Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 432,564 views
Raid = FAIL

raidearthoptionsng6.jpg

LOL. Great shot. Point taken, but honestly, I think that stuff just irritates them and makes the next generation stronger.

Now that I think about it, perhaps bacteria will outlast us all. I think they have been around for some 4 billion years, and after that came viruses at about 2.5 billion years ago. So, germ warfare. :D
 
The term, "Ignorance is bliss" comes to mind. It is scary to think of what our 'intelligence' has brought us. On the other hand, it has also brought us art, music, culture, advancements in health care.
True. But no amount of art or music threatens the very existence of our entire species - except for Britney Spears :ill: (or emo :scared:) Humankind has, and always has, faced many threats to its existence - but never before in the known history of this planet has an entire species developed the capability to wipe itself out. Even better, some individuals have developed the idea that this is a good thing, since they (not the rest of us!) will spend all eternity in Heaven with 72 virgins :rolleyes:

It's rather curious how humans are the only ones that we know of to have such a high evolved intellect. I mean, WAY beyond any other species. You would think that other species would have also evolved intellectually as a means of survival, but non have to the extent that humans have.
As you can see, there were more than one "species" of "human" (ie, those species closest related to us) that have even coexisted and come into conflict—in which case the more intelligent species won out.
Year.Zero has highlighted a hugely significant fact that is the very essence of natural selection. Our species - Homo sapiens - may be the only species to have evolved a higher intellect and survived, but our ancestors certainly had plenty of competition for the throne. In this particular 'battle', there could only be one winner, and we are the result. Strictly speaking, our intellect is not way beyond every other species that has ever existed. It may be superior to any current species, but we should never forget that our great intellect (and everything else for that matter) is a result of "standing on the shoulders of giants", and not a 'human achievement'...

Not one species on the planet can reason the way humans can to the extent that they can. I think that's significant when the Bible says we were created in His own image.
It may be a uniquely human quality to be able to use reason to such a degree, but it's precisely this quality that allows us to attempt to understand our origins and question the reasons for our existence. No other species (to our knowledge) does this because they can't do it. This raises a very interesting point. It is our ability to reason that allows us to even contemplate/conceptualize/understand/praise/worship/invent God in the first place. Some religious evolutionists (like a colleague of mine) argue that humankind is the result of directed evolution or that humankind was somehow inevitable. Most other evolutionists, however, disagree subtly but significantly and say that human-like reasoning and higher intellect may be inevitable, but that our exact species most certainly wasn't. Therefore, to say that 'humans' were made (uniquely) in the image of God is almost certainly not literally true. However, I can see why any species (whatever it turned out to be) that attains higher intellect and reasoning might think it was created in the image of a God.

Depends on what you consider success. I'd say our complete and utter domination of the planet should be considered hugely successful compared to other long lasting animals.
True, it does depend on what you consider success, and by any measure, humans are supremely successful animals. But I wouldn't go as far to say that we hold 'complete and utter' dominion over this planet. 'Complete' is certainly not correct. I don't think any species could ever make such a lofty claim given the sheer amount of other species (i.e. bacteria, plants, animals) and non-human processes (such as photosynthesis) that we are utterly dependent upon for our survival.

And I seriously doubt that mankind will kill itself off. We've managed not only to have nuclear weapons capable of destroying every human being on Earth, we've also managed to be smart enough NOT to kill every human being no the planet.
This may be true, but given the timescales we're talking about, our ability to not kill off our own species yet is decidedly a fledgling ability. We've only had nuclear weapons for less than 70 years and already the world has stood on the brink of nuclear holocaust more than once.
 
True. But no amount of art or music threatens the very existence of our entire species - except for Britney Spears :ill: Humankind has, and always has, faced many threats to it's existence - but never before in the known history of this planet has an entire species developed the capability to wipe itself out. Even better, some individuals have developed the idea that this is a good thing, since they (not the rest of us!) will spend all eternity in Heaven with 72 virgins :rolleyes:

Isn't that a nightclub in Chelsmford?
 
Even better, some individuals have developed the idea that this is a good thing, since they (not the rest of us!) will spend all eternity in Heaven with 72 virgins :rolleyes:

Hmm. If every Muslim martyred themselves, there'd be 108 billion people in heaven - more than the combined human population of the Earth ever (there's between 9 and 10 dead people for every living one).


Though the thought occurs - is the species of virgin actually mentioned at any point?
 
Isn't that a nightclub in Chelsmford?
:lol: Probably. Either way, there ain't going to be many virgins waiting, let alone a bus-full of them.

Though the thought occurs - is the species of virgin actually mentioned at any point?
Strangely no. I just hope Robin Williams is right... "I said 72 Virginians, you idiot!" The irony of spending 'eternity' with any number of virgins is that if you want them to stay virgins, you can't do anything with them - forever! :lol: Far from a reward, that sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me.
 

I'm afraid I don't get it :confused:


have I just been "Famined"? :nervous:


EDIT: Oh wait... I've been a numpty, haven't I? It doesn't matter how far away the mirror is as long as it is at least half as tall as me... (still don't think I've got the joke though)
 
I'm afraid I don't get it :confused:

have I just been "Famined"? :nervous:

It's a TV programme called "Father Ted".

"Father Dougal" (Ardal O'Hanlon; leftmost) is a bit slow. Well, VERY slow. Father Ted (Dermot Morgan; rightmost) is trying to explain the concept of perspective to him, by using a selection of toy cows...


Ted: Now concentrate this time, Dougal. These [he points to some plastic cows on the table] are very small. Those [pointing at some cows out of the window] are far away...

Seemed apposite at the time.
 
We humans do exhibit virus-like behavior.

That's exactly what I just refuted earlier. Any and all animals would exhibit the same behavior if they were intelligent enough to do so. If we behaved like viruses we would mindlessly consume resources, never actually producing anything for ourselves, and then die.

Mankind doesn't do that at all. He shapes his environment, cultivates his needs from the environment, and he absolutely considers future production capability. There's a critical distinction between that kind of behavior and the behavior of a virus. It's just a bad analogy.
 
Veni, vidi, vici - it's our way of life.
That is EVERY species' way of life, if they can pull it off. It's just that no other species in the history of Earth has been as good at it as we are.

Look at kudzoo. Or zebra mussels. Or any one of a million species that dominate their competition.
 
That's exactly what I just refuted earlier. Any and all animals would exhibit the same behavior if they were intelligent enough to do so. If we behaved like viruses we would mindlessly consume resources, never actually producing anything for ourselves, and then die.

Mankind doesn't do that at all. He shapes his environment, cultivates his needs from the environment, and he absolutely considers future production capability. There's a critical distinction between that kind of behavior and the behavior of a virus. It's just a bad analogy.

When you say that mankind shapes his environment do you mean as in making pretty gardens to look at and wonderful buildings to live and work in - like Disneyland?

I'm no activist, but - are you aware of what shape our environment is in? Our environment is in sad shape. Any cultivation and future production capability we contemplate and actually implement is self-serving at best and rather short-sighted. Re-forestation, for example, is only done because we couldn't figure out a cheaper way to screw our neighbors out of their forest. And, btw, we cull the re-forested trees too early. Yes, we plant new corn, wheat, etc., but is that what you mean by "cultivating" our land. All we are doing is producing for ourselves - we are not producing for the good of our environment. If anything, we are attacking our environment in the hopes that it will yield more product. Because, guess what? - we're running out of natural resources and product. Ya, we really know how to shape and cultivate our environment. Hah. Really, not much thought has gone into actually "cultivating" our resources. Like a virus attacking its host, we are consumers. I think you have to take a more evolutionary, long-term view of the behavioral pattern which mankind has exhibited and think where we may be in a few million years. At the rate we are going, I doubt we could sustain life on our host - Earth. Viruses may be mindless, but they are systematic in their approach to attacking their host. I think in comparison, humans are mindless, because we waste so much of our "cultivated" resources. And viruses do produce. The cowpox virus can be injected into a human and make him/her immune to smallpox. One less thing for you to worry about as you make friends with your environment.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge user of our environment. I simply find our behavior to be very singular in purpose and very destructive to the one thing which sustains us - our Earth.
 
You're confusing "THE" environment with "OUR" environment. Mankind does indeed shape our environment to our ends. Whether that helps or hinders other animals isn't really relevant - no other species has done this before and this plays a part in our status as dominant species.
 
If we are the dominant species, doesn't OUR environment = THE environment?

In any case, I realize this discussion is off-topic, so no more needs to be stated here at least.
 
No - that's what "shaping the environment" means. We've bent it to fit our needs, rather than bending to fit its needs. And, every time we bend it, every other lifeform bends with it.
 
No - that's what "shaping the environment" means. We've bent it to fit our needs, rather than bending to fit its needs. And, every time we bend it, every other lifeform bends with it.

Except when the lifeform bends so much it snaps, and it becomes extinct. I think plagues and stuff like that is the Lord's way of keeping animals and people from overpopulating the planet.
 
Except when the lifeform bends so much it snaps, and it becomes extinct. I think plagues and stuff like that is the Lord's way of keeping animals and people from overpopulating the planet.


Well, maybe you'll be [un]fortunate enough to witness mankind overpopulate, and you'll have to rethink that theory.
 
Except when the lifeform bends so much it snaps, and it becomes extinct.

Exactly. Mankind shapes his environment, his environment shapes its inhabitants. They adapt or they die. This has always happened - species having to adapt to changes in the environment or risk extinction.

The fact that we can cause it is encapsulated proof that we are the dominating species.


I think plagues and stuff like that is the Lord's way of keeping animals and people from overpopulating the planet.

God sent us Ebola, bird 'flu, HIV, cancer and malaria? Nice chap. Why not just send a flood like last time?
 
ProTron
I think plagues and stuff like that is the Lord's way of keeping animals and people from overpopulating the planet.

God sent us Ebola, bird 'flu, HIV, cancer and malaria? Nice chap. Why not just send a flood like last time?


... why not just make us all sterile for a while? The plagues and stuff don't seem to be doing the trick anyway...
 
Seems like there are checks and balances for all things, except us. I'm not taking sides on creationism vs. evolution, but you'd think there would be some kind of check on us no matter what you believe in. No?

Some great posts here.
 
Depends what you call a 'balance'. Is the Boxing Day Tsunami a balance or a supernatural disaster? Likewise the Pakistan earthquake. There are a huge amount of us on the planet, we are very succesful, the population of the planet is rising, something is going to have to give eventually.
 
Well, maybe you'll be [un]fortunate enough to witness mankind overpopulate, and you'll have to rethink that theory.

I'm sorry if my comment seemed harsh or if it offended and upset you and anyone else on this page in any way. I would never wish anything bad like the plague or virus on anyone. I lost a friend to HIV and lost my dad to cancer. I have two kids and I'm very thankful for their good health. I realise the topic creationism/evolution can get emotional. Makes you wonder why these things happen to us if there is a benevolent god and makes me think maybe we do it to ourselves. Is it all part of a master plan or is this an evolutionary check and balance that happens once a population grows too large?
 
I'm sorry if my comment seemed harsh or if it offended and upset you and anyone else on this page in any way. I would never wish anything bad like the plague or virus on anyone. I lost a friend to HIV and lost my dad to cancer. I have two kids and I'm very thankful for their good health. I realise the topic creationism/evolution can get emotional. Makes you wonder why these things happen to us if there is a benevolent god and makes me think maybe we do it to ourselves. Is it all part of a master plan or is this an evolutionary check and balance that happens once a population grows too large?

Diseases would work as an evolutionary check, if it weren't for the fact that we're so damn smart about preventing/curing disease.

Think about it... If we didn't know what caused HIV and weren't so widespread, we'd have all shagged our way dead by now - like less intelligent and more localised species.
 
evolutionary check and balance that happens once a population grows too large?
If it were an evolutionary checks and balance system it is doing a pitiful job of keeping balance as we just keep growing in numbers.

It's all just part of nature, things happen, and as we live in this natural world they will affect us, good or bad.
 
Well, maybe you'll be [un]fortunate enough to witness mankind overpopulate, and you'll have to rethink that theory.

Couldn't you say that we have already?

There's 6.5 Billion of us (iirc), the figure is growing, rapidly. The demand is huge. Surely the earth can't support all of us, could the earth support 8,9 or 10 billion people?
 
Couldn't you say that we have already?

There's 6.5 Billion of us (iirc), the figure is growing, rapidly. The demand is huge. Surely the earth can't support all of us, could the earth support 8,9 or 10 billion people?

The populations in 1st World countries are actually decreasing in general (more or less), and we're the ones who use the majority of resources. So it might balance out somehow. If not, I'm sure we'll find a solution. Fresh water might become quite pricey though.
 
Couldn't you say that we have already?

There's 6.5 Billion of us (iirc), the figure is growing, rapidly. The demand is huge. Surely the earth can't support all of us, could the earth support 8,9 or 10 billion people?

What items that are critical to human survival for which the demand is at dangerous levels compared to supply? And no, oil doesn't count as critical.
 
Pah, who needs heating! (;))

I didn't type it properly, I meant that the demand is getting bigger, and with things like Bird Flu spreading, price of birds rises, with droughts in places like Australia they have to import more and more. The demand at the moment isn't critical, but it could get that way.
 
Pah, who needs heating! (;))

I didn't type it properly, I meant that the demand is getting bigger, and with things like Bird Flu spreading, price of birds rises, with droughts in places like Australia they have to import more and more. The demand at the moment isn't critical, but it could get that way.

Australia can dig themselves out of their own problem, they just don't seem to want to pony up the dough. What I'm saying here, is that I don't see an overcrowding issue.
 
ProTron
I'm sorry if my comment seemed harsh or if it offended and upset you and anyone else on this page in any way. I would never wish anything bad like the plague or virus on anyone. I lost a friend to HIV and lost my dad to cancer. I have two kids and I'm very thankful for their good health. I realise the topic creationism/evolution can get emotional. Makes you wonder why these things happen to us if there is a benevolent god and makes me think maybe we do it to ourselves. Is it all part of a master plan or is this an evolutionary check and balance that happens once a population grows too large?
I took no offense to your question—I just found the premise naiive and was almost certain that it would never happen by the will of a greater being (hope you understand). Sorry if I was curt with you.

That evolutionary check may never happen, but an economic and social reform ('check') just may in its' place.

As we use up more and more resources and the market trends shift, someone will realise that in order for us to start conserving the limited resources and producing the needed non-natural ones, it will have to be made profitable. And to really make something profitable, you need to create an entire market for it. I think there will be a time in the future where more people, or perhaps large companies and organisations, are acting as farmers again to sustain the population's demands. Thing is, the beginnings of that shift could be as soon as within the next 75 years.

Grand Prix
The populations in 1st World countries are actually decreasing in general (more or less), and we're the ones who use the majority of resources. So it might balance out somehow. If not, I'm sure we'll find a solution. Fresh water might become quite pricey though.

I'm sure once a large-scale plan for the de-salination of water is put under way, that will be a huge relief to countries in need of 'fresh' water. Problem is, I haven't heard about **** all about research on the matter and no one else seems to have mentioned it.
 
I'm sure once a large-scale plan for the de-salination of water is put under way, that will be a huge relief to countries in need of 'fresh' water. Problem is, I haven't heard about **** all about research on the matter and no one else seems to have mentioned it.

Of course we're going to de-salinate salt water to drink. The problem is that it uses energy to do so, although that's a minor problem. We're not going to be running around screaming "ZOMG WE'RE OUT OF WATER!" We'll just have to take energy costs into account for the price of water.

There might be some other resources that will be affected by an increasing population but I can't really think of any, other than rainforests being chopped down for housing and farming. That'll have an effect on oxygen in the air for sure, but how major an effect will it be?


Hehe, I've never been quoted in someone's sig before, :lol:
 
Back