Creation & Evolution Both Partly True - Linked Together

reply to post by sharpy777

Originally posted by sharpy777
Creation is true but Religion has corrupted the logical truth of creation.

Well, let's see if you can back it up.

Evolution is also true, but due to narrow minded views fails to answer every question about the origin of our universe.

Evolution is the change in allele frequency over successive generations in a gene pool. It's a theory of biology that explains the diversity of life, not something that's supposed to explain the origin of the universe.

Together they provide a total unified answer to everything.

Uh-huh...

Note: Im not religious. I am attempting to convey the logical understanding i have of God. The God i believe in does not watch over us, or intervene given prayer, or create life as we know it in an instant. My idea of God is the intelligent design behind the universe, where life is left to fend for itself within that design.

So you're a deist...I hope you can back up your whole 'intelligent design' idea.

On the other side of the arguement, Evolution has one goal and that is to proove beyond a doubt that what Religion teaches about life's beginnings is false through utilisation of scientific measurement, theory and observation.

No, evolution has no goal beyond to explain the diversification of life. It doesn't give a damn about what religions say on the subject. If there were a religion that actually stated things as the evidence demonstrates then evolution would be in agreement.

Evolution is primarily geared to explain how life began to change at the begining, how species were able to adapt and result in what we see on earth when we observe the 100,000's of species. Evolution by itself can never accept Creation from the Religious view.

...there are people who think that evolution is a part of the 'intelligent design'. If that's where you're going with this, I'm going to feel like I've wasted a bit of my time because you're far from the first to try to reconcile things as such.

If we remove Religion from the equation for a moment and simply focus on Creation in its raw element, we can understand that the true God is the universe entirely.

I'm sorry...but...what? Last I checked, the universe lacks conscious thought or any other attribute given to any deity. To redefine 'god' as the universe is to merely throw a label on to the universe.

Our universe exists inside an infinite vast emptiness, endless and desolate void. The universe in its physical form is God and is also the design of God inside and out. The stars, our planet, life itself.. Is the embodiment of God's design.

...alright...where is the evidence that anything is designed? Or are you just going to make the statement that it is without backing it up?

How does this tie into Evolution? Well my belief is simply that God is the logical source of everything. God is the platform for the universe to exist, which is designed to flow through time and through this understanding we can see that the universe is capable of producing life in the rarest of circumstances. Life is an integral part of God's purpose, but God does not choose when and where life starts, God does not directly influence or control anything on earth, does not decide when mankind will perish and ultimately does not have a direct concious real time connection to life on earth. Time only exists within the physical universe.. Outside of which where time is not present, God gave design to the universe so that it already encorporated what is neccessary for life to begin and grow. We are merely a result of this design having worked as planned.

Dammit, I wasted my time. So you're just moving the goal posts back as far as possible. You're redefining a deity so that there is a universe that exists as if there isn't a deity...yet you're still claiming that one exists. It's like I'm claiming that an all-power, all-knowing being exists and its sole purpose to prevent me from having conclusive proof of its existence.

The concious intelligence of God is represented by the harmony and brilliance of our universe, everything we understand can be viewed as one of many functions/aspects of what/who God is.

...including the harmonious collisions of galaxies, black holes consuming stars, supernovae, etc....
Again, how is this a demonstration of conscious intelligence?

1) You need to let go of the idea that God can directly influence life on earth.

Well, if its conscious and its everything...then it should be able to. And what about those that sort of want proof of a deity before accepting it in the first place?

2) It is the idea that God acts like an overseer for his creation that is wrong.

Or maybe it's the idea that god exists...

3) The design is God at the begining and the end, so any idea of an overseer is simply the ability to recognise the design flowing with the dimension of time.

So you're just relabeling the universe and its supposed design (which you've yet to demonstrate) as "god"? I'm sorry, but how do you make that logical leap?

Arguements against this idea:

Evolution is true but God does not have a role to play? Evolution can be prooven through observation, clearly there is truth behind the theory. But claiming Evolution is possible because the Universe let it happen, not God, is like saying the Universe has always been, the laws of physics are permanently embeded and the Big Bang simply released it all into a flurry of expanding gas, matter and energy, creating space and time and the universe we witness today.

It's not that the universe 'let' it happen, it's more like it being a necessary consequence of the universe. And what you've described so far? That's about what the evidence reflects.

This is wrong because in a void it is impossible for a singularity to be present without purpose or origin.

So you've just knocked out modern cosmology, good job on doing that. I'm sorry, but where is your evidence for this claim? Why could the singularity not have been there in some form or another prior to the big bang without purpose?

Beyond our universe is a void, subtract the current universe and you are left with nothing, for anything to begin you need a source and you need purpose.

Again, where is your evidence? And if the universe needs a source, why does the deity need a source?

The prime mover argument is sort of the dumbest thing I've ever heard. "All things need a cause...therefore something that didn't need a cause was the first cause"
You create a universally applicable statement and then you create a single exception.

How about the source of everything was everything? And again, why does there need to be a purpose?

If we follow evolution in its current form, we blindly believe that the Big Bang was present in a void with no reason or purpose.

Again, why must there be reason or purpose? Why are you hung up on this?

Essentially by that token we say the Big Bang originates from no where other than itself. This is an illogical loop of a belief, one which claims the Big Bang is the beginning and the Big Bang is the source of its own being. This is wrong, this can not be true, this is impossible.

I'm sorry, but that's not actually how it is. Matter/energy are believed to have always been in the universe. We have no evidence to state that they have not always existed, nor can we think of a way that they could come into existence without speculating something that has no evidential backing.

And you know what the conclusion is to what caused the big bang? We're not sure. But at least the scientists are working on it instead of pushing back the goal posts. You're merely creating something that must have also caused itself in place of having the universe cause itself. Wow.

To sumarise, Evolution alone accounts for the life on earth in its superb variety, but fails to address the origin of the universe which set the foundation for life to even be possible.

To summarize, circuit theory alone accounts for the activity of electricity, but it fails to address the origin of the universe which set the foundation for electricity to even be possible.

I'm sorry, but that's just damn silly. Evolution doesn't have to explain the origin of the universe, just like circuit theory doesn't.

Creation is not logical from the Religious viewpoint, it is only logical when God is understood to be the universe itself, which at its beginning had already set in place the design which allows for the seeding of life at a point in time when life supporting conditions are achieved.

And you've really not proven anything except for a lack of understanding of a few things here and there.

reply to post by sharpy777


I think that both concept as the look like to me may be put under one name - The Intervention Theory - (parcially random creation possibly ,,time being the illusive part tru senses/lines/dimensions/separators interloopings) -

see here The Intervention Theory www.redicecreations.com...
this is from redicecreation page

Lloyd Pye - The Intervention Theory
November 3, 2011
Lloyd Pye is a researcher and author known for his work with the Starchild Skull and Intervention Theory. Lloyd began writing in 1975, then became a screenwriter in Hollywood in the 1980s. In 1995, he found his passion writing nonfiction in Alternative Knowledge. He returns to Red Ice to talk about his latest e-book, Intervention Theory Essentials. Intervention Theory challenges Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution, by offering plausible explanations for many of the conundrums left unanswered by those other theories. We’ll discuss how much of what mainstream science professes is not just wrong, but blatantly, willfully wrong. Lloyd begins with the true origins of the universe, including a discussion about the “Intragalactic Terraformers.” Also, we discuss prokaryotic bacteria, the creation of oxygen, stock species and the Cambrian explosion. He says life was brought to Earth on a schedule rather than to have developed here.
Text

so .. thats more like a shaping things that are there already and that could be manipulated further thruoghout and.by the very illusions of itself made by the stronger fields that echo further and as echo appiers because of impulls in space - the vastness of space may be also an illusion

Very good post from the OP. Pity that many people will dismiss it. I wouldn't even simply consider applying the 'creation' theory only to the origin of the universe. It could play a much bigger role than simply the creation of the first replication organic molecule or protein.

Of course the story that human life was created 5 or 6 thousand years ago is just plain silly. I also do not personally believe in the 'Darwinian' theory of evolution where random 'excitation' or mutations give rise to a new species. For example random mutations must give rise to the same 2 new specimens male and female or 'adam' and 'eve' of the new species and these 2 new specimens must somehow enrich the gene pool of the new species by themselves. Of course to defend this theory the 'survival of the fittest' theory is put forward that those features of the species that are not favorable are eliminated as they are unable to compete for survival. While this theory somehow manages to explain for the prey it is an ineffective theory for predators.

Why did the polar bear become white?? Imagine the number of mutations it must have undergone to become white since the genes of the animal do not know what 'white' is. It is only the eyes that know it. Random mutations can give pink, blue ,yellow,or in another words an infinite number of colors. So Random mutations is simply too slow a phenomena to explain the evolution of animals like polar bears from its brown coated ancestors. Of course in this case one can explain that bears who did not have the white coat died off as they were unable to catch prey, but simply thinking of the number of mutations required would be too enormous for the transition from brown to white. Similarly there are butterflies which have eye spots on their wings. Again very low probability of such structures forming from random excitation. Similar is the case of lizards with wings. Why would they randomly sprout wings??

I personally believe that the Lamarckian explanation for evolution is the best we have. Of course people will ridicule it saying that if someone wants to fly their children cannot sprout wings. But evolution doesn't work that way. It doesn't follow the whims and fantasies of individuals. Lamarckian evolution also gives rise to a 'soul' of animals. Meaning species have the ability to transform based on their needs and their environment and not just the 'survival of the fittest' argument.

Transitional fossils are rare and there has never been a gradual change from one species to another through small increments. Instead we always see sudden changes. The disappearance of Dinosaurs is also a big mystery.

I personally believe evolution to be a subset of creation. For example we gradually build better and better microprocessors each version a different species from the previous one, but if tomorrow we are able to build a new type of technology for making computer processors then that would come under a completely different class.

Lamarckian evolution model is a very good explanation for evolution around us. Many Darwinists try fighting off the Christian creation model when really they should be giving answers to the Lamarckian model. Christian creation model is simply a bogeyman and an easy way to get victory in an argument.

Creationism should have nothing to do with established religions. According to me Evolution is a subset of Creationism. There is too much complexity, mutual reactions between living and non living things, etc that life can be reduced to random fluctuation of molecules.

Regarding the concept of god, god does not influence all our actions. For example if i move my hand god cannot stop me from doing so. In other words there is a little bit of the 'God' in all of us. This God has its influence in much more subtle ways than just miracles, etc. Also 'God' if it does exist cannot be a human being.

reply to post by imdbstar

Of course the story that human life was created 5 or 6 thousand years ago is just plain silly. I also do not personally believe in the 'Darwinian' theory of evolution where random 'excitation' or mutations give rise to a new species. For example random mutations must give rise to the same 2 new specimens male and female or 'adam' and 'eve' of the new species and these 2 new specimens must somehow enrich the gene pool of the new species by themselves.

Your model, as presented above, seems to suggest that, because of a single mutation, a new species can no longer viably produce offspring with the original species as a result of a single mutation i.e. that "speciation" occurs after a single mutation. This has little resemblance to what modern evolutionary synthesis actually posits. I think one biologist put it best when he said, paraphrasing, that every offspring is the same species as its parents.

In other words, evolution doesn't say that H. rhodesiensis parents suddenly started giving birth to a population of H. sapiens babies one day and thus our species came to be. Any attempt to argue against that is just a strawman argument.

Of course to defend this theory the 'survival of the fittest' theory is put forward that those features of the species that are not favorable are eliminated as they are unable to compete for survival. While this theory somehow manages to explain for the prey it is an ineffective theory for predators.

So a predator given some kind of advantage in hunting via a beneficial mutation wouldn't excel? That's an interesting concept.

What the OP is describing is rational creationism. Acknowledging science for the facts it contains, while also having faith in a god. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Evolution and creation are compatible until people start reading ancient story books as literal absolute truth, or misunderstanding evolution completely.

Originally posted by Barcs
What the OP is describing is rational creationism. Acknowledging science for the facts it contains, while also having faith in a god. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Evolution and creation are compatible until people start reading ancient story books as literal absolute truth, or misunderstanding evolution completely.

Huh?

Evolution and creation are compatible until people start reading ancient story books as literal absolute truth, or misunderstanding evolution completely.

another silly idea next to abiogenesis.

Evolution and creation - are opposites, just like water and oil can't mixed.

If you say God created life (from the organic soup) then used evolution to advance man then where does Jesus fit in the picture?

What is sin and why did he die for man?

know what I mean?

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Barcs
What the OP is describing is rational creationism. Acknowledging science for the facts it contains, while also having faith in a god. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Evolution and creation are compatible until people start reading ancient story books as literal absolute truth, or misunderstanding evolution completely.

Huh?

Evolution and creation are compatible until people start reading ancient story books as literal absolute truth, or misunderstanding evolution completely.

another silly idea next to abiogenesis.

Evolution and creation - are opposites, just like water and oil can't mixed.

Oh stop it. I've explained it to you countless times in the threads you made. Evolution is not abiogenesis, and therefor is completely compatible with creation. I didn't say it was compatible with crazy fundamentalist creation as a literal bible story, merely the concept of god. I'm not talking about your religion, stop assuming that every time somebody mentions creationism that it automatically means the bible or your version of it. Even if you include abiogenesis, IT IS STILL COMPATIBLE WITH A GOD OR UNIVERSAL CREATOR.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Barcs
What the OP is describing is rational creationism. Acknowledging science for the facts it contains, while also having faith in a god. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Evolution and creation are compatible until people start reading ancient story books as literal absolute truth, or misunderstanding evolution completely.

Huh?

Evolution and creation are compatible until people start reading ancient story books as literal absolute truth, or misunderstanding evolution completely.

another silly idea next to abiogenesis.

Evolution and creation - are opposites, just like water and oil can't mixed.

Oh stop it. I've explained it to you countless times in the threads you made. Evolution is not abiogenesis, and therefor is completely compatible with creation. I didn't say it was compatible with crazy fundamentalist creation as a literal bible story, merely the concept of god. I'm not talking about your religion, stop assuming that every time somebody mentions creationism that it automatically means the bible or your version of it. Even if you include abiogenesis, IT IS STILL COMPATIBLE WITH A GOD OR UNIVERSAL CREATOR.

edit on 17-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

I think you should have said - ID - Intelligent Design is compatible with Evolution rather than Creation.

Creation evokes a Creator with Divine Power while ID simply states that there's Intelligence in the Design absent of a designer.

So to equate Creation with Evolution - like I said is silly.

reply to post by sharpy777


I find myself believing that evolution is a tool God uses. I like your thoughts here. I'm not sure why it isn't more widely accepted. There does seem to be room for this, but I'm not one to believe a literal interpretation of the bible either.

Originally posted by edmc^2
I think you should have said - ID - Intelligent Design is compatible with Evolution rather than Creation.

Creation evokes a Creator with Divine Power while ID simply states that there's Intelligence in the Design absent of a designer.

So to equate Creation with Evolution - like I said is silly.

So intelligent design doesn't need a designer, but creationism requires a creator? Get outta here with that. We all know darn well that ID is a form of creationism. Nobody is equating the 2, I'm simply stating the fact that both could very easily be true. You can't comprehend that because you're stuck in a literal genesis interpretation.

Originally posted by sharpy777
On the other side of the arguement, Evolution has one goal and that is to proove beyond a doubt that what Religion teaches about life's beginnings is false through utilisation of scientific measurement, theory and observation. Evolution is primarily geared to explain how life began to change at the begining, how species were able to adapt and result in what we see on earth when we observe the 100,000's of species. Evolution by itself can never accept Creation from the Religious view. .

This is not true... evolution is set to define how the diversity of life came about... not how the beginning came about. Evolution will never really answer the WHY, but the HOW is another question. I know you stated this is opinion and you are trying to explain your belief of what "God" is - but if you are truly seeking God out, quit pussy-footing around and seek him out the way you're supposed to.

If not, then don't say it's God - it's a different form you are looking for. Technically we can create our own reality by conditioning our own understandings of our universe, but there are certain essences you have available that don't have to be fabricated. This is where science and God come into play. I too, believe that science and God exist hand in hand, and I don't understand why people love to argue about who's right or wrong. We need to be looking in the same area as a team. I suppose with both influences existing we will come to an understanding eventually.

reply to post by sharpy777

The God i believe in does not watch over us, or intervene given prayer, or create life as we know it in an instant. My idea of God is the intelligent design behind the universe, where life is left to fend for itself within that design.

Me also, friend. Star and flag for a most excellent post. Direct alignment with my own thoughts on God/Goddess. They never, ever become involved in the affairs of humankind, and anyone who thinks they do is fooled by dogma. They do not send "sons" to Earth, Jesus was a product of the Grays, as most likely Mohammad and a few others....sent to teach and to correct mistakes made by the Masters of the Grays. The True God and Goddess requires no prayers, no supplications, no sacrifices, and no fake eating of them or drinking of their blood. They do not answer even one prayer, that would negate Human Free Will, the so called "answered prayers are nothing more or less than pure Human will.

If we simply believe creation, then we subject ourselves to a narrow minded viewpoint, one which by many beliefs denounces clear and proven evidence for evolution as a key factor for life on earth. Someone i know who is Christian believes for instance that Dinosaurs came into existance around 6000 years ago and co-existed with man, but were wiped from the earth by God. Arguing against science he claims that carbon dating does not measure the age of fossils properly and is 100% wrong. He also believes that no life exists anywhere other than earth, that the universe is simply a 'light show' for mankind, to display God's power. And that the earth and all life was created instantly by a concious God. With Creation understood in this current form it fails to provide a logical answer and relies on people to push logic aside.

I too have people tell me these fallacies, but that doesn't mean I believe one word of it.

How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know?

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

source

The concious intelligence of God is represented by the harmony and brilliance of our universe, everything we understand can be viewed as one of many functions/aspects of what/who God is.

1) You need to let go of the idea that God can directly influence life on earth.
2) It is the idea that God acts like an overseer for his creation that is wrong.
3) The design is God at the begining and the end, so any idea of an overseer is simply the ability to recognise the design flowing with the dimension of time.

I have come to believe that religious folks really want to believe this, and will fight anyone who disputes them on the matter. They even call God/Goddess "Lord", a word meaning one who administers over slaves. Deity is not an overseer, my thoughts are that Humanity was created to see how we would turn out, and if we would resort to killing each other, and whether in fact we would destroy the only Home we have....and the sad truth is, Humanity did all of these things, and are still at it. A million die, one is spared, they says, "Praise the Lord, God's will be done", and they tend to apply that to a great many events.

Personally, I see the Divine as my Father and Mother. If they had kids, I am not aware. I think Humanity is destined to Ascend to a higher dimension of Space/Time, to be one or two steps closer to those why made all of this happen. My divine Parents do not judge anything I do, say, or think, the only judge of me, or any other human is our own selves, and who could be a harsher judge, after all?