Evolution vs. Creationism: A Never-Ending Debate

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Of course it's a metaphor, and yet it's the very metaphor which is necessary, if we wish to give any credence to the possiblity that God exists.

And why on Earth would we want to tell creative 'lies'(using metaphor) in order to give credence to an idea that has little merit on its own?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And why on Earth would we want to tell creative 'lies'(using metaphor) in order to give credence to an idea that has little merit on its own?

And what is the point of using a metaphor if not to suggest a possible relationship?

If we want physical evidence of a "creator," i.e., to suggest that evolution doesn't occur randomly, by its own accord, then we have it, by means of the sun. And think about it, doesn't life on this planet elvove -- and in a sense "worship" -- the sun?

So perhaps in this sense we can establish that indeed life doesn't evolve randomly and, that it entails a sense of worship towards the sun (its creator). Aren't these two things which need to be maintained if we're going to establish that God exists?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And what is the point of using a metaphor if not to suggest a possible relationship?

If we want physical evidence of a "creator," i.e., to suggest that evolution doesn't occur randomly, by its own accord, then we have it, by means of the sun. And think about it, doesn't life on this planet elvove -- and in a sense "worship" -- the sun?

So perhaps in this sense we can establish that indeed life doesn't evolve randomly and, that it entails a sense of worship towards the sun (its creator). Aren't these two things which need to be maintained if we're going to establish that God exists?

Why would we want to establish that a myth is real? For what purpose.

And, anyhow, no one ever said that evolution was random, and we know that chemical processes sometimes need a energy sourse...all that is contained in science, you haven't added anything we didn't already know. You just dress it up in pseudo-poetic ways.

 

[FZ+]

That's a strange idea of worship you have there... By that idea, we are also worshipping...

Power stations
The nuclear strong force
Maxwell's equations
Quantum uncertainty
Butterflies somewhere on the other side of the planet
Cosmic rays
Dark matter
Parents
Society
Marxist socialist doctrine
George Dubya Bush's urine
The mating habits of blue tits
The cruise velocity of African and European swallows
Fermi-Dirac statistics
etc etc

Since in reality there is no such thing as true isolation, and the condition of life and the world we see is affected to some degree by every observable thing that exists. To say that dependency is relevant to worship is to utter erase the significance of worship, as our current state is dependent on the state of everything else in the known universe. By QM.

And I think what you have done is to construct a circular, and hence rather pointless argument.

Except that evolution is set against the backdrop of the one thing which is constant, "the sun."

No. The sun is not constant astronomically speaking, and if you take the time frame where the sun is relatively constant, then plenty of other things are also constant.

In which case it would be reasonable to say everything evolves towards or, "aspires to be like," its creator.

No it isn't. Everything (perhaps all information?) evolves to fit the particular selectional pressure placed on it. The existence of a creator is irrelevant as far as evolution is concerned. Does everything evolve to be a stellar nebula? Or maybe a Big Bang singularity? Plainly, this is nonsense.

And, although we are speaking of a natural process, it does present a different perspective, in the sense that evolution doesn't occur randomly, and that indeed there is a creative force (the sun) that it bears witness to.

I think you have misunderstood creative here. In the context of evolution, creativity equates to the introduction of random changes. The critical part is that the creativity is not directed by purpose - it is literally the addition of new, random information. The creative power of evolution is dependent on randomness - it is somewhat ironic that if Intelligent Design was true, and evolution had absolute direction, evolution in fact wouldn't work as we observe it to have worked. You get a narrow gene pool quickly, stagnation, lack of adaptability and the whole thing grinds to a halt and gets out-competed by the basically random creatures. Like the tortoise and the hare, where here the hare stops half way and thinks it's "won". Continuous fingers of god don't work, as far as the evidence is concerned.

Anyway, addentum to my popular misconceptions of evolution bit...

12. The attack that evolution is "just" a theory is meaningless. In science, a theory is the best state of existence an idea can have, as science accepts that absolute faith based truth is unreachable. As a neccessity, all science must have the capacity to be falsified, and checked continuously. Compare that with creationism, which is NOT a theory, but a belief system. PR88 is incorrect in saying that creationism cannot be proven because it is false. No ,creationism is unprovable, and undisprovable because of it's nature as a system on faith. Since it is dependent on a lack of attachment to observable reality, it is automatically immune, but as far as knowledge goes, completely meaningless. It's state can only be indeterminate, while evolution has the capacity to adapt. This ingrained skeptical approach is to blame for the extreme success of science.

Evolution is not "just" a theory, it is the best approach simply because it is in fact a theory.

 

[Hurkyl]

Why? No offense, but the brand of creationism this thread started with is very obviously wrong to anyone who believes the scientific advancements in anyone of a dozen fields.

So there aren't 5 pages of junk at the beginning of the thread, that's why.

Anyways, what brand of creationism are you talking about? The original poster has barely gotten to say a single word about it.

Also, see my admonishment of PR88; it's good reading for all.

 

[Iacchus32]

FZ:

It's very simple. I can stand in the presence of the sun, feel it's sustaining warmth, and say Hey, isn't it great to be alive? Couldn't that be construed as a form of worship? Why should it have to be more complicated than that? -- than acknowledging the grounds of your being and appreciating it?

I really see no point in over analyzing it the way you have here, because here you can't see the forest from the trees. Oops! There's another one! One of those dirty little metaphors!

 

[FZ+]

I pass my relativity exam, and beam in exuberance. Wow, isn't it good to be alive? I make love to a beautiful woman (since the great god relativity has Provided), and I say isn't it good to be alive? Some intestinal microbes take in nutrient and say, isn't it great to be alive?

Aren't I worshipping relativity and attractive females then? Are my intestinal products divine? I really doubt that by any conventional definition, worship = enjoyment.

Oh BTW, this has nothing to do with evolution. There is however such a thing as over-poetic language.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Why would we want to establish that a myth is real? For what purpose.

And yet what is a myth if it weren't at the very least allegorical? And what is an allegory if it weren't "possibly" true?

And, anyhow, no one ever said that evolution was random, and we know that chemical processes sometimes need a energy sourse...all that is contained in science, you haven't added anything we didn't already know. You just dress it up in pseudo-poetic ways.

If there's no overall goal such as FZ+ suggests, then it does suggest a sense of randomness.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
I pass my relativity exam, and beam in exuberance. Wow, isn't it good to be alive? I make love to a beautiful woman (since the great god relativity has Provided), and I say isn't it good to be alive? Some intestinal microbes take in nutrient and say, isn't it great to be alive?

Yes, isn't it great to be alive!

Aren't I worshipping relativity and attractive females then? Are my intestinal products divine? I really doubt that by any conventional definition, worship = enjoyment.

Life was meant to be appreciated. If you wish to find God, learn how to be happy. Whereas the only alternative to that would be "contrived."

Oh BTW, this has nothing to do with evolution. There is however such a thing as over-poetic language.

Except that evolution is life -- which, evolves and maintains its being in relation to the sun.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If there's no overall goal such as FZ+ suggests, then it does suggest a sense of randomness.

Not really. Let me use an evil metaphor here. Have you ever heard of diffusion? It's how gases inside a bottle tends to spread out to occupy all available room...

Now, the mechanism for this is completely random. If we don't have a bottle, but empty air to expand infinitely into, then there isn't a final goal either. But though it is driven by random processes, the whole phenomenon is far from random. It has a general trend (expanding in all directions, decreasing in concentration) which we can predict by a statistical approach, and it acts overall in a non-random matter. Same with evolution.

If you wish to find God, learn how to be happy.

If you don't wish to find god, also be happy. If you can't find god, then you can still be happy. Happiness and worship are separate entities.

Except that evolution is life -- which, evolves and maintains its being in relation to the sun.

Except it doesn't maintain it's being. The most important part of evolution is change. Half the time, natural selection doesn't even depend on the sun - it's not a limiting factor. And as I have shown, the sun is as arbitary a factor as anything. The reality of natural selection is not so simplistic, nor does it infer a goal.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Not really. Let me use an evil metaphor here. Have you ever heard of diffusion? It's how gases inside a bottle tends to spread out to occupy all available room...

Now, the mechanism for this is completely random. If we don't have a bottle, but empty air to expand infinitely into, then there isn't a final goal either. But though it is driven by random processes, the whole phenomenon is far from random. It has a general trend (expanding in all directions, decreasing in concentration) which we can predict by a statistical approach, and it acts overall in a non-random matter. Same with evolution.

I'm not the one who claims life is just a random process. But I think the "strict evolutionists" are making this claim by saying there is no purpose to life. If there is a point to life or, more than a sense of randomness, then how are we capable of acknowleging it? Otherwise I don't think we would be able to recognize what we term "the truth."

If you don't wish to find god, also be happy. If you can't find god, then you can still be happy. Happiness and worship are separate entities.

Would it be reasonable to say that happiness = appreciation = worship? I think all three of these words are very similar in that context.

Except it doesn't maintain it's being. The most important part of evolution is change. Half the time, natural selection doesn't even depend on the sun - it's not a limiting factor. And as I have shown, the sun is as arbitary a factor as anything. The reality of natural selection is not so simplistic, nor does it infer a goal.

The sun is the one central (monotheistic) idea to our existence.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I'm not the one who claims life is just a random process. But I think "strict evolutionists" are making this claim by saying there is no purpose to life. If there is a point to life or, more than a sense of randomness, then how are we capable of acknowleging it? Otherwise I don't think we would be able to recognize what we term "the truth."

all purposes in life are superficial. there simply is no purpose to life, because- as stated before - it was a random occurance, and everything that brought it to the point we're at were random mutations. if one wants to make a purpose, such as reverance to a god, or the search for truth, than so be it. but remember, you are not a beautiful and unigue snowflake. you are the same decaying organic matter as everything else... (and these thoughts don't need to be so hurtful. i take comfort in beliefs.)

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32 The sun is the one central (monotheistic) idea to our existence.

That can be applied to many other things. Like say:

Earth
Water
Fire
Air
American football.

I think it is impossible to find a single objective central idea.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
all purposes in life are superficial. there simply is no purpose to life, because- as stated before - it was a random occurance, and everything that brought it to the point we're at were random mutations. if one wants to make a purpose, such as reverance to a god, or the search for truth, than so be it. but remember, you are not a beautiful and unigue snowflake. you are the same decaying organic matter as everything else... (and these thoughts don't need to be so hurtful. i take comfort in beliefs.)

Indeed, I am greatful to have my own mind by which I can process that which I see around me. Nor do I tend to let "other labels" stick, which have designed around the purposes of other people's convenvience.

Also, if you truly understand something, it isn't a matter of being "convinced otherwise."

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Indeed, I am greatful to have my own mind by which I can process that which I see around me.

as am i. (no offence)

Also, if you truly understand something, it isn't a matter of being "convinced otherwise."

not in my book. for me, the greatest and most important principle is question everything. espessially that which we are certain of.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
That can be applied to many other things. Like say:

Earth
Water
Fire
Air
American football.

I think it is impossible to find a single objective central idea.

First and foremost, without the sun, there would be no life on this planet.

We see by the light of the sun (truth) and are sustained by its warmth (love). Whereas if you don't see the correlation to "seeing the truth" and "feeling love?" ... well, I guess that's another story ...

 

[CubeX]

To shark:

Evolution IS still a theory! Which means it is not fact (possibly meaning yet). It is still possible that it can be proven. And yes I have studied about it. From the official point of view. I've used hundreds of papers from the harvard library online too.

-CubeX

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
First and foremost, without the sun, there would be no life on this planet.

wrong. the majority of the life would die, but some species would still exist. in time these species would evolve around a different energy source.

We see by the light of the sun (truth) and are sustained by its warmth (love). Whereas if you don't see the correlation to "seeing the truth" and "feeling love?" ... well, I guess that's another story ...

i think i speak for everybody when i say, what the hell are you talking about!? i guess i don't understand the correlation, perhaps you'de better explain it to us.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by CubeX
Evolution IS still a theory! Which means it is not fact (possibly meaning yet). It is still possible that it can be proven.

one can never prove a theory. but that doesn't mean it isn't a fact. in another post i gave the analogy of einstein and the GR. it is also called a theory, even though every experiment performed argees with it. there also is the "germ-theory" which is the theory that disiese is spread by germs. this also has overwhelming evidence supporting it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
wrong. the majority of the life would die, but some species would still exist. in time these species would evolve around a different energy source.

Don't you think it would be just a little bit too cold for that?

i think i speak for everybody when i say, what the hell are you talking about!? i guess i don't understand the correlation, perhaps you'de better explain it to us.

These are the two qualities of the sun -- translated into "human terms" -- that we couldn't live without ... i.e., without light and heat we would die, and without truth and love we would also die.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by maximus
wrong. the majority of the life would die, but some species would still exist. in time these species would evolve around a different energy source.

To live a species would need to get energy from somewhere- ie eat something. At the moment any plant or animal gets it's energy from the sun (orginally) so no sun, you're suggesting the energy comes from the Earth's core perhaps?

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Don't you think it would be just a little bit too cold for that?

the interior of the Earth would still be warm, and geothermal energy would still keep the organisms under the sea warm. (specifically the ones which have adapted to live off of heat vents)

These are the two qualities of the sun -- translated into "human terms" -- that we couldn't live without ... i.e., without light and heat we would die, and without truth and love we would also die.

...er... i understand why we need the light and heat, but what truth or love does it give to us?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
the interior of the Earth would still be warm, and geothermal energy would still keep the organisms under the sea warm. (specifically the ones which have adapted to live off of heat vents)

But how much of the Earth's inner-temperature is maintained by the sun? And how long would it take to cool down? Or, let's say the sun never existed. Would the Earth have ever gotten molten in the middle? If so, how hot and for how long? And how much longer (if ever) would it take for something like human beings to "crop up?"

...er... i understand why we need the light and heat, but what truth or love does it give to us?

Truth and Love are spiritual terms (in bringing up the notion of God and evolution here) and are correlatives to light and heat.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Truth and Love are spiritual terms (in bringing up the notion of God and evolution here) and are correlatives to light and heat.

I don't really get this bit.

I mean they're corrrelatives, but that dosn't make them cause and effect...

 

[maximus]

i think we are wandering off topic again with all this sun worship stuff. cube, the best post so far is that made by FZ+ on page 3. go there and tell us what you think isn't explained there.

 

[Another God]

This is very poor inductive reasoning. One example, and from that you think you have enough information to make a generalisation about everything else?

NO, doesn't work that way.

Secondly, there are stars everywhere, yet not apparently life everywhere. Just because we are on a planet orbiting the sun, and we have life here, doesn't make the sun special. Sure, without our sun, we couldn't have life here, but isn't that also because without the sun this chunk of rock wouldn't have formed, and the dynamic state that it is in wouldn't be occurring etc.

There is no reason to be solar-centric about this.

 

[Iacchus32]

Excerpt from http://www.swedenborg.com, Heaven and Hell ...

Although the sun of the world is not seen in heaven, nor anything from that sun, there is nevertheless a sun there, and light and heat, and all things that are in the world, with innumerable others, but not from a like origin; since the things in heaven are spiritual, and those in the world are natrual. The sun of heaven is the Lord; the light there is the Divine truth and the heat the Divine good that go forth from the Lord as a sun ...

The light of heaven is not a natural light, like the light of the world, but a spiritual light, because it is from the Lord as a sun, and that sun is the Divine love (as has been shown in the foregoing chapter). That which goes forth from the Lord as a sun is called Divine truth, but in its essence it is Divine good united to Divine truth. From this the angels have light and heat, light from Divine truth, and heat from Divine good. As the light of heaven, and the heat also, are from such a source, it is evident that they are spiritual and not natural.

Hey if it seems a little unclear, it might be because it was translated originally from Latin?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Excerpt from Emanuel Swedenborg's, Heaven and Hell ...Hey if it seems a little unclear, it might be because it was translated originally from Latin?

Just seems silly!


Well, at least it seems pretty empty and meaningless...and what does it have to do with evolution, exactly?

 

[Izzle]

Iacchus32 - I don't know if you realize it, but your posts have nothing to do with anything, and you just cite very strange ideas and concepts which are so out of reality. What the heck is up man? Do you actually know anything about science or physics?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Izzle
Iacchus32 - I don't know if you realize it, but your posts have nothing to do with anything, and you just cite very strange ideas and concepts which are so out of reality. What the heck is up man? Do you actually know anything about science or physics?

I know who I am.

 

[maximus]

CHRIST! is it just me or does this guy sound exactly like PR88! i don't mean to sound paranoid, but how many assholes can respond to a single thread in one day and still have it be coindidence!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
CHRIST! is it just me or does this guy sound exactly like PR88! i don't mean to sound paranoid, but how many assholes can respond to a single thread in one day and still have it be coindidence!

Maximus, you should probably try to keep your references to the "AH's" down to a minimum.

Actually I think "Fizzle" may have a point though, because I entered this thread somewhere in the middle, without bothering to read most of the earlier posts, in which case many of my remarks may seem a bit out of context. Will try and bear this in mind the next I post in the middle of a thread though. Thanks!

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually I think "Fizzle" may have a point though, because I entered this thread somewhere in the middle, without bothering to read most of the earlier posts, in which case many of my remarks may seem a bit out of context. Will try and bear this in mind the next I post in the middle of a thread though. Thanks!

i said that politely ages ago!

 

[Izzle]

Iacchus32 - My name is Izzle. There is no F in my name. Got it?

Maximus - I've noticed you post nothing of substance, and either spam good threads or call people trolls. Perhaps there is an aol chat to better suit your needs? Do you have any actual scientific knowledge?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32


Would it be reasonable to say that happiness = appreciation = worship? I think all three of these words are very similar in that context.

No.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
No.

Why?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why?

Because those words don't mean the same thing? You have a lousy tendency to redefine words as it suits you, and to make associations that don't fit. Then you act as though your associatioons mean anything, which they don't. By your 'logic' I could say 'The sun is hot. The oven is hot. The sun is like God, so I must go worship my oven on a cloudy day'

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
No.

Why? Actually I'm trying to let some of you non-religious types off the hook by saying worship doesn't necessarily entail following along "blindly," as well as "feigning" the idea that we're meek and humble and mild, etc.. That in fact it has nothing to do with being superficial and "contrived," which is sheer nonsense.

 

[Izzle]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Would it be reasonable to say that happiness = appreciation = worship? I think all three of these words are very similar in that context.

WHAT?

reasonable to say that? Are you crazy? Happines has NOTHING to do with apprpeciation.

Is your mind seriously that warped? WTF?

Would it be reasonable to say envy - hate - racism?

So anyone with envy is a racist?

OMG this is unbearable.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Because those words don't mean the same thing?

Sure they do, in context with what I've just said above. What is happiness, if not a sense of appreciation? And what is worship, if it doesn't entail a sense of appreciation? So why can't worship be viewed as the sense of appreciation derived from happiness? Why should it entail anything other than this? Otherwise I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

You have a lousy tendency to redefine words as it suits you, and to make associations that don't fit. Then you act as though your associatioons mean anything, which they don't. By your 'logic' I could say 'The sun is hot. The oven is hot. The sun is like God, so I must go worship my oven on a cloudy day'

Then again maybe some things need to be redefined to mean what they're supposed to mean? Just like here, I think people get the wrong idea about worship because of the way it's practiced, in which case they take it to mean being phony and contrived, which it shouldn't be.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Izzle
WHAT?

reasonable to say that? Are you crazy? Happines has NOTHING to do with apprpeciation.

Is your mind seriously that warped? WTF?

Would it be reasonable to say envy - hate - racism?

So anyone with envy is a racist?

OMG this is unbearable.

How do we ever explore something without first making the association? Is your life that rigid and fixed?

 

[Kerrie]

give me a good reason to unlock, but i think this topic is way off its original course...