Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 438,363 views
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
Let me break down my statement of only a creater would know "WHY". Sometimes you science types think too deep. I have a building made of legos...I then take the legos apart. I don't tell anyone why I did. You as an observer see that there was a building made of legos and now there is not. You at that point begin to figure out why I took the legos apart. But I "the creater" only know why I took it apart.
- 4,822
- Concord, CA
- kylehnat
This actually frightens me. Think about what we knew 100 years ago, then think about what we know now. In 100 years, they'll proabably laugh at our current level of "knowledge". It's pretty mindbending when you try to fathom what might be discovered in the very near future. Of course, "near" is relative, but humans are capable of great advances over such small lengths of time.
Not too long from now, we will have answered many of the questions that are "unanswerable" to us now. However, in doing so, we will unearth more unanswerable questions...or at least it would seem.
Where it stops is the real question: given enough time, can we decode the entire universe? We're quite good at understanding nature, so I'd argue that it's possible, though not necessarily probable. Much like evolution, there will probably be a well-supported theory of the creation of the universe, but it won't be "prove-able" enough to convince everyone and declare it an inexorable law.Of course, if there is a God, He's probably laughing at us for thinking too hard
.
- 29,085
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
This actually frightens me. Think about what we knew 100 years ago, then think about what we know now. In 100 years, they'll proabably laugh at our current level of "knowledge". It's pretty mindbending when you try to fathom what might be discovered in the very near future. Of course, "near" is relative, but humans are capable of great advances over such small lengths of time.
Not too long from now, we will have answered many of the questions that are "unanswerable" to us now. However, in doing so, we will unearth more unanswerable questions...or at least it would seem.
I have just started reading a book called 'The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is The Universe 'Just Right' For Life?' by Paul Davies, which is pretty much concerned with this particular issue - much like evolution, far from being improbable, I reckon that it is practically inevitable that we will find answers to some of the 'big questions' (as danoff has alluded to in this thread before)
The book by Paul Davies goes along way to bring the reader bang up to date on exactly what we do know about the true nature of the universe (from what I've read so far anyway...) In the last 5-10 years, a wealth of new data is transforming our understanding of the universe and (more pertinently to this thread) our place within it...
Cheers, I'm absolutely sure you'd like the book I just mentioned too... I haven't got to the 'good stuff' yet, but I'll keep you posted...
- 3,425
If we dont manage to off ourselves in the next hundred years , imagine whatw e will know and be able to do just from gene study and stem cell research..we already know how aging happens...and how cancers form...along with a bunch of other things that shorten our lives..living to be 120 may not only be common but actaully choosing when to die may also be common. And bio mechanics and other forms of research linked to it may even move our lifespans further .
We really have only begun to learn , like a three month old baby.
We really have only begun to learn , like a three month old baby.
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
To me it still comes down to the "WHY" in this argument. Science will eventually figure out "HOW" everything that IS. We have figured out how to split atoms. We have figured out how DNA can be used to identify just about anything. But you never figure out why we are here. It goes past the BIG BANG. The big bang had to have "matter" before it could go BANG. It would never end until you figure out who or what created matter.
- 29,085
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
While that is undoubtedly true, questions about the origins of matter and of the origins of the Universe ought to be left to the Cosmologists and/or philosophers. Explanations of who and what created matter, and indeed why was matter created, are largely irrelevant in a specific debate about the origin of Mankind as a species...
Creationists maintain that Man has existed for as long as the Earth has existed, therefore, by their definitions, no living creatures, past or present, could possibly pre-date Man. This is untrue, and you don't need to be an evolutionist to know it either. Creationists also maintain that the process of Evolution is impossible, and that is untrue as well - again, you need not believe evolution to be able to demonstrate this either.
Regardless of how and why matter came into existence, the theory that Man was among the first living species on Earth has been disproved by a vast array of evidence. Evolution theory neatly explains the real origins of our species, and doesn't even address the deeper origins of life itself...
Creationism is not wrong because it leaves room for a Creator - when you think about it, Evolution theory also does this (ultimately). But Creationism is simply wrong on the basic facts regarding the origins of Man as a species...
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
This thread isn't "creation of mankind VS evolution". If you've be listening to most of my statements I lean towards a creator in the sense of before evolution could start there had to be something. Evolution didn't start out of nothing. So I believe that there is a much bigger picture then the evolution.
- 86,448
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Nevertheless, this thread has deviated into cosmology before, and it's really for a different thread. Since the flipside of "creation" is "evolution" here, we'd like to stick to discussion of biological origins, rather than cosmological ones.
Primarily because, in the words of Stephen Hawking, if you think you understand the universe, then you don't know enough to know that you don't understand it.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
TM, Danoff and Famine understand that point.
I agree with you as well.
But their point is that it is irrelevant to the fact that understanding where we all came from can have great ramifications to the progress of science and benifit all. I can't argue with that myself.
The why is not what science is after, but the how.
- 86,448
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It can, but with over 4,000 posts, that's only to be expected.
A couple of key phrases to help you out (so you can just use the "Search Thread" button in the top right:
Should make reviewing the cosmological side a bit easier.
A couple of key phrases to help you out (so you can just use the "Search Thread" button in the top right:
- Accretion Disk
- M-Theory
- Brane
Should make reviewing the cosmological side a bit easier.
- 165
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
We call that "natural selection".
That brings up something that bugs me. How would cloning fit into evolution? Science has figured out how to Clone...er...create something out of nothing. That doesn't seem natural in the evolution sort of way.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
The concept of cloning, like most of modern medicine usurps natural selection and, therefore, evolution.
Natural selection (and therefore evolution) is fairly simple, not everyone's genes get passed on, and so over time the species tends to change to align itself with those genes. Moreover, the genes that do get passed on are the ones most suited to the environment, and so over time the species becomes better suited to its environment.
Cloning artificially removes the process by which genes are passed on - favoring one person's (or a team of scientist's) selection over nature. The same goes for medicine, which prevents many genes that wouldn't make it to the point of procreation from getting removed from the gene pool.
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
Soo...right before our very eyes we can start to make arguments that man is interrupting evolution. Scientists make it hard on themselves sometimes. If us tiny little humans can change the corse of evolution...why would it be so hard to believe that it hasn't happened before?
- 3,425
Not accurate cloning makes "copies" of extant material .
Only "The great and powerful Oz " creates something from nothing .
And some accountants that sometimes go to jail for it .
Any way the fact that we have evolved so far as to be able to clone could be seen as a needed evolution to help us keep from being extinct . By cloning we may just be mimicking diseases that are currently adapting to our methods of fighting them and becoming increasingly hard to combat .
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
It's not really that hard to believe. You need evidence that such a thing has happened, that an intelligent being or beings purposefully manipulated mother nature at some point. Evidence that we don't have.
The natural state of things, in the absense of concerted efforts to change nature, is evolution - survival of the fittest. It makes logical sense given the way in which our species shares genetic information. It's a fundamental consequence of pair-bonding, and unavoidable unless you interrupt the process of sharing genetic information.
If you believe that at some point someone usurped our procreation technique, you'd need to establish that. So far the scientific community doesn't have any evidence of that prior to modern man.
- 5,060
- Panama City, FL
Cloning is NOT creating something out of nothing. Oversimplified, you take a fertilized egg and replace its nucleus with the nucleus from a cell of the thing you want a copy of. That substitution causes the egg to become a new, genetically identical copy of the donor specimen. You don't just whip up some chemicals in a test tube and produce a cow or something.
Circular logic: You can't acknowledge the existence of evolution in trying to prove it doesn't exist. That's like proving paper doesn't exist by burning all of it you find.
You have DNA samples for God, Mary, and Jesus? And what does that have to do with Creationism?
And please don't start in on the cloning Jesus project!!!! Let's take some 2000-year-old blood from the Shroud of Turin (assuming it's genuine, of course) and find a complete DNA sample.
Trying to put this in the most polite terms possible, keeping in mind that attacking a member is an AUP violation (so this is not a personal attack but an observation), it sounds like you've just been introduced to DNA, genetics, inheritance, etc. in science class, but haven't really learned any of it yet, or simply refuse to . . . . .
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
Hey now....I got my hand slapped in here awhile back when I tried to get the science types in here to tell me where the matter that was used in the big bang came from. I was told to get back on topic.
Don't mistake my sarcasm with my understanding with DNA. This thread was dead and I wanted to stir microbial juice. I picture most of you evos scrambling for a artical you just read to respond to posts in here rather than think with an opinion you might have.
