Creation vs Evolution

[crossroad]

I've seen hints of this debate throughout the Forums and thought it would be interesting to see your posts. Personally I'm a Creationist. The idea of something coming from nothing only works in my mind when you ad a Creator to the question of origin.

This is probably a vain request (because some of you like to copy whole chapters in text books and paste them in your posts) but try to keep it short and sweet.

My Apologies if this has been done before.

[Phatose]

Isnt' that kind of a dodge at best though?

It would seem by requiring a creator to get something from nothing, you've no longer gotten something from nothing. Now, you've got something from a creator.

However, now you're kind of stuck explaining where the creator came from, neh? Since something cannot come from nothing, this creator cannot come from nothing, requiring his own creator...which will require his own creator, ad infinitium.

Doesn't seem like that's actually getting you anywhere. You're stuck with an infinite regression of creators, making the question of origin pointless as there can be no real origin, or you eventually reach a creator without a creator, which makes the 'no something from nothing' rule invalid.

[AntiochusIII]

Gah!

Gah! Gah! Gah! Gah! et Gah!

(I voted evolution.)

It's a theory, still, but it's at least the product of sound minds.

Of course, your question is vague; in fact, there is no question at all. Creation vs Evolution what? Is it "what you believe?"; "what is more plausible?"; "what's the product of fanaticism?"; "what sounds better?"; "what is scientifically supported?"

I assume it's "what is less funny?"

[Big_John]

the answer to this thread is "no".

[Tribesman]

The idea of something coming from nothing only works in my mind when you ad a Creator to the question of origin.

There goes a central plank of creationist theories

[Sjakihata]

Theoretically there can exist a 'first mover' as Aristotle descripes him, without running into the problem of regression ad infinitum. He could always have been there (hence not coming from nothing because he is there and have always been there) that means he isnt coming from nothing, because he have existed at all times and will continue to exist.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The idea of something coming from nothing only works in my mind when you ad a Creator to the question of origin.

I know the feeling.

Myself, I can not comprehend the thought of thunder being a meteorological phenomenon. There must be a higher force at work. Besides, nobody has ever managed to make a thunder in a laboratory, thus proving that Thor exists.

I shall now write to my local school board, insisting they teach Germanic Gods as an alternative to unproven meteorology.


Why oh why can't I just resist posting about this subject?

[Brenus]

Evolution.

Foxes are in my bin every night.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Foxes are in my bin every night.

Then at some point in the future, they will all have bin-shaped snouts.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So one fox meets the other and says: 'Shall we go over to Brenus' tonight?'

Says the other: 'Nah, bin there, done that...'




I'll get me coat....

[Quietus]

I've seen hints of this debate throughout the Forums and thought it would be interesting to see your posts. Personally I'm a Creationist. The idea of something coming from nothing only works in my mind when you ad a Creator to the question of origin.

This is probably a vain request (because some of you like to copy whole chapters in text books and paste them in your posts) but try to keep it short and sweet.

My Apologies if this has been done before.

Aside from what's already been said:

- supposed, infinite string of 'creators'.
- pointlessly random and inefficient universe.

There's something more:

- Human understanding is always based on Human knowledge.

What you don't know, you don't understand. My best analogy is a completely blind guy understanding 'color' (on his own without any other aid) using his other normal senses. A blind guy would never even posit on any 'color': red, orange, yellow, violet, indigo, blue etc.

Instead, as egotistic creatures, we create an anthropomorphic 'God' based on our limited knowledge and understanding.

Then we give this 'God' anthropomorphic traits: Seeing, hearing, anger, jealousy, insecurity, kindness etc.

Do plants 'see', get 'angry', get 'covetous'? Which God is based on a plant? No, God is based on humans. :)

[Divinus Arma]

Well, I am entering this thread quite late. And since I am doing so, I will not read anybody elses comments before I share my own opinion first.

I cannot see how the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

Evidence supports evolution more than creationism. That much is pure and simple science. So let's start from the acceptance of creationism/adaptation and assume it as fact.

Now consider this: Long before Darwin and evolution was the bible, which states that adam and eve were created from dust. They ate the apple and became aware of the difference between good and evil.

Does this not fully embrace evolution? First, Adam in the original hebrew Torah (the REAL bible), means mankind. Not a guy named Adam. Secondly: Formed from dust. I doubt the ancients would differentiate between dust and single celled organisms.

As a final point: The "apple" represents the crucial moment in human history when we became aware of good and evil and truly seprated from our animal roots. It was at that moment that the Lord empowered Humans to freely choose to do good or evil. One cannot engage in evil if one is not aware that it is evil (the basis for insanity pleas in court, btw). My point is this: That event, be it an apple or otherwise, should be CELBRATED! We should not be ashamed of the moment that God made us free-willed beings, capable of doing his works by our choice.

Thus the two are not mutually exclusive, but supportive.

Finally, let us make an inclusion from a second and third existential perspectives. Budhism teaches that everything is impermanent and that all matter will return to its original form. In Hindusim, the highest relationship between humanity and divinity is unity with Brahman, the one God. These perspectives meld with Christianity and science where the body returns to the earth and the soul returns to God.


Lest we forget my friends: Solidity is an illusion. It does not exist as we perceive it. Neither does the relationship between time/distance, since that is merely a perspective of interacting energy.

Eclectism answers all.

[ICantSpellDawg]

do life, morality or purpose make any more sense either way?

[Papewaio]

do life, morality or purpose make any more sense either way?

From the point of view of your genes, yes they do. If any of the strategies you choose helps spread those genes (not necessairly from you, but from your group that shares said genes) then they all have a purpose. So a moral code may just be a vehicle for the genes to spread, it may be an independent meme or it could be an interaction between the two... the strongest possibly being a symbiotic relationship between meme and gene (though shalt procreate being an obvious one)

[AwesomeArcher]

I believe in Evolution, but i still think that there is something "else" out there that is helping everything along. So I voted combo.