Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 432,916 views
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
- 29,010
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
No. You could take any living thing on Earth today and find genetic material that exists in another species. Every species has some genetic material which is unique to it, but only a very small amount (although this small amount is what makes all the difference). But every living thing also contains a great deal more 'common' genetic material too... by far the most plausible explanation for this is that every species alive today has inherited its genes from a prior species, and the lineage of inheritance can be traced back to show that all living things, at one stage or another, had a common ancestry.
Before the advent of genetic analysis, relationships between living things were made in a different way - by comparing the physical appearance of species and inferring relatedness from that. It was Darwin's genius to be able to realise that the relatedness of species had to have an underlying mechanism to explain it. A remarkable achievement, especially given that genetics (as we know it today) hadn't been discovered yet. The advent of genetics made it possible to quantify relatedness in a whole new way - it not only backs up many observations that had already been long established (i.e. that humans and chimps are very closely related) but it also throws up a few surprises which demonstrate that some species that were previously thought to be closely related are in fact not.
- 599
Joey D
Premium
- 47,204
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
James Cameron had that special on the Discovery Channel not even a year ago saying that Jesus was pretty much just a normal man. There are plenty of books out there as well...the most recent one I can think of is "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. I'm not saying Jesus wasn't real, I'm just saying there is still a debate.
- 29,010
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
- 29,010
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
That's true - and although most people (even Dawkins) will happily accept that Jesus was a real person, it's certainly a different matter proving his divinity...
- 86,243
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Actually, yes. Assuming Jesus to be a real person, divinity aside, the most likely birthdates are somewhere in the early autumn in what we know as 6-2BC.
I'd like to see proof against the fact that John McClane isn't a real person...
Jesus only really appears in one contemporary source - the Bible, albeit in several chapters. All references to his existence and life are made therein. A second source - a contemporary one which corroborates any of the claims of the Bible - would be nice as proof of Jesus's existence, but we don't get that luxury.
There's no proof against Jesus's existence - in much the same way that there's no proof against John McClane's, or King Arthur's, or Robin Hood's - but there's not an awful lot of evidence for it. Just one contemporary source.
- 23,819
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
There was a prominant Roman historian, who was around at the 'supposed' time of Jesus death who mentions Jesus, almost inconsequentially, in his writings on Nero and Pontius Pilatus.
- 29,010
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
- 86,243
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Link me, link me, link me!
He means switching from BC to AD - a system which wasn't used until 500 years after "the era in question".
- 29,010
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Ah, I see, ta 👍... I always wondered what AD stood for... Arbitrary Date 💡
- 23,819
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Joey D
Premium
- 47,204
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
And I'd like to see proof for his existence. Look I have nothing against Christianity, I believe in God for the most part and I believe in Jesus as well. But I don't see a whole lot of evidence that shows me Jesus was a real person, this is where faith comes in. Fact and Faith are two different things.
Sakiale
(Banned)
- 2,274
Maybe Jesus was a group of people.
Well, I'm Buddhist, and Buddha was a real person... but the books he left behind were actually written a few hundred years later by a group of disciples, said to have already escaped the cycle of Samsara, or endless reincarnation in the six realms. Therefore, they had very pure minds and memories, and anything that was debated was simply not included in the sutras... think of all the teachings that might have been lost...
Well, I'm Buddhist, and Buddha was a real person... but the books he left behind were actually written a few hundred years later by a group of disciples, said to have already escaped the cycle of Samsara, or endless reincarnation in the six realms. Therefore, they had very pure minds and memories, and anything that was debated was simply not included in the sutras... think of all the teachings that might have been lost...
- 17,865
- 509
Jesus is pretty heavily documented by none biblical sources though. Just like how Muhammad the Prophet is clearly documented.
And Sakiale, you can't be a practicing Buddhist with all the crap you talk about sex and booze and such. Regardless, other major religions have suffered from the bit where the books/sutras are compiled after the revelator's death. Islam is the same way, except more complex because of the nature of Arabic writing and they didn't have the dialectal marks yet when they first compiled the Qur'an.
But the greater question would be what does The Buddha have to do with Creation? That is what I am wondering.
Sakiale
(Banned)
- 2,274
I am Buddhist, and although I'm not supposed to talk about it, at least I don't do it... besides, look at, say, Nixon. He was a Christian. It is a sin to lie or steal, is it not? Personally, I think I'm much better than roughly 43% of America's youth in moral values etc. And Buddhist sutras should explain creation/evolution somewhere. I'll look it up and come back. Mainly, I just wanted to start this thread up again, because there's nothing really good going on.
- 17,865
- 509
There is a large gap between a practicing Christian and a born again Christian I feel.
I can run around and claim I am technically Mormon, or my friend can claim he is Jewish, but since neither of us practice it, we really aren't.
Christianity is a bit on the odd bit because of the nature of it to expect you to sin, with forgiveness offered. But you aren't suppose to willfully do these things, so those people that "sin" with the intent of visiting the repentance booth aren't really doing it right
But any Buddhist that does not adhere moderately to the Eight Fold plan and such is about as Buddhist as I am.
Sakiale
(Banned)
- 2,274
I adhere moderately. I don't drink, don't have sex before marriage, don't do drugs, try not to lie, don't be violent unless I'm really pissed off, am working on not being too greedy or dishonest, etc... And in Buddhism you can make up for your sins. But it is advised not to sin at all.
- 80
- vtec_da9
personally i believe in both. i believe in the big bang theory and evolution. only with one small difference. i believe that a higher power caused this.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,701
- Mile High City
Why?
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
- 29,010
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Not necessarily. One of the key assertions of Big Bang theory is that the Universe did have a beginning, as opposed to the Steady State theory which suggests that the Universe 'has always been and always will be'... the physical evidence points to a beginning (i.e. The Big Bang) rather than otherwise. This being the case, it is valid to assert that time too also had a beginning, hence asking what happened before time existed is not a valid question. If time didn't exist, nothing could happen before, during or after - since these are all terms we use to describe moments separated by time itself! The Big Bang was more than just the beginning of the expansion of space, it was also the beginning of time itself.
We have direct evidence for this too in the form of modern astronomical observations. There is an event horizon beyond which we cannot see, approx. 14 billion light years away (in all directions)... the reason we cannot see anything beyond it is not because there is nothing to see and not because our telescopes are not powerful enough, but because there was a beginning to time itself and objects beyond this event horizon are invisible to us because the universe is not old enough for the light to have reached us from these objects!
And we can safely assume that there are objects beyond the event horizon - we know there is an event horizon (because we can see it in all directions) therefore there must be objects in our visible universe that are not visible to each other (i.e. any two objects more than 14 billion light years apart from each other). So it's pretty reasonable to conclude that there must be objects beyond our event horizon too, for there is no valid reason why not. The only potentially valid alternative is that Planet Earth itself is bang-slap centre of the Universe, and that there isn't infact an event horizon, but rather a real, physical horizon beyond which nothing exists.... but there is no evidence for that whatsoever... on the contrary, the evidence (observations) point firmly to the fact that the universe has no discernible centre - let alone that we are at that centre! - and that the universe looks the same in all directions. This is pretty firm evidence that we are not at 'THE' centre, hence the cosmological horizon that we see is almost certainly not a result of our location in space, but more because of the nature of time.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,447
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
@Touring Mars:
According to what you're saying, the earth is in the center of the universe be cause of what our telescopes can't see in all directions? Also that this is the logical outcome because we know our current technology is 'good' enough to not have limitations that could be limiting what can be observed?
Edited: Never mind. It seems additional content was added to the post, or I just missed the last part of your post (my eyes are burning, and I could have missed it).
According to what you're saying, the earth is in the center of the universe be cause of what our telescopes can't see in all directions? Also that this is the logical outcome because we know our current technology is 'good' enough to not have limitations that could be limiting what can be observed?
Edited: Never mind. It seems additional content was added to the post, or I just missed the last part of your post (my eyes are burning, and I could have missed it).
