- #91
maximus
- 495
- 4
we may realize that, but the author of this thread obviously doesn't. we're trying to promote mutual understanding here, right?
Evolution vs. Creationism: A Never-Ending Debate
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the debate between creationism and evolution, with CubeX identifying as a creationist and asserting a belief in a young Earth, approximately 6,900 to 7,100 years old, based on biblical interpretations. CubeX acknowledges microevolution but rejects macroevolution, claiming that natural selection and mutations do not add genetic information. Other participants challenge CubeX's views, emphasizing the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting evolution and the Earth’s age of approximately 4.5 billion years. They argue that creationist claims lack solid scientific backing and encourage a critical examination of beliefs. The conversation highlights the tension between faith-based perspectives and scientific evidence in understanding human origins.
we may realize that, but the author of this thread obviously doesn't. we're trying to promote mutual understanding here, right?
- #92
maximus
- 495
- 4
error. evolution does not require the sun. sure, life has evolved around it because it is a very abundant source of energy, but if it were to slowly (key word slowly) die, life could evolve to different energy sources. like heat vents under water.
- #93
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Except that evolution is set against the backdrop of the one thing which is constant, "the sun." In which case it would be reasonable to say everything evolves towards or, "aspires to be like," its creator.
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.
- #94
maximus
- 495
- 4
i seem to have responded to your reply before you posted it!
- #95
Zero
Sounds nice...but that is a metaphorical way of looking at it that bears little resenblance to reality.
- #96
Zero
No, we are trying to promote understanding of reality! GRRRRRRRR!
- #97
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Oh, you mean the only life that we humans have been able to discover in the entire universe which, began on this very planet which, began with its very relation with the sun?
I think it would be a reasonable assessment to say that life didn't begin on this planet without the sun.
- #98
maximus
- 495
- 4
this is true. but as i said, there are some forms of life which no longer require it. and this is beside the point anyway. Earth is a single example of how life could be structred. (i'm not saying there is an ET here) but it is completely possible that life could evolve without the sun or any star for that matter.
- #99
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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.
- #100
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
This is not besides the point because it's the only example we have, and if you think about it, it's the only example that really makes any sense. Whereas your only means of countering it is purely speculative. A possibility perhaps, but still there's no evidence? -- i.e., except for the sun which, is all around us.
And yet isn't it a remote enough idea (being this is the only example we have) that life began on this planet in the first place?
- #101
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?
- #102
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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?
- #103
Zero
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.
- #104
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
- #105
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,922
- 28
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.
- #106
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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!
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!
- #107
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
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.
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.
- #108
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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?
If there's no overall goal such as FZ+ suggests, then it does suggest a sense of randomness.
- #109
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Yes, isn't it great to be alive!
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."
Except that evolution is life -- which, evolves and maintains its being in relation to the sun.
- #110
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
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 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 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.
- #111
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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."
Would it be reasonable to say that happiness = appreciation = worship? I think all three of these words are very similar in that context.
The sun is the one central (monotheistic) idea to our existence.
- #112
maximus
- 495
- 4
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.)
- #113
FZ+
- 1,594
- 3
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.
- #114
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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."
- #115
maximus
- 495
- 4
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.
- #116
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
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 ...
- #117
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
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
- #118
maximus
- 495
- 4
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.
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.
- #119
maximus
- 495
- 4
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.
- #120
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Don't you think it would be just a little bit too cold for that?
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.