posted
Okay, I know this will probably cause quite a few people to go at each other throats but I want to say it anyways.
Why the hell do so many people trying to use creationalism and the theory of evolution to disprove one another. Creation should be topics in religious or philoshophy classes and evolution should be in science classes. One is based on faith and they other is based on facts. Or to put it even more simply religion answers why and science answers how (or at the very least tries to answer it). Conservatives and liberals should just recognize that and let it be.
Here's a site where I found to have some people passionalty speaking for one or the other viewpoints.
------------------ "It's good and well to leave the government in the hands of the perfect man but what happens when the perfect man gets a bellyache?" - Belgarath the Sorceror by David Eddings
[This message has been edited by Holst (edited August 12, 1999).]
posted
Personally, I feel that Science will also eventually be able to tell us why, even if the "why" is simply blind chance.
The Universe is simply to inefficient to have been designed by an omnipotent, omniscient being. Especially if, as the Fundies say, it was all for us. Then, why put so much of it so far away? And make what's close uninhabitable? If they're right, then 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is a waste of space. Doesn't sound like the actions of a wise Creator to me.
------------------ "When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
posted
I can understand why many people feel the two are mutually exclusive. After all, in creationism one believes that god created the world and humanity, while evolution discounts this by saying Homo sapiens evolved on their own without, shall we say, divine intervention. It's all well and good to leave creationism in the realm of religion and evolution in the realm of science, but if you're looking for a single theory to explain our origins and the origins of the giant spinning rock we inhabit, the two do tend to be exclusive of one another. Some people, of course, bring up new theories that allow creationism and evolution to coexist. I think this was covered in a topic a while ago.
------------------ "But, it was so artistically done." -Grand Admiral Thrawn
posted
*is now very confused* I have always been a strong believer in evolution, not creation. But as you know, I'm a Nostradamus fan, and imagine my surprise when I realized that Nostradamus describes armageddon, BIBLE-STYLE, in 2369. And then 1000 years of peace. This can only mean one thing...there is a god. *L* And that really sucks y'know? I hate the idea of owing my life to some Creator.
------------------ Don't you hate it when you can't think of a signature?
posted
The way I see it is..... They are both right, to their own extent. The God and Goddess (or just God, or whatever) breathed life upon the earth, and THEN it evolved. A day to God, it is said, is like 1,000 years to humans. It took "God" 7 days to create the world before he made Adam. That means there was room in there for animals to evolve. .... and though it says he made Adam in his own image, Adam himself could have looked alot like cro-magnon man. We don't know. I guess that's the problem. We can only make our theories based on conjecture and old writings. But there is so much scientific proof out there that evolution DID exist, that Christians would be silly to ignore that.
------------------ "S`io credessi che mia rispota fosse A persona che mai tornasse al mondo, Questa fiamma staria senza piu' scosse. Ma perciocche` giammai di questo fondo Non torno` vivo alcun, s`i`odo il vero, Senza tema d`infamia ti rispondo." - Dante`
posted
You don't see inefficiency? How much of the Sun's total output actually falls upon the Earth? More than 99% of the sun's output is wasted.
99% of the matter in the solar system is in the Sun, and most of the rest is in the gas giant planets. What good does it do there?
Over 99% of the solar system's volume is wasted empty space. You're telling me God couldn't design and build a Dyson sphere?
No plant or animal can convert sunlight OR matter into energy with any real level of efficiency. The human body is only about 24% efficient.
And orderly? Obviously you've never seen an exploding galaxy. Check out some Hubble shots sometime. And then, within our own solar system, there exist over 10,000 bits of leftover rock which may some day slam into our little Globe, with widespread devastation. This is not orderly.
------------------ "When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
posted
I really think Jubes has hit the nail on this one. Why do they both have to necessarily contradict each other? Seriously. Why is there that necessary friction between them? I see no apparent reason. Even the "Big Bang Theory" does not necessarily contradict Christian/Jewish/Muslim beliefs... or does it? Or have I missed something big here?
(Yes, I'm just trying to make all this bickering stop. So sue me. )
------------------ Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
[This message has been edited by Elim Garak (edited August 12, 1999).]
posted
99% of the suns output is wasted? Ever try heating a universe?
99% of matter in the solar system is in the sun and gas giants. Now there's a goal for you. how do you harness all that energy and matter, and what do you do with it once you can, build a Dyson's sphere of your very own. (of coarse we can't use other planets, we'd upset the delicate balance that holds our planet in place, the gravity thing).
99% wasted space. I see it as room to build. I would say breathing room, but it's a vacuum. (don't you hate words with two u's)
24% Efficient converting matter or solar power into energy. Give us time, we're evolving.
Orderly. I'm talking about the dance of the planets and galaxies. ever expanding, it's art, and a beautiful thing. You know, the sun, moon and Earth, all tied together. Heating the planet, working the tides, in and out, rain to help clean the atmosphere, volcanic activity to renew it all. People are a by product of this work of art. If an asteriod strikes tomorrow, Earth would survive and grow again, with or without us. It will keep going till our big yellow timer runs out.
------------------ Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx
posted
You're talking about beauty and majesty, not order. You're talking about amazing complexity (and did you know that the sized of orbits of the planets vary slightly from year to year?) but it's complexity that arises naturally, like eddies in a stream or whorls on fingertips.
Is the universe breathtaking? majestic? astounding in its wonder and complexity? Yes.
Is it efficient, clockwork, and utilized to the maximum possible potential, as we would expect it to be if it were run by a vastly superior intellect? No.
(BTW, The sun, and all the other suns, cannot heat the universe. Even the consideration is ludicrous. If the suns heated the universe, pluto would be a lot warmer than nearly absolute zero.)
------------------ "When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
posted
Being an Agent of Chaos, actually there can be a lot of order in Chaotic system, as strange as that sounds.
Honestly I can see how Creationist and Evolution Theories can co-exist (actually not Evolution because it doesn't cover the Creation of Cosmos just the Creation of life, it more like a Creationist belief in Creation, vs. a supporter of Chaotic belief in Creation). Well the way I see it if we are dealing with an all powerful being that exists beyond space, time, and all physical laws, mostly because he created them (BTW God isn't really male or female, more like he is genderless, because gender is something that is only used by mortals that use sexual reproduction [not all do], with God would have no need for), then the way he would create the Universe really wouldn't matter, just the fact that he did would. Or as a T-shirt I read said on the relation to the Big Bang Theory and God "God spoke, and bang it happened".
To First: Hey I didn't know that God was Vulcan . No really if God truly made us in his image and likeness isn't logical that in some ways that God would think like us, so that he would have emotions as well as logic. If that is true (I know that assumes a lot, first that there is God, second that he created the Universe, third that he has emotions, any one of those could be untrue, but play along), that he could create a Universe that isn't a 100% efficent, or is exactly perfectly orderly and logical. Well that assumes that God is perfectly orderly and logical, or it assumes that God is uses human logic (hey if you exist outside of time then decision making must be really tough and easy at the same time).
------------------ HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )
posted
Uh, excuse me? Scientific evidence in favor of evolution? Somebody give me one piece of evidence. Just one. You can't do it, and if you do, I can refute it. OK, let's start at the beginning. Your theory goes something like "Big Bang - formation of the Solar System from a gas cloud - evolution", right? OK, Big Bang defies every law of physics. If all the matter in the universe was concentrated at a single point, it would be a black hole with an escape velocity of several BILLION c. Not to mention that it still doesn't explain where matter and energy came from in the first place, and since matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any process, there must have been an entity at some point, who was not bound by natural laws that created the universe. Notice "was". There is no LOGICAL reason to assume that this entity still exists (I personally believe that if an entity was powerful enough to create the universe, it ain't going anywhere any time soon, but that isn't a logical argument.). OK, then formation of the Solar System from a gas cloud. This was mathematically disproven by a man named Maxwell well over a century ago. And then there's the formation of the galaxies in there. Also mathematically impossible. That leaves the hypothesis of Evolution (I call it hypothesis because a theory actually has evidence in it's favor, and Evolution has none. Also, the theory has a capital "E", whereas the verb has a lower-case "e".). This theory is so laughable, I don't know where to start. Anyone else care to try?
Oh, and the universe becoming more disorderly (increase of entropy)? God created a perfect universe, we're the ones that screwed up. And if entropy always increases, there must have been some point at which entropy was at zero.
Dyson sphere? You think Dyson's idea is better that God's? OK, first of all, there'd just be a constant day. Next, there would be no stars, which, to counter another one of somebody's points, are "lights in the expanse of the sky to seperate the day from the night", to "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years". (Genesis 1:14). Third, a Dyson sphere would be inherintly unstable. One good asteroid and, boom, no more world.
Looks like it's just me versus everyone else, but that's the way I like it. : )
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited August 12, 1999).]
Topic Closed
)
. No really if God truly made us in his image and likeness isn't logical that in some ways that God would think like us, so that he would have emotions as well as logic. If that is true (I know that assumes a lot, first that there is God, second that he created the Universe, third that he has emotions, any one of those could be untrue, but play along), that he could create a Universe that isn't a 100% efficent, or is exactly perfectly orderly and logical. Well that assumes that God is perfectly orderly and logical, or it assumes that God is uses human logic (hey if you exist outside of time then decision making must be really tough and easy at the same time). 
Printer-friendly view of this topic