creation vs evolution

@mama_bear (1124)
Canada
August 10, 2009 1:10pm CST
i know that there are generally two schools of thought on how we came to be on this big old planet in the universe. there are those who are usually religious types who believe that god created all that is in the universe and us as well. all living creatures and that when we die those of us who are good and just and believers will ascend upon death to heaven, and those that are bad will end up in hell for their aferlife. then there are those who believe in evolution, that at some point tens of millions of years ago we crawled out of the primordial goop, then from some little amoeba we evolved into primates, then into nearndethals then into humans, the form in which we currently are. now here is my question, why is it that these two things cannot exist together, you know science and religion side by side? i mean could it not be possible that the maker in his/her infinite wisdom created the primordial goop from which we are supposed to have emerged. i am just curious as to what the theologians and scientists out there think.
1 person likes this
6 responses
11 Aug 09
In my opinion, it is impossible to know which one actually happened. We can only make a guess at what religious leaders and scientists think about it. Science and religion are both conflicting each other,so one cannot exist while the other exists.
@mama_bear (1124)
• Canada
11 Aug 09
i think that there is a possiblity that they can co-exist, why must religion and science be mutually exclusive? i mean i am not a fan of organized religion or any of that by any stretch of imagination.
1 person likes this
• United States
12 Aug 09
'Billy the Kid' A song that I am currently listening to at the moment... I would say that the powers of religion have manipulated the scientific community with a false theory that we can know is wrong if we take a moment to consider how the universe works by what we can see... Einstein had a theory that Mass and Energy are a Constant in other words the amount of energy and material located in the universe exists as is and will remain static, but here is the thing... If a black hole pulls in matter and then expels that matter the transfer of energy always has degradation and the same amount is never replaced some energy and mass is lost... Where does new matter and energy come from? Exploding stars? What is a big bang? Exploding stars or black holes? Suppose there are multiple big bangs? Matter and Radiation would be cast out in all different directions... How far out is infinity? If the universe has no form and no boundaries then it is infinite could something infinite be created? So could there be lots of big bangs over billions and trillions of years until life spontaneously is created to evolve? Just something to consider, if you haven't thought it out that far...
@mama_bear (1124)
• Canada
12 Aug 09
but here is the million dollar question where did the matter come from to cause the big bang in the first place. and i was under the impression that black holes were caused by exploding stars, is this not the case. i think that perhaps i should go back to my readings. thanks for that food for thought though, feel free to engage me anytime dude.
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Aug 09
Ah, I think the problem is that "primordial goop" is not in the bible. But I personally completely agree with you. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. You don't have to "pick" just one. This is coming from an atheist! I have much more respect for those who believe in God, and still accept or even embrace science, than those that say things like, "dinosaurs never existed." I'm not aware of one diffinitive way that people make the two compatible, but your answers should be interesting.
1 person likes this
@mama_bear (1124)
• Canada
10 Aug 09
you know another thing that completely mystifies me about believers on a side note here is that there are those out there who are true believers, they believe that there is a god and omniprescence, he who cannot be seen yet they do not believe in the existence of ghosts and the supernatural. how is the supernatural any different? i do so hope that people do respond because stuff like this sometimes keeps me up at night as i ponder the human psyche. i am a firm believer in science, but that is not to say that i do not believe that there is some other higher power at work. hey for all i know we could be a giant's experiment exisiting on a speck of dust, i mean who really knows.\ as for dinosaurs, i am not too sold on the interpretation out there of them. how does anyone really know what they looked like on the outside and what their diet consisted of. i am only prepared to believe the intel of a time traveller *lol*
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Aug 09
I would just like to interject here regarding your question about dinosaurs. We do know what some of them looked like due to fossilzed imprints of their skin. This is a rare find, but it has happened on occasion with a few species. Of course, color patterns are all conjecture. We have no idea what the colors of these beasts were. Regarding diet, again, fossilized stomach contents have been found. We also study the extinct animals teeth to determine whether it was a carnivore or a herbivore. That is how we distinguish diets in extant creatures of today. So, in a nutshell, we go with what we know, combined with the fossilized evidence that we have found. I hope that clears a few things up for you. I realize that most of what you see on TV regarding the appearance of dinosaurs is based on the imagination. Until we see a living one with our own eyes, we will never know EXACTLY what they looked like. But by studying their bones, we gain insight into their biology, reproduction, diet, and many other things that give clues as to what they might have looked like when compared to their living descendents.
@mama_bear (1124)
• Canada
11 Aug 09
thank you i did not actually know that, honestly i did not really do any reading outside of what i learnt in grade school on museum trips, i guess this is my lazy way of gathering intel *lol* i did not realize that there were actually fossilized skin remains and stomach contents. do you have a link or two i can perhaps visit regarding this? i would be interested to see what else they have to say. i do know that some insects have been found perfectly preserved in amber. i do hear you about the conjecture on the part of those who do the graphics and tv programs, and the various sounds the dinosaurs made as well like the roaring and whatnot.
@spalladino (17926)
• United States
15 Aug 09
This is my problem with the theory of evolution...if we evolved from primates, why are there still primates who apparently haven't evolved much in hundreds of thousands of years? I agree that humans started out as Neanderthals and have evolved from there but, physically, we are not too far from where we bagan. Human are close to primates but we are not the same. There is a scientific angle to evolution but the origin of everything, I believe, is God.
1 person likes this
• United States
16 Aug 09
Hi Spalladino, May I jump in on this quest? First lets look at the mutation and see that at the time of the mutation like mutations branched off from the primate genome... For thousands of years the primates have bread together recreating their own kind and so the mutation that lead to Neanderthals has also developed and changed. As we evolve we grow, (Intellectually.) When you have been so wronged you will finally see the truth there is only one... There are many beliefs, but there is only one truth and once the truth is known all the false beliefs will be passed by for the real deal! Allow me to show you the truth!
@mama_bear (1124)
• Canada
19 Aug 09
ha ha that was always my question, why are we still not evolving, then it occurred to me that that line of thinking would not serve me as evolution takes a great period of time. then they are those we are said to be accessing and harnessing more of their brain power than others, and they can do other things, is this not also evolution to a degree. i'm just playing devil's advocate here, i am still sitting on the fence.
• United States
10 Aug 09
I'm not a thologian or scientist by anymeans. I don't understand why both answers are not acceptable? I think probably that faith has been around alot longer than science has so it's more socially acceptable to follow your faith's version. But every faith has a different senario has to how the world came to be.... there is no right or wrong way to say how things occured when you are talking about ones faith. BUT many will argue til they are blue in the face that theirs is the correct way ect as well as on other issues of contraversy.
1 person likes this
@mama_bear (1124)
• Canada
10 Aug 09
hmmmm i agree with some of what you are saying in terms of belief and all that, but i believe that science has been around longer than faith, science existed even before we were born. science is what makes up this little world that we exist on. i am not too sold on either theory, what proof is there really of the big bang theory? i do agree that faith is more socially acceptable, there are those out there who are doing the right thing and trying to be believers, just in case there is an afterlife, they do not want to burn in the proverbial hell..... though there others out there who believe that this IS hell. it is a tough call sometimes. thanks for your thoughts though. i am not into organized religion and i am not by any stretch of imagination religious, but i am spiritual so where does that leave me?
1 person likes this
@pillsen (69)
• Romania
11 Aug 09
Ok. Lets start off with probability. What is the probability that something as complex as the earth could have just formed out of nothing? That is a number that I don't believe anyone has found. Maybe something smaller would be easer to grasp. Say we took 20 cards and numbered them 1 through 20, one number on each. Then we laid them down, mixed them up and picked them back up. What are the odds of putting them back down in order from 1 to 20 without looking? It comes out to be something like 1/2,432,902,008,176,640,000. It's simply found by multiplying 1x2x3x4...ect. all up to 20. And what if then you wanted to do it twice in a row? It would be 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 x 2,432,902,008,176,640,000. That is a big number. How about the human eye. The odds of every little thing in the human eye to evolve to how it is today would take something like 1/10 to the 20th power. Charles Darwin said this about the human eye: To suppose that the human eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree . . .. The belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone s imagination. So the chances of the earth forming from nothing and becoming what it is today, the chances of the human eye evolving into what it is today, the chances of laws such as gravity being like they are, or the fact that the earth is just so positioned that life can actually be sustained, or that if any one element would be off just a touch, if the gravity wasn't just right, if the tilt of the earth wasn't just so, then none of us would be here, none of these could have just happened or evolved, because the chances of these happening are so great that it is not possible. There had to be someone greater than us fine tuning every detail so that life can actually exist. That is the only possible explanation.
• Romania
11 Aug 09
In regards to the title of this thread, evolution does not deal with the earth forming, gravity, or even biogenesis, so the initial argument is moot to begin with. Furthermore, declaring that a higher power is the only possible explanation is not valid science. To be able to make such a claim in a scientific setting requires you to develop ways to make testable predictions about your theory. It's a pointless argument. Evolution IS NOT a theory of the origin of life, it is about the adaptation and mutation of life that results in new species. It makes no predictions of where or how life began. Intelligent design, creation by another name, is about the origin of life, not the adaptation and/or mutation of species. The two are not competing theories, nor are they mutually exclusive, i.e. the proof or disproof of either does not support or refute the other. The attack on evolution does reveal something about the character of those that believe in creation vs evolution though. They have a poor understanding of what evolution actually is and because of that they think that casting doubt on evolution somehow bolsters their theory of creation. The fact is that they could completely disprove evolution and it would provide zero support for creation as a valid alternative since its not an alternative at all. They would do well to quit trying to attack evolution, learn some science and try to actually put forth some measurable, testable evidence of their creation theory. Until then they are arguing with nothing more than faith, the same mentality children use as proof of Santa Clause. Perhaps they will learn someday that faith is an obstacle to the pursuit of truth.
• Romania
11 Aug 09
In regards to the title of this thread, evolution does not deal with the earth forming, gravity, or even biogenesis, so the initial argument is moot to begin with. Furthermore, declaring that a higher power is the only possible explanation is not valid science. To be able to make such a claim in a scientific setting requires you to develop ways to make testable predictions about your theory. It's a pointless argument. Evolution IS NOT a theory of the origin of life, it is about the adaptation and mutation of life that results in new species. It makes no predictions of where or how life began. Intelligent design, creation by another name, is about the origin of life, not the adaptation and/or mutation of species. The two are not competing theories, nor are they mutually exclusive, i.e. the proof or disproof of either does not support or refute the other. The attack on evolution does reveal something about the character of those that believe in creation vs evolution though. They have a poor understanding of what evolution actually is and because of that they think that casting doubt on evolution somehow bolsters their theory of creation. The fact is that they could completely disprove evolution and it would provide zero support for creation as a valid alternative since its not an alternative at all. They would do well to quit trying to attack evolution, learn some science and try to actually put forth some measurable, testable evidence of their creation theory. Until then they are arguing with nothing more than faith, the same mentality children use as proof of Santa Clause. Perhaps they will learn someday that faith is an obstacle to the pursuit of truth.
• United States
11 Aug 09
Very well said, jorjh! I like the way you think.
• United States
11 Aug 09
I have a handle on this whole thought process... http://tgwbevolutionofreligion.blogspot.com/ In one of your replies above you said that the Big Bang Theory could be wrong? Read what I have written and consider the probabilities... Could Organized Religion actually be the source of evil? Do they teach evil thoughts to our minds? Think about it before responding...
@mama_bear (1124)
• Canada
11 Aug 09
hmmm maybe not quite wrong but i am curious to see what proof there is that it took place, i am not saying that it did not and i am not saying that it did. i am straddling the fence as they say, as for the link that you sent to me, i shall get back to you as soon as i have had a little read. watch this space...
1 person likes this
@mama_bear (1124)
• Canada
11 Aug 09
okay so i have been having a bit of a read, some would find the idea of changing the bible blasphemus to some degree. i believe that the bible is a book that was written in order to instruct people on how to live and behave, and while i think that is good and bad to some degree, i also think that in this day and age it should be open to interpretation, right. i mean that is why there is an old and new testament right. there are people who follow one or the other. i agree that the bible should be changed, but in the sense of how it is interpreted in order to be current with the times. whether or not the word was passed down from on high or not is not relevant. i guess with every religion there will always be someone out there who is ready to pervert that same said religion regardless of what it is. and yes evil lurks in every religion in some of those who practice it, it is the same people who will carry out ethnic and religious cleansing in the name of their god. i shall be keeping an eye on your blog because i think i like the way that you say what you have to say. thanks for the wisdom.
1 person likes this
• United States
12 Aug 09
Thanks for the read of that blog the real blog to watch is the one that I have a link posted to in my profile. The single blog post is titled Indexing and Organizing my writings and from that one post you should be able to access all of my writings... Quite the feat from one single post, of course I'm using all fields of the post including a review of my profile and access to all of the blogs there, which I have also created a post to organize those links in a more pertinent order, the whole Idea being to have the ability to connect to everything that I have written, and this keeps my mind focused on being accountable for each and every word. Imagine, if GOD loves justice then a judge will have the opportunity to reveal the work of GOD while in search of the truth. Or, the judge will be another terrorist in the seat of power anti to the American Dream and our system of values. I have a copy of the Constitution of the United States to bring with me to court, either we follow the Constitution or we throw away the foundation of America and we can all become traitors to the great Democratic experiment. (Currently listening to Alice Cooper -- 'School's Out For Summer'!!!) Schools out forever, no more teachers dirty looks and no more books... So I become a writer, electronically published...