To all Creationists/Evolutionists

In a nutshell.

Evolution happens, you can't really refute that in my opinion.
BUT.

This doesn't completely disprove the idea of creationism.

You see we don't know exactly what caused the big bang.

Our genetic code could have been written by someone/something to allow evolution to happen. Actually seriously consider this for a moment. The make up of life is so in depth and complicated that it isn't absurd to lean towards the idea that this beautiful code of life could have been written by someone or something.

This means that Creationism and evolution could co exist to a certain extent.

Stop banging your heads against each others walls. Open your eyes to different possibilities. Close minded science is just as bad as closed minded religion.

Originally posted by TechUnique
In a nutshell.

Evolution happens, you can't really refute that in my opinion.
BUT.

This doesn't completely disprove the idea of creationism.

You see we don't exactly know what caused the big bang.

Our genetic code could have been written by someone/something to allow evolution to happen. Actually seriously consider this for a moment. The make up of life is so in depth and complicated that it isn't absurd to lean towards the idea that this beautiful code of life could have been written by someone or something.

This means that Creationism and evolution could co exist to an certain extent.

Stop banging your heads against each others walls. Open your eyes to different possibilities. Close minded science is just as bad as closed minded religion.

edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)

we are all agnostic because we cannot know what happened in the beginning, if there ever was one.

its all about proof. science is not close minded, there just isn't any proof of a creator/s, so can you blame us for not believing?

creationism is not dis-proven and not proven. so why even argue for it?

Originally posted by TechUnique
In a nutshell.

Evolution happens, you can't really refute that in my opinion.
BUT.

This doesn't completely disprove the idea of creationism.

You see we don't know exactly what caused the big bang.

Our genetic code could have been written by someone/something to allow evolution to happen. Actually seriously consider this for a moment. The make up of life is so in depth and complicated that it isn't absurd to lean towards the idea that this beautiful code of life could have been written by someone or something.

This means that Creationism and evolution could co exist to a certain extent.

Stop banging your heads against each others walls. Open your eyes to different possibilities. Close minded science is just as bad as closed minded religion.

edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)

Kudos to you my friend. Same idea has been going through my head for last couple of weeks. I think you are right about that.

reply to post by vjr1113


The point is.
Be open to all possibilities.
Don't refute something indefinitely because it goes against your current paradigm of belief.

Originally posted by TechUnique
reply to post by vjr1113

 

The point is.
Be open to all possibilities.
Don't refute something indefinitely because it goes against your current paradigm of belief.

i agree.
i really wish there were a heaven and a god. but i dont want to live a lie so i decide to take precautions.

Originally posted by vjr1113

Originally posted by TechUnique

creationism is not dis-proven and not proven. so why even argue for it?

So just like every other scientific theory out there? Evolution is not solid fact, neither is gravity or anything else for that matter. Everything you know is theory and nothing but theory. Good post OP, S&F

Originally posted by TheAnnouncementMovement

Originally posted by vjr1113

Originally posted by TechUnique

creationism is not dis-proven and not proven. so why even argue for it?

So just like every other scientific theory out there? Evolution is not solid fact, neither is gravity or anything else for that matter. Everything you know is theory and nothing but theory. Good post OP, S&F

im sorry what?

reply to post by TechUnique


Im sorry but the whole "big bang" theory sounds just as dumb as all the others if not more so.

reply to post by IKTOMI


Well it's not all dumb. but that's not to say its true either its still is a 'theory'

reply to post by IKTOMI


well there's some proof to it.

wiki

reply to post by vjr1113


As if infinity needs an origin. Na that's dumb.

reply to post by mb2591


Ok lets see. First there was nothing at all whatsoever.. Then it blew up.

Na I'm sure its pretty dumb

reply to post by IKTOMI


jesus christ

you're funny

reply to post by vjr1113


don't confuse evidence for proof.

The key here is this.
There is a single set of evidence. It's by and large empirical, verifiable and freely available to all of us... in fact, it's all around us. The difference here is in interpretation. Anyone who has observed evolutionary science will note that it works in a backward manner. Evidence is interpreted according to the theory; the theory is not defined by the evidence. This is primarily because evolutionists cannot and will not accept the idea of an all-powerful creator God.

Creationists, on the other hand, interpret that same set of evidence from their own preconceived notion of a creator God. There is no difference here; no greater validity to one viewpoint over another. The arguments that so often bounce back and forth around here (and everywhere else) are essentially over the validity or value of one set of interpretation over another.

...and while you may argue that God and evolution aren't mutually exclusive... a literalist interpretation of the Bible and evolutionary origins (note: origins) ARE mutually exclusive.

The fact is, you'll struggle to find a creationist who doesn't believe in evolution. Most creationists, however, will differentiate between macro and micro-evolution; the difference being that while we (yes, I am a creationist Christian, though that's not the point I'm trying to make here) agree that evolution occurs within a species, we would argue that evolutionary mutations, while occasionally beneficial, never result in an increase in genetic information. An increase in genetic CONTENT, perhaps... but not new information (e.g if I were to type the same sentence twice, I may have more content, but I don't have more information - mutations either destroy or duplicate genetic information, they don't create new data, and there isn't a single case where this has occurred).

For this reason, creationists believe that the world has in fact DEvolved... that, as God created everything in perfection, the fall created circumstances where everything on this earth has begun to decay and devolve; this has resulted in speciation and genetic variability etc.

Creationists do NOT, however, believe in evolution-driven species transition; nor in evolution-driven transition from simple to complex forms. Personally I don't believe there is any evidence in nature for this whatsoever.

reply to post by vjr1113


Im serious it really isn't that hard to recognize BS. I love doing MST3K critiques on Sagan,Michio Kaku, or Stephen Hawking. These guys are told they are soooooooo smart by soooooo many people. They are BS artists.
They're just as bad as redneck bible thumpers.

reply to post by IKTOMI


Yea if you look at it like that.. but fact is it doesn't say at first there is nothing.. and the universe is expanding so that would point to the assumption that in the distant past everything was close together. Again Im not saying it's right your just making it sound like there's no evidence

I have been trying to get this point across for years. I taught evolution as part of biology and at the same time remained open to genetics being a part of a greater picture, never in my mind was there a conflict. However, you will not get far with an open mind, for the folks on the side in religion don't share this trait, thus it is black or white to them. I was attacked in school, in restaurants and elsewhere because I would listen to them, but not conform, what a life we live in.

I live half my life in the spiritual side, but not conformity of churches and that really put in on a slippery slope.

Originally posted by Awen24
reply to post by vjr1113

 

don't confuse evidence for proof.

The key here is this.
There is a single set of evidence. It's by and large empirical, verifiable and freely available to all of us... in fact, it's all around us. The difference here is in interpretation. Anyone who has observed evolutionary science will note that it works in a backward manner. Evidence is interpreted according to the theory; the theory is not defined by the evidence. This is primarily because evolutionists cannot and will not accept the idea of an all-powerful creator God.

Creationists, on the other hand, interpret that same set of evidence from their own preconceived notion of a creator God. There is no difference here; no greater validity to one viewpoint over another. The arguments that so often bounce back and forth around here (and everywhere else) are essentially over the validity or value of one set of interpretation over another.

...and while you may argue that God and evolution aren't mutually exclusive... a literalist interpretation of the Bible and evolutionary origins (note: origins) ARE mutually exclusive.

The fact is, you'll struggle to find a creationist who doesn't believe in evolution. Most creationists, however, will differentiate between macro and micro-evolution; the difference being that while we (yes, I am a creationist Christian, though that's not the point I'm trying to make here) agree that evolution occurs within a species, we would argue that evolutionary mutations, while occasionally beneficial, never result in an increase in genetic information. An increase in genetic CONTENT, perhaps... but not new information (e.g if I were to type the same sentence twice, I may have more content, but I don't have more information - mutations either destroy or duplicate genetic information, they don't create new data, and there isn't a single case where this has occurred).

For this reason, creationists believe that the world has in fact DEvolved... that, as God created everything in perfection, the fall created circumstances where everything on this earth has begun to decay and devolve; this has resulted in speciation and genetic variability etc.

Creationists do NOT, however, believe in evolution-driven species transition; nor in evolution-driven transition from simple to complex forms. Personally I don't believe there is any evidence in nature for this whatsoever.

\

genetic recombination
genes can be introduced into a genome

transition fossils

Originally posted by IKTOMI
reply to post by vjr1113

 

Im serious

it really isn't that hard to recognize BS. I love doing MST3K critiques on Sagan,Michio Kaku, or Stephen Hawking. These guys are told they are soooooooo smart by soooooo many people. They are BS artists.
They're just as bad as redneck bible thumpers.

Hey you should make some threads about that sound interesting 'Debunking Sagan' or 'Debunking Kaku'