HOME | DD
impersonalinfo — Evolution and Creation
Published: 2012-01-20 04:32:29 +0000 UTC; Views: 2371; Favourites: 35; Downloads: 21
Redirect to original
Description
Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, ‘Why is there a universe?’ ‘Why does it go on as it does?’ ‘Has it any meaning?’ would remain just as they were? - C.S. LewisThere may be a broken trail of stones and bones faintly suggesting the development of the human body. There is nothing even faintly suggesting such a development of this human mind. His body may have been evolved from the brutes; but we know nothing of any such transition that throws the smallest light upon his soul as it has shown itself in history. - G.K. Chesterton
I don't deny evolution. But I also don't believe it tells as much of the whole story as many of its popular supporters seem to think.
Inspired by
Related content
Comments: 99
Yes, it does. Apparently humans came from rock. Which is totally crap. Are you related to a rock?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
it's a parody of someone else's work. left to my own I probably wouldn't have said it quite like that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I believe that God created man through human evolution. Nice one!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Too bad the bible has 0 proof ):
Maybe one day it can be a true scientific theory too, but as of right now..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The proof is there, people just refuse to see it
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
May you please provide it, without quoting any religious text or scripture, if you're so sure god exists, you must have proof?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't mind telling you, this question gets really old. Why can't Atheists do the research themselves? It has no meaning when I explain the proof, it just makes it easier to ignore.
I implore you to find out on your own, I am not trying to weasel out on the question but the proof of God is something every mortal needs to find on their own, the best I can do is push you in the right direction.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Really? You really believe that the proof is there we just "won't see it?"
Then why has no Christian ever become a famous scientist and MADE the bible a real theory on how the world works?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because there is no need to
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Evolution doesn't say how the universe began, just that creatures change. It's like saying stamp collection implies mental instability.
That said, I don't think a sky fairy makes sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I allowed my stamp in the theistic evolution group because I find theistic evolution more respectable by orders of magnitudes than Young Earth creationism.
But I stand by the expressed views that evolution does not need a god in order to function, that no part of evolution has been discovered to be so faulty that a guiding hand becomes necessary. So, in that, adding a god to it becomes accessory. A redundancy. The things the law of parsimony was made for.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't see how having a guiding hand in evolution implies that there's anything "faulty" about the process itself. The process in and of itself is neutral, just as a particular art technique is neutral--but may be used to many creative ends.
Even more so considering what we might now be seeing evidence for: many worlds that are potentially life-sustaining, where there could be magnitudes more designs and outcomes from the evolutionary process than what we see on Earth. I see no reason that our particular design of humanity need be the only one that God considered a pleasing outcome--why anything other than our particular form would be considered a fault. Same for a world that bears no life, or one that bears no sapient life. Why would these be mistakes? They simply add to the abundance and beauty of creation in their own ways.
We are even able to make something, as humans, out of the study of the most maladaptive traits we observe. As our science advances, we learn from them more about how we function, and how to cure illnesses and spare suffering. I do not believe this suffering is good or was ever desired...but we can learn from it to try to make things better and be good stewards of the knowledge and power that we hold.
I'm aware that many don't see things like I do, and it kind of sucks to be an a middle position like this and get flamed by both sides.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If a guide is successful it's because what's being guided needs guidance. In my studies of evolution I've found no process which cannot be explained naturally, no super-authority agent necessary. That's what I mean.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And I don't disagree that natural processes are as they are, and that there is no logic behind them. I do not believe they are all there is to it, but I do not see any reason to deny or distrust anything science reveals. I simply think there are questions beyond the scope of science. Science can show us what is, and what is possible, but not why/for what purpose, or right and wrong (in any sense beyond mere knowing of possible consequences...the values attached to said consequences originate elsewhere).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I disagree, since I think the why as well as morals and ethics are intrinsic to a species with as complicated social dynamics as we have. Also not needing a 'higher source,' evolving just as naturally as our DNA.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We do have certain predispositions in our DNA, but I do not take the deterministic stance that it dictates all that we are or can ever think or be. Ultimately it comes down to a belief that there is something more than only what we can observe (I emphasize "only" because I do not imply any dismissal of what we observe). But I thank you for a civil discussion, which is not something everyone is willing to engage in these days.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And I don't take that stance either. I think our potential to learn and change and expand is neigh infinite. I just don't see any reason to assume our progress thus far has needed more than nature's guiding hand. Nor a value in filling what we don't know with gods.
Thanks. It's good to exchange ideas.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
believing in both ftw. and yet I've had both sides tell me I'm not allowed to do that xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
and the representatives of "both" sides who claim this are just as ignorant as... each other.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
XD indeed. hardly a such thing as a middle ground really.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think that creation makes no sense. I mean, I don't even believe in God to begin with, so why would I believe in creation? It's just not my cup of tea.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Honestly, I think faith and science are both right to an extent. You can't deny that evolution is real, but I don't believe the human race is just random chance. Even plants are so detailed in the way they're put together on a genetic level when I look at it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Honestly, I think faith and science are both right to an extent. You can't deny that evolution is real, but I don't believe the human race is just random chance. Even plants are so detailed in the way they're put together on a genetic level when I look at it."
I deny that evolution is real, depending on which type of evolution is being discussed.
Micro-evolution - yes.
Macro-evoltuion - no. It's half-science at best, and a baseless assumption at worst.
To the rest of it, though, I agree with you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Micro-evolution = small changes
Macro-evolution = small change + small change etc. until you have
(wait for it)
LARGE CHANGES.
Evolution, in science, is as close to proven fact as gravity.
They are both "theories" meaning both are as close to known fact as we can get, but we leave it as a "theory" so as to make minor adjustments as new evidence comes along.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Macro-evolution = small change + small change etc. until you have
(wait for it)
LARGE CHANGES."
Not jut large changes, but changes from one species to another. Which has not been proven to have happened.
"Evolution, in science, is as close to proven fact as gravity."
Micro-Evolution, yes. Macro-Evolution, no.
"They are both "theories" meaning both are as close to known fact as we can get, but we leave it as a "theory" so as to make minor adjustments as new evidence comes along."
That is not the correct definition that scientists use.
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There are two species of butterflies indigenous to the islands of Hawaii that feed exclusively on bananas. What's so special? Bananas weren't introduced to Hawaii until a couple hundred years ago. So if those butterflies were there before, then they would have had no food source. They had to have evolved to eat the bananas.
Speciation: "one species changing into another."
And before you go, "TAHT JUT MICRO-EVILOOSHUN STFU!1!!!", no, it's not. Microevolution deals with changes within a species; macroevolution deals with changes between species.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If you knew shit about biology, you'd know you fail at it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lol Sure. Keep telling yourself that. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Every scientist on earth whose field has anything at all to do with biology would like a word with you. Seriously, put down the bronze-age Babble and read some science books. You'll be shocked, and if you've got any brains in there you'll feel as embarrassed as I did when the evidence for evolution piled and piled, no matter where I looked: Agriculture? Evolution. Immunology? Evolution. Paleontology, Embryology, Genetics? Evolution. Breeding show dogs, racehorses, and snakes with strange colors? SIV and HIV being related diseases, with AIDS research on chimps failing because they are immune to SIV and therefore HIV? Warfarin resistant rodents? MRSA? All of it is evolution.
Or we could just treat that nasty staph infection with penicillin, even if it is MRSA (because if evolution is false, then so is MRSA).
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"Including the hundreds who have signed the Dissent from Darwin paper, and the hundreds, if not thousands, more who have yet to do so: [link]"
The Dissent on Darwin? There's a nice rebuttal called Project Steve ([link] ). There are more scientists with some variation of the name Steve that have signed it than the number of all signers of DD, or indeed any other creationist document. Additionally, most signatories of DD are from fields unrelated to biology, such as Aviation and Engineering, and those that are biologists comprise less than 1% of the world's biologists, and less than 1% of American biologists. To be precise, 0.01% of American biologists. Let's note that several signatories were deceived by the vague wording and have since spoken out.
In four days, the competing document Support for Darwin got over a hundred times the signatures from those in fields related to biology (and a few others) than DD got in the years they took to get less than a thousand from several fields. It is so overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community that, once again, EVERY field of biology uses it. A recent Nobel prize winner for cancer research (Leland H. Hartwell) did his research and successful experiments based on evolution [link] You could destroy every fossil on earth, and scientists would still have more proof than they know what to do with. Go read the ruling and transcripts from Kitzmiller vs Dover. Creationist groups have lost every 'battle' they've been in due to lack of evidence and lack of adherence to scientific standards , and they have invented the "controversy" over evolution. While they stand around claiming the theory of evolution is on its last legs, about to kick the bucket as a scientific miscarriage, the evidence continues to pile and all tests indicate it's thriving [link] [link] .
"I'm sorry, but you seem to be closed-minded and idiotic already."
A person who looks at all the evidence for a scientific theory, and chooses their beliefs based on said evidence (evidence which has stood up to every challenge against it, large or small), who has, is, or will soon research and experiment, and is willing to change their mind if actual, reproducible experiments prove that evidence wrong, is neither closed-minded or idiotic. That's future-me (yay college), my elders and betters (teachers, explorers, researchers who've gone before), and all legitimate scientists.
(The problem is there has not been a single challenge to evolution which hasn't been disproved almost before the words to the challenge are finished.)
A person who clings to artificially-created controversies that were disproved by research and experimentation at every turn, and does no research or experimentation to combat a scientific theory, is behaving closed-minded and idiotically. That's you, your preachers, a few dishonest organizations, and several frauds.
"I haven't touched a Bible for any reason other than a World Religion paper for over a year, and I've held many science books in that time."
Metaphor escapes you. I'm sure you've held many real science books on the way to the burn pit, but that's not really reading them.
"Are you going to come up with a real, logical argument any time soon, or are you going to continue playing the childish, schoolyard bully who thinks he knows everything?"
I've more than proved my point, using logical arguments (That's called debate, not bullying, cattiness aside), and I've even given specific examples you are more than welcome to prove wrong. You haven't even addressed them... Oh, and I'm female.
"*yawn* I really don't care about what your experience is. If you think that way, fine, big whoop."
I know you don't care, but again, I've learned from scientific sources and continue to do so daily. And frankly if you're going to claim I'm not contributing to the conversation (as in the quote below), you should address the points I made previously.
"But you're not doing anything to convince me, only allow me to know that you're immature and have more words to spew than information that adds to the discussion. Which, thus far, you've added nothing."
One more time: I've given you examples to prove weren't the result of or proof of evolution, which you have not addressed, and in this response I've disputed your Dissent on Darwin with not one, but two examples ( [link] , [link] ) of qualified scientists who disagree- both my examples host far larger numbers of signatories than yours in shorter periods of time.
Not to mention a court case in which the ruling judge was a known religious conservative hand-picked by George W. Bush for his position, who still ruled against your side based on the literal piles of evidence by mine, and the refutation of every claim made by your side, from eyes to bacterial flagellum.
Since you're convinced my arguments and evidence are "spewing words," I'll add more things to this discussion for you to prove have nothing to do with evolution:
-Nylon-eating bacteria (which didn't exist before the invention of the artificial substance nylon)
-The myriad Drosophilia species (both lab-created and those found in the wild)
- The shrinking in size or even absence of elephant tusks in Africa and Asia (due to hunting)
-Major physical changes to the Croatian wall lizards that were imported to another island in the 1971 (larger head, a more herbivorous digestive system than the original population, in only 40 or so generations).
For fun: sickle-cell anemia, the ability for some adult humans to digest milk, the increased ability to process alcohol in some human populations (unrelated to the amount consumed by individuals), and the findings of the Human, Chimpanzee, and Canine Genome projects.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Every scientist on earth whose field has anything at all to do with biology would like a word with you."
Including the hundreds who have signed the Dissent from Darwin paper, and the hundreds, if not thousands, more who have yet to do so: [link]
I'm sorry, but you seem to be closed-minded and idiotic already.
"Seriously, put down the bronze-age Babble and read some science books."
I haven't touched a Bible for any reason other than a World Religion paper for over a year, and I've held many science books in that time. Are you going to come up with a real, logical argument any time soon, or are you going to continue playing the childish, schoolyard bully who thinks he knows everything?
"You'll be shocked, and if you've got any brains in there you'll feel as embarrassed as I did when the evidence for evolution piled and piled, no matter where I looked: Agriculture? Evolution. Immunology? Evolution. Paleontology, Embryology, Genetics? Evolution. Breeding show dogs, racehorses, and snakes with strange colors? SIV and HIV being related diseases, with AIDS research on chimps failing because they are immune to SIV and therefore HIV? Warfarin resistant rodents? MRSA? All of it is evolution."
*yawn* I really don't care about what your experience is. If you think that way, fine, big whoop. But you're not doing anything to convince me, only allow me to know that you're immature and have more words to spew than information that adds to the discussion. Which, thus far, you've added nothing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you. I don't know that much about evolution except about very basic things. That and I don't believe humans were ever apes at one time. Most definitely cavemen were different from what humans are now, but that still doesn't mean we were apes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
We didn't evolve from apes. We shared a common ancestor thousands and thousands of years ago. If you are going to talk about evolution being wrong, at least know what it is about no offence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I didn't say evolution was wrong. I said that I just don't believe we were apes at one time and if we had the same ancestors as apes, then the apes then were not like the apes we know now. I even said in my first comment that I don't deny evolution. I believe evolution is very real. In other words, I said what you're saying to me now, just in a different way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Evolution? Not exactly. Evolution is a combination of a ton of separate factors, two being natural selection and common ancestry.
Natural selection is when the most adept creatures survive. This one is pretty self explanatory.
Common ancestry nullifies the "we evolved from monkeys" argument, because no where does it state this. We may have had a common ancestor a large sum of years far-removed, but we did not evolve from them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Contrary to your opinion, Evolution makes perfect sense without having to throw in a supernatural entity to start it. You might as well say that Gravity doesn't make sense unless there's invisible fairies pulling everything down or that the Germ Theory of Disease doesn't make sense unless the bacteria are being controlled by invisible devils.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I wouldn't use specifically those terms, but your comment does a pretty good job of demonstrating the validity of the C.S. Lewis quote above.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And here my friends thought I was crazy for meshing science and religion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i know. People make me feel like that too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's just silly. You can have the best of both worlds.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev |