NationStates Jolt Archive

Do creationism and evolution have to be exclusive of each other, in your beliefs? Why or why not?

There is theistic evolution, where God made things to evolve over time, but that's about the only mixing of the two you can do.

Unless you accept the Scientologists, with their Xenu guy blasting millions of humans to earth billions of years ago.

Creationism when taken as word-literal from genesis can not be reconciled with evolution. However, if it is taken simply to mean there is a creator, this can fit easily to evolution as it can be said the creator is guiding life along its evolutionary path.

Evolution or creationism. That's it.

"Guided" evolution is another Catholic cop-out when they realize science has proven their god does not exist.

Do creationism and evolution have to be exclusive of each other, in your beliefs? Why or why not?

Depends "Creationism" is usually defined by being a direct belief in genesis as such yes they are exclusive

Now if you are using it in the increasingly more common way of being synonymous with Intelligent Design then not necessarily

Creationism when taken as word-literal from genesis can not be reconciled with evolution. However, if it is taken simply to mean there is a creator, this can fit easily to evolution as it can be said the creator is guiding life along its evolutionary path.

why should there be a guide taking an active part in the process when natural laws seem to provide a logical explaination for the mechanism of evolution?

Well fundies these days seem to be trying to co-opt science with self-styled armchair 'experts' and such things as 'Creationism from a Scientific Perspective' etc, but in reality they are both diametrically opposed. Science makes assumptions through objective analysis of evidence and rational discourse, theology on the other hand requires a willful suspension of all critical and objective discourse and submission to an inherently irrational and blind belief.

of course not. god invinted evolution to automate the proccess of creation.

i can't for the life of me see what the problem is anyone would have with that.

=^^=
.../\...

They are not exclusive, but simply belong in different realms

Evolution is a falsifiable theory and belongs in the scientific sphere.

Creationism belongs in the religious sphere.

Creationist theories can not be falsified and therefore never be part of the scientific sphere. It is a belief, not a testable theory.

Here is my idea, supposing God does exist, I think the story of creation short sells God. If he is all knowing and all powerful, he wouldn't have just made it so, he would have planted the seeds of life knowing they would blossom into what we have today or more likely, what we will have in the future.

They're not diametrically opposed. In that you could argue God started the whole thing. But then you're accepting a part of Science (Evolution) while completely missing another part (no God because no proof). That seems silly to me. I'm hoping there is a "God gene" because I honestly do not understand the need for God. Not trying to sound patronizing, my family are Theists and they're some of the smartest people I know. I'm just saying I don't understand.

But then you're accepting a part of Science (Evolution) while completely missing another part (no God because no proof).
That's not a part of science (Unless of course you mean it in that we have no evidence of Biblical creationism).

And God said, let there be numerous meteors, and let them raineth down upon this world that I have created, and bringeth water, and air, and all that good stuff, and it was so.
And then God said, let these various chemicals form into complex chains of acids, and let those acids start to reproduce themselves, and it was so.
And from the acid came Life. And for a time, it was good.
And then on the five billionth day, Thog picked up a rock and hit Ug in the back of the head with it, and it all went downhill from there.

well i don't understand the need for something to exist in order for it to.

there may or may not be one or more gods. i do think people attatch way to much signifigance to the whole idea of whether or not there needs to be.

and i don't mean to be saying that there does. only that there doesn't need to not be.

i DO seriously question both the inheirent bennificence of hierarchy in any form, and this, as far as i can see, humanly invented pretense of the need for anything to be infallable.

at the same time though, i can, have, and do, experience a sense of spiritness, and also of the existence of the nonphysical, both great and small.

and i really so no reason or way, anything would have to have been created by deliberate premeditated intent, in order to exist. so evolution makes perfect sense, while 'creationism' only makes human egos, masquarading as and pretending to be belief.

=^^=
.../\...

I'm hoping there is a "God gene" because I honestly do not understand the need for God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

That makes about as much sense as racism or homosexuality being genetic. Most amusing, really :D

Do creationism and evolution have to be exclusive of each other, in your beliefs? Why or why not?

Yes and no.

An entity could very possibly have created the Universe. Could very easily have set into motion the beginnings of the design that eventually created worlds capable of supporting life and when conditions were right, intelligent life. There very possibly could be a God that intended that his creation would eventually give rise to beings capable of contemplating their own origins.

But that isn't science. That is faith. Whether there is or isn't a God doesn't change evolutionary theory. Faith is no excuse for a scientist to short-change the science and no matter how shrill a small subset of people who fear that science is questioning the size of their god's dick becomes, it doesn't change the fact that Science and Faith neither refute eachother nor belong together.

And God said, let there be numerous meteors, and let them raineth down upon this world that I have created, and bringeth water, and air, and all that good stuff, and it was so.
And then God said, let these various chemicals form into complex chains of acids, and let those acids start to reproduce themselves, and it was so.
And from the acid came Life. And for a time, it was good.
And then on the five billionth day, Thog picked up a rock and hit Ug in the back of the head with it, and it all went downhill from there.

Fuckin' Thog! :mad:

That makes about as much sense as racism or homosexuality being genetic. Most amusing, really :D

I've read this several times and cannot discern what you're trying to imply. Please take pity on me, and explain.

Fuckin' Thog! :mad:

Yeah, he was a right bastard. Genghis Khan is his great^6,278th grandson, you know.

I've read this several times and cannot discern what you're trying to imply. Please take pity on me, and explain.
The big arguement on NS a while back was 'is homosexuality genetic,' quite a lot of people got into it and the general agreement was 'if you think homosexuality is genetic youre an idiot.' The same arguement was applied to racism once or twice, and dismissed as an excuse for people to hate other people for not having the same skin as them.

The big arguement on NS a while back was 'is homosexuality genetic,' quite a lot of people got into it and the general agreement was 'if you think homosexuality is genetic youre an idiot.'
Then what did our brain trust decide the cause was?

Then what did our brain trust decide the cause was?

It was quite a while ago, but of the several ideas put forth, something along the lines of, 'it just depends on the person.' implying that random arrangements of neurons or something like that, along with various life experiences and such, were the leading causes of T3h GAY.

The big arguement on NS a while back was 'is homosexuality genetic,' quite a lot of people got into it and the general agreement was 'if you think homosexuality is genetic youre an idiot.' The same arguement was applied to racism once or twice, and dismissed as an excuse for people to hate other people for not having the same skin as them.

I bow out of those threads after the first 500 posts or so, but I thought the general consensus was that it didn't matter if homosexuality is genetic or not because nobody needs to justify their sexual preference and there is no justification for discrimination either way. Well, if that wasn't the consensus, it should have been.

I bow out of those threads after the first 500 posts or so, but I thought the general consensus was that it didn't matter if homosexuality is genetic or not because nobody needs to justify their sexual preference and there is no justification for discrimination either way. Well, if that wasn't the consensus, it should have been.

Im relying on my memory here, it was too damn long ago and I might be thinking of some other random arguement. There are far too many to catalouge accuratly :P

They're not diametrically opposed. In that you could argue God started the whole thing. But then you're accepting a part of Science (Evolution) while completely missing another part (no God because no proof). That seems silly to me. I'm hoping there is a "God gene" because I honestly do not understand the need for God. Not trying to sound patronizing, my family are Theists and they're some of the smartest people I know. I'm just saying I don't understand.
Saying that God 'started evolution' is flawed because the historiography of the OT doesn't allow for millions of years of evolution, the development of the Homiod brain, various periods including that of the Dinosaurs, and the carbon dating and other evidence to the contrary of human civilization being only 3k years old.

It was quite a while ago, but of the several ideas put forth, something along the lines of, 'it just depends on the person.' implying that random arrangements of neurons or something like that, along with various life experiences and such, were the leading causes of T3h GAY.

Ok, now that you've had your fun, what was the real consensus.

Ok, now that you've had your fun, what was the real consensus.

*shrug*
To the best of my recall, that was basically it. That or what LG said. As I noted, this was a LONG time ago. We'd have to dedicate a whole thread to figuring it out accuratly again.

Then what did our brain trust decide the cause was?What is the cause of any difference of opinion?

Did you read this?Carl Zimmer pointed out that, given the low explanatory power of VMAT2, it would have been more accurate for Hamer to call his book A Gene That Accounts for Less Than One Percent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study.[1]Wikilink. Such a good word. Should've invented it sooner. Mmmm.. wikilink wilikink. Sounds kind of Finish, yeh?

Anyway, if that's the scope of it, calling a god gene is pretty much a religious act in itself. It is superstition. You know, believing something to be the case, despite no apparent need for it to be true, and no evidence to support it possibly could be true.

Saying that God 'started evolution' is flawed because the historiography of the OT doesn't allow for millions of years of evolution, the development of the Homiod brain, various periods including that of the Dinosaurs, and the carbon dating and other evidence to the contrary of human civilization being only 3k years old.6k years.

Personally the stance of my goverment is that of the Order Of Natural Selection.....those who are undeserving of the right to life will be exterminated with prejudice and that includes all religious minorities.....In my country it is Survival Of The Fittest and whatever belief that the Goverment currently holds is that which the people must follow. As Politicians, elected or otherwise, we know what is best for the people and such matters as the debate between creativity or evolution should not even be entertained. Man has evolved into the ultimate Race on the Planet ......he was not created, he dragged himself out of the swamps and beat off every other mother-fecker on the way to become the dominant force on the planet. If you are weak, it is your destiny to be oppressed. The Strongest of our society are the Predators-anybody weaker is simply The Prey.

:headbang::sniper::mp5::gundge:

What is the cause of any difference of opinion?
I've always been told its not a choice, and that you're born that way. So ruling out choice, its a valid question as to what makes a person gay. In the end, its really just curiosity on my part. Or is that a question that you simply do not ask on Nationstates?

<Snip>Right.. Have a PEZ?

Personally the stance of my goverment is that of the Order Of Natural Selection.....those who are undeserving of the right to life will be exterminated with prejudice and that includes all religious minorities.....In my country it is Survival Of The Fittest and whatever belief that the Goverment currently holds is that which the people must follow. As Politicians, elected or otherwise, we know what is best for the people and such matters as the debate between creativity or evolution should not even be entertained. Man has evolved into the ultimate Race on the Planet ......he was not created, he dragged himself out of the swamps and beat off every other mother-fecker on the way to become the dominant force on the planet. If you are weak, it is your destiny to be oppressed. The Strongest of our society are the Predators-anybody weaker is simply The Prey.

:headbang::sniper::mp5::gundge:


I like you. You're silly. :)

Saying that God 'started evolution' is flawed because the historiography of the OT doesn't allow for millions of years of evolution, the development of the Homiod brain, various periods including that of the Dinosaurs, and the carbon dating and other evidence to the contrary of human civilization being only 3k years old.

Hey, at least the bible isnt as bad as this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29)
Gotta love those crazies :D

Exclusivity is for elitist bigots :D

...wait we're talking about polygamy,... right?

I like you. You're silly. :)

And if anyone is an expert on silly it would be you

We have 2 suppositions here:

1. God created the world in 6 days around 6, 000 years ago - which I guess 90% of us would say is a little silly.

2. God set off a reaction and then sat around for millions of years as solar systems slowly formed, millions more while solid rock formed planets, millions of years while life came to be, millions of years for that life to leave water, millions of years for dinosaurs to be a waste of time, millions of years for mammals to form neo-cortexes, millions of years for one form of monkey to grow consciousness, millions of years until one tribe of said monkeys started to praise him, a few thousand more so he could send his son down to be crucified and...

...all so we can praise him or go to hell.

He must be fantastic at Solitaire.

6k years.

Whatever, not 4.6 billion years old.

They aren't exclusive.

To be exclusive, both would have to be falsifiable. Since religious constantly changing intelligent design excuse isn't falsifiable, it's not exclusive with anything.

I've always been told its not a choice, and that you're born that way. So ruling out choice, its a valid question as to what makes a person gay. In the end, its really just curiosity on my part. Or is that a question that you simply do not ask on Nationstates?Though I misunderstood what your question was, I can't honestly say I think it's fine. Perhaps it should be, but I'm sick and fucking tired of homos and us bisexuals being singled out as if we were some sort of aberration or a bunch of fucking labrats. It's revolting.

A much better question is "what determines sexual orientation?" because that puts the lot of us under the microscope. Yourself included. And I'll even try to answer:

The most recent research I know of, points to a combination of genetics and the biochemistry of the mother as the major factors in determining sexual orientation. But right now, there's no clear answer to give you, other than saying people's sexual orientation isn't something they themselves have much influence on. At least not in general.

I think you should ask yourself, though; why do you want to know? Is it to further your understanding of what a human being is? Or are you just trying to learn about dem strange gay animals?

Now just to keep this post from being completely off-topic, I'll just add that: yes, the ToE and IDisms are mutually exclusive. There may or may not be a designer. I wouldn't know. But regardless, organisms in this neck of the Solar system weren't designed.

And if anyone is an expert on silly it would be you

Flatterer. :)

I like you. You're silly. :)

should I perhaps be worried......it strikes me, and no offence here, that association with you may damage my political stance.....that said thank-you I like you too :fluffle:

should I perhaps be worried......it strikes me, and no offence here, that association with you may damage my political stance.....that said thank-you I like you too :fluffle:
Erm... General doesn't usually go for roleplay, you don't have to worry about being IC/OOC here. Kick back, relax, and let us know what you really think. :D

The theory of unintelligent design, one that is belived by the entire congregation of the church of his holiness the flying spaghetti monster, must also be taken into account. http://www.venganza.org

should I perhaps be worried......it strikes me, and no offence here, that association with you may damage my political stance.....that said thank-you I like you too :fluffle:

I've been told that associating with me could damage many things:
assumptions, expectations, stereotypes, sexual norms, keyboards and monitors. I've almost never been accused of damaging a political stance. Except possibly for that time I kicked a poli-sci major in the nuts. His stance was definitely damaged. :)

Erm... General doesn't usually go for roleplay, you don't have to worry about being IC/OOC here. Kick back, relax, and let us know what you really think. :D

who says this isn't what i actually think......;)

Do creationism and evolution have to be exclusive of each other, in your beliefs? Why or why not?

they don't have to be exclusive because god could have created life and it then evolved into life as we know it. But no, in my beliefs there is no god, and so he certainly didn't have anything to do with life as we know it now.

Do creationism and evolution have to be exclusive of each other, in your beliefs? Why or why not?

Nope.

There is scientific, observable, and testable evidence on how the world was created and continues to evolve in response to the pressures/changes upon it.

There is an allegory for how it was created in a book that serves as a moral guidebook to behavior.

There have been discussions that I have had with pastors and priests who have stated that the word day means 24 hrs to us on Earth because that's the time it takes for one complete rotation -- but who knows how long a day is to a timeless and omnipotent creator? A day for such a being could well be hundreds of millions of years.

So, no, I have zero problem with accepting evolution and being religious.

Evolution or creationism. That's it.

"Guided" evolution is another Catholic cop-out when they realize science has proven their god does not exist.

You cannot prove that something does not exist, logically or scientifically. Since I will never see you, I could just as easily say, "Agavhumus does not exist. Yes, there are texts that are SUPPOSED to be from him, but they're really written by other people. If he exists, why have I never seen him?"

I think you should ask yourself, though; why do you want to know? Is it to further your understanding of what a human being is? Or are you just trying to learn about dem strange gay animals?

Well, thank you for attempting to answer my question, but apparently this is a taboo subject. I ask a simple question, merely because I'm curious about what determines human sexuality, and I'm treated with suspicion and derision. Is it that hard to accept that someone curious about such things has no ulterior motive besides the pursuit of knowledge? Yes, it could have been worded better, but I still don't see what in that post made me out to be some kind of bigot. If I am guilty of anything, it is wanting to know more about the people I inhabit this planet with.

Here is my idea, supposing God does exist, I think the story of creation short sells God. If he is all knowing and all powerful, he wouldn't have just made it so, he would have planted the seeds of life knowing they would blossom into what we have today or more likely, what we will have in the future.

Heh. When I was a kid, I threw a bunch of fancy-tailed guppies and feeder guppies together into a tank. I knew what I would get (guppies) but the results of the crossbreeding were interesting to watch (short tailed and colorful, long tailed and dull, long tailed and colorful, short tailed and dull, some with spots or stripes which did not exist in either of the strains I crossed....)

I've been told that associating with me could damage many things:
assumptions, expectations, stereotypes, sexual norms, keyboards and monitors. I've almost never been accused of damaging a political stance. Except possibly for that time I kicked a poli-sci major in the nuts. His stance was definitely damaged. :)

I thought primarily, associating with you could result in damage to your nuts via wedgie or other method of prank?

*hands LG a titanium cup, with a smiley face painted on the front.*

And God said, let there be numerous meteors, and let them raineth down upon this world that I have created, and bringeth water, and air, and all that good stuff, and it was so.
And then God said, let these various chemicals form into complex chains of acids, and let those acids start to reproduce themselves, and it was so.
And from the acid came Life. And for a time, it was good.
And then on the five billionth day, Thog picked up a rock and hit Ug in the back of the head with it, and it all went downhill from there.

Lolz. Brilliant.

And God said, let there be numerous meteors, and let them raineth down upon this world that I have created, and bringeth water, and air, and all that good stuff, and it was so.
And then God said, let these various chemicals form into complex chains of acids, and let those acids start to reproduce themselves, and it was so.
And from the acid came Life. And for a time, it was good.
And then on the five billionth day, Thog picked up a rock and hit Ug in the back of the head with it, and it all went downhill from there.

I love that.

In my opinion, creation and evolution are not exclusive. Evolution answers how something occurs, creation answers why. Why and how are very different questions.

As far as I am aware, evolution makes no attempt to explain how life first came to be, only how it has diverged since it was around. It is therefore compatable for the theory of evolution and the theory of an initial creator, who then sat back to watch the show, to co-exist.

However, if creationalism is to strictly follow Genesis then the two are not compatible, as Genesis states God created man in his image, whereas in evolution man is to have evolved from primates (along with other discrepancies between the two).

the people of norilsk16 believe in evolution.. creationism is a religious folly

of course not. god invinted evolution to automate the proccess of creation.

i can't for the life of me see what the problem is anyone would have with that.

=^^=
.../\...

Well, the only problem I can see in that is 'god'.

And no, I don't think the two can really be mixed. You either have to believe or have 'faith' in one, the other, or neither.

Do creationism and evolution have to be exclusive of each other, in your beliefs?
Absolutely not. Evolution happens over a period of time; creation is immanent for each moment of time.

Also, another flaw with 'guided' evolution is that if God is omnipotent, he would create humanity instantly (as in Genesis) rather than setting a Catalyst in contradiction with all holy texts story-conception of creation.

well i don't understand the need for something to exist in order for it to.
With the paradigm that looks at the world from only two physical perspectives (subjective and objective) it is an axiom that "existence exists."

at the same time though, i can, have, and do, experience a sense of spiritness, and also of the existence of the nonphysical, both great and small.

and i really so no reason or way, anything would have to have been created by deliberate premeditated intent, in order to exist. so evolution makes perfect sense, while 'creationism' only makes human egos, masquarading as and pretending to be belief.

=^^=
.../\...
You have a different paradigm. :)

Evolution or creationism. That's it.

"Guided" evolution is another Catholic cop-out when they realize science has proven their god does not exist.

Really since when?:confused:

Really since when?:confused:

You read it on the Internet, it must be true.

Also, another flaw with 'guided' evolution is that if God is omnipotent, he would create humanity instantly (as in Genesis) rather than setting a Catalyst in contradiction with all holy texts story-conception of creation.

Not to mention that if god is supposed to be omnipotent and all-knowing then he created humanity with full knowledge that we would turn out to be a bunch off ungodly, blaspheming heretics who run around stealing, murdering and fighting (when not otherwise engaging in a daft pursuit of success or happiness before unavoidable death). And if thats the case then hes not even the same god as described in the bible and if its not then god doesn't even exist so evolution seems to be the way to go.

Ok, now that you've had your fun, what was the real consensus.

The real consensus? Homosexuality was likely a mix of genetic and biological factors. As was bisexuality. And heterosexuality. And asexuality. And what the hell else there is.

Also, another flaw with 'guided' evolution is that if God is omnipotent, he would create humanity instantly (as in Genesis) rather than setting a Catalyst in contradiction with all holy texts story-conception of creation.

Only if you read the bible literally, which is something xenophobic ultra-right-wing nut-jobs do when theyre looking for excuses to hate something. Sort of like when people try to read the US Constitution 'literally,' you get a whole different result when you look at it from a different perspective.
Crazy old guys knew about metaphores four thousand years ago, you know. The Greeks invented them, along with homosexuality and drama.

Also, another flaw with 'guided' evolution is that if God is omnipotent, he would create humanity instantly (as in Genesis) rather than setting a Catalyst in contradiction with all holy texts story-conception of creation.

I'm an atheist but I disagree with this. Omnipotency is very silly, but ignoring that most people when they create something they prefer for that something to be self maintaining and governing not to be something that needs tweeking every five minutes. I don't see why God (being anthropomorphic after all) would neccessarily be different to ourselves in this respect.

Creationism where it refers to a specific Creation story from a specific religion is unlikely to be compatible with science - largely because it wasn't meant to be.

However, the idea that there is a Creator is not incompatible with science of any sort - including evolutionary theory.

There is theistic evolution, where God made things to evolve over time, but that's about the only mixing of the two you can do.

Unless you accept the Scientologists, with their Xenu guy blasting millions of humans to earth billions of years ago.

No it's not. There's also the notion that god set things into motion and allowed the universe to move with out his guiding hand.

And a couple other to varying degrees.

No it's not. There's also the notion that god set things into motion and allowed the universe to move with out his guiding hand.

And a couple other to varying degrees.

That's just Deism.

It really just all depends on who you ask, and even then, that doesn't really answer the question because there is no scientific way to provide any real evidence that a Creator of any kind exists.

So it's just really up to you. Do you think god used evolution to create mankind? (do you even think god exists?)

It's really whatever you believe. If you DO believe in god, then what does it matter if he used evolution as a means of creating mankind, or just did it in seven days?

Either way, (if you believe in god), he made man and I see no reason why the HOW part should bear any relevance on anyone's faith, or show credit to lack thereof.

That's just Deism.

Not necessarily. You can believe that and still adhere to any religion; God is still involved in the spiritual side of the universe, which is of course the important part in religious terms.