Evolution vs Creationism

So basically. God is an avid gamer. We are he's MMORPG simulation where he breeds us and mutates us into what we are. He watches us interact with each other and the world. He's amused by our various character options, and is always looking to insert new updates into this "simulation" that has been running for billions and billions and billions and soooo many billions of years ago.

._. You dear sir. Have just blown my mind.

 

I get what you're saying, the universe is infinite and by the logic of probability it does stand to reason that the larger the universe the more likely the event would be to occur, but still it's rare and improbable, even by scientific standards, that the conditions of life could be created AND life could stabilize itself. After all the original bacteria didn't just appear out of nowhere. You have to look at the whole picture. The conditions for life were not only created through that impact, but somehow the right combination of chemicals came together and were sparked by some sort of electrical anomaly to create the original bacteria, though it does stand to reason that some anaerobes could have dropped from space debris. The events are just improbable, but not impossible and I'm certain that somewhere out there in the universe there is more life, it's just that by what science tells us those conditions don't occur very often.

Glorious! Seriously though, those pictures are amazing when you think about it.

 

Sorry, I just came back from reading Genesis.

Yeah, I remember saying here I was done with religion, but I now and fully don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god, and here's why:

Genesis 1:11 "Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so." (Day 3)

Genesis 14-15: And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. (Day 4)

So.. Okay.

Apparently the sun came AFTER vegetation? Which we know scientifically, this is not possible. We all know that vegetation needs sunlight in order to go through the process of photosynthesis. Otherwise, you have some pretty lowly-looking plants.

Yeah.... While I'm still agnostic, it seems to me that this particular god is still created by humans. If there is a god, he would have the sun come first, THEN have plants.

Nevertheless, I'm all for evolution. While it's a theory, it's documented very well with scientific evidence by many, many organizations. Oh, and I forgot to take my penicillin. What's that? It doesn't work anymore? Well that's probably why I have a headache.

Or maybe it's after reading those 2 bits of Genesis again.

 

The word theory in "Scientific theory" doesn't imply they aren't sure what they are talking about is correct.

 

I'm aware of that. As I said, there is evidence, and a great deal of it. Did you read my whole post? I'm on the side of evolution. I quoted the bible as ammunition against the religion itself.

 

I know. I'm responding purely to you saying "While it's a theory...", because it being a theory doesn't count against it at all.

 

I'd rather light myself on fire than be religious if that answers your question.

And to the ones saying there might be a creator who created evolution. Just.. No. Everything is just a coincidence.

 

What in layman's terms is called a theory is closest to a hypothesis in scientific terminology.

A hypothesis may become scientific theory if it's found to be supported by a good body of evidence.

 

That was Great haha especially the last one

and @ PurpleRain, Alright My mistake. I interpreted your message to mean "God MUST have done it, because the odds are so low nothing else could have". Guess im a glutton for inserting my 2 cents lol..

Continue :3

 

You know, there are creationists who believe in evolution. That's what I was until I actually read the Bible. Made me realize how ridiculous it was.

Also, we're talking about the evolution of humans. Evolution itself is a scientific fact. People debate the evolution of humans.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't plants take longer then 1 day to die without sunlight? Also wasn't there "light" before plants, then came the lights in the sky? Plants can live off artificial light sources. Not saying that I agree with Biblical interpretation of the creation of earth, far from it, but I don't see how Genesis is a good argument against Creationism\Intelligent Design. At least not from those quotes, but I'm no expert on the bible.

The fact is there is no evidence of a Creator, so the idea behind creationism cant be disproved. It cant be supported either however.

Evolution while is the leading theory and most likely the right one, its still missing a lot of evidence in my opinion, so many links still to be found and discovered. Not that I'm saying I don't believe it because I do, I just think its still got a long way to go.

I'm not intelligent enough to begin to understand it all tbh and I don't really care that much either. I support science in the search for answers of course but knowing the beginnings of the universe while is infinitely fascinating doesn't really matter in the end.

Ps. I didn't vote as there really wasn't an option for "I don't care or Why not both".

 

Could you give an example of one of these missing links so someone can help explain it.

 

Sure I can try, but like I said I'm not intelligent enough to really have an informed opinion and I really haven't spent much time on studying it so what I know is just bits a pieces from passing sources. I mean I barely had a year of high school to learn general things, let alone this specific piece of science.

Its like connect the dots right, we have a lot of dots but still a lot of empty spaces. I'm not saying this disproves or even works against evolution. Just from my really limited understanding we only have evidence to support certain stages in our evolution and then good theory to back the rest it up?

Like we know we are distantly related to apes but I was under the impression that we didn't have complete proof of our ascension, just that we have genetic similarities? And that we were missing evidence from the very early stages of live?

Anyways please do correct me if I'm wrong, I'm under no grand delusion that I have an accurate understanding or knowledge in this area and I probably sound really stupid with my above comments.

 

I refuse to vote in this poll as i find the comparison to be insulting and degrading.

That is all.

 

Evolution is strongly supported by scientific evidence and discoveries, such as skull findings, comparison with homologous and analogous species, vestigial parts, and common ancestors. Creationism has no conclusive evidence whatsoever.

I have noticed that the evolutionary theory has some holes like "Why haven't we found an organism that is in the middle of evolving?", but some evidence is better than no evidence at all.

 

Human evolution can be traced reasonably well right through the primate line up to what we have today, mainly through the fossil record. A lot of the theory comes from the physical attributes of the fossil and the location it is found, which can determine the age of the species and then used to compare for similarity to species that lived afterwards in that area. Theoretical investigation does come into it a lot because we can't expect to have an actual fossil specimen for every stage of evolution over a 60 million year period, but every fossil that has been found fits into the theory pretty much perfectly. (plus it would be impossible to actually have a specimen for every intermediate species leading up to modern humans, because the very essence of evolution means that you can't determine a clear cut off point between species as the change is gradual)

The evolution of primates from other mammals has less physical evidence available to us but likewise good suppositions can be made from what is available (and once again all new evidence that is found supports what has already been theorised).

The very early stages of life can be theorised using currently existing species like bacteria and sponges and various other aquatic life, which demonstrate a nice ramp of evolution from single cells to multicelled organisms.


There is quite a good list (with pictures!) on Wikipedia: Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every single species that has ever existed is in the middle of evolving.

 

What I always found interesting is that the nearly exclusive method of disproving Creationism is through the disproving of establish religious understandings, which are inherently inaccurate. The human mind is psychologically a bit conceited naturally; it is very easy and almost instinctive for us to only think in the present. Though by far the biggest flaw of religion(Not to be confused with Creationism) is that no matter how popular it is, it will never be popular enough.

For instance, nearly all religious text refers to itself as the pure word of its god, or gods; yet in order for that to be true, it would mean that this deity has created billions of its children to walk this earth for thousands of years only to be automatically damned because the word of god wasn't to be presented to their kind for millennium into the future. Added to the fact that too this day all religion is not available to all of the human population.

Established Religion is flawed.( No offensive to members of established religions as scientific theory isn't without its issues either)

Though to attempt disprove the presence of a deity through the use of religious critique is no less nonsensical than trying to disprove the existence of a disease because what the doctor said doesn't make sense. Whether the doctor or medical field is right or wrong, it doesn't change your status in regards to the disease. If its there, it will be there regardless of their personal understanding.

I am not arguing for Creationism or Evolution, as I refuse to argue on a topic that I, and the rest of my species, are clearly ignorant of. I am a strong believer in holding personal belief. I only have issue with the desire of the vast majority of man to bicker at each other as if they have been enlightened with the meaning of life.

I have learned to find contentment in my own beliefs, but I have also learned to find contentment in the reality that in the end they likely mean nothing.

 

Unless you've taken a class on evolution or studied it extensively yourself, saying you don't 'believe' in evolution is ridiculous. Evolution is a scientific theory to evaluate if you are into science. It's not something to 'believe'. If evolution had no basis at all then there goes 90% of my curriculum in my biology classes.

If someone thinks that a divine being created whatever natural processes formed biodiversity, then idgaf.

 

So... we're talking about debating evolution of humans because there's a believe that human is so special that they must be created.

I would love to ask God if he favors bacteria or mole rats more because they're so much better than humans.

related:
Potholer and Hovind Come Together (Not like that!) - YouTube

an argument by some people that you just can't call it "evolution".
really, terminology argument

 

Not to be a stickler here, but evolution is a fact, the theory is how it happens, we know that Evolution occurs, were just not 100% on the how/why ^)^

We (as in all life) may have grown, but that doesn't mean somebody/something hasn't planted the seeds. Evolution and Creationism aren't exactly opposites ^)^