* * Evolution or Creation ( Keep it cool ) version 2.0 * *

Regarding companionship, to me it also suggests that this god wouldn't be perfect, if a perfect god is whole unto itself, not requiring outside, uncontrollable circumstances (man's free will) in order to function properly and or be happy.

 

Perhaps one of you wonderfully educated people will give one example of spontaneous generation scientifically recorded as occuring?

Spontaneous generation? You mean life appearing? Can't be duplicated in a lab, the conditions were present over a whole lab. Science requires understood principles to explain things, so God cannot be included in science and intelligent design is a farce.

As all natural unharnessed energy is destructive, perhaps you'll explain how it worked to the good in the initiation of the universe?

PPOR. Where does it say "natural unharnessed energy" (meaningless babble) is always destructive? If you mean that choas always increases, how about you read the whole thread before being sarcastic and such? That question has already been answered.

Please give me one recorded detonation of any type of explosion that resulted in an ordered structure or living organism?

We're talking 12 billion years here, and this isn't a true explosion. This isn't a nuke going off. This is space and time literally coming into being and expanding.

Where has macroevolution ever been observed?

Man's useless appendix. Dog breeding from wolves. Man's shrinking little toe and increasing height.

What?s the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs?

All organs evolved from earlier bioapparatus's in more primitive creatures. The mechanism is called biological evolution.

If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ, because without a vital organ, the organism is dead?by definition?

...the hell? Ok, worm has vestigal pump that supplies fluid throughout body. Worm generations with more advanced pump (through random gene mutation, such as larger lung capacity in the Andes Mts. Natives) live longer and have more children. Trait is pronounced, more advanced worm has a true heart.

If a reptile?s leg evolved into a bird?s wing, wouldn?t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing?

Feathers and other pre-bird evolutionary traits had other uses before true flight. Insulation, gliding, assisted running, etc.


How could metamorphosis evolve?

Communal groups of cells learning to periodically change structure with changing environment. Like spore-forming bacteria. Metamorphosis occurs throughout the biomass.

 

Since there are some people who seriously claim that Intelligent Desing is a scientific theory, could some one explain how it can be falsified as a scientific theory? Thanks.

 

God wanted campanionship because any loving person does.Look at it this way,God is benevolent not some a cruel or destructive bein.So are you saying that wanting love makes God non-almighty?

 

I really do not see where anything good is going to come from this thread. The same erroneous arguements are being put forth and it's only a matter of time before this thread ends up as the last.

Maybe instead of putting evolutionary theory and creationism in adversarial roles, we could open two seperate threads for each topic to be discussed on their own.

In all honesty, I see creationism as being based entirely on faith and not really in the realm of scientific debate. Secondly, there are many people who believe in creation but are not creationists. I think by having a seperate thread to discuss creation on its own, there could be some interesting religiously based debates that would not be buried under the other crossfire.

 

I lean more toward Evolution, I guess because I am more of a "proof before I believe" type scientific person. I'm not saying I don't believe in a higher supernatural being such as Him.

Anyway, my opinion on the 7 Day creation thing. I think it did indeed occur but not in the timespan which we are taught in Genesis. A discussion in my Western Humanities class had talked about the creation story from several cultures and some paragraphs in the book talked about "imagining the length of time to comprehend it"

What if the people who created the Creation story could not comprehend 6 billion years or anything longer than a thousand years? What if the people decided to shorten the length which the world was created to something they could comprehend? But then how do the people know that the Earth is 6 billion years old? They dont, but they may realize that the Earth is much much older than 6000 years.

Can you imagine 6 billion years? Not really, you need something to compare it to in order to understand.

For example, take the history of the Solar System in relation to a week.

At 12:01 AM of the First Day, the solar system was created.

At 12:01 AM of the Third Day, the Earth was created.

At 12:01 AM of the Sixth Day, life is born.

At Noon of the Seventh Day, the dinosaurs exist.

At 11:00 PM of the Seventh Day, man is created

At 11:59 PM of the Seventh Day, modern civilization.

Can you comprehend that?

 

Vagrant brings up the following point:

Since there are some people who seriously claim that Intelligent Desing is a scientific theory, could some one explain how it can be falsified as a scientific theory? Thanks.

A valid scientific claim can have only two possible outcomes: it can be proven false or evidence can be brought forth in support. The key is that it must be testable in some way - make predictions and see if the predictions match observations.

Creation with respect to evolution cannot be pursued scientifically then, because there is no way to make valid testable predictions. People may bring forth evidence which may seem to weaken evolution, but they cannot bring forth any statements like, "Because God did X, Y must necessarily follow."

That's why "intelligent design" is NOT a scientific model. It may be a way to describe the universe, but not in a way that can be adequately tested.

(edited to fix a typo)

 

"So are you saying that wanting love makes God non-almighty?"

Basically what i'm saying is that if God wants anything, be it love or food or sex or music, he is not complete unto himself. In the case of love, since he is relying on the actions of people he cannot control because of free will, he is basically held captive by their choices. Needing or wanting love makes him seem like a person. And if he has the same needs and desires as a person, why is he called "God" if we define God as an entity who is above all persons, needs, wants, and desires of "the world"?

 

Another thing. It says God created man in His image right? So if that is true, why would God loving man be far fetched?

 

Of course G-d wants companionship!

Just last night, me and G-d played Nintendo, in which I kicked his ass in Super Monkey Ball 2. We then went ahead to watch some "Cinemax: After Dark".

But I'll be damned, he hogged the nachos yet again!

Pisses me off...

 

LMAO!

I saw something similar on a church billboard two days ago:

Come on over to my house Sunday before the game.

God

I just thought it was funny.

 

Can anything positive arise from this discussion?

We've had numerous Evolution vs. Creation threads, and rarely, if ever, were any minds opened or any hardline viewpoints really changed.

The problem with such a discussion is that most people enter the discussion assuming that Creation and Evolution are on the same plane... which they are not.

Whether or not one chooses to view Evolution as faith, or Creationism as science is... based on all previous discussions of the aforementioned topics... entirely a matter of personal perspective.

Otherwise, the study of Creationism remains dependent upon faith and the study of Evolution remains dependent upon science.

Whether or not there are some individuals who, unfortunately, choose to arrive at their conclusions about Evolution prior to having understood the empirical evidence, the case for evolution, is not the issue. No empirical evidence of god can be produced to sufficiently connect god with the creation of man... by the very definition of the nature of god being that which is beyond all human comprehension.

Likewise, no amount of scientific evidence is necessary in matters of faith. That is why they are matters of faith. To be a Creationist, one only need accept the idea that God created man... This is evident in the methodology of Christian belief: e.g. whenever one is asked to believe in Jesus, they are asked to do so by a means of a leap of faith. Belief, not evidence, is prerequisite, in Creationism... and no amount of evidence can unmake the relevance of that fact to in the scope of Creationism.

 

I agree, the discussion is really like trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Evolution is not faith, and creationism is not science. Creationism shouldn't attempt to be on equal footing with science anyway, that's not the point of religion or faith to begin with. As far as i know, God doesn't appreciate being tested. I wonder why.

But then again, i really was expecting to see this major issue solved right here on a Star Wars website.

 

Yeah, good points. I guess I'll close this, if Lord Bane or KnightWriter don't mind. If anyone wants it back open, PM an admin. Otherwise, there's the other threads on pretty much the same subject.