest probability. Considering the fact that the initial probability of something somewhere in the universe (by the extention you mentioned yourself) or beyond it, is always higher than that of it not existing, and the aforementioned argument of Intelligent design, the belief that God doesn´t exist looses on both those fields. If we go into the "neither side can prove it´s point" field, then the belief that God exists still remains at a higher probability, even if neither side has conclusive evidence.


5. I will have to explain again why I claim evolution is pseudo-science and not actual science when replying to @Lokipi

I have to admit that I really don't have the energy or inclination to argue this much further. That said, I am going to dispute a couple of your points.


2. ID is completely a pseudoscience as it completely claims to be a science. ID is a creationist counter to the theory of evolution that tries to disprove the other scientifically. It has been pretty widely criticized as it is poorly supported by existing evidence and has yet to put forth a testable scientific theory. Evolution on the other hand is (as @Lokipi stated) a scientific theory and not a pseudoscience. A pseudoscience is a claim presented in a scientific manner that fails to meet the scientific norms or method (Intelligent Design for example).


4. You entirely lost me here. I fail to see how god existing inherently has a higher probability than not as thos point was essentially, to my eyes, all speculation.

 

[Idea]

I have to admit that I really don't have the energy or inclination to argue this much further. That said, I am going to dispute a couple of your points.
2. ID is completely a pseudoscience as it completely claims to be a science. ID is a creationist counter to the theory of evolution that tries to disprove the other scientifically. It has been pretty widely criticized as it is poorly supported by existing evidence and has yet to put forth a testable scientific theory. Evolution on the other hand is (as @Lokipi stated) a scientific theory and not a pseudoscience. A pseudoscience is a claim presented in a scientific manner that fails to meet the scientific norms or method (Intelligent Design for example).


4. You entirely lost me here. I fail to see how god existing inherently has a higher probability than not as thos point was essentially, to my eyes, all speculation.

2. Your statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of intelligent design, though I don´t blame you: most if not all arguments in favor of religion are often portrayed poorly and with heavy bias. Now, not once did anyone seriously arguing for intelligent design state that it was a scientific theory or made any claims in that sense of implication. Intelligent design is a philosophical theories that, like most philosophical theories, takes evidence or premises from other areas, namely, science and it´s various principles.


Now, let´s examine that definition of yours, shall we? And apply it to evolution perhaps?

A pseudoscience is a claim presented in a scientific manner that fails to meet the scientific norms or method (Intelligent Design for example).

"presented in a scientific manner". By what I can see, there are three possible meanings:


A. It sounds scientific - perhaps, but isn´t that subjective?


B. It is based on empirical data - Evolution doesn´t meet this requirement as the empirical data don´t suggest or imply evolution, at best they imply change. From the premises in the empirical data, you cannot draw the conclusion that evolution states.

Spoiler

Premises:


1. Nature is constant in it´s laws


2. There are similarities in the current living things, even from some that are continents apart, and even in the fossils, presumed to be ancient animals preserved through various process of mineralization or mummification


3. Fossils, as previously described, contain species that no longer exist


4. Some species have only very minor variations to one another


conclusion: Species progressively change over time, having had common ancestors and the system that dictates how that change occurred is [insert the system of the evolutionary theory in question


as can be seen, there is nothing in those arguments that proves the conclusion unless you assume the conclusion.


C. It follows the scientific method- evolution has it in the wrong order, as it first formulates and then justifies itself AFTER reaching a conclusion. Besides, something even you mentioned, evolution isn´t testable. Even if you were immortal and you could see change over time, you still wouldn´t be able to determine with precision WHY it was happening, only speculate about it.


as can be seen, even the definition you gave yourself makes evolution unfitting of being a scientific theory, but rather it´s either pseudo science or even further away from science than that.


Intelligent design is simply not a scientific theory nor pseudo-science.


on that note, I heard you the first time you contested my ideas. Instead of repeating that evolution is a scientific theory time and time again, at least try to prove that it is. Because I gave you my arguments for why it isn´t, and they have not been addressed by you, nor have you provided your own.


4- it is a mathematical fact that, considering the extention of the universe, practically anything we can imagine, as long as it is physically viable (God is technically physically viable, since nothing in physics suggests he doesn't exist), has a higher probability of existing than not having. Intelligent design, the argument that the complexity of the universe shows the immense probablility that it was designed by an intelligent creator, and is supported by physics, chemistry, maths and astronomy (at least), shows that the sequences of numbers that compose the universe is so finely tuned that the minimal change (about 1 times 10 raised to the power of minus 15, for some, for example), and the universe would never become anything like what we know today (just random particles or one big pile of it, attracted too much or not enough), that the odds against it being by chance are astronomical. And to those about to say we only have a sample set of one, we have something called maths, which allows us to calculate hypothetical scenarios. And it adds up to this. Because of the fact I stated in the beginning and the aforementioned astronimcal chances against it occurring by chance, the scenario of a creator God with all the traits I mentioned before is by a large amount quite more likely.

 

[Epithymia Bloodmoon]

*Sits quietly in a dark corner of the room, listening to the various ideas being thrown around*