Creation vs. Evolution; why the differences?

[Bishadi]

This is as an opinion that also is invoking a liability to state yours.



Creation is based from theological accounts representing the beginning of existence.



Man’s “existence” in many theological stand points was created by God. The base word ‘theology’ is rooted from some Greek word meaning “reason.” This covers most written works describing a standard for a religious group of believers to follow. These works were developed all over the world and are varied in many ways but the root “reason” is for the people to interact between each other properly. A fear factor “do this or else” has been incorporated to maintain compliance which has been one of the most harmful single inclusions in any theology.



This “existence” in an evolutionary stand point leads to man being an organization of molecular structures able to take in other structures, catalyze reaction to make usable energy/quanta with a consciousness to know it exist. All interactions with other conscious life forms affect the other at a “higher” level within this consciousness than predetermined or instinctive life forms. This “higher” level is where compassion and feelings or Love exists. Damage to another consciousness is known, felt and logged within the molecular structure causing either positive or negative purpose. Liabilities are to the collective as “sins” are damage to the consciousness of other similar molecular structures. In other words these structures of conscious “beings” can affect and do affect the evolution of the species at this “higher” conscious level that ultimately affects the collective in a physical form.



So the old books share a similar pattern as evolution does; good associations are quality for the total and bad associations are destructive. A real contrast is that many religions still hold an inclusive of the “fear factor” which discredits and oppresses the growth of the species versus evolution which offers a significant path to progression. Like I said many time before if a few theological sects would have allowed man to evolve 1500 years ago we probably would be vacationing on mars and many of the cancers would have most likely been cured by now.



Evolution does not harm the reason of theology it will assist in supporting what our fathers have all been telling us; that man as the highest evolutionary form (empirically known) with an ability to know and realize our existence. We have a gift to Love and realize or know that we do in fact affect each other which can and does affect the collective.



Basically we all should be teaching our children the sciences and how we evolved thanking our prophets for giving us laws of compassion all the while supporting the evolution of the species to continue.



So one question is do both evolution and theology have purpose and should there be an understanding of both for proper development of our children?



If there was one set of proving material to substantiate evolution what would it be?



Since evolution is uniform to all man and creation in theologies is scattered in variant forms as a child which would you believe if never threatened by the “fear factor” of theology? As a highly educated person what would you believe?



Finally, am I nuts to pursue this and did any actually understand my point?

 

[Yerda]

Say that again for the dummies please.

 

[Bishadi]

That was my effort to state that Evolution and Theology are actually telling us the same thing.

That not only are each related but that we all affect the total. This can be shown by understanding both sides of the coin; one side is just older art work then the other but both part of the same coin.

Been tough on this site to encourage this basis. I produce ideas to substantiate the claim and not enough talent available to dispute or realize the new framework is right in front of you.

I have written enough on this site for anyone who really wants a good foundation to walk the walk that is what was intended and be able to back it up.

:banghead3

 

[robtex]

Bishadi,

creationism asserts that as a fact, God was the first cause. This is called the first mover arguement. Evolution does not assess any facts into the first cause of life. It postulates theories but doesn't present any theory as fact and does not acknowledge an all poweful being as the starter of life. (footnote on first mover arguement)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/

Evolution presentes the evidencable theoryof random mutation. Random, as in not guided. Creationism by contrast states that God guides the universe and has a "personal" relationship with man. This personal relationship and universe guidance is the reason for such things as, prayer, worship, submission, study of those theistic religions. It is also the explaination to the very common statement of "God's plan" The two notions, random mutation and guided universe cannot co-exist in the same "hyper-theory". They are mutually exclusive in proposition and both are central themes to each theory.

Creationists theories suggest God created the universe with man as his favorite creation, and thus the reason for the personal relationship. Evolution theory says the process of evolution is impartial to species and that "survivial of the fittest" is the rule of play as to how long any species survives. The notion of impartial vs personal favorite is again mutually exclusive.

Evolutinary biology says that all living matter contains carbon. Creationistic theories that speculate their are souls or spirtual energy suggest things can be alive and not have carbon. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive. (footnote)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

 

[Bishadi]

Robtex,



Good morning. Thanks for the additional reading as I always appreciate information with intelligent summaries.



The point I was making is that theology had a purpose and evolution can and does support the very same purpose; the furthering of the species as a collective.



We need to get along and teach each other to share, maybe be like the ants; purposed for a common goal. That doesn’t mean no artists or no individual thinking, it means associations. If a rogue cell in your body doesn’t do its job, it will be encompassed and removed or as in cancer, it quits its job and reproduces with negative results to the organism and spreads like cancer …. :>

Just like a person in society.



All religion was purposed for was to teach us to get alone, man corrupted it just like they are now in specific tribes representing Islam. Using a good thing for a selfish cause.



The fighting off of evolutionary pursuits or the representations that evolution is incorrect is borderline stupid. Dinosaur bones are not from the Amorites. There is no basis of the beginning in theology other then the first move; once it was one and then there were 2 sides of the one. If this is where the debate lies then I am out. Not my cup of tea to debate at this level because it is a dead end in all arguments, period!



A quantum existence is unknown as empirical as well but the framework to begin understanding is there. The idea that light or emr is actually the energy of an entity we call “life” is the most logical let alone easy to support on either front. This framework works in evolution from step (a) to step (b) and can be drilled back to the theoretical “big bang” as one of the 2 primary forces. Then if reading is done back at the theological camp, “the light of life” is redundant to say the least. The West has their way of making the view and the East has theirs but let’s not forget some of the lesser known that regard the sun as the big guy and if you really take into consideration what I pose, basically the later is what supports all life on this globe, whether God fearing or not, that’s a basic fact! :149:

Sorry to be so abrupt but I made a quality argument and just like the old days, a good strory is so hard to accept because it is new and people are too beeping lazy to do a little homework. Wait a few months and you will have to read the book instead of direct contact.

 

[robtex]

Robtex,

The point I was making is that theology had a purpose and evolution can and does support the very same purpose; the furthering of the species as a collective.

This is true as they are both proposed with one large exception. Intent. A personal God has an end plan and an intention as a living being for mankind and other species. Evolution is not a living entity but a process and has no intent or specfic plan of mankind or other creatures. As a matter of fact man's existance was a random happening in evolution by mutation whereas in the proposal of the theistic universe man's existance was a pre-planned event.

We need to get along and teach each other to share, maybe be like the ants; purposed for a common goal. That doesn’t mean no artists or no individual thinking, it means associations. If a rogue cell in your body doesn’t do its job, it will be encompassed and removed or as in cancer, it quits its job and reproduces with negative results to the organism and spreads like cancer …. :>
Just like a person in society.

Are you stating that human cooperation is proof a divinely created universe?

All religion was purposed for was to teach us to get alone, man corrupted it just like they are now in specific tribes representing Islam. Using a good thing for a selfish cause.

There are 1000's of religions in the past and present. The motive for their propositions are likely grouped in common themes but unlikly all the same. You say man corrupted religion as if you believe God created religion. If God created religion and than changed his mind thousands of times I would have to call him indecisive. I am thinking man created the religions of the world for various reasons puposes and emotional gratifications.

The fighting off of evolutionary pursuits or the representations that evolution is incorrect is borderline stupid. Dinosaur bones are not from the Amorites. There is no basis of the beginning in theology other then the first move; once it was one and then there were 2 sides of the one. If this is where the debate lies then I am out. Not my cup of tea to debate at this level because it is a dead end in all arguments, period!

You may not totally reject religion but you don't totally accept it either if you believe in a personal God. Going back to the title of the thread, "why are the differences" understand the why is the theistic notion that the universe's lifeforms are guided by a higher power and the evolutionary proposition that is a function of random mutuation which means unguided. If you believe the universe has a personal God and he created the uinverse with a plan than you are rejecting genetic drift a central idea in biology and evolution. You are accepting that dinosaurs exist but rejecting that mutation is random.

A quantum existence is unknown as empirical as well but the framework to begin understanding is there. The idea that light or emr is actually the energy of an entity we call “life” is the most logical let alone easy to support on either front. This framework works in evolution from step (a) to step (b) and can be drilled back to the theoretical “big bang” as one of the 2 primary forces. Then if reading is done back at the theological camp, “the light of life” is redundant to say the least. The West has their way of making the view and the East has theirs but let’s not forget some of the lesser known that regard the sun as the big guy and if you really take into consideration what I pose, basically the later is what supports all life on this globe, whether God fearing or not, that’s a basic fact! :149:

That doesn't have anything to do with the differences between evolution and creationism.

Sorry to be so abrupt but I made a quality argument and just like the old days, a good strory is so hard to accept because it is new and people are too beeping lazy to do a little homework. Wait a few months and you will have to read the book instead of direct contact.

I would not say you are being abrupt but evasive and colorful in your commentary. If you wanted to be abrupt you could list the major theories of creationsism, particually,

* first mover arguement
* guided universe/personal God
* Divine plan
* divine order of the univese

and show it against the central themes of evolution to explain why there is not a conflict of ideas. Everytime in a thread I bring up the dicotomy of random mutuation vs guided universe, and carbon based existance vs spirtual existance, differences in the notion of death and the divine purpose of man in a theistic universe as the zenith of creation vs man as a result of random mutiation in biology you don't reply to it. Not that you are obligated to but those are the issue of each with care at odds with one another and make the two theories not only different but incompatable.

Sounds like you are writing a book by your last qoute. If so good luck with your project.

 

[Bishadi]

Robtex ….. Can I ask whether you believe in creation or not, because the statement “A personal God has an end plan and an intention as a living being for mankind and other species”
Is funny. Now you are suggesting God’s intentions … O brother!

Are you stating that human cooperation is proof a divinely created universe?

Man cannot exist as a species without community. The universe was random within the confines of physical laws but without identifying the rules it appears a weird random.
In other words “life” itself is easy if understood and to understand the base concept assist in putting the rest together. This is all I have been saying the whole time on this site.

There are 1000's of religions in the past and present. The motive for their propositions are likely grouped in common themes but unlikly all the same. You say man corrupted religion as if you believe God created religion. If God created religion and than changed his mind thousands of times I would have to call him indecisive. I am thinking man created the religions of the world for various reasons puposes and emotional gratifications.

No! God as a third party did not “create” the religions. Man did. And man also changed his mind a lot depending on who the current boss was but the base or almost every beginning purpose was for quality associations with compassion and considerations all noted traits within the human conscious did start them for the most part.
Most all have a good base.

If you believe the universe has a personal God and he created the uinverse with a plan than you are rejecting genetic drift a central idea in biology and evolution. You are accepting that dinosaurs exist but rejecting that mutation is random.

What personal God? Other than every human being has the ability to “know” his existence within the collective. We are all associated within the confines of this existence whether you know it or not. It is only in man’s arrogance that we believe we are separate and have no effect on the other.
And I am the A-1 proponent of evolution and believe religion was created by man during his evolution to share in a form how we are supposed to live.
Then I wrote ; A quantum existence is unknown as empirical as well but the framework to begin understanding is there. The idea that light or emr is actually the energy of an entity we call “life” is the most logical let alone easy to support on either front. This framework works in evolution from step (a) to step (b) and can be drilled back to the theoretical “big bang” as one of the 2 primary forces. Then if reading is done back at the theological camp, “the light of life” is redundant to say the least. The West has their way of making the view and the East has theirs but let’s not forget some of the lesser known that regard the sun as the big guy and if you really take into consideration what I pose, basically the later is what supports all life on this globe, whether God fearing or not, that’s a basic fact.
And you returned

That doesn't have anything to do with the differences between evolution and creationism.

Thread; Creation vs. Evolution; why the differences?
The keyword WHY!!!!
Then to soften up, I must say thank you Robtex, these last questions are what I am looking for and why I am still on this site. I scared off linwood who was supposed to be the bomb but when he posted his best I had no problem. I can answer these questions you posted and will, just not now. I have a summary to write for a group across the lake and maybe I have found the horse power I need to operate without a need for babysitting admin and income items. I don’t care about money; I just want freedom and autonomy. Even with 2 wooden nickels “I am the richest man alive.” Well maybe not, the Dali, whom I hope to meet, he’s always smiling and I still have to subject myself to other doubts.

 

[Bishadi]

Robotex,

Random mutations needs to be defined; since there are a few variations to the term. “Yes” errors occur in reproduction, just look in the mirror. Do we evolve from products of our genetic tree? Yes … just look in the mirror. Do we mutate based on physical changes? yes… just look at races. What about real strange mutations such as the elephant man who shared his beauty upon the circus’s. Funny the line the actor said in the movie, “I am not an animal, I am a human being.” He showed us the feelings possed even within his random mutation as some may define but I say he had a mutation (virus or genetic mutation) that continued as healthy because of the high mitosis, you know like cancer, and kept going. Just think if he had reproduced the likelihood of this gene moving forth would have continued until the chain ended.

The only ‘guide’ is the ‘need’ to continue. Your guided to not go into a fire because you desire to live.

What plan? Don’t tell me I have to read verbatim from the ‘good books’ as a plan. Them guys didn’t even own a chevy and the majority (99.9999%) could not even read or write. I never said they did not give us quality material, I am saying the picture they painted is vague to say the least. Again dinosaurs left the big femur bones not giant men.

Divine order of the universe….. absolutely! The problem is the rules are still being written. In physics, emr is what holds all molecules together, why was this not applied in biology? Now do see what I have been saying? All life is subject to evolution aside from the "divinity" of the primary forces of existence, separating. Not going there!

Carbon based existance vs spirtual existence ………. Carbon-12 ….. I like to look at as the 666 of life. 6 electrons, 6 protons and 6 neutrons. That is my own little giggle….. but life as we know it as in organisms are primarily from carbon-12 structures. I pose like iron in the blood the molecular weight confines energy based on the valance capacities. And if you understood any of what I stated about the new “framework” you would not need to ask about “spiritual.” Because to understand that life is the resonance/emr upon structures you would understand spiritual in an actual sense but if you are talking about some ghost that can talk and looks like marilyn Monroe well, again, Not going there!

Spiritual existence is actual. We can all “know” our relation to the total by removing the self of your conscious being. Try reading a little Eastern theology or Gnostic if you want to stay west, but in either they are teaching us to realize this.

My goal is that with an actual understanding of what life "is" upon molecular structures we can not only understand evolution but also theology as being products of the same purpose, the need to exist.

 

[Bishadi]

where did you go Robtex ..... you encouraged me to go into another forum covering a little more physics behind my work and wow, did i have some good questions but nothing I couldn't handle. In fact I think maybe some real homework is being done. Where's linwood?

I really enjoyed some here as well.

 

[robtex]

You are acknowledging that life is organic and than you turn around and contend there is a non-organic soul and a non-organic afterlife. Furthermore you contend that God is not detectable via the 5 natural senses yet you have a personal relationship with him. How can one have a personal relationship with a non-evidencable/detectable.....anything?

random mutations as you said are errors. Errors of a onmi-potent God if he were to exist. A clear dicotomy of propositions. In addition the random mutations sometimes result in a positive impact on the mutated species and sometimes a negative. Than doesn't suggest a divine direction by a benevolant God but a truely random act by nature.

I have read a lot of taoism and buddhism and neither rant about souls or an afterlife. As a matter of fact neither believe in a personal God either. But, say there is a God and he is inpersonal/undetectable and unevidencable.....than why bother worshipping him?

When you say, qoute, "Divine order of the universe….. absolutely!" Can you absolutely give us the divine order of the universe?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Robtex,The point I was making is that theology had a purpose and evolution can and does support the very same purpose; the furthering of the species as a collective.

Your point is wrong - not to mention being obnoxiously loud. Evolution has no purpose; evolution is unintended consequence. It could care less about "furthering of the species as a collective" precisely because it is a wholly stochastic and uncaring process.

 

[Bishadi]

JHS .... not even going to answer as a gentleman I feel it proper not to battle with an unarmed person.

Robtex .....

You are acknowledging that life is organic and than you turn around and contend there is a non-organic soul

all life is upon physical bodies.

and a non-organic afterlife.

I call this the need of the selfish. Unless you get your gifts or a pretty picture you are just not going to listen. OK!

Furthermore you contend that God is not detectable via the 5 natural senses yet you have a personal relationship with him.

All matter is associated, (physics; entanglement/quantum relativity) for the most part absolutely true.

And when the Big guy shows up at your house detectable in the 5 senses, call me!

I have read a lot of taoism and buddhism and neither rant about souls or an afterlife.

imagine that

As a matter of fact neither believe in a personal God either.

really?

But, say there is a God and he is inpersonal/undetectable and unevidencable.....than why bother worshipping him?

who is worshiping anything…. To actually know that the thing to worship is the totality would probably hurt. So let’s just say all actions of every person is recorded and affecting the total. Adverse, negative, selfish, step on your brother kind of living and representation is counter productive and the kind, compassionate, selfless, considerate, loving representation, you know the Jesus, Mohammed, Ghandi, Bambi, type, they reinforce quality representations of a good person. There additions to society will reinforce quality evolution, the opposite will be extinct and all damage left will be there legacy or as the remnant of their existence. Basically why did we need them to exist? Like Jesus said, bad hand … cut it off… good seeds grow and can be reaped at harvest. You make the call.

So what is good, following a true path of evolution which will show how we are as one and show be concerned about all others all the time with less regard to self then others. OR do you presume we wait for some figure to come out of the sky carrying a RED sword, upon a horse with seals or sea lions, I forget and will judge according to the same thing I said.

In other words live it now or dream about some mystical place.

 

[Bishadi]

:bonk:

from the JS .......Your point is wrong - not to mention being obnoxiously loud.

One minute it's a forum to articulate, the next minute we have a guy who can't keep the volume down.

Sorry to make good quality points about human considerations towards others and have a physical basis to back it up with. Remember most of the prophets were killed by your kind, Mr. JS.

Where's that cleaver when you need one?

Next!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry to make good quality points about human considerations towards others and have a physical basis to back it up with. Remember most of the prophets were killed by your kind, Mr. JS. Where's that cleaver when you need one?

More neurotic drivel ...

 

[robtex]

Robtex .....
all life is upon physical bodies.

Than by the nature of that statement there is no soul.

I call this the need of the selfish. Unless you get your gifts or a pretty picture you are just not going to listen. OK!

I don't understand what you mean by this.

All matter is associated, (physics; entanglement/quantum relativity) for the most part absolutely true.

And when the Big guy shows up at your house detectable in the 5 senses, call me!

All matter being assoicated is not predicated on a divine being. God isn't going to show-up. If you I or anyone else truely had a personal relationship with him he would show-up often and much earlier.

who is worshiping anything…. To actually know that the thing to worship is the totality would probably hurt. So let’s just say all actions of every person is recorded and affecting the total. Adverse, negative, selfish, step on your brother kind of living and representation is counter productive and the kind, compassionate, selfless, considerate, loving representation, you know the Jesus, Mohammed, Ghandi, Bambi, type, they reinforce quality representations of a good person. There additions to society will reinforce quality evolution, the opposite will be extinct and all damage left will be there legacy or as the remnant of their existence. Basically why did we need them to exist? Like Jesus said, bad hand … cut it off… good seeds grow and can be reaped at harvest. You make the call.

Of the people you named, Gandhi is the only one verified to have existed. Bambi is known to have been a work of fiction and the others existance is a matter of speculation. Jesus, never said a darn thing that HE WROTE DOWN, Paul said, that he said.........If you don't worship God why preoccupy yourself with him. That is an important point. To me as an atheist it doesn't matter if there is a God or not. I don't have a personal relationship with him (like I do with my family, my dog , my friends ect) so I don't spend effort trying to validate, assess or pre-occupy my life wiht notions of his existance. I would have to ask...if you acknowledge you don't have a personal relationship with him or worship him why care if he exists or not at all?

So what is good, following a true path of evolution which will show how we are as one and show be concerned about all others all the time with less regard to self then others. OR do you presume we wait for some figure to come out of the sky carrying a RED sword, upon a horse with seals or sea lions, I forget and will judge according to the same thing I said.

In other words live it now or dream about some mystical place.

Worshipping evolution or following it as a path makes as much sense as following an undectable God. Looking at society and mankind to find how to live harmoniously and kindly with one another is a much more practical goal. There is no red sword, seals or sea lions in the sky. If you acknowledge God as mystical (I hope I am understand your correctly) why personify him as real and develop a moral code around him? Why not look to mankind which is real and verifiable and work on viewing morality from the framework of mankind and the envirorment?