- October 7, 2012 at 3:42 pm #16903
Do you think that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive???
Below is my “theory”. See if you can disprove it with your arguments!!!
– Once upon a time there was a being, let’s call him/her “God”. God was interested in genetic engineering and observing effects of evolution. His primary purpose of coming to Earth was to conduct a large scale experiment – create a race in his/her likeness but capable of surviving in the conditions present on this planet and observe evolution with his/her own eyes.
God did not mean to create a person capable of complex thinking. Original “people” were a lot more like animals until one of them (Adam or Eve?) accidently made it into “employee only” section and drank (ate?) potion that activated/introduced genes for brain development (the famous apple of knowledge). After the accident God dumped all of his subjects on Earth in fear that next time someone will drink the potion that will introduce genes of longevity into population of his experimental subjects. If that happens, experiment will be ruined. God’s lifespan was many times that of a person.
From time to time God or those of his/her race come to earth to pick up a few people, animals, plants and check progress of the experiment (UFOs/aliens). Sometimes he/she saved some of those subjects from being exterminated by others (see manna machine – http://www.thepansophical.com/node/117) .
Feel free to come up with the rest of the story!
Have fun disproving it!!!
NOTE: This post is primarily for fun. I have no intentions of proving this theory. I am supplying it as valid alternative to everything that’s out there…
- October 7, 2012 at 4:33 pm #112605
If the myth of spontaneous generation was ‘true’ and life did arise by itself (after the universe and all the matter in it springs into existence from nowhere, with no cause) then of course a supernatural entity is superfluous. So yes they are mutually exclusive. ‘Evolution’ is the foundation of the atheism creation myth and is necessary to avoid (or try to) Genesis in the bible and the implications of creation/fall of man.
Very interesting about the pyramids. I would say they were (presumably) built AFTER Noahs flood (because they are still here obv). The capstone is missing on the great pyramid. If your from USA look at your $1 bill.
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
- October 7, 2012 at 6:30 pm #112608
First, evolution is defined as "change over time" and has absolutely nothing to do with creation.
Second, if you want, look into Genesis. Specifically Genesis 3:22 (I looked it up). According to it, evolution (as defined above) is natural and NOT precluded by the Bible.
- October 7, 2012 at 8:07 pm #112612
How did the God and his race come into life?
Why would God put such genes into humans if he didn’t want to use them? Would you put toxin gene into bacteria if you didn’t want the bacteria to produce it?
- October 7, 2012 at 9:59 pm #112617quote JackBean:
Good question, but off the subject. All life is not life on our planet. Suppose it’s a cycle that started untold number of years ago in another universe. God had a god, who had a god, who had a god…quote JackBean:
This one is very interesting. So I will give you futuristic example:
Suppose we decided (for whatever reason) to populate a new planet that is not very suitable for us. We create new species of all earth organisms, and to insure their survival, we add ALL of the different genes from other organisms/species that we know and then we SILENCE them. This creates new species that seem to be exactly like what we are used to, but gives them an advantage in adaptation to new and largely unknown environment.
- October 8, 2012 at 1:19 am #112622
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
You asked if they ARE mutually exclusive. I answered yes. I will ask next time which definition of ‘evolution’? Change in gene frequency over time? Speciation? Mutation? Descent with modification? Gene flow? Genetic drift? (all of which generate no new genetic information) The myth that that mistakes and accidents (not that there is a mechanism for such a process) in an undirected process resulted in the most complex thing man has EVER obtained knowledge of (DNA), krebs cycle, the human eye, DNA transcription and translation, the genius lac operon (it is to me anyway) etc etc? I assumed you meant the last one/prokaryote—->every living thing on the planet. Hence why i answered ‘ yes’ they are mutually exclusive.
The fall of man had an unknown effect to us on our genetics and our environment other than one certainty- decay. Natural selection really is quite genius as is Mendelian inheritance such that different organisms can adapt to the environment to ensure the survival of the ‘species’ in a diverse range of climates. It is the God of the bibles created mechanism not Charles Darwins (or Edward Blyths though he got it first).
BTW Cat i dont refer to ‘change in a living thing over time’ as ‘evolution’. There has been speciation, genetic drift, etc but again, these mechanisms have NOTHING to do with the putative origin of a genome, from non living matter, through natural processes, which then gets more and more complex over time, for no reason other than teachers INTENTIONALLY indoctrinating their students that said mechanisms are sufficient for such a DELUSIONAL process (by using the same word to describe all processes ‘evolution’) AKA The bait and switch which is an illegal advertising SCAM.
- October 8, 2012 at 2:10 pm #112639quote Cat:
Then you have circle spiral and it makes no sense to debate further. Next time simply say you believe in God and we’re done.
The second way was just nonsense.
- October 9, 2012 at 12:24 am #112647quote JackBean:
What I believe is that WE WILL NEVER KNOW THE ANSWER. I just don’t like when people keep confusing evolution (Evolution is change over time due to mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection) and, for lack of the better term, the origin of species. Process of evolution can be proven. Origin of life – cannot.
- October 9, 2012 at 7:23 am #112649
Sure, but you can have theories for which you need some proofs. So far abiogenesis looks better then God.
- October 9, 2012 at 10:21 am #112656
Heres a good one. First literature i read (intending to find one to laugh at)
Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.
- October 9, 2012 at 12:32 pm #112657
The one-time Prize will be paid to the winner(s) as a twenty-year annuity in hopes of discouraging theorists’ immediate retirement from productive careers. The annuity consists of $50,000.00 (U.S.) per year for twenty consecutive years, totalling one million dollars in payments.
http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Phy … eness.html
“If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
“No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
- October 11, 2012 at 2:11 am #112670quote JackBean:
All of the DATA that supports "tree of life" – first prokaryote, than eukaryote that somehow swallowed prokaryote giving us mitochondria and giving plants chloroplasts can be interpreted in the OPPOSITE direction. If you remove our BIAS that we are MORE advanced than whatever existed years ago, you start to see that it’s just as likely that eukaryote lost precursor of mitochondria and that gave rise to bacteria and so on. My problem with evolution in particular and with biology in general is that people stopped thinking for themselves. Even in this forum you see people quoting what this or that scientist is saying as opposed to quoting factual data. At best you see someone else’s conclusion instead of the data. So, please, give me your thoughts and support them with actual data.
- October 14, 2012 at 3:24 pm #112692daddyjamesParticipant
The only exception I have to what you original post is that it is a "valid" alternative.
This is not true.
As any "theory of creationism" is not testable – no experiment can be designed to provide scientific evidence of a "creator" by direct or indirect measurements or observations, therefore no evidence can be collected to support or refute any hypothesis generated from the theory. Because creationism is not testable, it is classified as "beliefs" and require "faith" in any proposed explanations.
Thus, any "theory of creationism" falls outside of the realm of science and the scientific method. And evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive of one another.
- October 14, 2012 at 4:14 pm #112695
Maybe you missed reality- a fish bringing forth anything but a fish-HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. Neodarwinian HYPOTHESIS =pseudoscience.
- October 14, 2012 at 4:26 pm #112697quote daddyjames:
I agree with most of the first part, except it should read "theory of creation" instead. That way creation via evolution would be accounted for in the same paragraph and, thus, evolution and creationism are NOT mutually exclusive.
While molecular evolution is established fact, creation of any life form via evolution is untestable theory (just as creationism).
- October 15, 2012 at 12:12 am #112700
Cat do you believe the genetic code, DNA trancription and translation, DNA repair enzymes came from non living matter, through natural processes? If anyone does i admire their religious faith. Spontaneous generation i mean abiogenesis is scientifically impossible.
- October 15, 2012 at 9:36 am #112702
Floating Dad is more possible?
- October 15, 2012 at 8:00 pm #112707LuxorienParticipant
For information about this issue, I recommend Darwin’s God by my boi, Kenneth Miller.
- October 17, 2012 at 12:41 am #112714quote jinx25:
Actually, if you want my personal (unprovable) unjustified by anything belief, then it’s neither theory. I believe that everything in nature (and in universe) is recycled. Thus, live matter would be recycled as well. I am unable to believe that something came out of nothing without having any evidence to support that.
- October 25, 2012 at 1:01 pm #112776ricekeParticipant
What is meant by Genesis quote ‘And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us…’
Us, is there more than one God? If not who is the US and are they supreme? And is the title Lord God mean the one God (Lord) over the other Gods? Sort of the chief God?
- October 28, 2012 at 8:15 am #112790AstraSequiParticipant
You seem to be already familiar with the data – you would have to be, if you’re drawing conclusions from it. Why don’t you first describe your understanding of what the data is?
- October 31, 2012 at 5:13 am #112819wildfunguyParticipant
Evolution can be tested directly through controlled experiments. In contrast, our evolutionary history cannot be tested directly through controlled experiments since it is a matter of history, not nature. However, we can still collect evidence for our evolutionary history, just as a detective can collect evidence for someone’s guilt. This is still empiricism.
Although creationism is incompatible with science, it is not incompatible with evolution or our ideas about evolutionary history. One could accept abiogenesis yet still believe that some god was directing things all along. They could believe that the random mutations weren’t actually random at all. Indeed, "random" basically means "without a known cause." Such ideas would still be creationism.
To be fair, people who think they are scientifically testing creationism (Intelligent Design) aren’t actually testing creationism at all. Rather, they are attempting to falsify the evolution-based explanations in an attempt to force us into accepting creationism as the only reasonable alternative. However, although the details of specific creation myths make them falsifiable, ceationism in the broad sense cannot be verified or falsified.
- November 3, 2012 at 10:07 am #112846wildfunguyParticipantquote wildfunguy:
By this I just meant that we can’t predict exactly when some specific mutation will occur. Although I’m new to biology, I think this is correct, and where ever there is unpredictability, there is room for outside interference.
I found the term for people who reconcile evolution and creationism. They’re "theistic evolutionists."
- November 9, 2012 at 12:55 am #112910LuxorienParticipantquote wildfunguy:
- April 6, 2013 at 7:08 pm #113715quote wildfunguy:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.