Creationism or Evolutionism? Or could it be a combination of both?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UB2120

There also is evidence to support intelligent design (creationism). The fine-tuned universe argument is a compelling one. The stances of irreducible complexity and specified complexity also have compelling evidence.

The fine-tuning argument in its basic form states that if the universe was any different, it would be different. It's a tautology. The rest is more anthropomorphic conjecture based on zero evidence.

Right, it would be different and life as we know it could not exist.

I never mentioned anything about an anthropomorphic God. That would have been one of the points to fall under the Creationist stance. Making God anthropomorphic is one of the major flaws of many religions. I believe it ultimately turns people away. As I said, God is spirit.

originally posted by: Hecate666
God only came into 'being' through humans. It never existed all those millions of years when dinosaurs were around. It also doesn't exist in a lot of people's minds that live happy, meaningful and peaceful lives [and I am not talking atheists but actual tribes around the world].
We can explain almost everything with evolution and now quantum physics.

Did god invent all those things? Well to someone who believes in a god [here are numerous ones] it is an easy cop put. Everything science will explain from now on, it is obviously god's will. An unwinnable argument for all the creatures that don't have a god in their life.

Does spiritualism exist? Yes it does, thanks to science and some [still] illegal substances, humans always had spirituality. There is more to our lives than just the reality you can perceive with just your senses.
Is there an afterlife?
I don't know, it is possible. Is there reincarnation? Again, I have no idea but again why not?

However is a god really necessary to explain these things?

Absolutely not. All the above can easily be because of the way this universe functions and we just don't know about it yet.
Do humans have to believe in old writings that have been translated [often wrong] many times and which are more relevant to people who lived a couple of thousand years ago?
No way.

Learning and gaining knowledge means that sometimes we have to discard old ideas that worked before. Flat earth for example. Instead we get new ideas.

IF...and I am devil's advocate here...if there is a god it would also know that humans have a capability to live good lives without it and it should neither be surprised nor threaten eternal damnation for it. It would understand.

The only thing that holds back a human's spiritual evolution [yes] is not to be allowed to embrace other ideas, ideals and explanations. Only then can we grow. If people stick to an old book and close their minds to other options without fear then they can never ever have spiritual growth.

Sometimes I think religion and especially creationism is for people who are not intrinsically spiritual but wish to be. They then go by the 'book' [literally] and can say "hey look, I am spiritual", but in ll honesty, I have never met a deeply philosophical christian. They cancel each other out.

If you are one with your body, mind and universe and embrace science to even further your thoughts, no god is needed.

God existed before time and space. He actually dwells outside time and space (eternity).

You seem to be basing your concept of God on the Christian belief system. Part of my OP was about this. What I didn't write was due to Christian's unbending attitude they turn a lot of people away. Not many go looking for, let alone find something different in the religious sense. If you are interested, let me know.

True, what we consider the traditional religious life is not required to live a full and happy life. I believe when you have a more universal concept of God it in no way inhibits a happy life. Faith is not to be a burden. It's supposed to be like sails on a ship, an addition of power.

Just as Christians are unbending on Creationism, so are they unbending on new information. They believe if its not in the Bible it cannot be true.

One thing to consider is that the universe is teeming with life. There were probably thousands of planets with highly advanced civilizations that have gone out of existence Billions of years before our planet even formed. Another one of my points was how Creationists generally fall into the, we are the only life in the universe belief. The process I briefly described has existed since the dawn of time and was ordained in eternity.

a reply to: UB2120

The answer is simple. It is called involution and evolution. You know it as baptism, or the immersion into a catalyst to allow programmed intelligence to rise to new life.

Father in Hebrew is Aleph (Strong) Bet (House), or Letters of creation. Abba is spelled AB. Our word Alphabet is really the word Father, as in the ONE Jesus pointed to when he was here as the Son.

Mother in Hebrew is Aleph (Strong) Mem (Water), or the catalyst of water for the letters.

Son in Hebrew is Bet (House) Nun (Seed), or the house of seed. This is better know as the Word (Logos). A word is comprised of links and chains of letters, which is what DNA creates in the protein. Water is the catalyst, or cup.

The Son is the Bread of Life, or seed comprising the loaf. The Son is the House of Seed, just what a loaf of bread is.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

Word is the substance that is unseen, better know as information.

Hebrews 11

11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Life is programmed to adapt and rise to new life (Evolve). Involution is the indwelling of information, or what information is--formation within.

Light is both particle and wave, but carries the same catalyst properties of water and information. It is conscious.

I can show you more if you like. It runs very deep.

1 Corinthians 10

16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

The Cup, the Bread and the Loaf which is the body of Christ, or all of us here on Earth.

a reply to: UB2120

Right, it would be different and life as we know it could not exist.

This is the conjecture I'm talking about. On what grounds do you have to say life would not exist if the universe wasn't "fine-tuned" in this way?

"Why didn't he fine tune it better?" might be a question creationists should ask.

I never mentioned anything about an anthropomorphic God.

You don't have to. Saying the universe was designed, built, created, crafted and fine-tuned is to give anthropomorphic qualities to a nothing.

a reply to: UB2120

Evolution is the evolution of souls / awarenesses.

See this post for better understanding. Really, click it then read the rest of this post.

What everyone fails to see is that the things seen are all approximations of will/spirit. So what people do is try to measure images, instead of seeing that the images, themselves, are already the approximated measurements of spirit.

When you understand that everything seen is an approximation you will understand/see what I'm talking about. Take an element for example - they are not even singular. E.g. Gold itself is an approximation of varying amounts of neutrons / isotopes / radioisotopes. So then which element is the real element of gold? They all are because it is not the image which makes a thing, it is the spirit of it.

quoting from another post of mine

As I mentioned above: everything we think of as an image is approximations and for that reason, math and science cannot work to truly see.

e.g. What is the true image of one? Is it 1 or is it the image of a single apple? Which 1 is the true 1 in my sentences? The answer: They are all 1... and their images are all based on approximations of their one will - their function. The function or will is what sets things apart. And it is the function or will of eternity / will itself which is what you're "seeing" by looking at the unseen.

e.g. Grasshoppers have 6 legs - but what of a grasshopper born with extra limbs? He is still a grasshopper because 6 legs is an approximation of his will.

e.g. How many numbers is between 1 and 1.1? Infinity. And you will then try to think something like well 1 and 1.1 are static, but no, they are just approximations between .9 and 1.2 - they too are apart of eternity and are as dynamic as will itself. One, 1, uno, apple.

The images are Jesus, the awareness/soul is Father, the spirit is The Holy Ghost. Father is making words/images in order to reproduce his concepts or awareness of will. I make these words to reproduce my awareness in you - same thing.

Reality is "good" concept (re)production, and that is what evolution truly is. Our bodies are the image of our forefathers' concepts. What they did, based on their concepts of what was good, shaped our bodies/images.

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: UB2120

The only way I could reconcile Creationism with Evolution is if "aliens", acting as "The Creator", somehow manipulated the DNA of apes or some other animal on this planet millions of years ago, to eventually led to humans as we are now. That is the only "Creator" I will accept in a Creationist's argument.

Creationism, in the traditional "God created us in his image" sense is too juvenile for me - too easy. Plus, there's zero evidence to support it.

Whereas conversely, there is an abundance of supporting evidence to the theory of evolution. Of course, there are holes - but that is the beauty of science : it can admit when it's wrong and change it's theory to support the observed evidence. Creationism, based on faith alone, cannot.

Who created the "aliens". Where did the apes come from? The DNA of a primate was manipulated and ultimately the mother and father gave birth to the first humans, twins, male and female. Sticking to the stick meaning of the word alien, any being not from this planet would be one.

That is what my post is about, that it is kinda both. When I say both, I don't mean all aspects of each stance. I basically mean God created the universe and through his created beings material life is created on the worlds of space. Evolution is the process used, not direct creation. A being like an Angel would be an example of a direct creation, though they can still grow through experience they were created fully developed.

Our order of existence is meant to evolve, grow and experience. God can create life in a variety of ways. His technique in time and space is evolution. This is true throughout the universe on all planets.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
I too am a Christian who has no problem with evolution.
But I see no reason to introduce the idea of "beings" for God work through.
Why can't he just be working through natural forces?

So you are of the thought that God has only created humans and just a few angels? By beings I mean spiritual beings, like angels, but of a different order. There is far more life in the universe besides God, angels and humans.

The natural and automatic forces and energies of creation are not blindly operating. They are intelligently controlled.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: UB2120

"We must start with the source, the first source and center of creation, God."

I will play Devil's, no make that God's advocate here and accept your opening premise.

No true scientist will state that God is not the first source and center of creation.

This has yet to be reasonably accepted as fact.

Since I call myself a true scientist, I will call this an hypothesis.

The way I see it, biological evolution has nothing to do with theism.

Perhaps abiogenesis does.

Perhaps cosmology does.

Life springs only from life and mind is derived only from pre-exiting mind. Saying God has nothing to do with evolution is like saying Flash has nothing to do with the videos on Youtube. God created the necessary foundation for which evolution can function.

Scientists be powerless to create one atom of matter or to originate one flash of energy or ever to add to matter that which we call life.

a reply to: UB2120

I think both.

The best visualization of my thought, I can give, is the BBC series, "Life". Where the bubble at the intro is the Big Bang with the word "Life" expanding out with the Universe.

It would mean that life is everywhere. It was already there from the beginning.

Evolution would be an enabler for infinite variety and beauty. God would be the trigger or first cause. The rules of physics were in flux for a very short time. That would allow room for inanimate to become animated, without violating known rules today.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UB2120

Right, it would be different and life as we know it could not exist.

This is the conjecture I'm talking about. On what grounds do you have to say life would not exist if the universe wasn't "fine-tuned" in this way?

"Why didn't he fine tune it better?" might be a question creationists should ask.

I never mentioned anything about an anthropomorphic God.

You don't have to. Saying the universe was designed, built, created, crafted and fine-tuned is to give anthropomorphic qualities to a nothing.

It's not conjecture, it's fact at least as these properties are understood today.

I think you need to look up the definition of anthropomorphic.

Extremely complex and highly automatic-appearing cosmic mechanisms always tend to conceal the presence of the originative or creative indwelling mind from any and all intelligences very far below the universe levels of the nature and capacity of the mechanism itself. Therefore is it inevitable that the higher universe mechanisms must appear to be mindless to the lower orders of creatures. The only possible exception to such a conclusion would be the implication of mindedness in the amazing phenomenon of an apparently self-maintaining universe — but that is a matter of philosophy rather than one of actual experience.

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: UB2120

I think both.

The best visualization of my thought, I can give, is the BBC series, "Life". Where the bubble at the intro is the Big Bang with the word "Life" expanding out with the Universe.

It would mean that life is everywhere. It was already there from the beginning.

Evolution would be an enabler for infinite variety and beauty. God would be the trigger or first cause. The rules of physics were in flux for a very short time. That would allow room for inanimate to become animated, without violating known rules today.

I am glad to see you also have a mixed (creation/evolution) view.

originally posted by: UB2120

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Holy crap! Evolution proponents don't say that religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. There is no part of the theory of evolution that says that god cannot exist. Evolution makes ZERO claims about spirituality, it also doesn't have anything to do with the creation of life. If you want to believe in god and say that god is the answer to why and evolution is the answer to how then so be it, but the only people pretending that evolution and god are mutually exclusive are the bible literalists, otherwise known as young earth creationists.

As you said, they make zero claims about spiritually. I've never read, and that certainly doesn't mean it hasn't happened, someone discussing evolution ever mentioning anything about God. They seem to try and find some "natural" explanation. There have been many debates in the last couple years and the sides seem to be mutually exclusive.

You are making a false equivalence. Yes, many evolution proponents are atheists or agnostic, but that doesn't mean that they HAVE to be atheist or agnostic.

The reason scientists try to find a natural explanation is because that is what they are trained to do. That is how you science, you start with a question and build evidence to answer it. Religion on the other hand starts with an answer and builds evidence to fit the answer. So a scientist looking for the natural answer is what he is supposed to do, it doesn't mean that he can't believe in god though.

a reply to: AlephBet

Not really sure what the Hebrew words for God have to do with it. The concept of creation and subsequent evolution is not new. I guess I can't tell if you believe in the combination or lean to one side or the other?

Isn't God meant to be omnipotent and omnipresent, if that's the case why would be need administrators?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UB2120

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Holy crap! Evolution proponents don't say that religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. There is no part of the theory of evolution that says that god cannot exist. Evolution makes ZERO claims about spirituality, it also doesn't have anything to do with the creation of life. If you want to believe in god and say that god is the answer to why and evolution is the answer to how then so be it, but the only people pretending that evolution and god are mutually exclusive are the bible literalists, otherwise known as young earth creationists.

As you said, they make zero claims about spiritually. I've never read, and that certainly doesn't mean it hasn't happened, someone discussing evolution ever mentioning anything about God. They seem to try and find some "natural" explanation. There have been many debates in the last couple years and the sides seem to be mutually exclusive.

You are making a false equivalence. Yes, many evolution proponents are atheists or agnostic, but that doesn't mean that they HAVE to be atheist or agnostic.

The reason scientists try to find a natural explanation is because that is what they are trained to do. That is how you science, you start with a question and build evidence to answer it. Religion on the other hand starts with an answer and builds evidence to fit the answer. So a scientist looking for the natural answer is what he is supposed to do, it doesn't mean that he can't believe in god though.

That is good to know. I guess the ones that I see on TV or debates portray atheist or agnostic qualities. I never claimed that an evolutionist could not believe in God, I said what I've seen appears that way. Now that I think about it one scientist that did talk about God was Alexander Tsiaras at a Ted Talk.

www.ted.com...

He wrote the code that is used in MRI machines.

This is something I put in a couple posts ago.

Extremely complex and highly automatic-appearing cosmic mechanisms always tend to conceal the presence of the originative or creative indwelling mind from any and all intelligences very far below the universe levels of the nature and capacity of the mechanism itself. Therefore is it inevitable that the higher universe mechanisms must appear to be mindless to the lower orders of creatures. The only possible exception to such a conclusion would be the implication of mindedness in the amazing phenomenon of an apparently self-maintaining universe — but that is a matter of philosophy rather than one of actual experience.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Jesus and God the Father are one, but Jesus is not the Eternal Son of God. Jesus is a Son of the Eternal Son of God. That fact in no way diminishes his divinity. He is our Father and elder brother. Only through him can we attain God the Father.

originally posted by: UB2120
Extremely complex and highly automatic-appearing cosmic mechanisms always tend to conceal the presence of the originative or creative indwelling mind from any and all intelligences very far below the universe levels of the nature and capacity of the mechanism itself. Therefore is it inevitable that the higher universe mechanisms must appear to be mindless to the lower orders of creatures. The only possible exception to such a conclusion would be the implication of mindedness in the amazing phenomenon of an apparently self-maintaining universe — but that is a matter of philosophy rather than one of actual experience.

Yes you are right, it really falls down to philosophy and personal belief. Though through the application of science we have pretty much deduced that the hands on approach of god that religion likes to talk about isn't the case. In all likelihood if there is a creator (god) he probably setup the universe, hit play, then sat back to see how things developed.

a reply to: UB2120

What you're saying is that Jesus is not the Word who was made flesh?

Your awareness/understandings are made up of the images/words that form them - those images are the body of your soul/awareness - that is why Father and Son are one. Jesus is the light that illuminates the awareness, concept, or soul. All thoughts or concepts you have are made up of those images. Try to think of something, anything, without a sensation/image, and you will see you cannot do it.

You cannot have a creator without a creation. Jesus has always been; there, within will.

That is the mystery of God.

The understanding of the image is awareness. This is why you must go through the image to get to the awareness, through Jesus to get to Father. This is why Jesus asked Philip about not knowing him.


John 14:9King James Version (KJV)
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?


Are you a Mormon? Do you honestly think God is an alien on another planet? God is all of reality. What separates things is their spirit/will/function, yet that Spirit is one. When you die your spirit goes back to God who gave it, your body back to the earth/image, and your soul sleeps without a body to be aware of because you are a living soul - a fleshy soul - your awareness is derived from your body.

Everything you see around you was made to lead you to Father - to the understanding of will. God isn't doodling - all the images mean something.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: UB2120

What you're saying is that Jesus is not the Word who was made flesh?

Your awareness/understandings are made up of the images/words that form them - those images are the body of your soul/awareness - that is why Father and Son are one. Jesus is the light that illuminates the awareness, concept, or soul. All thoughts or concepts you have are made up of those images. Try to think of something, anything, without a sensation/image, and you will see you cannot do it.

You cannot have a creator without a creation. Jesus has always been; there, within will.

That is the mystery of God.

The understanding of the image is awareness. This is why you must go through the image to get to the awareness, through Jesus to get to Father. This is why Jesus asked Philip about not knowing him.


John 14:9King James Version (KJV)
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?


Are you a Mormon? Do you honestly think God is an alien on another planet? God is all of reality. What separates things is their spirit/will/function, yet that Spirit is one. When you die your spirit goes back to God who gave it, your body back to the earth/image, and your soul sleeps without a body to be aware of because you are a living soul - a fleshy soul - your awareness is derived from your body.

Everything you see around you was made to lead you to Father - to the understanding of will. God isn't doodling - all the images mean something.

The word of the Father as reveled by the Son is the bread of life. Jesus is a divine being, but he is not the Eternal Son. Why would that really make a difference?

No, I am not Mormon. I do not think God is an alien on another planet. God dwells outside of time and space on the Eternal Isle of Paradise.

O boy, not another one...

originally posted by: UB2120
Over the years I have read and watched many debates and discussions on this subject. The end result is usually a discussion of the flaws of each stance. I would like to discuss the possibility that perhaps the truth is a mixture of both. There is undeniable evidence of progressive evolution within the fossil record. Not to mention we can still see evolution in progress in humans.

It is fallacy to believe that both can be right. Either something evolved or it was created/designed. Science works only with something that is testable, thus only evolution could and was tested. Now, to test creationism claims and believe that everything was created by all mighty, and then flooeded, and since then managed to reproduce in current quantities, without touching all extinct kinds of flora and fauna... good luck..

originally posted by: UB2120
There also is evidence to support intelligent design (creationism). The fine-tuned universe argument is a compelling one. The stances of irreducible complexity and specified complexity also have compelling evidence.

I would really love to see evidence that supports ID. Fine-tuned universe just does not exist, and so far from what we know of our surroundings and place in universe, we can leave only in 0.0.. and many more zeroes and 1 of universe. Everything else is inhospitable and would kill us in an instant. Not to mention meteorites, super nova explosion end similar things. There was nice series on youtube that covers all mass extinction events on earth, and what scientist believe could be cause of each... Interesting to watch and gives you that feeling, if this is fine tune - then creator had wicked sense of humor...

IMHO, whole dialogue is changing, at least I see it that way, with education and people learning that everything they hear in Sunday church has no evidence behind it. Even moral for witch many call religion and theology for - is very questionable and by all means obsolete in today's world.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
Many atheists are evolutionists and they all believe humans came from monkies.

Who? Where? Care to point?

You should at least know that today apes and humans share common ancestor - that - to your surprise was not monkey - but our ancestor that looks like one, but was very different. Did not have a god, but had some brain and started using it... few millions years later, one branch of that ancestor lead to modern humans, other branches lead to today apes. Interestingly, we have lots of evidence of human evolution ant all of it supports evolution..

originally posted by: AnuTyr
The whole point of this post is proving that Aliens can and will terraform planets and colonize them.
Is it the outcome 100% of the time?

Said who? While we have only IronMan (with some head issues), Captain America (naive as possible could be) and rest of team... Just a joke, but I find it possible that someone might do exactly what we would do with current mind set to others... But, question is, will our world even exist by time they get here... as we are just good at destruction... Long time ago one smart man has said this: 'It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.' (Sir Arthur C. Clarke)