creation or evolution

It's been a while but i dont remember polar bears being mentioned in Genesis.

 

Yea it is mostly symbolic but its the fact that some of the oldest written storys 1000s of miles apart tell the same story .How can people ignore the sumerians ?

 

if by this you mean aboriginal people of australia, then you are waaaaaaaay off. further, there is no one creation myth among the aboriginal peoples of the americas - the myths are quite varied. there are also two very different stories in egyptian myth.

in all honesty, our creation myth and our global catastrophe myths are essentially the same stories, and if anything indicate that human civilization is much OLDER than we supposed, and that a great civilization of remote antiquity was lost at the end of the last ice age

 

welllp i was taught in CCD that all animals have been around forever and that Adam and Eve were the ones who gave every animal their name. if polar bears were not in the book on genesis, and evolution isn't real, then polar bears shouldn't even be around?

idk, i've never actually read the bible.

if i'm wrong, i'm wrong

 

all animals were supposed to have existed, as well as animals which no longer exist. but lack of positive evidence does not equate to presence of negative evidence. simply because earwigs aren't mentioned in genesis does not mean they didnt exist, it just means they weren't mentioned.

 

Life Didn't start on this planet With out help .How do we explain spiritual experiances .God put life on this planet maybe it didn't take a week but evolution didn't get us where we are today, Where is the missin link?People focus too much on the creation and not the creator

 

though there is no proof of the creator, and that many different people believe in many different creators.. so who is to say who is right, imo?

 

nesta and dru, i'd like to hear of the holes in the theory of evolution, or how science disproves it on a regular basis...

 

creators, in my opinion. i'm a polytheist.

but there is no evidence for or against it, it is not falsifiable. creation myths are entirely outside the realm of science.

scientific ideas MUST be falsifiable. science does not strive to prove things true, because it cannot be done. science is a system of proposing plausible and testable, falsifiable ideas and trying to see if they can be proven wrong. when they eventually find flaws in the theories, they must come to terms with it and come up with new explanations which make more sense given whats known, and the process begins anew. this does not give us truth, nor does science promice truth. it gives us a verisimilitude of truth, and the process is ever refining it to get closer and closer to the way things are.

if you are familiar with the idea of paradigm shift and scientific revolutions, i believe the current evolutionary paradigm is at a critical point of stress at the moment, and that we will see a massive shift away from evolution in the next generation or two. at least, from evolution as it is currently understood.

but creation, being intensely NONscientific, will not replace it, as there is neither scientific evidence for it and it is not falsifiable. this doesnt mean its incorrect, it simply means its outside the domain of science.

there are some spiritual experiences which have been attempted to be explained scientifically. i suggest checking out the book "DMT: the Spirit Molecule" by rick strassman. he suggests a fundamentally endogenous origin of religious revelation, deep meditation, visions, alien abductions, near death experiences, and so on.

further some spiritual experiences are clearly bunk, such as firewalking (which requires no effort beyond walking swiftly) and levitation practices.

i have witnessed some miracles and visions personally, and i believe very much that there are forces at work which lie outside the domain of science, but that does not invalidate science just as science may not invalidate religion.

its worth considering that in modern days the big bang theory is controversial because people believe it denies the possibility of god creating the universe. in its earliest days, the scientists were the ones who found it controversial and shocking, because THEY beleived it inherently CLAIMED an existance of god creating the universe.

funny how its all a matter of perspective.

 

the bulk of negative evidence for the fallacy of evolution lies in the abscence of virtually any transitional animals in the fossil record.

microevolution, that is, evolution within a species, is well established. we see it in diseases that adapt to be stronger than our medicines and treatments and antibiotics. we see it in the finches darwin studied. all sorts of evidence for that.

however macroevolution, a longer process wherein one species may become another, has very little positive evidence. if one animal transforms ento an entirely different type of animal over long periods of time, there should be tons of transitional species, and it would be hard to maintain our current taxonomy. but there simply are too many enormous gaps in the fossil records, with one animal giving way to a very different kind of animal, with nothing in between showing gradual transition.

 

Creamola foam.

 

Proof of the creator is within every one of us ,more than 90% of the people on this planet believe in an after life no matter there religion .Faith is whats important not religion .Million year old man made artifacts and footprints proves we've been around for millions of years and haven't evolved .why has evolution stopped and if wales evolved from a pig like mammel then where's the evidance .wheres the evidance of any species semi evolved .

 

Maybe neither creation nor evolution is true.
Have you ever thought about that?

 

The universe is just a giant interstellar brain, and we are it's eyes. When you look at another person, you are really looking into the mind of the giant cosmic brain.

 

none of those things are proof in any sense of the word

 

i've thought about this, but then i start to think too much into it and find myself perplexed.

 

creationism = ignorance

now im not gonna go and do alot of christian bashing...the origional ideals of this "religion" are somewhat inspiring and optomistic...i used to be methodist a LONG time ago...i also used to attend church...

but then i grew up and smartened the fuck up, ya know?

christianity now is a multibillion dollar industry...and dont get me started about the southern christians...snake handling, strychnine drinking , fuckups...the catholics are probably one of the worst of the lot...confessing and hail marying their way to forgiveness everytime one of them kills someone or has sex out of wedlock...

its all a convoluted boogyman story now...and i stopped believing in the boogyman when i was 7 years old...

:cheers2:

 

Come on just read some of the posts on this forum.:rofl::rofl:

 

A good hit of Dmt might change non believers minds about spirituality and proof can be argued black is white but what it all comes down to is that we just dont know .Phyisics is always changing and archiological evidance is ignored ,These questions could be answered if all the evidance is presented but its not, its hidden so that you can only make up your own mind.Phyisics Doesn't prove or predict life ,Maths doesn't prove or predict life ,Chemistry cant explain it and biology cant explain our consiousness but we all know its there ,so we need a new science to investigate the giant interstellar brain known as God and our individual link with God

 

but that CANT be studied with science because it is not falsifiable.

as for your arguement that ancient artifacts prove we havent evolved, it only suggests a lack of evolution sense reaching the state in which we currently exist.

keep in mind the two main driving forces of evolution are a) random variation and b) natural selection.

b is especially important, and would EASILY explain why there has been a stop to major evolution in humans. because of our minds and ability to descriminate, and our intense desire to prolong the existence of our species, anyone with any extreme variation is denied any evolutionary advantage - at the hands of human beings. people who are different, on the whole, either don't get to reproduce, or in more extreme circumstances, dont get to live without being killed by other people.

the sciences change and adapt as a normal part of science. it is their very nature. i suggest you read up on critical realism, and the philosophy of science in general, because i'm not sure you understand it.

the suggestion that there be some sort of science to study god is absurd, and just about the least scientific thing one could suggest. god inherently lies outside of the empirical world, and is utterly incapable of being truly understood by scientific observation and experimentation.

creationism is furthermore a truly and utterly nonscientific idea.

this is not to say that either one of these is untrue. that is not my claim at all. creation may well be fact. but by its very nature it is outside the domain of science. it doesnt have falsifiability. it can neither be proven nor disproven. same with the existance of a god or gods. they can neither be proven nor disproven.

both ideas are certainly incapable of being empirically and reliably observed.

its NOT science, and can not be science.

i am not saying science is better, mind you. it has its limitations. what a lot of people neglect to think about is that science virtually never proves ANYTHING to be true - it can only prove things to be wrong. science doesnt say "this is how it is" it says "this is how it likely may be, because this is what we know about how it ISNT"