Creation vs Evolution

[Hopperfly22]

Ok here's what I don't get. Some people say God created man such as *poof*. Then others say he crawled out of the ocean like every other land animal. Then there's those who say that god created and guided eveolution. Also religious people discredit the evolution theory by saying "Who created the universe" or "Where did it all start?". Now here's my questions... Who made god? Either he doesn't exist or we're just in a limitless multi-dimensional universe.

[Paul]

Many moons ago all the great minds on earth “knew” that our planet was the center of the universe. Now we know that it is not. Galileo was shunned by society and banned from the Catholic church for disagreeing with the current view.

I predict history will repeat itself and what we currently “know” to be true will be just another bit of historical trivia taught by some holograph of a college professor, and the truth of tomorrow will be radically different from that of today.

[Trizza]

I reckon we're a physics experiment by a bunch of alien uni students. The physics experiment is a simulation running on a computer. They have a well defined set of rules & laws, and an underlying random number generator so all the quantum crap works.
It explains everything! It could satisfy both camps: Creationism - The alien's are "God", Evolutionism - We evolved in this little universe they are simulating.
It also explains why it seems that this so called "God" doesn't seem to give a damn what happens here, because "God" is just observing, not manipulating.

Next question: who/what made the alien's universe, or how did it come about?

[Andy W]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
[b]my favourite answer:

the hubble deep field shot. it took a picture of a slice of sky that is about what a grain of sand covers at arms distance.
..

I have that poster on my wall just off the right side of my desk. Messier chart next to it..
..a

[Doc Data]

May the Force be with you!

dd.

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by Paul
...
I predict history will repeat itself and what we currently “know” to be true will be just another bit of historical trivia taught by some holograph of a college professor, and the truth of tomorrow will be radically different from that of today.

.
What we consider as "truth" in science today builds on what has been discovered, essentially since Galileo began the process.
"Truths" like a flat earth or a geo-centric universe aren't held by most people as fact any more.
Special relativity doesn't discard Newtonian physics, it incorporates it.
We will learn a lot more about the way the universe functions but most of what we have discovered thru scientific efforts won't be thrown out as "just plain wrong" like a flat earth, but will be part and even bedrock for things to be learned.

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by Trizza
I reckon we're a physics experiment by a bunch of alien uni students.
...

Next question: who/what made the alien's universe, or how did it come about?

.
Space spores floated on to their planet and began life there..

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by omega blood
... Things don't evolve they may change to suit their environment but that's the extent. If things do evolve why are there not more highly evolved creatures that have been around longer than man that exhibit high intelegence?..

.
The "change" IS evolution.
When the environment doesn't push a species in a manner which favors mutations which cope with the environment, then species remain static.
Crocodiles are a good example of something which experiences no environmental pressure to evolve past it's very successful form and fit into its niche.
Humanity, OTOH, now has the ability to circumvent "environmental pressure" to change to suit the environment, chosing instead to alter the environment itself.
Us out-of-shape, fat poor-eyesight guys that would be Similidon fodder don't have to worry about that any more. We killed all the saber-tooths! And we have eyeglasses, and 180 horsepower toys to get from point A to point B.
When humanity moves to a different environment where changes in the basic form are beneficial and selected by the environment killing off the unfit, then we'll changes in the shape(s) of humanity.
.
After all, there's no requirement for legs in zero-gravity. Another set of arms would be more useful.
Small but rotund crew.. less mass to push around, leaving more thrust for payload, and a good body surface for heat retention...
Who knows what will "evolve"?

[omega blood]

There goes my theory! thanks guys!

I should have paid attention in school.


I got another one though. Bornoulis theory and newton are wrong. Majic makes our planes fly.

[Vonbaron]

I see evolution at work every day. Every day a child is born, every day a plant grows. But who or what started it and if something did then where did that come from?

I don't buy the biblical account. It disagrees with observation and reads like a fairy tale made by man. The God of the bible we created in our own image. The real thing, if there is one must surely be vastly different from the petty/angry/jealous manlike God written there.

To me there does seem to be an intelligence behind the universe. Perhaps the universe itself is some kind of living being and we are just a few of it's cells.

[Andy W]

Anyone consider Sagan's point of view?
..a

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by Andy W
Anyone consider Sagan's point of view?
..a

this one?

"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."
- Carl Sagan

or this?

"in the light of modern understanding, there is no sign of divine
guidance here, or at least nothing beyond physics and chemistry.
instead we see evidence of a time of remorseless and sustained
violence... and how the continued operation of a mindless selective process can convert chaos into order."
- sagan/druyan, 1992



I've read both "dragons of eden" and "shadows of forgotten ancestors".

I miss carl.

[Sparky Paul]

Can the Genesis story be considered a myth, or hard science?
.
Creation requires a serious "suspension of critical faculties"..
It is very slightly possible the universe was created in 6 literal days.
But at the very start, what is a day? The sun rises and sets defines a day... No sun until the 4th day?
No days before then..
And.. the events leading up to the flood.. strict adherence to the story demands the lack of water vapor in the air.. i.e. clouds, prior to the flood.
After all, the rainbow was created -after- the "waters receded"..
And since there were no clouds, there was no rain.
When Utnapishtim ..oops, Noah.. was informed by the all-too-commonly-occuring voice in his head that the world was going to be destroyed by "rain", how could he know what that meant?
But where is there sufficient water to cover the surface of the earth, to the height of Mt. Everest?
A "vapor canopy" of suspended water is invoked.. This requires MILES of water vapor, i.e. clouds, in conflict with the previous concept of no clouds. It rquires a fair degree of mental gymnastics to entertain and support two conflicting and mutually exclusive beliefs.
.
And this amount of water vapor would require a surface pressure of over 1000 pounds per square inch, and a resultant surface temperature of over 1000 degrees.. and because of its thickness, there'd be no light on the surface.
These three conditions preclude life here on earth.
But there is life, so what has to give way to the evidence? Creation, or science?

[Viper Pilot]

Originally posted by Andy W
Anyone consider Sagan's point of view?
..a

Among the theories developed in The Dragons of Eden is the idea that humans are essentially biological and biochemical creatures who, through evolution and natural selection, developed brains capable of problem solving, foresight, and an awareness of death. It is the latter, Dr. Sagan argues, that makes man truly unique and therefore truly human. No other creature on Earth can foresee his or her own non-existence or contemplate a time when he or she did not yet exist.

Dr. Sagan or Dr. Dolittle ? ?

How does he know this ? ?

Sagan was a genious, but not in this field. Pure conjecture.

VP

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by Viper Pilot


Among the theories developed in The Dragons of Eden is the idea that humans are essentially biological and biochemical creatures who, through evolution and natural selection, developed brains capable of problem solving, foresight, and an awareness of death. It is the latter, Dr. Sagan argues, that makes man truly unique and therefore truly human. No other creature on Earth can foresee his or her own non-existence or contemplate a time when he or she did not yet exist.

Dr. Sagan or Dr. Dolittle ? ?

How does he know this ? ?

Sagan was a genious, but not in this field. Pure conjecture.

VP

certain chimps know about death. I believe it was koko who 'owned' a kitty that later died. Koko understood that it was dead, and that she knew that koko would die someday just like the cat did.

humans are not 'far and above' all other species. There are some really smart primates, and possibly dolphins.