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.
  • #121
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
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?
 
  • #123
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.
 
  • #124
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...
 
  • #125
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.
 
  • #126
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.
 
  • #127
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #128
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?
 
  • #129
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?
 
  • #130
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.
 
  • #131
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!
 
  • #132
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. :wink:

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!
 
  • #133
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!
 
  • #134
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?
 
  • #135
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.
 
  • #136
Originally posted by Zero
No.
Why?
 
  • #137
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'
 
  • #138
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.
 
  • #139
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.
 
  • #140
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.
 
  • #141
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?
 
  • #142
give me a good reason to unlock, but i think this topic is way off its original course...
 

Similar threads

"Big Bang" according to the 19th century poet ("Science-v-Poetry")
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Why Didn't Dinosaurs Evolve Into Intelligent Beings?
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
Can Astronomy and Cosmology Bridge the Gap Between Creationism and Evolution?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Evolution and preservation of endangered animals
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
How (not) to discuss evolution/sciene vs. religion/creationsim
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
I Understanding diagrams of the late stages of stellar evolution
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
What Can You Discover from a USB Stick Found in the Grass?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Nature paper on Moon's initial evolution - Tidally driven remelting
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
ChatGPT spin off from: What happens to the energy in destructive interference?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
4K