Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 433,142 views
0100001001100001011100100110111001100101011110010010000001110010011101010110111001110011001000000110111101100110011001100010000001101111011001100010000001100011011100100110000101100011011010110010000001100001011011100110010000100000011011000110100101110100011101000110110001100101001000000110001101101000011010010110110001100100011100100110010101101110011100110010000001110011011000010110110001101001011101100110000100100001000011010000101000001101000010100100010001100101011100100110000101101001011011000110100101101110011001110010000001110100011010000110010100100000011101000110100001110010011001010110000101100100001011000010000001110111011011110110111100100001

PS. I'm pretty sure that's real code.
 
Tacet_Blue
Well now you know what Creationism seems like to most people....absolute nonsense.

How you can decide that one Creationists view is lunacy and your own is the truth is beyond me.

And it is a bit rich that bible thumpers like to question scientific methods on dating fossils, when the only evidence they provide is by quoting a book of questionable origin.

I've given up "engaging" you anyway, the dogma worm has eaten a whole right through your head. There is no saving you now :lol:
You have ignored everything that has been put to you, indeed you have your fingers firmly planted in your ears.
Now it is my turn to ignore you.

That's like saying all the people of a certain political party believe the same thing in the same way. We know that doesn't happen.

I really like your evidence though. Whales have leg bones and there is a lizard with recessed legs so now I'm to believe that evolution is the origin of man. Yeah, that's compelling stuff man. As far as the snake goes, shoot, I can get that from the bible. You know, that book of questionable origin that prophesied Jesus exactly.

But anyway, you're still down with the name calling, man, can't you rise above that kind of stuff?

Here's the thing, you don't consider my evidence evidence and I consider your evidence to be so full of holes it's not funny. So that's where we stand. But instead of saying that, you say, "You've got a dogma worm going through your head" Yeah, very creative and rather unnecessary.
 
Tacet_Blue
Well now you know what Creationism seems like to most people....absolute nonsense.

Are you on a different planet? Because I dont know where you get that from.

BTW, I'm not a creationist nor an evolutionist. Both views get too extreme.

Duke
Actually, he (Albert Einstein) didnt (believe there was a God), toward the end (end of what?)

No, he believed to the end, the very end, his death. He spent the last 30 years of his life trying to figure out what mathematical equations and formulas God used to create the Universe. The current string theory supports his work.

He wanted to know the thoughts of God. Too bad he only had what, 60-70 years. No way you can figure out God's thoughts in how he made everything in that span of time, no matter what kind of genius you are.

Some scientists today claim they know how everythingworks, but their theories are constantly being replaced, and the urge to shoot out unproved work as fact has added to the confusion of what to believe.

Anyone heard of dark matter? I won't get into the details, but this has to have something to do with God. Dark energy/matter is said to control the clusters of galaxies etc. Example: Scientists thought when galaxies spin on their axis the force of gravity was enough to keep the center and the edge of the galaxy spinning at the same speed. This was found not to be true. Gravity isnt strong enough. 'Dark Energy' keeps the edge of a galaxy spinning at the same rate as the center. They can't measure or see Dark Energy, as they cant see or measure God, but they see its affects and believe in it, as I do God.
 
Earth
...Anyone heard of dark matter? I won't get into the details, but this has to have something to do with God...

We assume its there, but we know hardly anything about it, so therefore it must "have something to do with God"?

Where did that come from?
 
Earth
...No, he believed to the end, the very end, his death...

Convenient oversimplification of the great man's thinking.


" My religion," said Einstein, " is really the universe--in other words, nature, which is our reflection of the universe." When asked if he believed in God, Einstein answered "I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists." Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677), the renowned philosopher of pantheism, held that God and Nature are one in the same. "I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he... (dealt) with the soul and body as one, not two separate things." Spinoza’s oneness of spirit and matter reinforced Einstein’s search for a single unifying force in Nature known as the "unified field theory".

A deep sense of mystery pervades Einstein’s outlook. "The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion.... He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness....one cannot help but be in awe when (one) contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries to comprehend a little of this mystery each day. Never lose a holy curiosity."
 
Zardoz
Convenient oversimplification of the great man's thinking.


" My religion," said Einstein, " is really the universe--in other words, nature, which is our reflection of the universe." When asked if he believed in God, Einstein answered "I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists." Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677), the renowned philosopher of pantheism, held that God and Nature are one in the same. "I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he... (dealt) with the soul and body as one, not two separate things." Spinoza’s oneness of spirit and matter reinforced Einstein’s search for a single unifying force in Nature known as the "unified field theory".

A deep sense of mystery pervades Einstein’s outlook. "The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion.... He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness....one cannot help but be in awe when (one) contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries to comprehend a little of this mystery each day. Never lose a holy curiosity."

He said he believed in aGod. Check the first paragraph of your quote. My first post a few pages ago about his beliefs stated that his belief was not religious at all. Einstein believed the universe could be explained with beautiful calculations that God/nature put in place. He seems a bit like me, not willing to accept creationist's dogma such has the body and soul being seperate, but willing to see that the universe etc seems to be organized. Creationist dogma such as the Earth being 6k years old etc must have been a real turnoff. The Bible, if deciphered properly, can agree with science

BTW, where is your holy curiosity?

Also, did Einstein have anything to say about evolution? I would like to know
 
A lot of people believe in a god. Just not the Christain/Jewish/Muslim one. Some think the creater is simply an undetectable force outside of it's creation. A being without emotion, without care or sorrow. A being without reason.
 
Grand Prix
A lot of people believe in a god. Just not the Christain/Jewish/Muslim one. Some think the creater is simply an undetectable force outside of it's creation. A being without emotion, without care or sorrow. A being without reason.

People believe alot of things about God or gods or whatever. Just like there are many views on evolution. This fact alone does not prove or dissaprove evolution or creation

I wonder why some posts in this topic are 'why did the God of the Bible do this or that'. This topic isnt about that. Like if I would ask which came first, the chicken or the egg. I would get different responses by advocates of evolution. But would this be a downfall of their theory? Certainly not. So if someone cannot fully explain the actions of God or what a holy book says this does not mean he does not exist. Just as evolutionists cannot tell us for sure what happened 100 million years ago. Theres just no way to know sometimes, or the answer may be there and we havent found it or thought of it.

I believe God started it all. I believe he created a basic variety of animals, then the first human pair, as written in the Genesis account. Along the way we have changed, changed as in we now have Asians, white, black, brown etc. Animals have changed a bit too. Tigers, Lions, cats most likely came from the same species. But the thing about evolution that I do not agree with is animal life completly changing from one form to another, for example a fish growing lungs to breathe air then becoming a rat. The fossil record shows that animals with vertebrae etc suddenly appeared, they had no ancestors. There are plenty of missing links yet to be found. Clues to what God used to make the universe is also included in the bible, and modern science agrees (I'll elaborate if wanted)

God is not un-scientific. People do not believe because they say He cannot be measured or seen or sometimes they dont care. They have no way to not prove there is a God so He cannot be un-scientific. Can you see your emotions? But they are there, are they not? One way to reach God is through spirituality, then you can measure him through a relationship. I'm not going to try and explain this. Try it for yourself

I dont really care if evolution or creation is taught in schools or not, I just wish they would not present evolution as fact. The problem, you must admit, and I have seen scientists themselves admit, modern science is publishing work as fact before it has been tested to be so. Example: So many times I see Dinosaurs with feathers now. Why do they have feathers? To support the theory Dinosaurs became birds. What proof do they have? A couple of impressions of feathers next to the fossils of a few dino bones. From "this mountain of evidence" or so says the commentator as he points to a skeleton the size of a small chicken with faint impressions next to it, "we can see most of the dinosaurs had feathers" Sorry, there isnt a mountain of evidence to prove alot of dinosaurs had feathers.

I also dislike scientific commentaries that show, step for step, life evolving from single cells to humans today. You would think they were there everyday for the last 500 million years. Only problem is they weren't

So finally, again, I dislike scientists showing their theories as fact. I've heard 1k times "we found life on mars" than a week later "we're still lookingfor it". Please, hush hush until you find solid proof then release it as fact.

Not to leave creationists out, I disklike them presenting their dogmatic views as fact. The earth being only 6k years old etc is dogmatic

Darwin never tried to explain how life started. I would like to know where did the idea that life arose on its own start? Did it start with the flys arising from rotten meat? (Yet another theory taught as fact for a number of years before being proven false)
 
Some scientists are trying to prove that non-Avian dinosaurs had feathers? Wow, that's messed up. :eek:

Of course it is possible that later members of the Dromaeosaur family ("raptors") developed feathers to stay warm in the ice ages of the Late Cretacious. It is possible that Velociraptor survived the disaster that occured around 65 million years ago, although fossils have'nt yet been found of specimens that died off after the disaster.
The Dromaeosuars were Avian dinosaurs though. Non-Avian dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles.
 
Pako
I'm open to a lot of things. I am just trying to work you through you're own logic of your infinite universe.

So you're saying that it isn't a 'decision" at all, but rather the result of the laws of physics.

It is by these laws that we can determine what CAN exist, things CAN exist because of the laws of physics. It would also be fair to say that things that do not agree with the laws of physics CANNOT exist.​

Is that a good summary? Would you agree with that?

Famine,

So what do you think? 👎 👍
 
Pako: Those statements are correct in all parts but one.

Earth
The fossil record shows that animals with vertebrae etc suddenly appeared, they had no ancestors.

Nonsense. A primitive vertebrate (has the formation of a spine with no actual spine - called a notochord) still exists today.

Earth
Clues to what God used to make the universe is also included in the bible, and modern science agrees (I'll elaborate if wanted)

Please do.

Earth
Can you see your emotions?

Yes.

Earth
The current string theory supports his work.

String theory is (or rather "theories are") not current.

Earth
The Bible, if deciphered properly, can agree with science

Why does The Word of God, as dictated to and scribed by Man, need a cipher to understand it?

And why do people always bring up Einstein as an example of a scientist who believed in God? Neither is true - he was a mathematician, for a start.
 
I am not a religous guy but i used to work for a Jehovahs witness and one thing he said to me did get me thinking.
If someone said to you that your PS2 was not build by anyone you would just laugh at them and say someone had to make it.
How much more complex is the human body yet people will belive that it just came about chance.
 
I refer you to the earlier post I made about probabilities and the size of the universe.

It's a typically divisive argument which goes ALL the way back to the Watchmaker analogy. Generally it's put about - and no offence to you, seeing as you're just passing on someone else's point of view - by those who either don't understand or don't want to understand what evolution is.
 
Famine




Please do.




I don't want to be dogmatic but it seems God turned some of his energy into matter, which was proven feasible by atomic bombs. The bible says God has an abundance of dynamic energy. Just as an atom is very tiny to us we may be very tiny to God. So the idea of the universe is too big and God doesnt have the power to transform that much energy into matter cant stand


I do have one question, though. Evolution is the changing and adapting of life over many years, right? Well, what is the theory of life/cell arising from dead matter called? Is it also referred to as evolution, or something else?
 
Earth
I don't want to be dogmatic but it seems God turned some of his energy into matter, which was proven feasible by atomic bombs. The bible says God has an abundance of dynamic energy. Just as an atom is very tiny to us we may be very tiny to God. So the idea of the universe is too big and God doesnt have the power to transform that much energy into matter cant stand

No-one's posited that. However, you did state...

Earth
Clues to what God used to make the universe is also included in the bible, and modern science agrees (I'll elaborate if wanted)

...yet haven't given references to the Bible passages where E=mc^2 (the exact process you're talking about) is stated/referred to.
 
Earth
I do have one question, though. Evolution is the changing and adapting of life over many years, right? Well, what is the theory of life/cell arising from dead matter called? Is it also referred to as evolution, or something else?

Many things are evolving. Even dead matter. Only, these occurances aren't part of the process covered in the evolution theory.

I don't know what the process is called when life was created. But don't think of it as just a cell that apears. It's not unlikely that some enzyme-like molecules bonded together to something more comlex. Something that became so complex, that it could duplicate itself by using surrounding matter. By the way, the line between something living and something dead is thin. For instance, what exactly is a virus? Many consider a virus as a non-living thing while it does have a simple DNA strand. Why don't they consider it a living being? Because it doesn't have some of the features that organism require to live. But it can't be called totally inanimate. Maybe there is no certain point where it can be said if something is alive or not.
 
I am not a religous guy but i used to work for a Jehovahs witness and one thing he said to me did get me thinking.
If someone said to you that your PS2 was not build by anyone you would just laugh at them and say someone had to make it.
How much more complex is the human body yet people will belive that it just came about chance.

I don't know anyone who believes that. I don't believe in God - and I think evolution probably has it right... but I don't believe that people came about by chance.

Here's the thing, you don't consider my evidence evidence and I consider your evidence to be so full of holes it's not funny. So that's where we stand. But instead of saying that, you say, "You've got a dogma worm going through your head" Yeah, very creative and rather unnecessary.

Holes? Perhaps you should write some journal articles and publish them in scientific journals then - because I'm sure you'd become famous if you could poke some big holes in some of the more widely accepted scientific theories.
 
Earth
I don't want to be dogmatic but it seems God turned some of his energy into matter, which was proven feasible by atomic bombs. The bible says God has an abundance of dynamic energy. Just as an atom is very tiny to us we may be very tiny to God. So the idea of the universe is too big and God doesnt have the power to transform that much energy into matter cant stand


I do have one question, though. Evolution is the changing and adapting of life over many years, right? Well, what is the theory of life/cell arising from dead matter called? Is it also referred to as evolution, or something else?

As I previously stated, the theory were life/cells arise from dead matter is called Abiogenesis-- which is also known as spontaneous generation-- This, however, has nothing to do with evolution.
 
Earth
I do have one question, though. Evolution is the changing and adapting of life over many years, right? Well, what is the theory of life/cell arising from dead matter called? Is it also referred to as evolution, or something else?


Excuse me, but isn't that a 400 year old myth that was busted by a scientist after he put a rotting peice of meat in a jar and sealed it, and nothing grew? I'm pretty sure it was. He left it for 2 weeks and nothing was on it, but in the unsealed jar with a different piece of meat it was writhing with maggots and bugs. Seems even God has a minor problem with glass.
 
No - it's another Creationist thing. Because they don't get how you can go from "slime" to "life" without "magic occurs", they say it's impossible for "life to arise from lifelessness". Then, when you tell them how it's possible, they go to quoting odds which make no sense in an infinite universe (or universes).
 
Famine
No - it's another Creationist thing. Because they don't get how you can go from "slime" to "life" without "magic occurs", they say it's impossible for "life to arise from lifelessness". Then, when you tell them how it's possible, they go to quoting odds which make no sense in an infinite universe (or universes).

You're like a vampire slayer, like Blade, only for evolution Vs. creation instead of man Vs. undead.

Kind of creepy, actually.
 
Famine
No - it's another Creationist thing. Because they don't get how you can go from "slime" to "life" without "magic occurs", they say it's impossible for "life to arise from lifelessness". Then, when you tell them how it's possible, they go to quoting odds which make no sense in an infinite universe (or universes).

God doesnt need magic. If all life needed to arise was the right parts and the right things to happen, then why couldnt there be someone there to put the right parts together and make the right things happen? I dont see why magic, as you call it, is needed if God did it. In fact, if magic is needed, it would be the other way around. All your parts would have to magicly come together and magicly fit with each other and magicly become alive. Do we see that happen today? It's nothing short of a miracle, life is. Even supporters of abiogenesis must and sometimes do admit that. Life arisng by abiogenesis on Earth has even been described as a 'terrible mistake' that should have never happened.

As my previous post states, God didn't have to 'poof' the visible universe into existance. He could have used his energy to create the matter needed. Did he use a big bang? I dont know. Was the big bang his energy transforming into matter? I dont know.

You mention an infinite universe. I thought that most scientists believed the universe was closed. Also you mention multiple universes. Is this how you explain the speeding up of the universe's expansion? (Some theory states a nearby universe's gravity is tugging on our's harder) I think this speeding up can be attributed to God, because the Bible says he is 'stretching' the heavens out. (The expansion of the universe is really just the galaxies getting further apart from eachother. 'Stretching')
 
If all life needed to arise was the right parts and the right things to happen, then why couldnt there be someone there to put the right parts together and make the right things happen?

Because there's no proof of it ever happening. And there's no proof of "His" existence.


I dont see why magic, as you call it, is needed if God did it.
Um...so many things wrong with this, but I'll just tackle one:

God is now Dr. Frankenstein?

In fact, if magic is needed, it would be the other way around.
No. You're aware of how life forms, right?

Theres evolution of one species to another, then there's evolution of biological matter turning a creature which can sustain itself and gather it own food heterotrophically.

Do we see that happen today?
No. So why would we have seen it then?

Even supporters of abiogenesis must and sometimes do admit that.
Half of the supporters of abiogenesis don't even know what they're talking about, let alone the literal understanding of the word.

Life arisng by abiogenesis on Earth has even been described as a 'terrible mistake' that should have never happened.
Well, good thing it never did.

I thought that most scientists believed the universe was closed.
Aristotle, maybe. The timing of light sources and other factors have determined the universe to be constantly expanding and thus infinite.

Is this how you explain the speeding up of the universe's expansion? (Some theory states a nearby universe's gravity is tugging on our's harder)
Are you making this stuff up? I'm pretty sure you are. Universe means "everything", i.e. EVERYTHING. Ever. Everywhere. All of it. There can't be two everythings.

I think this speeding up can be attributed to God, because the Bible says he is 'stretching' the heavens out. (The expansion of the universe is really just the galaxies getting further apart from eachother. 'Stretching')

I think the speeding up can be attributed to the infinite vacum of nothingness. Once energy starts doing something, and there is nothing to stop it, or no reason for the energy to go somewhere else, it will never stop doing what it's doing. For instance:

*bang*

>stuff flies out
> 0% drag coeficient, due to 0% friction, due to 0% matter in surrounding area
>stuff keeps flying
>still flying, nothing stopping it
>lack of pressure makes *inserts scientific term here that explains the reason why stuff accelerates under vacum with no friction [que Famine]*

Something along those lines.
 
PS
Aristotle, maybe. The timing of light sources and other factors have determined the universe to be constantly expanding and thus infinite.


Are you making this stuff up? I'm pretty sure you are. Universe means "everything", i.e. EVERYTHING. Ever. Everywhere. All of it. There can't be two everythings.

...infinite vacum of nothingness...

how can the universe expand if it is already infinite? if the universe refers to "everything" including the nothingness then how can it?

Either the universe is A.) finite or B.) refering only to the elements in which it encloses.
 
VenomFX220
how can the universe expand if it is already infinite? if the universe refers to "everything" including the nothingness then how can it?

Either the universe is A.) finite or B.) refering only to the elements in which it encloses.

If it's constantly expanding, then it's constantly getting bigger and thus has no limit, hence the term infinity.
 
VenomFX220
how can the universe expand if it is already infinite? if the universe refers to "everything" including the nothingness then how can it?

Either the universe is A.) finite or B.) refering only to the elements in which it encloses.

The universe is both finite and infinite.

Allow me to expand (ho ho ho).

From the moment of the Big Bang (between 15 and 20 billion years ago - current projections have it at 18.5 billion years), the universe has been expanding, at a constant speed - it hasn't been "speeding up", Earth, for the reason that it is at a constant speed of "the speed of light (in a vacuum)" - in all directions.

Now, if you expand an object outwards from a central source at 20mph for an hour, the outer edges will be 40 miles from each other. This isn't the case with the universe. Light is not subject to momentum and so the outer edges of the universe are 18.5 billion light years from each other, not 37 billion light years. This is the first paradox people have trouble with.

The second is that the Universe is enclosed. That's what the word MEANS. It contains all of the energy and all of the matter in existence, because it is the universe. How much matter and/or energy is in the universe? Infinite - and, thanks to E=mc^2 - both are infinite and their sum is infinite. Infinity is also not subject to momentum. Paradox #2.

The third is the topography of the Universe. I've tried to explain this before, but I'll cover it again:

Imagine the universe is a globe. This isn't far from the truth, and it's close enough to allow comparison. Now, on the globe, plot a North Pole and a South Pole. Draw several straight lines, following the curvature of the globe from one to the other (let's say four at right angles to each other - call them 0 degrees, 90 degrees west, 180 degrees and 90 degrees east). You will see that you can walk on any one line from the North Pole to the South Pole and carry on round all the way to the North Pole again. It looks a lot like Earth, don't you think?

Now, add two more poles. These are on the Equator of your globe - the centre point, 90 degrees from either the North or South poles. Plot one at 0N/90W and the other at 0N/90E. These are your West and East poles. Again, draw straight lines from one to the other (same again). You can walk any line and go from the West pole to the East pole, via the North or South poles or not.

Now add two more poles. Call them Eric and Arthur - or whatever takes your fancy. These should be at 0N/180W and 0N/0W. Again, draw straight lines from one to the other (same again again). Now you'll see that you can walk from any one pole to any other simply by moving in a straight line.

Now the important part. Draw a SEVENTH pole. This should be located at the very centre of your globe. Draw lines connected the seventh pole to every other pole. Now you will note that you can walk from any of the 7 poles to any of the other 7 poles, but when you get there, there will always be more directions to walk in. You will never reach the end, because when you do, there will always seem to be more, even though it continues back again because, to your perception there is no "back again".

For a truer picture, erase all of the poles so that just the lines exist. This isn't accurate, per se, but a good enough rendition to give you the general idea.


So, to summarise, the Universe has been expanding in all directions at a constant speed of light for 18.5 billion years, so should be 37 billion light years across but is only 18.5 billion years across, but when you get to the edge it's still 18.5 billion light years away. It has a finite size, yet is infinite.

Just to add to the confusion, if you were able to reach the speed of light, you would simultaneously occupy every point in the Universe. Since it is infinite, this would take an infinite amount of time, so you would also occupy every point in Space-Time simultaneously, making the Universe's size and age definitely finite to you. Which it isn't. Although it is. While, at the same time, it's not.

Confused?


Earth...


Famine
However, you did state...

Earth
Clues to what God used to make the universe is also included in the bible, and modern science agrees (I'll elaborate if wanted)

...yet haven't given references to the Bible passages where E=mc^2 (the exact process you're talking about) is stated/referred to.

Also, have you read through this WHOLE thread yet? I only ask because you still seem intent on bringing up points already covered.
 
Back