NationStates Jolt Archive

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?

Yes, indeedy, though not the literal interpretation of The Creation offered by Evangelical types. The story of the creation of the world and of mankind, and the one about the fall from the Garden, offer up a starting ground by which one can relate to the particular version of god, called "God", offered in the Bible.

I see another sort of creation, one that goes on around us everyday, that exists every moment, in that time we call "now". Everything in this moment is continually changing, and the theory of evolution fits in snuggly with this creation immanent in the moment.

Sure I believe in both. Don't really see why others don't. At the same time, science should be science.

Well to be true to the science aspects I leave Creation out of it as you can't prove or disprove it.

When I was a practicing Catholic, I still kept Religion to Religion.....

Well, I don't quite get how one could believe in neither, unless you're talking about the idea (which I subscribe to) that believing in evolution as though it were a faith-based notion is foolish. I understand the rudiments of evolution, but any belief I have in it is limited to my belief that it is the best explanation of how life formed on this planet. It may seem to be a minor point of semantics, but I think it's an important one.

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?

Neither. The Universe was designed by a jewish conspiracy including the FBI, the KGB and the YMCA, led by H N Fiddlebottoms. They formed it from empty cigarette packets and small pieces of putty so that humans would one day create Nations States and in doing so unleash their own destruction...

*nods sagely*

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?

define 'creation'

Well, I don't quite get how one could believe in neither, unless you're talking about the idea (which I subscribe to) that believing in evolution as though it were a faith-based notion is foolish.

I can easily think up quite a few hypotheses on how life became what it is today that neither conform to evolution nor creation. Presenting ID and evolution as the only two options is a false dichotomy.

Of course, the amount of backing evidence for evolution is somewhat higher than that for my little hypotheses. But that is why I do not mind that they teach that in classrooms ;)
In addition it is perfectly fine for a scientist to believe the right theory has not been thought up. "I do not know yet" is an acceptable scientific answer.

Sure, I believe in both. Not the Judeo-Christian Genesis story, mind you. Tem rising from the waters of Nun and masturbating to start off Creation is fine with me, as are modern theories of the Big Bang and so forth.

I have no problem reconciling spiritual truth and scientific fact. I wonder why so many people do?

From a statistical standpoint, there are many more people who believe in creation (of a sort) and still feel that evolution is a valid scientific explanation than those who accept Creationism or those who believe in no creation. Of course, "creation" in this case simply means that there is some sort of higher being who, at some point, created the universe and everything in it in some way. It is not any particular literal sequence of events.

I believe that science has everything explained except "what happened before the Big Bang?"

I leave that part to God. The rest is science and math and evolution, which I have no problem with.

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?

Well that's totally possible. Evolution and Creationism(in bare-bones form) are not incompatible.

What is incompatible is Abiogenesis and Creationism.

I for one believe(and I hate using that word in the context of scientific fact... but hey whatcha gonna do?) in Evolution.

I also accept Abiogenesis as the most likely and pretty much only scientific answer for lifes origins on Earth, though I'll be the first to admit we don't neccesarily have 100% of the 'how' yet.

I don't dismiss the possibility that the universe/reality in it's current form was created by a supernatural event or being, but that's about as creationist as you'll get from me.

I for one believe(and I hate using that word in the context of scientific fact... but hey whatcha gonna do?) in Evolution.
You can do as I do and say you understand how evolution works. That doesn't require belief at all, at least not in the religious sense.

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?
I do.

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?


I can believe in both. In fact thats part of the reason I am no longer welcome in a certain chruch..

has anyone ever thought to themselves "gee i dont really care what other people think", just wondering

or how about listening to some people arguing about the subject and thought "what a pointless arguement, neither one is going to convince the other"

I can believe in both. In fact thats part of the reason I am no longer welcome in a certain chruch..

just on a side note, any church that kicks you out for your thoughts, is not a church anyone should be going to. just from my personal interpretations not just from the christian bible but other religions too, your supposed to welcome everyone.

I believe that science has everything explained except "what happened before the Big Bang?"

Wow! If we have everything totally explained except for that, why are we doing all this research??!?!?!?!?!?!


What is incompatible is Abiogenesis and Creationism.

This is true if and only if you are using "Creationism" to mean "literal Biblical or other holy book description" (in which case Creationism is incompatible with Evolution).

There is nothing inherently contradictory between abiogenesis and Creation. God could very well have created the universe in such a way that abiogenesis was inevitable.

I for one believe(and I hate using that word in the context of scientific fact... but hey whatcha gonna do?) in Evolution.

I also accept Abiogenesis as the most likely and pretty much only scientific answer for lifes origins on Earth, though I'll be the first to admit we don't neccesarily have 100% of the 'how' yet.

I don't dismiss the possibility that the universe/reality in it's current form was created by a supernatural event or being, but that's about as creationist as you'll get from me.

In fact, seems here that you are accepting both abiogenesis and Creation. OOPS

We're all the fevered dreams of a brain in a jar in a different universe. *nods*

We're all the fevered dreams of a brain in a jar in a different universe. *nods*

I thought we were part of a game of marbles?

I thought we were part of a game of marbles?

No, we were accidentally created when the wizards of another world needed to dump a lot of magic from their thaumic reactor fast.

I havn'y studied evalution. From what I have heard of it I don't believe in it. I don't believe in Creationism either.

This is true if and only if you are using "Creationism" to mean "literal Biblical or other holy book description" (in which case Creationism is incompatible with Evolution).

There is nothing inherently contradictory between abiogenesis and Creation. God could very well have created the universe in such a way that abiogenesis was inevitable.



In fact, seems here that you are accepting both abiogenesis and Creation. OOPS

I fear you may have misunderstood me.

My first use of the word Creationism is the barebones one, essentially God did it. No order, no 'how,' just God did it.

My second reference is to creationism as in the claim that God created life on earth.

And I never accepted Creationism. I said I wasn't discounting the possibility that a supernatural event/entity caused the universe. Nowhere did I say I accepted 'Creationism.'

has anyone ever thought to themselves "gee i dont really care what other people think", just wondering

or how about listening to some people arguing about the subject and thought "what a pointless arguement, neither one is going to convince the other"

*glares*
We don't like yer kinda people 'round here - Reasonable people.

I havn'y studied evalution. From what I have heard of it I don't believe in it. I don't believe in Creationism either.

When you say "studied", do you mean "read on an internet message board"?

I believe in neither

I fear you may have misunderstood me.

My first use of the word Creationism is the barebones one, essentially God did it. No order, no 'how,' just God did it.

My second reference is to creationism as in the claim that God created life on earth.

Ok, makes a bit more sense. It's a word that is used to mean many things - so you have to be pretty explicit about exactly what you mean.

And I never accepted Creationism. I said I wasn't discounting the possibility that a supernatural event/entity caused the universe. Nowhere did I say I accepted 'Creationism.'

"Creationism" can be used to mean, "The idea that a supernatural entity created the universe." It generally refers to a literal interpretation of one or both of the Genesis stories, but does not have to. Like I said, you have to be explicit in which meaning you are using (and not mix three different definitions in the same post without making distinctions).

You accepted the possibility of creation, while simultaneously stating that you feel evolution and abiogenesis to be accurate depictions of what happened - thus demonstrating that the two can coincide.

Well that's totally possible. Evolution and Creationism(in bare-bones form) are not incompatible.

yes, they are. creationism is a recent heresy that arose as part of the fundamentalist reaction to modernism in general that specifically rejects modern knowledge that conflicts with biblical literalism.

What is incompatible is Abiogenesis and Creationism.

i don't know about that. all abiogenesis means is life was formed from non-living material - which is specifically stated by one of the biblical creation stories. creationism's abiogenesis account is stupid and wrong, but it is there none the less.

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?
The two are mutually exclusive: a belief that God invented all that exists precisely as it is now (or at least was 6000 years ago) is slightly at odds with a suspicion that the wonders of nature spent millions of years developing and diversifying to reach their current state.

The two are mutually exclusive: a belief that God invented all that exists precisely as it is now (or at least was 6000 years ago) is slightly at odds with a suspicion that the wonders of nature spent millions of years developing and diversifying to reach their current state.

"Creation" does not necessarily mean "a belief that God invented all that exists precisely as it is now (or at least was 6000 years ago." That is simply one of the many, many ways that God might have created everything.

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?

Yeah, me. We're puny little beings, and we like the edges of our universe to be ridgidly defined because anything larger would frighten us and shatter our narrow little paradigms.

The way I see it, you can't have a universe this organized without some intelligence, and evolution is PART AND PARCEL of that organization. Look, I'm not specifically religeous, I just follow the 'Big Whatever'.

"Hmm, life would be interesting. Soo, what's a good way to set that up... Ah, like this... I call it evolution." Part of the plan, we're just too inflexible to deal with it that way.

Daguye

Tssk, you all were created like 5 seconds ago by me :D. I planted all your memories, and all the "evidence" of whatever hilarious scientific theories I made up and put in some "history" books :p.

When you say "studied", do you mean "read on an internet message board"?

Never suggested I studied evalution. Only that I've heard claims as to what it is. The idea of chance mutation resulting in all sorts of life forms.

I personally like the Asimov story, (can't remember the name of it) where Aaron explains to Moses that they can't afford the papyrus to write the story of all seven million years of god's creation. They can, in fact, afford to explain about seven days.

I believe that God created the Earth, how long it took, what order it happened in, or even the exact details I have no idea, probably never will know, doesn't bother me.

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?

Both. I believe in Creationism, but that evolution exists, and is an ongoing process that has effected changes in then original design, and will continue to do so.

Both. I believe in Creationism, but that evolution exists, and is an ongoing process that has effected changes in then original design, and will continue to do so.

Do you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? If so, which of the (at least) two separate Creation stories do you believe?

I have no problem with the idea that God guides evolution - which I suppose is the founding tenet of "Intelligent Design". But I firmly believe that evolution alone should be taught in school - and none of that 'young Earth' bullshit either.

Keep God out of the (science) classroom and I won't dissect fetal pigs in church.

Deal?

I have no problem with the idea that God guides evolution - which I suppose is the founding tenet of "Intelligent Design".

Just for the record, your statement doesn't have the first thing to do with "Intelligent Design", which explicitly states, "These things could not have possibly happened by evolution, therefore God did it."

But I firmly believe that evolution alone should be taught in school - and none of that 'young Earth' bullshit either.

Keep God out of the (science) classroom and I won't dissect fetal pigs in church.

Deal?

Hehe, I like that.

But what if your church has rituals that demand the dissection of fetal pigs?

Hmmm.....

Just for the record, your statement doesn't have the first thing to do with "Intelligent Design", which explicitly states, "These things could not have possibly happened by evolution, therefore God did it." Ah. I haven't been following the ID debates in the US very closely.

How the hell do they think super-bug bacteria/virus epidemics occur if it's not because of mutation/evolution?

Oh wait, don't answer that. God did it to punish us. sigh.

Keep God out of the (science) classroom and I won't dissect fetal pigs in church.

Hehe, I like that. Thank you, thank you. I'm here all night. :P

But what if your church has rituals that demand the dissection of fetal pigs?

Hmmm.....Oh now you're unnecessarily complicating things. I'm sure I could find an alternate distasteful scientific practice to trade off with.

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?
Yes, me, both. And I've made threads on it that all DIE!

*rants*

Ah. I haven't been following the ID debates in the US very closely.

How the hell do they think super-bug bacteria/virus epidemics occur if it's not because of mutation/evolution?

Oh wait, don't answer that. God did it to punish us. sigh.

Well, not all of them completely reject evolution. They just single things out. They're like, "This over here might be from evolution (referring, perhaps, to a beak change on a bird or something like that), but this over here, this is too complicated, so it didn't come from evolution. God actually did it directly."

It's not a very logical viewpoint, but it is what it is.

I have no problem with the idea that God guides evolution - which I suppose is the founding tenet of "Intelligent Design". But I firmly believe that evolution alone should be taught in school - and none of that 'young Earth' bullshit either.

Keep God out of the (science) classroom and I won't dissect fetal pigs in church.

Deal?


I beleive that the entire universe was created last Tuesday, at 5:24:67.54321PM. All the "history" never really happened, and was just programed into our brains upon creation. Once every 3 years, 2 months, 1 week, 6 days, and 7 hours the universe is destroyed and recreates itself, exactly as it started.

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?

I believe in both. And neither.

I believe in both. And neither.

do we have to observe you to collapse the wavefunction? are you in fact shrodinger's cat?

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?

Generally speaking, those who follow the Baha'i Faith believe in both.

They believe that there was most likely some sort of creation of existence at some point, but that we should also hold faith in science for things that it actually can explain.


It allows you to keep your faith and spirituality while also not being ignorant of the important advances of the human race.

do we have to observe you to collapse the wavefunction? are you in fact shrodinger's cat?

I'm a Cool Shrodinger's Cat, Daddy-o http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/cool/cool-smiley-020.gif

Actually, what I believe encompasses both concepts, yet neither are quite accurate. It's really too complicated to go into.

Suffice to say that I believe in the Big Bang theory to explain the creation of the universe and I believe that human beings and all other complex life forms evolved from simpler ones.

But I find it hard to believe that this was all random.

just on a side note, any church that kicks you out for your thoughts, is not a church anyone should be going to. just from my personal interpretations not just from the christian bible but other religions too, your supposed to welcome everyone.


Yeah..but the american christian church takes too much the stance "you are with us 100% or not at all"....so i screw them...i'll start my own church...and ill crush them...:D

I'm a Cool Shrodinger's Cat, Daddy-o http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/cool/cool-smiley-020.gif

Actually, what I believe encompasses both concepts, yet neither are quite accurate. It's really too complicated to go into.

Suffice to say that I believe in the Big Bang theory to explain the creation of the universe and I believe that human beings and all other complex life forms evolved from simpler ones.

But I find it hard to believe that this was all random.

=)

I think this probably depends on what you think "randomness" really is. From a philosophical viewpoint, the universe could be (even outside of religion) be said to be deterministic. "Random" simply refers to phenomena caused by such a complex set of events and conditions that we cannot possibly know them all and thus predict what will happen. It is the idea that if you could actually know, as an example, exactly what type of energy would hit a cell at what angle/frequency/intensity/etc. at exactly what point in the cell cycle at in exactly what tissue with the exact concentrations of every thing in the cell, with the exact temperature and pressure and.............., then you could predict the mutation that would happen. Thing is, the universe is a damn complex place, so some things will always appear random to us.

On the other hand, you could believe in true randomness - which would mean that the universe is not deterministic and some things just sort of happen. I actually think most people go with the first idea.

I beleive that the entire universe was created last Tuesday, at 5:24:67.54321PM. All the "history" never really happened, and was just programed into our brains upon creation. Once every 3 years, 2 months, 1 week, 6 days, and 7 hours the universe is destroyed and recreates itself, exactly as it started.You're totally wrong.

The world, Nay!, the entire Universe will be created Next Tuesday! We aren't 'we' yet, just some of the simulations/thoughts that $SupremeBeing is running through his massive mind, so that when Next Tuesday arrives he knows what to place where in order to create a consistent fake history for the whole thing.

"Creation" does not necessarily mean "a belief that God invented all that exists precisely as it is now (or at least was 6000 years ago." That is simply one of the many, many ways that God might have created everything.
You're mistaken. That is precisely what all of the creationist literature I have ever seen argues.

You're mistaken. That is precisely what all of the creationist literature I have ever seen argues.
Isn't it funny that the point Dempublicants was just making was that that specific creationist view isn't the only view with a God involved? You are making a comment which could just as well be answered with what she just said.

On top of that, it's pretty funny that you're telling her she's mistaken about her own beliefs.

Do you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? If so, which of the (at least) two separate Creation stories do you believe?

A literal interpretation. I don't see them as necessarily being either incompatable or mutually exclusive of one another. Evolution is obviously ongoing. A continuing process. I use evolution as a means to explain things in the here and now. New organisms are evolving while others are dying out and all those in between are adapting to suit their environments. The only thing that I take exception to regarding evolution is how it has broadened over the years to include a hypothesis of how things actually began, to become a sort of its' own Book of Genesis. It has kind of become its' own religion for the atheistic and agnostic, and to state that you believe it is not the answer for all things is to invite an almost virulent and vitriolic attack by them. For me, there just are too many questions that evolution does not answer, to be a be all and end all, for those seeking answers regarding the beginning of life on earth.

=)

I think this probably depends on what you think "randomness" really is. From a philosophical viewpoint, the universe could be (even outside of religion) be said to be deterministic. "Random" simply refers to phenomena caused by such a complex set of events and conditions that we cannot possibly know them all and thus predict what will happen. It is the idea that if you could actually know, as an example, exactly what type of energy would hit a cell at what angle/frequency/intensity/etc. at exactly what point in the cell cycle at in exactly what tissue with the exact concentrations of every thing in the cell, with the exact temperature and pressure and.............., then you could predict the mutation that would happen. Thing is, the universe is a damn complex place, so some things will always appear random to us.

On the other hand, you could believe in true randomness - which would mean that the universe is not deterministic and some things just sort of happen. I actually think most people go with the first idea.
Just so. There is no actual randomness that does not include an intelligent observer.

Isn't it funny that the point Dempublicants was just making was that that specific creationist view isn't the only view with a God involved? You are making a comment which could just as well be answered with what she just said.

On top of that, it's pretty funny that you're telling her she's mistaken about her own beliefs.
I have no idea what her own beliefs are, but Creationists believe that the old testament is the literal truth and the theory of evolution is untenable as a result of this. This is why the two are incompatible. OPther theories involving God exist, but they are not creationism.

There is one subset of the science-denial movement (these people are essentially exactly like christian creationists) that believes humans were put on earth or genetically engineered by space aliens.

There is one subset of the science-denial movement (these people are essentially exactly like christian creationists) that believes humans were put on earth or genetically engineered by space aliens.

If that's true, then they fucked up. :p

Maybe somebody pissed in the petri dish.

There is one subset of the science-denial movement (these people are essentially exactly like christian creationists) that believes humans were put on earth or genetically engineered by space aliens.
Yes, but they also believe that Whitley Strieber isn't a lying greedy tosspot...

hahahahahahahahahahaha no.

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?
I suppose you could say that I believe in both, since I believe that evolution is the engine of continuing creation.

You're mistaken. That is precisely what all of the creationist literature I have ever seen argues.

Doesn't prove anything. All that means is that you have only read literature written by Young-Earth Creationists and that, possibly, they write more than someone who simply believes in some sort of creation.

Have you ever read Greek myths? There is some Creationist literature in that. Ever heard someone say, "I think God created the universe through the Big Bang?" That's "creationist literature."

"Creation" does not necessarily mean "a belief that God invented all that exists precisely as it is now (or at least was 6000 years ago." That is simply one of the many, many ways that God might have created everything.

How about this one?

A theory of Biblical Creation (http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp)

Creation and evolution are fundamentally incompatible.
But it is not a question of science vs. anti-science.

It is a question of how one interprets the results of scientific investigation.
For example...

What about the problem of information? (http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp)
article by Dr. Royal Truman.

Bio: Dr Royal Truman is employed at BASF AG’s headquarters in Ludwigshafen, Germany, which is Europe’s largest industrial complex. Armed with degrees in chemistry (Ph.D., specializing in organic chemistry), computer science and business administration (MBA) he works on projects ranging from financial analysis to chemical formulations optimization.

Having lived many years in North & South America and in Europe, he is fluent in several languages.

How about this one?

A theory of Biblical Creation (http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp)

Creation and evolution are fundamentally incompatible.
But it is not a question of science vs. anti-science.

It is a question of how one interprets the results of scientific investigation.
For example...

What about the problem of information? (http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp)
article by Dr. Royal Truman.

Oh goody! It's a page that doesn't have a clue what it is talking about!

Those are fun!

How about this one?

A theory of Biblical Creation (http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp)

Creation and evolution are fundamentally incompatible.
But it is not a question of science vs. anti-science.

It is a question of how one interprets the results of scientific investigation.
For example...

What about the problem of information? (http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp)
article by Dr. Royal Truman.

The information problem can be solved easily in the fact that large carbon compunds, such as deoxyribose nucleic acid have elements that attach to other elements by a weak hydrogen bond. There are four elements abbreviated as A,T,G, and C. A always pairs up with T, and likewise G always pairs up with C, DUE TO MOLECULAR FORCES NOT PROGRAMMING BY GOD. Since the match ups are always the same, it can hold "information" based on the sequence of the pairs used, and this information codes for amino acids, which are the building blocks of life. Thus carbon has the ability to store information and this is why we are alive today, after 4 billion years of evolution.

The information problem can be solved easily in the fact that large carbon compunds, such as deoxyribose nucleic acid have elements that attach to other elements by a weak hydrogen bond. There are four elements abbreviated as A,T,G, and C. A always pairs up with T, and likewise G always pairs up with C, DUE TO MOLECULAR FORCES NOT PROGRAMMING BY GOD. Since the match ups are always the same, it can hold "information" based on the sequence of the pairs used, and this information codes for amino acids, which are the building blocks of life. Thus carbon has the ability to store information and this is why we are alive today, after 4 billion years of evolution.

Who wrote the laws of physics that allowed for weak hydrogen bonds?

I believe in both creation and evolution. I just don't try to justify the existence of God on the basis of creation.

Yes, I do.

I believe in both creation and evolution. I just don't try to justify the existence of God on the basis of creation.
you know that always made me laugh those people who try to limit God to what they think He can or can't do, if he is almighty, why couldn't He have created the world through evolution? I mean who really wants to tell God "you either did it in 6 days or you don't exist", really people God can do whatever God wants........

[/rant]

I beleive that God created life...in its simpliest form...I'm not sure if I beleive in Adam and Eve, and then let life evolve on its own. For me God is behind that spark that made something from nothing, after that something is made...science takes its course.

Doesn't prove anything. All that means is that you have only read literature written by Young-Earth Creationists and that, possibly, they write more than someone who simply believes in some sort of creation.

Have you ever read Greek myths? There is some Creationist literature in that. Ever heard someone say, "I think God created the universe through the Big Bang?" That's "creationist literature."


I'm actually a big-bang creationist. (At first there was nothing, and then it exploded.)

you know that always made me laugh those people who try to limit God to what they think He can or can't do, if he is almighty, why couldn't He have created the world through evolution? I mean who really wants to tell God "you either did it in 6 days or you don't exist", really people God can do whatever God wants........

[/rant]

Well, I usually argue that God isn't all-powerful, but by that I mean that he is limited by the laws of logic absolutely and the laws of physics contingently. But that's neither here nor there.

The real thing, I think, that those guys are after is not just proving that God exists, but that their God exists, which somehow validates all the hatred, bigotry, and self-repression that God somehow is supposed to reward. If it were proven that God had really wanted them to be happy and respect other people's human liberties, it would be a terrible blow to their worldview, not to mention the fact that all those lost opportunities for unnatural sex has got to make you cringe.;)

I have to say that I am both. I do believe that creation was the beginning, but I do believe that we evolved or adapted past that. I know that they just contradict eachother, but who cares..

you know that always made me laugh those people who try to limit God to what they think He can or can't do, if he is almighty, why couldn't He have created the world through evolution? I mean who really wants to tell God "you either did it in 6 days or you don't exist", really people God can do whatever God wants........

[/rant]

You go, Smunkee!

you know that always made me laugh those people who try to limit God to what they think He can or can't do, if he is almighty, why couldn't He have created the world through evolution? I mean who really wants to tell God "you either did it in 6 days or you don't exist", really people God can do whatever God wants........
[/rant]

Hmmm seems you just did the very thing you just ranted about.....

I don't believe in either of em, I just think about them when one or the other's more pressing.

I believe in a mixture, and ironically I am working on Evolution homework right now.

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?

I (or one of my puppets possibly) have posted in the General threads many times in the past that I don't understand why a belief in God and a creation of some sort is mutually exclusive with the idea of evolution and vice-versa. I have no problem reconciling the idea of both in my mind and believe in both. Granted a strict seven, 24 hour day creation in accord with Genesis 1 is irreconsiable with evolution, but since Genesis 1 is irreconsilable with Genesis 2 (read both chapters closely and note the differences in the creation story, such as the order in which things were made) I don't think any reasoned person can take the Genesis account of creation as "fact," rather it is allegory or otherwise symbolic. That said, the idea that there is a God or "intelligent designer" who created the the universe/earth/people is not eliminated by evolution and neither does evolution rule out the possible existence of God.

Aliens created us, I tell you! Aliens!

Aliens created us, I tell you! Aliens!

That's correct, earthling. You are all, in fact, fleshy incubators for our alien babies. How are the little tykes doing, by the way?

I believe in creation and that evolution exists.

Thing about evolution is that there's no evidence for ascendant evolution. We see horizontal evolution and backwards evolution all the time. One could even say that there's "forward" evolution when, for example, bird flu acquires the ability to be transmitted from human to human becoming a "better" virus. The disconnect comes at the notion that single celled organisms somehow became multicellular organisms with specialized tissues and systems, self-awareness, and abstract thinking. If a person's going to be "scientific" and demand "scientific evidence" for everything he or she believes in, then that person should demand the evidence that supports this jump before adhering to evolution as an explanation to the origins of animal and human life. Otherwise, they're taking a leap of faith no smaller than that of those who believe in creation.

If a person's going to be "scientific" and demand "scientific evidence" for everything he or she believes in, then that person should demand the evidence that supports this jump before adhering to evolution as an explanation to the origins of animal and human life.

of course they should. and luckily that evidence is overwhelmingly abundant and easily accessible.

Hmmm seems you just did the very thing you just ranted about.....
how exactly?

I said that people that try to limit God annoy me, then I said that God can do whatever God wants.........so how exactly was I limiting God?

evidence is overwhelmingly abundant and easily accessible.

I have yet to find any. Could you give me some help? or at least point me in the right direction?

I believe in neither. I'm pretty sure I dream up the universe every time when I'm awake. That there's so much consistence from day to day would be proof of that.

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?

If its creation as in belief in God and evolution as in origin of species due to evolution then yes I believe in both evolution (and abiogenesis too for that matter) and creation (God). One of the few luxuries if you are a hindu...lol..

Doesn't prove anything. All that means is that you have only read literature written by Young-Earth Creationists and that, possibly, they write more than someone who simply believes in some sort of creation.

Have you ever read Greek myths? There is some Creationist literature in that. Ever heard someone say, "I think God created the universe through the Big Bang?" That's "creationist literature."
No, that is literature about the creation of the universe.
"Creationism" or "Creationist literature" on the other hand, is limited to arguing that the old testament is the literal truth and that all the species currently in existence where created in their current form during the first week after the earth was made. This is why thopse cretins who believe in it are so viciously opposed to the theory of evolution.
Most of the statements that are being made in this thread, while very open minded, don't have much to do with the question posed by the initial poster.

Evolution only

Evolution only

Here is my view....

Evolution is my Scientific Belief
Creationism is my Religious Belief

I will NEVER walk into a scientific (keyword SCIENTIFIC) establishment and began to talk on and on about something that cannot be felt, cannot be seen, and cannot even be studied. That is NOT science, that is Religion. As put best my a professor of mine

"Science is HOW it works
Religion is WHY it works."

I have yet to find any. Could you give me some help? or at least point me in the right direction?

sure thing. but as i said, it is very abundant. so it would help if you narrowed down to a couple of particular things you'd like to see the evidence for. because from your post it appears as though you would like to cover everything between basic multicellular cooperation and the cognitive abilities of primates. which is rather broad, and the answer would result in you needing to read entire libraries of stuff.

The information problem can be solved easily in the fact that large carbon compunds, such as deoxyribose nucleic acid have elements that attach to other elements by a weak hydrogen bond. There are four elements abbreviated as A,T,G, and C. A always pairs up with T, and likewise G always pairs up with C, DUE TO MOLECULAR FORCES NOT PROGRAMMING BY GOD. Since the match ups are always the same, it can hold "information" based on the sequence of the pairs used, and this information codes for amino acids, which are the building blocks of life. Thus carbon has the ability to store information and this is why we are alive today, after 4 billion years of evolution.

The problem of information is...

what is the origin of the information carried in the DNA?

And how would information be added by random processes that tend to degrade or remove information?

what is the origin of the information carried in the DNA?

mutations and the physical laws governing chemical reactions

And how would information be added by random processes that tend to degrade or remove information?

the question is based on a false premise

The problem of information is...

what is the origin of the information carried in the DNA?
Nice question. We don't know. But we are just starting the research into DNA. Geez! 50 years ago no one knew there was a DNA!

And how would information be added by random processes that tend to degrade or remove information?
They don't. They change information. We know so much as to say that DNA has a lot of backups, so most changes in information will not have a repercussion overall. Those that do could bring either negative, neutral or positive repercussions (meaning that it will either help the organism survive or not). The positive ones will have a better chance of making it to the next generation.

Information can be added, or removed, by making the DNA longer or shorter, more or less complex, or by inserting or removing code activation sequences. It's very weird and a mostly unknows process, but still being researched.

Well, I usually argue that God isn't all-powerful, but by that I mean that he is limited by the laws of logic absolutely and the laws of physics contingently. But that's neither here nor there.

The real thing, I think, that those guys are after is not just proving that God exists, but that their God exists, which somehow validates all the hatred, bigotry, and self-repression that God somehow is supposed to reward. If it were proven that God had really wanted them to be happy and respect other people's human liberties, it would be a terrible blow to their worldview, not to mention the fact that all those lost opportunities for unnatural sex has got to make you cringe.;)

The above quote has nothing to do with the God of the Bible--He wants people to have joy, love, good lovin' (within marriage of course), and liberty, and to show mercy:

Psalm 16:
11 You have made known to me the path of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence,
with eternal pleasures at your right hand.

Psalm 149:
4 For the LORD takes delight in his people;
he crowns the humble with salvation.

5 Let the saints rejoice in this honor
and sing for joy on their beds.

Proverbs 10:
28 The prospect of the righteous is joy,
but the hopes of the wicked come to nothing.

John 15:
10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.

Song of Solomon 1:
2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth—
for your love is more delightful than wine.

Song of Solomon 4:
16 Awake, north wind,
and come, south wind!
Blow on my garden,
that its fragrance may spread abroad.
Let my lover come into his garden
and taste its choice fruits.

1 Corinthians 13:
1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Isaiah 61:
1The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
Because the LORD has anointed me
To bring good news to the afflicted;
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to captives
And freedom to prisoners;

2 Corinthians 3:
16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

James 2:
12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.

13For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

That's correct, earthling. You are all, in fact, fleshy incubators for our alien babies. How are the little tykes doing, by the way?

their fine :).

sure thing. but as i said, it is very abundant. so it would help if you narrowed down to a couple of particular things you'd like to see the evidence for. because from your post it appears as though you would like to cover everything between basic multicellular cooperation and the cognitive abilities of primates. which is rather broad, and the answer would result in you needing to read entire libraries of stuff.

Can you point me to "basic multicellular cooperation" and "cognitive abilities of primates" please?

I'm generally of the "both" school of thought.

And I think that Ruloah pulled some nice Bible verses about the God that I believe in.

Can you point me to "basic multicellular cooperation" and "cognitive abilities of primates" please?

sure.

like most aspects of evolution, we still have forms of life today that exist in ways that quite plausibly could have served as transitions between forms at one time or another. the space between unicellular and multicellular life is still bridged today by a variety of organisms - things live as lone cells, colonies of single cells living together, and multicellular organisms where there is little to no functional specialization between various cells. this site (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?db=Books&rid=cell.section.61) covers some of the basics. especially look at its example of green algae (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowSection&rid=cell.figgrp.66).


i'm afraid you'll have to be more specific about the primate cognition - what about it?

sure.

like most aspects of evolution, we still have forms of life today that exist in ways that quite plausibly could have served as transitions between forms at one time or another. the space between unicellular and multicellular life is still bridged today by a variety of organisms - things live as lone cells, colonies of single cells living together, and multicellular organisms where there is little to no functional specialization between various cells. this site (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?db=Books&rid=cell.section.61) covers some of the basics. especially look at its example of green algae (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowSection&rid=cell.figgrp.66).


i'm afraid you'll have to be more specific about the primate cognition - what about it?

Thanks for the pointer, but I didn't read anything I hadn't read before. My thoughts while reading this time were the same as the previous times I read these things: if I were assuming ascendant evolution before I looked at green algae and hydras and the other organisms described in the article, then I could see how this could be considered supporting evidence. But since I'm not starting from there, I don't understand. For example, the authors say "two essential features of all multicellular organisms: its cells become specialized, and they cooperate" but that's cooperative symbiosis. I can see how this leads to a "better" algae, but not to a water lily (or anything else that's not an algae).

On this page, the writers made a jump in the course of writing this section. They say, "Different species of green algae can be arranged in order of complexity, illustrating the kind of progression that probably occurred in the evolution of higher plants and animals." The jump here, of course, is the "probably." The figure shows 4 different genera of green algae, each with a different form of colony. I'm missing the connection that takes this algae and makes it something other than algae.

Since you provided the evidence, please close the gaps or explain where I missed the bridge.

As far as the "primate cognition" goes, it was your term. I wasn't sure what you meant by it so you can go ahead and make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Just define it for me so I know what I'm reading about.

The person who translated the bible first is to blame for all this confusion. Evolution and Creation are the same thing.

I'll have to justify hy henious comment, so here goes:

- The Hebrew word that was translated as "days" in English, ie. God created the world in 7 days, can also mean "eras". So...

- The seven eras described in the bible are the same as those suggested by evolution. Except....

- They were glossed over for "storytelling value" in the origional translation into English. Furthermore...

- They are essentialy the same thing, just interpreted differently. That means...

-They are both true, further backing up Albert Enistien's Science-Religion-Lame-Blind idea.

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?

Yes of course I believe in both.
One is a scientific theory, and one is an allegory. They are not mutually exclusive.

I don't believe in creation, but I dont think creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. Having said that I dont think evolution is something that can be believd or disbelieved. Its like trees, it just exists.

The person who translated the bible first is to blame for all this confusion. Evolution and Creation are the same thing.

I'll have to justify hy henious comment, so here goes:

- The Hebrew word that was translated as "days" in English, ie. God created the world in 7 days, can also mean "eras". So...

- The seven eras described in the bible are the same as those suggested by evolution. Except....

- They were glossed over for "storytelling value" in the origional translation into English. Furthermore...
Evolution and the Creation myth are not the same thing at all. It's not simply the time period, but the sequence of events in which Genesis disagrees with Evolution and Cosmology. Genesis has the Earth created before the stars, light on the Earth before the Sun or stars, man before the animals etc etc.

It's all very well to gloss over, or write in allegory, in a way which is not inconsistent with the reality, but Genesis doesn't do this : it directly contradicts the reality.

-They are both true, further backing up Albert Enistien's Science-Religion-Lame-Blind idea.
Einstein would be appalled to see his statement being used to justify "revealed" ancient dogma. He believed that religosity - a "spiritual" sense of wonder and humility in the face of the ordered and awesome universe - was necessary to give personal meaning to science; but he explicitly rejected belief in a "personal god", as preached by the Judeao-Christian religions.

The person who translated the bible first is to blame for all this confusion. Evolution and Creation are the same thing.

I'll have to justify hy henious comment, so here goes:

- The Hebrew word that was translated as "days" in English, ie. God created the world in 7 days, can also mean "eras". So...

- The seven eras described in the bible are the same as those suggested by evolution. Except....

- They were glossed over for "storytelling value" in the origional translation into English. Furthermore...

- They are essentialy the same thing, just interpreted differently. That means...

-They are both true, further backing up Albert Enistien's Science-Religion-Lame-Blind idea.
Surely the King John Bible was translated from the Latin, not from a Hebrew version? In fact, now that I think of it, weren't the earliest versions written in Greek rather than hebrew, or was that just the new testament?

Surely the King John Bible was translated from the Latin, not from a Hebrew version? In fact, now that I think of it, weren't the earliest versions written in Greek rather than hebrew, or was that just the new testament?
The New Testament would certainly have been Greek. Paul and Luke's writings were originally Greek, and I imagine the other Gospels would have been either written in or translated to the language. I'm not so sure about the OT; they were definitely originally in Hebrew, but whether or not they stopped in on Greece on the way to Catholicism is uncertain. The first Full Bible (in the sense that people now take it) was probably a compilation of the two different aspects written in Latin.

Thanks for the pointer, but I didn't read anything I hadn't read before. My thoughts while reading this time were the same as the previous times I read these things: if I were assuming ascendant evolution before I looked at green algae and hydras and the other organisms described in the article, then I could see how this could be considered supporting evidence. But since I'm not starting from there, I don't understand. For example, the authors say "two essential features of all multicellular organisms: its cells become specialized, and they cooperate" but that's cooperative symbiosis. I can see how this leads to a "better" algae, but not to a water lily (or anything else that's not an algae).

On this page, the writers made a jump in the course of writing this section. They say, "Different species of green algae can be arranged in order of complexity, illustrating the kind of progression that probably occurred in the evolution of higher plants and animals." The jump here, of course, is the "probably." The figure shows 4 different genera of green algae, each with a different form of colony. I'm missing the connection that takes this algae and makes it something other than algae.

Since you provided the evidence, please close the gaps or explain where I missed the bridge.

As far as the "primate cognition" goes, it was your term. I wasn't sure what you meant by it so you can go ahead and make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Just define it for me so I know what I'm reading about.

damnit, i had a nice post all referencing cooksonia and mosses and the fossil record and what not, and then firefox decided to up and quit on me. bastards! i'm not going to bother trying to rewrite it, so you can just check these sites out instead. and then move on to reading the sources they cite. and the ones those cite. and so on until you are satisfied.

http://www.adonline.id.au/plantevol/
http://www.palaeos.com/Plants/default.htm
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/plantEvolution.shtml


btw, i'm not sure what you mean by 'ascendant evolution'. nor do i quite understand how the example of green algae isn't useful in showing the origins of basic multicellular cooperation - which was what i was doing in that post. it does happen, and you can see how it is benefitial, so what's left?

damnit, i had a nice post all referencing cooksonia and mosses and the fossil record and what not, and then firefox decided to up and quit on me. bastards! i'm not going to bother trying to rewrite it, so you can just check these sites out instead. and then move on to reading the sources they cite. and the ones those cite. and so on until you are satisfied.

http://www.adonline.id.au/plantevol/
http://www.palaeos.com/Plants/default.htm
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/plantEvolution.shtml


btw, i'm not sure what you mean by 'ascendant evolution'. nor do i quite understand how the example of green algae isn't useful in showing the origins of basic multicellular cooperation - which was what i was doing in that post. it does happen, and you can see how it is benefitial, so what's left?

Thanks. I'll read up over the next few days. Maybe I'll have an epiphany or something.

When I say ascendant evolution, I'm talking about the notion of evolution took an ancient single-cell organism and turned it into lions and tigers and bears (oh my!). For example, the green algae. I can see evolution being the engine that takes some green algae ancestor and becoming different kinds of green algae (horizontal evolution). I can also see evolution as the engine that takes green algae and makes it a "better" green algae (forward evolution). But I don't see how evolution can take that green algae ancestor and make it into anything but fancy green algae. Does that clear it up? I've had students who've had trouble understanding this notion in person, so I can imagine how much more difficult it must be in this setting.

Here is my view....

Evolution is my Scientific Belief
Creationism is my Religious Belief

I will NEVER walk into a scientific (keyword SCIENTIFIC) establishment and began to talk on and on about something that cannot be felt, cannot be seen, and cannot even be studied. That is NOT science, that is Religion. As put best my a professor of mine

"Science is HOW it works
Religion is WHY it works."
Why am I not surprised that the only sensible that's been said, is being completely ignored?:rolleyes:

Thanks. I'll read up over the next few days. Maybe I'll have an epiphany or something.

When I say ascendant evolution, I'm talking about the notion of evolution took an ancient single-cell organism and turned it into lions and tigers and bears (oh my!). For example, the green algae. I can see evolution being the engine that takes some green algae ancestor and becoming different kinds of green algae (horizontal evolution). I can also see evolution as the engine that takes green algae and makes it a "better" green algae (forward evolution). But I don't see how evolution can take that green algae ancestor and make it into anything but fancy green algae. Does that clear it up? I've had students who've had trouble understanding this notion in person, so I can imagine how much more difficult it must be in this setting.

For some reason, people seem to have the inability to think about complex evolution. There did not have to be one cell that came into being in some primordial cesspool. Life could have spontaneously began, for whatever reason, in simultaneous locations on the planet. Furthermore, mutations can cause any number of things to happen. Are you saying that some supreme being was like, "oh, well, while I'm whipping this earth into existence i'll make an algae cell from which algae can evolve, but i should make a ancestor lion cell as well and a tiger one and a grass one and a blue footed booby one..." How much sense does that make?

I noticed that, with a few rare exceptions, almost everyone here either believes exclusively in Creation, or exclusively in evolution. Is there anyone who believes in both, or in neither?

believe in both.. yup! i don't see why they can't just get along.

Thanks. I'll read up over the next few days. Maybe I'll have an epiphany or something.

When I say ascendant evolution, I'm talking about the notion of evolution took an ancient single-cell organism and turned it into lions and tigers and bears (oh my!). For example, the green algae. I can see evolution being the engine that takes some green algae ancestor and becoming different kinds of green algae (horizontal evolution). I can also see evolution as the engine that takes green algae and makes it a "better" green algae (forward evolution). But I don't see how evolution can take that green algae ancestor and make it into anything but fancy green algae. Does that clear it up? I've had students who've had trouble understanding this notion in person, so I can imagine how much more difficult it must be in this setting.

Let's start with the notion of BILLIONS of years, And....What stops a water based plant from being considered "fancy green algae"?

Why am I not surprised that the only sensible that's been said, is being completely ignored?:rolleyes:

Because it can be arguead not be completely accurate. Better IMO is:
- Religion explains how things should work.
- Science explains how things actually work.
- God can possibly explain why things work.
- The FSM tells us to concern ourselves less with this "work thing" and just have fun ;)

Neither.

On the first day, He created a mountain, some tree's, and a Midgit.

Then He created everything else in the next three days.

Then He rested for the next three days.