Evolution vs Creationism?

[Windwalker]

Obviously. That's the topic of the thread.

The topic is talking about Creationism vs. Evolution. Creationism believes the earth was magically created, instead of formed out the dust of exploded stars.

Then you are not talking about the scientific theory that the OP is talking about.

Yes I am. The same process that created the earth, created biological life. Creationism is about all of it, not just Adam and Eve. The earth is 6000 years old, and not 4.5 billion years, you know that argument of Creationists, don't you?

No. Instead, you are talking about something entirely different then everyone else in this thread.
The thing you are talking about, isn't even a thing, actually...

It's not?? The Evolution of the Universe

Our understanding of the genesis and evolution of the universe is one of the great achievements of 20th-century science. This knowledge comes from decades of innovative experiments and theories. Modern telescopes on the ground and in space detect the light from galaxies billions of light-years away, showing us what the universe looked like when it was young. Particle accelerators probe the basic physics of the high-energy environment of the early universe. Satellites detect the cosmic background radiation left over from the early stages of expansion, providing an image of the universe on the largest scales we can observe.​

"Not even a thing", you say? Do you not understand what evolution actually is? I don't believe you do after this post.

Again, no.
Biological evolution is the scientific theory, which is the topic of this thread.

No it's not. The OP says Evolution vs. Creationism. That means everything, not just biology.

What you are talking about has nothing to do with science.
There is no "theory of evolution of everything". It's nonsense.

You seriously don't understand what evolution actually is, do you? No wonder you don't understand my arguments.

Simple Google search yields some easy info: Cosmic Evolution

Cosmic evolution is the study of many varied changes on a universal scale, a subject that seeks to synthesize the reductionistic posture of specialized science with a holistic view of systems science. It is a story about the awe and majesty of twirling galaxies and shining stars, of redwood trees and buzzing bees, of a Universe that has come to know itself. But it is also a story about our human selves--our origin, our existence, and perhaps our destiny.​

The topic is biological evolution vs religious creationism.
It deals with the origins of species.

Creationism definition:

"the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."
​

And to cite my favorite source of sound information, Creationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will."

....

With significant provisos to be noted below, Creationists are strongly opposed to a world created by evolution,​

So, you also don't appear to understand what Creationism is either? I'm happy to help illuminate the topic for you here.

You are not talking about science.
I have no idea what you are talking about.

Correct. You have no idea what I'm talking about, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Hopefully now with this new knowledge you were unaware of for you, if you reread my posts you might understand them and offer a more appropriate response.

Creationism is about God creating everything, including the cosmos, versus evolution creating them, or "natural processes", which is precisely what evolution is. That is what this topic is in fact about.

 

[Polymath257]

Amazing. My way of saying that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. OK, one of the most ridiculous things. Now here's another one that's 'amazing..' if you will, taken from a scientific thing of sorts: "Compared to the rest of our primate relatives, humans have a uniquely long childhood. From picking a mate to having a baby – and raising it to make more babies –what are the evolutionary pressures that made us this way?" I thought what a stupid question. Science Events | New Scientist

it is a phenomenon called neotony. We have extended childhoods to allow for more brain development. And it is that development that brings on our increased intelligence and ability to think abstractly. That lead to tool use and, eventually, to technology.

So yes, increased childhood had a distinct evolutionary effect on our survival through tool use.

 

[Polymath257]

That is because the Creator made it to be that way, giving things elements needed to sustain life on the earth. Rocks don't "think," and instinct is not considered as conscientious intelligence. In fact, some consciences are so distorted the brains are slanted. Human so-called intelligence, that is.

No, rocks don't think. But they do react. The react mechanically and chemically. They respond to pressures, and can fracture.

You can believe someone is directing the process if you wish, but I don't see any evidence of such.

 

[rational experiences]

Father in man's conscious records named the scientist an idiot.

Pretty basic advice in man's memory you use everyday.

Father never a theist just lived.

Since when did a human owning a machine exist in the early cosmic reactive energy terms? With you coercing I'm now studying it.

Coercing is the status.

Just not real. It would in your terms mean a man human with a machine caused its creation. Early cosmic energy.

In your mind greed want of machines status you want to invent new energy for just your machine. By machine conditions only.

Machine mind of man possessed by machine terms correct. He's lying.

A man's mind says a human began as electricity by a man's thesis in the heavens body. By what he quotes are his man's terms because he says so.

Yet he wants the heavens gases and a reaction inside his machine to invent electricity.

Exact position..machine only.

So he says using thoughts a human...notice he says human first owned it. Electricity.

If he says electricity once just existed then he'd have to only be researching electricity and no other status.

Yes that's right designer man once your rich man brother said you owned it. For machines only. He gave it to you he says.

Whilst he's pretending he's a God himself.

Owns a natural mind. Yet isn't using it.

Before a human by microbiology bodies in heavens is a whole living ape.

Adding microbe cell mass into an ape body said a human looking by machines at micro cells. It would own a humans life.

If he did it himself as man he him his thinking. He says and agrees with his chosen just a man's studies.

Which proves he believes man as a self is absolutely correct as a man human thinker pretending he created everything. As just a man.

Now if you said no science allowed whatsoever humanity.... it's now outlawed and just live a humans life.

There is no argument at all about anything. Subject not allowed to be thought upon. Other than inequality by humans past greed in humans life. Slavery of family allows him to be special.

Pretty basic natural human advice owning no human coercion or group bullying or group behaviours as just human topics. Or subjects of human choice.

Experiment he states was to learn.

No machines no learning he says.

Learning...how to be a natural balanced human. As you took the balances away from life and mind.

Machines don't exist. There is no answers as no one told you to think how you think via any human question.

Status he builds a machine by design chosen to use electricity. Is exact string thought.

.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, rocks don't think. But they do react. The react mechanically and chemically. They respond to pressures, and can fracture.

You can believe someone is directing the process if you wish, but I don't see any evidence of such.

In general, once an item like a rock of some sort has been created, natural events or causes can cause change. That is simple natural change, such as erosion. Or a meteor falling and cracking open a part of the surface of the earth. But it's not evolution. And yes, rocks do not think. They can react though as you say. I believe God knew this when He created the heavens and the earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

it is a phenomenon called neotony. We have extended childhoods to allow for more brain development. And it is that development that brings on our increased intelligence and ability to think abstractly. That lead to tool use and, eventually, to technology.

So yes, increased childhood had a distinct evolutionary effect on our survival through tool use.

I'm at the point now where I can hear what scientists believing in evolution are saying, I no longer believe it because it does not make sense. To actually believe that homo sapiens evolved from an "Unknown Common Ancestor" related to gorillas, chimpanzees, etc., is right now in my mind beyond reasonableness. Do I know how God did it? No. Do I think He will reveal to mankind how He did it? No. But that's how I see it now. There are many avenues of exploration on the earth that can be enjoyed -- and have the earth improved, and make life enjoyable -- but to really imagine that it just "happened" that there is a longer span from infancy to decision-making in the human mind and body is just unimaginable. It no longer makes sense, no matter how a person argues how it might have happened according to the laws (?) of evolution. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME ANY LONGER. But because it does not add up in a realistic, specific way to me does not mean anyone else has to see it that way. Even though -- it no longer makes sense to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, no one has to assume anything.......we are all in transition, changing every second we live...you don't have to except 'natural selection' to realize all individuals are changing physically, constantly.

Yes, we "transition" from young to old and possibly decrepit if we live that long. That is not evolution. Sorry.

 

[YoursTrue]

As am I. But you seem to be talking about biological evolution. I'm talking about evolution as a process that creates everything from atoms, to solar systems, to planets, to plants, and to people. Evolution created and creates everything that exists.


So it is an eternal process, or at least something that predates the universe? If you think about it, without evolution, you'd have nothing formed at all in the universe. Likewise, if you think of it as a force, such as electrostatic, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity, those with the possible exception of gravity we created with the birth of the universe, all these were necessary to be there in order for a universe to exist at all.


But falling is the result of, or created by gravity. Evolution on the other hand, like gravity, causes the formation of stable objects. Stable objects exist as the result of evolution.


Not to my satisfaction, which is why I replied.


Those systems are the result of evolution, they don't cause it. You're putting the cart ahead of the horse.


I think it's a more than worthwhile question. And you are right, you can't turn it on or off, just like you can't turn off gravity. Unless I suppose you were able to make everything absolutely inert and stop time. I suppose the opposite of evolution is static, or non-being. But we don't live in a static reality. We exist in a reality created by evolution, and is upheld by evolution.


The circumstantial context for evolution is existence itself. And just like the laws of physics are processes that are the "hands" of creation, evolution is the "creating" itself, or the "creator" if you will.


Again, step back from limiting the process of evolution to biology. Biological evolution is simply the process of evolution creating the biological forms we see, and explaining how evolution created them.


But the presence of things that replicate only exist because of evolution creating them. You could think of evolution as the 'orchestrator' with the interacting forces and raw materials. Replicating systems are the result of them coming together in such as way as to do that.


I don't see it any less a metaphor than anything else we language reality with using scientific terms.Whil "Science is all metaphor" said Timothy Leary.

Poor Timothy Leary. I feel sorry for him and the people he influenced.
Meanwhile, what I am happy to say is I have learned that nothing exists without a maker of some sort. Some things happen by invention by humans, others happen by chance meaning a rock falling into the water making a splash and other things exist without human intervention. There is no proof or realistic evidence that fish evolved to tetrapods and then to humans. I think it is ridiculous. But I did not always think this way. I used to believe everything I was taught in school about evolution.
"The first tetrapods are four-legged, air-breathing, terrestrial animals from which the land vertebrates descended, including humans." Evolution of fish - Wikipedia
(I no longer believe that. I used to.)

 

[YoursTrue]

We know these species existed. We know *when* they existed. We know that the modern species did NOT exist at that time.

So yes, that means that they were part of a Transition from the older species to the newer ones.

How else do explain the fossils we actually have and their timing?

HOW these things came about no one on earth knows. Again, there is no proof these organisms the bones came from evolved. From or to. Fossils do not prove evolution. They can show that a bone or bones were part of an organism which died.

 

[Windwalker]

Poor Timothy Leary. I feel sorry for him and the people he influenced.

I think you fail to understand that quote. I simply referenced him, because when I heard that quote it captures quite well what I've known for quite some time. Anything we say about reality is all metaphors. From the book of Genesis, to the language of science. It's all fingers pointing at the moon. My understanding of this has nothing do with the Timothy Leary, other than liking that quote.

Meanwhile, what I am happy to say is I have learned that nothing exists without a maker of some sort.

Of course. Nothing just poofed into existence. I don't read the book of Genesis literally that way. I accept that Evolution created it through a natural process, which looked at from the big picture perspective, is indeed quite miraculous. Some might even say, Divine. I would be one to say that myself. I might call it, God, or Spirit creating. Call it the fingers of God, if you will.

There is no proof or realistic evidence that fish evolved to tetrapods and then to humans. I think it is ridiculous. But I did not always think this way. I used to believe everything I was taught in school about evolution.
"The first tetrapods are four-legged, air-breathing, terrestrial animals from which the land vertebrates descended, including humans." Evolution of fish - Wikipedia
(I no longer believe that. I used to.)

That's too bad. The science is credible. I have no problem accepting the science without it disturbing my belief in the reality of the Divine. It's not that difficult when you realize that interpreting scripture is not set in stone.

 

[rational experiences]

If just a human natural first decided as one man to be a theist. Then his brothers had to agree.

But not everyone agreed. Simple fact.

No inequality in a natural life. First human position no stories.

We know egotists and self idolator humans took over natural life. Enslaved family.

Built civilisation so man's own over lording is first. Before theism science thesis.

Then technology...overlording again.

Doubled up bad behaviours.

Is it any wonder a humans testimonial about nuclear fallout technology involved lords and self idolator self worshipping egotists. Behaviours of humans first before science was practiced.

Stating why I was life sacrificed once just a spiritual man. A natural man who asked his human father self why.

I realised men humans sure are arguing about human behaviours in human groups past present.... lying machine operators. Who know machines themselves lying.

 

[Hold]

Yes, we "transition" from young to old and possibly decrepit if we live that long. That is not evolution. Sorry.

Never said it was evolution ..and "Sorry' is not appreciated. It is a condescending remark.

 

[Hold]

First of all, happy birthday!

Second, thanks for the suggestions. I already have a few such resources in my library.

I have no doubt you have resources in your library.... I was recommending a specific book.....

 

[idea]

That is because the Creator made it to be that way, giving things elements needed to sustain life on the earth. Rocks don't "think," and instinct is not considered as conscientious intelligence. In fact, some consciences are so distorted the brains are slanted. Human so-called intelligence, that is.

Like the rocks, humans are a product of the atoms they are made of, and the environment they are in. We are a pile of chemicals and energy. There are a few disturbing experiments and accidents revealing what we are - personality changes after accidents, personality changes with drugs - just chemicals and environment for all of it. It is all eternal, no beginning, no creation, and no end.

 

[blü 2]

I have no doubt you have resources in your library.... I was recommending a specific book.....

Yup, and thanks for that.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Intelligence is reaction to external stimuli based on internally stored information. Everything in existence has always done this. A rock cracks as ice forms in it, reforms when pushed deep into the mantle - reacts to its environment based on chemical bonds. Cause/effect follows natural laws for all.

So, what is intelligence? If you can answer that, then, answer this too: is biological cell intelligently designed or not?..to end all the debates...

 

[Hold]

Yup, and thanks for that.

Whether you get a chance to read the recommended book or not...You are very welcome.....

 

[rational experiences]

If a human theist were honest. They ask the questions. Pose the theory...expect an answer.

Who from?

If you were honest you'd say yourself.

As all terms are one human yet also by larger body....human group agreed.

It's why human cult group activity proved behaviour is involved in hierarchy of human organisations. Small single human self...plus large group body. Human consciousness unified.

Basic advice.

You don't want basic advice as a natural spiritual human only lives to exist mutually as basics. Laws of balances.

Therefore you don't want spiritual.

You want substance.

You ask what is the substance that knew how to create.

The spiritual answer was there isn't any answer as it wasn't meant in the first instance.

Science bases it's human practice on gain of a machine to experiment.

Heat melt. The history and strings used to seek answers. The machines history.

Gases came from volcanic melt heat. Might be the answer to your owned human behaviours from just human conscious awareness. In science terms.

By living in the heavens whose strung history of causes began from heat melt.

As it's where you live exist and think about natural now and a beginning past. Conscious history yours to think upon.

By the consciousness you use.

A human inside it's heavens.

 

[Polymath257]

In general, once an item like a rock of some sort has been created, natural events or causes can cause change. That is simple natural change, such as erosion. Or a meteor falling and cracking open a part of the surface of the earth. But it's not evolution. And yes, rocks do not think. They can react though as you say. I believe God knew this when He created the heavens and the earth.

And so, for example, once a star forms, it can undergo change because of how it uses up its fuel over time. That is called stellar evolution (as opposed to biological evolution).

Once you have a living thing, the next generation will be a little bit different. And the generation after that will be a little different still. And there will be variations because of different environments. So, over the generations, those small differences add up and we get different species in different places, all descended from that one original species. And, of course, each of those also changes slightly from one generation to the next.

We actually see these small changes in the lab. We see the development of different species, still closely similar to the original. But there is no 'species barrier' that prevents changes from adding up over the generation.

And that is why large scale changes can happen: small changes adding up over time *are* large changes.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, we "transition" from young to old and possibly decrepit if we live that long. That is not evolution. Sorry.

No, it is not. That is development.

Evolution happens over the course of generations and is based on genetics.