Your believe: Darwin or Creationism?

Darvin was an idiot. any clear thinking person can see that.

 

There needs to be more options:

I don't care.
I don't care.
I don't care.

Why do we have to believe in either or? Why can't we disbelieve in either of them? In fact, why not believe in both of them at the same time just to get under their skin? Why can't we just live our own lives and believe what we want to?

Saying we have to believe in either one or the other creates a false dichotomy.

 

It's this level of intellectual curiousity that kept the head hunters of New Guinea from developing a moon rocket.

 

Both Darwin and Creationism may be correct, in the same time. The propaganda has made a victim out of you by splitting your mind alongside these two.

 

HAHAHA You little infidel! You don't want to believe? You know what the almighty god will then order us to do to your votes, right? HAHAHA

 

I for one don't care what someone believes in. What I take exception with is when people try to pass off their beliefs as science. Science has specific rules and criteria and Creation/ID does not meet those. So if you want to believe the Biblical version of how all the different species come to be, be my guest. You don't want to believe that life has changed and is in the process of changing? Fine, it's your life. You want your beliefs to be taught as science? Now I have a problem.

 

The most ironic twist is that for god to exist it would require evolution albeit beyond our space-time continuum but then energy is assumed to have preceeded our current space-time continuum. God, just like matter and life, would have had to originate as pure energy and then to have evolved from that energy. If all it takes is energy for our entire universe to form then there's no logical argument for god.

 

Ha! ha Arrrrh ha ha!!!!! ...ahhhhh~....Ha ha ha !!!! ...I'm ok now. RR you speak the truth.

reva

 

Of course, the theory of evolution as it stands today is quite a bit more advanced than it was when Darwin first developed it. I expect the gains have been comparable to the gains we've seen in other scientific fields, in fact, and of course many of them interconnect to benefit one another. Evolution has thus gained much from geology, archaeology, genetics, biology, etc. Our knowledge has been growing massively in just the last couple of centuries or so, and it seems religion is (or at least some religions are) fighting to keep up, or more aptly, fighting to stay behind..

 

No and no. Evolution does not mean that life was a "fluke."

 

I'm waiting for Bleipriester to use the banana argument.

 

If you picked Darwinism (I'm directing this at you, liberals!), you have some explaining to do as to why you believe that Darwinism applies to different species of animals, but not to different populations of human beings.



Christians believe that all the races are God's children, whereas the liberal's Darwinist explanation for the existence of human beings, which does not require a God, opens the door to racism.

In Nazi Germany, people in the Church spoke out against what they saw happening to the jews. In fact, no other group outside the church raised their voice.
Once the Church was out of the way, the jews were fair game.

As soon as God is out of the picture, all sorts of things can conveniently be justified...

 

Your post illustrates why I do not fully trust or accept as true current evolutionary theory and the scientific method in general. I do agree that science, especially applied science has enriched mankind immensely, but there is a dark flip side to the science coin, namely science used to harm mankind, such as the H Bomb, weaponized virus i.e. bioweapons, or thousands of other lesser examples. However, the primary reason I accept science only provisionally is that the scientific method is lacking in, well, validity and preciseness, i.e. the mandatory vice of the scientific method that a science theory etc a science theory etc must be falsifiable. I admit it’s a necessary evil but its an evil nevertheless. BTW on a personal level I love science. I am a serious amateur astronomer, my hobby, and love most science, even biology (it being my least favorite). In any case we simply over do our trust in science as an authority on everything.

As per your post you say “the theory of evolution as it stands today is quite a bit more advanced than it was when Darwin first developed it”. I would reword it to say 'today’s theory of evolution is so different from Darwin's evolution of the species by natural selection that it seems like a different author penned it'. Darwin's theory is only one of hundreds that many people use as the standard 'authority' to define their reality, their truth. If science can change its opinion so drastically, how can anyone use science as model to determine what reality is? The scientific method is not really not too much different than a con (from confidence) mans game. In other words, if we use science as the best authority to define truth*, how do we know we are not living a lie?

That is the reason I use a different method (a different authority) to describe and understand reality.

* By authority I mean its how those that embrace science use it for sometimes absolute proof to argue what is true and what is not. Example; I know the earth goes around the sun because science has proved it! See how it describes reality, even if its right on many issues it has been wrong in the past, sometimes desperately wrong.

reva

 

This poll is for people who are stuck in the 1950's when they banned teaching Evolution in school.

 

I'm sure someone has already pointed this out but 'Darwin' didn't say anything about how the universe was made.

 

Tell me my Mod why do you think that God would be a part of the physical world? I believe that God ie the entity that created everything, may be more like a thought, or something that science has yet to discover? (if we have the intellectual ability to discover or prove the particulars of our creator). Its kind of interesting to speculate and I do speculate that we may find evidence of God if we develop the new physics that Hawking speaks of when lamented that we can only know so much about a singularity or the Big Bang because our physics do not work past a certain point. Ie get too close to a black hole singularity or go too far back in time to the BB 'singularity' our physics become useless.

reva

 

Other than religious speculations, no Darwin didn't make any comments that I know of concerning how the universe began. BTW, and to spark* I would like to report that there is evidence that Darwin was a theist, maybe a theistic evolutionist, less likley but possible he was a Christian, proven that he was trained and schooled in theology and had studied the work of William Paley.

* Spark definition; I made that one up, to spark is to slightly irritate someone with a comment, flame is illegal and infractionable', sparking isn't.

reva

 

The teaching of Intelligent Design or creation YO or Progressive Creation in any form etc still is banned. It's better for the state authority to indoctrinate* young minds with one state religion or Canon (Darwinism** for example) exclusively than to allow a choice, especially if the minds in question are expected to perform as programmed.

* (brainwash might be a better word)
** (Darwinism means in this case far more than evolutionary theory, it permeates nearly every aspect of life if instilled at the exclusion of all other ideas, and if programmed early enough. Also the tactic of 'reinforcing' should be applied through out the life of those indoctrinated).

reva

 

I am through in this thread for this morning (do I hear applause?).

reva

 

As the creationists like to say, "nothing comes from nothing" (their argument for why god created the universe) but the problem is that if god doesn't consist of energy where did god find the energy to create the universe? Thought itself requires energy. Everything has a beginning even if that beginning is founded in infinity. We can use the mathmatical formula of zero times infinity equals one (the opposite of one divided by zero) to define spontanious generation and that would apply to energy as well as any concept of god. All of the energy in the universe is logically equal to "less than god" so it is illogical to believe that complexity would originate before simplicity. On the balance beam of logic "god" is the least likely result of spontanious generation.

"Creationism" doesn't depend on logic of course. In fact it is completely illogical so it has to reject logic completely for it to even exist. When we look at the history of religions we find that most tried to explain the origin of the universe and life. The people that created these religions didn't have a logical means for explaining the origin of the universe and life so they made up stories to explain it. The very concept of god in all religions was about explaining the unknown where knowledge, logic, and reasoning failed mankind. This is a historical fact regardless of which ancient religion we look at. Over the centuries we have gained knowledge and based upon that knowledge we've developed theories and those theories are testable. Some have, based upon emperical testing, have ultimately been disproven and discarded as that is the nature of science, while others such as the spontanious generation of life have met the tests so far. The evidence is not conclusive yet but test after test has been successful. Organic material can form from inorganic materials. Basic chains that are a component of RNA can originate from organic material. What would have taken hundreds of millions of years has been demonstrated in the labratories of scientists. We can never prove that life originated from spontaneous generation but we can, in the lab, demonstrate it was possible. We can never prove that man evolved from the apes but we can show the linkage and can explain the mechanism that triggered that evolution (i.e. natural selection).

Something that I find ironic is the very question presented in this thread. It opposes "Darwinism" and "Creationism" but Darwin did not propose evolution. Evolution was already an accepted scientific fact based upon overwhelming emperical and physical evidence when Darwin addressed to origin of the species. All Darwin did was provide a theory on the mechanism that caused evolution to occur. The physical evidence of evolution is overwhelming and when we address Darwin we merely address the mechanism (i.e. natural selection) that caused evolution to occur.

The question presented doesn't pit evolution against creationism but instead pits natural selection against creationism. Darwin provided a theory on HOW "natural" evolution occurred but "Creationists" have never proposed anything estabishing HOW "unnatural" evolution occurred. Those that propose creationism depend on the "poof" theory where life just "poofed" into existance. How did that "poof" occur remains the question for the creationists and they offer no answers to that fundamental question.

 

God is found in the other dimension, so would have to go with Creationists on this matter.

Science has shown us that there is dark matter in the universe, for which makes up most of the universe, but that we can't see it with our plain eyes even with telescopes looking directly at dark matter.

This is God, Jesus is dark matter, and darwins proposal of no God only views this world instead of the vast world outside of our universe as astronomists have yet to discover.

 

Your believe: Darwin or Creationism?

Only nutters 'believe': sensible people look at the evidence, which in this case is overwhelming. If something more convincing comes up we'll work on that hypothesis instead.

 

There are 2 major flaws with this argument:

1) The assumption that everything science believes today is irrefutably correct (a pitfall that mankind has fallen into many times in the past).

2) The assumption that God would be limited by human comprehension and/or the laws of physics. Think about it for a second. If God is omnipotent, then what does that mean? Omnipotence is unlimited power. Thus, by definition, God would have to be able to defy any limitation you could think up because anything else would cease to be omnipotence.

 

I am troubled by this sentance sir,
I know a lot about evolution (well, compared to a layman, not compared to a biologist). I know of know part of evolution that suggests anything "all arose by fluke."

 

This question is a matter of curiosity:
do you think an omnipotent God would be able to make two plus two equal five?