|
Author
|
Topic: Why is it VERSUS?
|
Andrew Day
Junior Member (Idle past 4541 days) Posts: 3 From: Isle of Wight, UK Joined: 01-30-2011
|
|
Message 1 of 103 (602680)
01-30-2011 8:03 PM
|
|
|
Please see Message 3 for the opening post. --Admin
Hi If this question has been asked on this forum then please forgive me and point to where it has been discussed, but — I would like to propose this topic- 1. Why does it have to be ‘Creation versus evolution’? I am agnostic and believe in a creator or creators, but also believe in evolution as well. I see no reason why they must be exclusive of each other. I believe that if there is a creator, then one of the tools he/she/they used was evolution. Perhaps God created the evolutional jumps through pre-programming of DNA, and used/allowed natural selection to produce the best results. 2. Has anyone who believes in God, the Bible and creation ever put forward their thoughts on what kind of practical methods he used to create us, or did he wave a wand so to speak. I may believe in a creator, but I don’t believe in Harry Potter. I don’t think it is enough to say that God thought it and it was so. I think that it is entirely possible that, if our society manages to continue long enough, it is almost inevitable that we will, one day, have the knowledge and power to create life and eventually intelligent life, not just on this planet, but on a planet like it. If we chose to create life in our own image, then we would have to actually do it in practical terms. I would have thought that programming DNA into every living cell and using evolution to guide it along in the right direction would be a great way to do it. Do it on a billion planets and you might just end up with a success (if we can call ourselves a success — the creator may think we have a long way to go) 3. Perhaps it would be possible to prove the existence of a creator beyond all doubt if you could demonstrate forward programming in DNA. I have heard that chickens have the DNA for teeth because their ancestors had teeth, it is just switched off. If you could prove that an early life form had the genes within it to develop into species that it later became, then wouldn’t you have proved forward planning and therefore a designer? Perhaps one day we will find, deep within the DNA (in a way so complex that we cannot yet comprehend) of the simplest life forms, the genetic blueprint for ourselves. If I were God, that’s how I might do it. Also, are there theories on the origin of God himself? And why is it always one God, because he says so? Did some one prove the ancient Greeks and Romans wrong? Edited by Andrew Day, : No reason given. Edited by Andrew Day, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Hide content, add reference to another message.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 2 by Admin, posted 01-30-2011 8:25 PM | | Andrew Day has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 1.9
|
|
|
Message 2 of 103 (602682)
01-30-2011 8:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Andrew Day
01-30-2011 8:03 PM
|
|
You have three separate topics, each belongs in a different forum. Please edit your topic proposal to focus on just one topic.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Andrew Day, posted 01-30-2011 8:03 PM | | Andrew Day has not replied |
|
Andrew Day
Junior Member (Idle past 4541 days) Posts: 3 From: Isle of Wight, UK Joined: 01-30-2011
|
|
|
Message 3 of 103 (602785)
01-31-2011 6:45 PM
|
|
|
Revised proposal edit
I would like to propose this topic- 1. Why does it have to be ‘Creation versus evolution’? I am agnostic and believe in a creator or creators, but also believe in evolution as well. I see no reason why they must be exclusive of each other. I believe that if there is a creator, then one of the tools he/she/they used was evolution. Perhaps God created the evolutional jumps through pre-programming of DNA, and used/allowed natural selection to produce the best results.
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 1.9
|
|
|
Message 4 of 103 (602806)
01-31-2011 8:58 PM
|
|
|
Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Why is it VERSUS? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2969 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 5 of 103 (602812)
01-31-2011 9:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by Andrew Day
01-31-2011 6:45 PM
|
|
Re: Revised proposal edit
I am agnostic and believe in a creator or creators Then you are not agnostic. You seem to be leaning toward deism. But you're right, they shouldn't be exclusive, and for the most part they are not. I think the "C" in EvC is more refering to the "creationist" of the biblical persuation. Literalists. There are many here who view it as you do, that some "thing" got the initial spark going then (it varies from this point) either left our universe to do whatever it does, or, played an active role in guilding the process from stars, to galaxies and solar systems, then further along in abiogenesis and finally, evolution. Seems pointless to me to go that route, but that is just my opinion. Many here are satisfied with holding that belief and never reject what has been learned and studied by scientist. With the biblical literalist, who reject evolution, you'll find one fact that is equal for all of them: None of them are biologist. None. I think they feel this is like that show House where, if given the right lines, anyone can play a doctor. Hope this helped... - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by Andrew Day, posted 01-31-2011 6:45 PM | | Andrew Day has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 9 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 2:29 AM | | onifre has replied |
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4208 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 6 of 103 (602815)
01-31-2011 9:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by Andrew Day
01-31-2011 6:45 PM
|
|
Re: Revised proposal edit
You say 1. Why does it have to be ‘Creation versus evolution’? I am agnostic and believe in a creator or creators, but also believe in evolution as well. I see no reason why they must be exclusive of each other. I believe that if there is a creator, then one of the tools he/she/they used was evolution. Perhaps God created the evolutional jumps through pre-programming of DNA, and used/allowed natural selection to produce the best results. You claim to be an Agnostic, but you proclaim a Deist view. That point is irrelevant to evolution. There are several views accepted by those on the Evo side, your view, the chem-bio view and panspremia. Evolution starts after one of the above occurred or some other procedure occurred. The opposite side, creo, tries to lump abiogenesis & evolution together claiming that neither occurred and that there was a special creation that put all living things here as fully formed entities without a nested hierarchy. Some of the creos accept what they call microevolution, that is changes in a species but no speciation. Most Atheists, Agnostics, Deists and Many moderate Theists accept what the creos call macroevolution, that is speciation. That is basically why it is Evolution vs Creation.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by Andrew Day, posted 01-31-2011 6:45 PM | | Andrew Day has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 7 of 103 (602832)
02-01-2011 12:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by Andrew Day
01-31-2011 6:45 PM
|
|
Re: Revised proposal edit
Welcome to EvC Andrew. I agree with the other posters that you are probably closer to being a deist than to being an agnostic. Actually, as far as I know, the majority of Christians have no particular problem with evolution, or even think about it much. I am a Christian and am quite prepared to accept that evolution, as science finds it, is either God directed), set in motion and allowed to develop as you suggest, or a combination of the two which is what I lean towards. C S Lewis for example obviously has a problem with evolutionism, but not with the overall theory itself. He wasn't a biologist but essentially accepted theist evolution. Here is a Lewis quote:
quote:
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts i.e. of materialism and astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
Personally I believe that we should accept all science as a form of natural theology in that it is one way of learning about the intelligence behind creation. That position is even scriptural.  Romans 1 19-20
Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by Andrew Day, posted 01-31-2011 6:45 PM | | Andrew Day has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 8 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2011 1:46 AM | | GDR has not replied | | | Message 74 by Trae, posted 02-04-2011 1:42 AM | | GDR has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.1
|
|
|
Message 8 of 103 (602836)
02-01-2011 1:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by GDR
02-01-2011 12:52 AM
|
|
The irrationality of C S Lewis
Of course our thoughts must be "accidents" in that they are not completely controlled by any conscious entity (and only partially controlled by ourselves). If that were not so we would be puppets, thinking only that which was decreed for us. Evolutionary theory does not say that our thoughts are mere accidents in any wider sense. Our thoughts are shaped by our brains, which are themselves shaped by evolution to be effective at producing useful thoughts.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by GDR, posted 02-01-2011 12:52 AM | | GDR has not replied |
|
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4659 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: 05-14-2009
|
|
|
Message 9 of 103 (602837)
02-01-2011 2:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by onifre
01-31-2011 9:45 PM
|
|
Re: Revised proposal edit
With the biblical literalist, who reject evolution, you'll find one fact that is equal for all of them: None of them are biologist. you talking about the creationists on this forum, or creationists in general here ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by onifre, posted 01-31-2011 9:45 PM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 10 by onifre, posted 02-01-2011 8:49 AM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2969 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 10 of 103 (602846)
02-01-2011 8:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by slevesque
02-01-2011 2:29 AM
|
|
Re: Revised proposal edit
you talking about the creationists on this forum, or creationists in general here ? Here in this forum I meant. - Oni
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2011 2:29 AM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
Andrew Day
Junior Member (Idle past 4541 days) Posts: 3 From: Isle of Wight, UK Joined: 01-30-2011
|
|
|
Message 11 of 103 (602852)
02-01-2011 10:05 AM
|
|
|
I am what I am
You will understand I hope that I am a novice here. I was pleased that my first attempt at starting a thread was successful, but that I am unfamiliar with the jargon that goes with this subject. I had not heard the term deism before, but the definition on Wikipedia says that they believe in one god, but that God does not intervene in our live with miracles etc. I am open-minded, there may be one God, a race of Gods, there may be no creator. I accept that evolution happened (at least the part of Natural Selection whereby unsuccessful species died out happened naturally - what sparked the leap to higher species would seem to need more explanation). What gets me is when religious people think that if you accept evolution you are dismissing God and when evolutionists say that to accept God is to dismiss evolution. I accept evolution, and believe (with a strong leaning, but not absolutely) in the POSSIBILITY that it was all part of the grand plan of a creator/s and was how we were created. Whatever label I deserve, it was nice that the first respondent - Oni - with 3231 posts- starts but saying I'm right — thanks. I hope that I can now win over more people to the possibility of a combination of theories. I was less pleased to see bluecat48 say that my point is irrelevant to evolution. If indeed God was the architect of evolution, I’m not sure how could it be irrelevant? If there are indeed a body of people who think as I do, then as I say, why is the forum called ‘Creation VERSUS Evolution’ and not ‘Creation AND evolution’? The first makes a statement (that it’s one or the other) but the second allows all arguments to be discussed, including those that are exclusive. Regards to all Andrew
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1486 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 12 of 103 (602853)
02-01-2011 10:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by Andrew Day
02-01-2011 10:05 AM
|
|
Re: I am what I am
I hope that I can now win over more people to the possibility of a combination of theories. The laws of physics make evolution by random mutation and natural selection incompatible with the notion of creation - even by foresight - via divine means. It's physically impossible, due to Bell's Inequality, for your putative god to know, in advance, what the outcome of randomness in the universe would be. It's not a function of God's ability or inability; Bell's Inequality puts a constraint on the actual nature of the universe, such that randomness isn't simply our inability to understand or perceive a hidden determinism, it's that no such hidden determinism actually exists. The knowledge that God would have to have simply doesn't exist. It's a constraint of the physical universe. Random mutation truly is random - i.e., non-deterministic and unpredictable except stochastically. God would have to have true deterministic knowledge of the outcome of random mutations in order to "create by means of evolution" and that, as we've seen, is an impossibility. (Also, gods are known to not exist.) The reason we say "Creation Vs. Evolution" is because the two views are fundamentally incompatible; evolution by random mutation and natural selection in a Bell's Inequality universe precludes the notion that this is all the result of divine planning.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by Andrew Day, posted 02-01-2011 10:05 AM | | Andrew Day has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 13 of 103 (602854)
02-01-2011 10:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by Andrew Day
02-01-2011 10:05 AM
|
|
Why Creation vs Evolution.
If there are indeed a body of people who think as I do, then as I say, why is the forum called ‘Creation VERSUS Evolution’ and not ‘Creation AND evolution’? Because there is a large and very vocal group that define themselves as "Creationists" and "Intelligent Design" that make the claim that it is Creation vs Evolution.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by Andrew Day, posted 02-01-2011 10:05 AM | | Andrew Day has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10028 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 14 of 103 (602858)
02-01-2011 11:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by Andrew Day
02-01-2011 10:05 AM
|
|
Re: I am what I am
I am open-minded, there may be one God, a race of Gods, there may be no creator. An agnostic would argue that the existence of God is unknowable.
What gets me is when religious people think that if you accept evolution you are dismissing God and when evolutionists say that to accept God is to dismiss evolution. This is often called the Atheist Gambit. Strangely enough, you will find that many Young Earth Creationists (YEC's) ascribe to the Atheist Gambit. The Atheist Gambit claims that if a literal interpretation of Genesis is false then so to is God, or at least the rest of the Bible. Theistic Evolutionists tend to favor the idea that if science and an interpretation of the Bible conflict that it is the interpretation of the Bible that needs to be fixed.
I hope that I can now win over more people to the possibility of a combination of theories. The first thing you would need to tackle is the utility of said theories. Which is the more useful of the following two theories in describing gravity: 1. General Relativity 2. General Relativity along with the undetectable and inscrutable actions of a deity Most would say that the second theory is no more useful than the first, and I would agree.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by Andrew Day, posted 02-01-2011 10:05 AM | | Andrew Day has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 15 of 103 (602864)
02-01-2011 12:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by Andrew Day
02-01-2011 10:05 AM
|
|
Re: I am what I am
Hello Andrew, Welcome to EvC. Some snippets:
I am unfamiliar with the jargon that goes with this subject ... Whatever label I deserve, If you're looking for a label, then you're looking for this one: Theistic Evolutionist <-- clicky
If there are indeed a body of people who think as I do, then as I say, why is the forum called ‘Creation VERSUS Evolution’ and not ‘Creation AND evolution’? The first makes a statement (that it’s one or the other) but the second allows all arguments to be discussed, including those that are exclusive. Well, first off, this is a debate site  But the "versus" aspect is a response to the creationists trying to bring their religion into the science classroom. Some people do think there is a major conflict between the two, and this site is geared towards clearing that up. Also, its just a title, its not really tring to make a statement that the two cannot be compatible.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by Andrew Day, posted 02-01-2011 10:05 AM | | Andrew Day has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2