creation vs evolution

[bansidhe]

okies, this might not be technically the right place for this thread, but im desperate to get some life going in here, and it ll even help with my studies in religion assignment! :)

so, what are your views on creation versus evolution? or do you sit on the fence ?

take care and brightest blessings,
bans. :bubbles:

[Aengus McTeague]

If by creation you mean the violation of natural law to zap beings into existence, then I'm an Evolutionist.

If by evolution you mean the the idea that that our universe, and the life within it is a matter of random chance, and that intelligence, love, and truth are nothing more than bizarre accidents, then I'm a Creationist.

Personally, I don't see the conflict between creation and evolution. Why not view the creator/creatrix as the architect of the process, who knew that the universe would strive towards increasingly higher levels of organization and intelligence? That such a striving was, in fact, built into the structure and initial conditions of the universe?

I have a good friend, a Christian, who on his car has both a "Jesus Fish" and a "Darwin Fish". I approve the sentiment whole-heartedly.

BB,
Aengus

[clef0628]

I belive that evolution is what hapened. However, I do not believe that evolution is ramdom. I believe that the path evolution has taken and will take, is guided by fate and the gods.

[Mythrel]

I can't fathom not being created. I don't buy the big bang theory either. I think we were created and evolved from there. I just can't think that there was nothing and boom there was something without divine intervention....
Mythrel

[Silver Venus]

I agree and sit happily swinging my legs on the fence ~ Both go hand in hand for me, create and evolve :) I think divine energies created and we evolved but also under the watchful eye...

[Oridian]

As long as I can remember I've never had much of a conflict between the two. As a Student of sciences I see the evidence of evolution around us, both living and fossil.

As a Christian i definately believe that God created existance. If he did it with a Big Bang thats his choice, if God snapped his figers and there it was, again, his choice. God is god so to me it could have been done in any form and he could have made it appear how he wanted. By this I mean he could have said "whoop, there it is" and made it appear as though trillions of years of physics and chemistry had occured in the developement. Of course if he wanted he could hav taken that time to actually do it.

On evolution, the order life appeared in Genisis, though not exact, follows basically the same lines of developement stated by evolutionists. As far as the Human race goes. I think God created Adam and Eve, but that does not exclude the evolution of other peoples outside the Garden of Eden. when Cain left after slaying Able he found a wife in the land of Nod. Was it his sister? some think so. But so far I've not seen or heard of any conclusive reason to think that it was.

[Twig]

If you look at the "stories" that have passed down ( about the heros and celtic Gods ) they are rife with examples of reincarnation ( See prior thread on that subject). Given this as the basis for "druidic thinking" on your question, theological debates with no real pat answer arise.

The aspect of reincarnation that is so blatently shown in the celtic heroic stories leads one to think that evolution would be the basis and natural line of thinking for the celts as a whole.

However, creation stories abound in all cultures and are as plentiful as the stories above in the one book I referenced. Granted, the stories all referred to the worlds creation, not mans.

To add another twist to things. There are stories that relate to peoples "soul double". :rolleyes: :confused: :bad: :mad: :wah:

Personally I subscribe to the "Evolutionary Theory of Creation". This would be the thought line that at some point in our races evolution the Gods instilled the spark that made man aware of the concept of "Soul". At that time, man was created.

A novel idea eh? All I can say is it works for me:D

Peace,
Twig
:elf:

( Gleaned from -The Encyclopidia of Celtic Wisdom- by Caitlin & John Matthews)

[Silver Venus]

Yeah I agree! :bigthumbsup:
That book sounds really interesting Twig.
What you said about Soul Doubles and Oridian said about Adam and Eve would fit in my mind..
I believe in reincarnation and see that as evolution too! You are created again and thus have evolved.
:)

[Swanspirit]

INFUSED WITH and not separate from one another .... and continuing and returning to infinity ........
Love and HUGS
Swannie

[Draeconin]

99% evolution. The 'creation story' of the Gwyddon is both mythical and scientific - or to put it more succinctly, it's scientific but couched in mythical terms. Here's the short version.

In the beginning was Kerridwen, and Kerridwen divided Herself in two to create Kerridwen the Bright and Kerridwen the Dark. And both of these divided themselves in three, being positive, neutral and negative.

There's more, but's that's enough to lay the foundation. Translation? In the beginning was the universe, and the universe divided into the manifest and the unmanifest. And the substance of these took on the characteristics of positive, neutral and negative (positron, neutron, electron).

And everything developed from there. What caused it? Only faith can tell: Whether that be faith in religion or faith in science. I'll go with science - but defined on a much broader scale than most scientists would define it.

[Shadowulfe]

i voted sitting on the fence because i beleave(cant speel tody) that we were first created and then we evolved so therefore in my opinion we belong to both evolution and creation

[mol]

How about both?

[Jenne]

Yeah, mol's right--there needs to be a meeting of the minds, so to speak. That's ALWAYS been my personal philosophy, even way back when I was a Xn as a baby! Or even a baby Xn...lol.

Why can't we have been created in THRU the mechanism of evolution?:spaceman:

[Keith Dragon]

Just wanted to add my vision of the Universe.

I am what is started to be refered to as a Creative Evolutionist.

I believe that the Universe was created from Creator, because I look at the beauty of Creation, and see such wonderfully designed patterns of efficiency and beauty that it could not have happened by chance. I also feel that the only reason a Creator would have to create the Universe was to understand themselves by viewing themselves through an exterior, or reflection of themselves. Thus created in their image. Not physically, but in spirit. I also look upon some recent discoveries in Astrophysics, and Quantum Mechanics, as well as String Theory, and I can't help but get visions of intertwined celtic patterns connecting everything. I also look at the Creator as an Artist creating a masterpiece. For those that are artist and can surrender to the Creative forces in the Universe, you know what I refer to, that presence you feel as you submerse yourself into your creation, whether music, art writing, etc.

I've also been reading a book called Darwin, and the Lost Theory of Love, in which it states some views Darwin set forth which are rearely discussed being that they came from the later years of his life after pondering his theories. Darwin felt that life perpetuated itself through survival instincts, "Survival of the Fittest" and this is true in life forms consciously lower on the Spiritual Ladder. But there comes a time when a lifeforms reaches a Coming of Age period where the start to become aware, and become sentient, it is here that the path of learning and exploring begins. It is here were a new force takes over Evolution, and that is the Will, the will to grow, improve, and become what you see. The body will follow wherever the mind leads it. But this Will was imprinted into us from the Creator, a sort of code into the fabric of Creation, That code being DNA. DNA, consisting of the 4 building blocks, connects all lifeforms, plant, animal, other, together. We are all built off of the same blocks. Higher evolved creatures use more of the DNA, we are 99% similar to Chimpanzees in the code. But also, of note, as with our brains, only a small percantage of the entirety of the strand is used by us. Most of it is repetitive code which are used as markers for future expansion. Dna, also resembles a ladder, the spritual ladder of consciousness that all life climbs.

When species become aware, they take over Evolution. The Creator give the initial spark, until we can fuel our own growth, and become a perpetual flame of existence. Here we take over and Will ourselves to grow. Every generation believes themselves to be the Endgame, the culmnation of all existence, not realizing there are generations to follow, new things to learn. That there is no place to grow. That we have come to the end of our evolutionary growth, and for those that think that, they have, for the mind will stunt their growth with their own beliefs. But to be aware that this is not the end but just another rung, you look for what and where can we grow into. And this can be tied to Spiritual Growth as well. We begin to take responsibility for our own spirit and not rely on religions or others to make us grow.

Look today at the current world, The Age of Information. Informations is being processed by us fast and fast than preivious generations. We multi-task, and are become all understanding that we are all in this together. We are more aware of eachother in the world than ever before. But not as much as tomorrow holds. We are also faced with a grow number of children and people with syndromes like ADD, and so forth. It is my interpretation that this is merely the result of humans trying to use their brains in a way they are currently not used to being used, and some are short circuiting. However, the Will will prevail, and the body will adjust to the requirements of the mind. We need to have our brains work a certain way, in time, the brain shall evolve, and just look at the up and coming generation. More and more children are being born that are very spiritually aware of themselves. Empathic, telepathic, all knowing, old souls.

We sit at a transition period, we all can feel it, a step for the better. And yes there are still great problems in the world that seem greater than ever before. It just that they are coming to the surface of the body of humanity. It has always been there, we are just more aware of it, and less likely to settle for it, and want it released from society. It is always darkest before the dawn.

So, to answer you question by the long and winding road. Creation and Evolution, Religion and Science, are opposing extremes. opposite sides of the pendulum swing, and the true answer will come when the pendulum finds balance in the center.

I have experienced to much in my life from the spritual, and astral realms to not feel the presence of something greater.

As to the Big Bang doubts before, about something from nothing, here is an analogy. Thing of the Nothingness before the Big Bang, as a level footbal field, or any flat piece of ground. Take a shovel and dig a hole, the pile you've created is the Universe, the Hole is the anti-Universe. A duality of creation, seperation of Dark and light. Matter, anti-Matter (And yes it does exist, for scientist are discovering it in the universe) In fact the more Scientist discover, the more the see a spiritual side to the Creation of the Universe, or so I percieve in their writing.

But it's a continuous cycle, repeating over and over.

Another view to look at is this, If God (and I meant both sides of the duality), is all knowing, all present, all powerful, etc., why would he create the universe, why would he need to. Yes Love is a part of it, but there is more. If God was all that, what would be the only thing left for him to do, and that is to Destroy himself, not completely, but that is the closest word we have to describe it. Thus, Bang, the Universe is created from pieces of the Creator, thus the Creator is in everything. And the goal is for all the peice to come back together again with a clearer self awareness. The Creator wanted to Understand themself.

These are just views, don't take what I say for fact unless you can verify it for yourself, but it is part of what I see.

Keith Dragon

[Heathen Dawn]

Evolution ... because that’s what the evidence says. Creation is mythology, and creationism is mythology mistakenly taken literally. There is no creator external to the universe. Everything created itself.

[Keith Dragon]

Heathen Dawn, please expound upon your answer. I'd love to hear about your perspective of this feud. Define your evidence, for that word most times is often vague. I am a proponent of Evolution mind you, but my personal experience leaves questions it cannot answer. As with Creationism, for my experience creates questions that Creationism cannot answer. Thus, in my logic, leaves me to believe there is a third Option, whether it is one between the extremes, or completely different. My perspective is only based on what I validate for myself, in the experiences I have, in mind, body and spirit. As note that my view of Creationism is not that of the Bible. I do believe aspects of the Bible of Myth, but Myth does have a touch aof Fact in it. The Bible, as with all mythology, are just abstract metaphors trying to explain abstract concepts. But it is ironic that in the Bible it says God said let there be light, and there was light, and all evidence has it that the universe began with a Big Explosion of Light.

Keith Dragon

[Copperaven]

the two theories work together

:) Copperaven

[Heathen Dawn]

Define your evidence, for that word most times is often vague.

Homologies (the whale’s flipper is homologous to the human hand), the fossil record (full of transitional forms, despite creationists’ denial to the contrary), molecular biology (protein and DNA comparison). That’s just the tip of it. Everywhere you look in nature there’s evidence for evolution.


I am a proponent of Evolution mind you, but my personal experience leaves questions it cannot answer.

I think evolution answers just about everything. As biologist D’Arcy Thompson said: everything is the way it is because it got that way. Everything created itself. Everything has self-designed according to its immanent accord. Evolution is the most thorough confirmation of pantheism ever to have been.


I do believe aspects of the Bible of Myth, but Myth does have a touch aof Fact in it. The Bible, as with all mythology, are just abstract metaphors trying to explain abstract concepts. But it is ironic that in the Bible it says God said let there be light, and there was light, and all evidence has it that the universe began with a Big Explosion of Light.

The Big Bang Theory is more akin to the Cosmic Egg myths than to Genesis, IMO.

[Ouroboros]

Evolution ... because that’s what the evidence says. Creation is mythology, and creationism is mythology mistakenly taken literally. There is no creator external to the universe. Everything created itself.

Damn right! :shift:

[mothwench]

How about both?
exactly. the spiral of life and the wonder of evolution is my creation story. :thewave:

[Epona44]

I'm an advocate of the Chaos and Order theory. Ummm ... wasn't on the list.

What it means is yes, there is chaos and things fall apart. And then they organize and reorganise. The universe is the result of the interaction of chaos and order.
Sort of like my life. (ahh, opps going away now)

Did I mention that I like pie? :dinnertim

[Keith Dragon]

Heathen Dawn,

I feel us locking horns, excuse the pun, so to compensate, and to get to know you better, I have read some of your posts, and found that these horns are mere misunderstandings. I feel we are actually on the same page, sort of. I agree with all you have written about your evidence for Evolution, and I never denied that. But I believe you mistake my use of the word Creation, as directly from the Bible. And I apologize if I misused the word, but that was not my intent.

With that, let me take this road of explanation. My vision holds that we Evolve, creatures Evlove, Spirits Evolve, on all planes of existence. But it is the Will, that drives evolution. The Will to Survive, The Will to Adapt, The Will to Grow, The Will to Change, The Will to Evolve. This Will is part of the code that permeates through the Universe. There are also various levels of Will as I mentioned above. To Fight to Survive, first has to be driven by a Want to Survive.

Perpetuation of the Species through Reproduction. This also plays a major part. But, I feel there is always a reason. Things do not happen by chance. And please follow my logic for the moment, because I want to lead you somewhere so you may catch a glimpse of what I see.

For I believe, as you, in a Pantheistic Universe. A Universal Consciousness that weeps through everything. This Consciousness is divided first into Masculine and Feminine, then the Masculine is divided into aspects of Masculine and Feminine, as is the Feminine is divided into aspects of masculine and feminine, so on, down through the levels of the dieties (each responsible for specific qualities and aspect in the Universe) to us, and down beyond. A hierachy of consciousness, a spriral of the Cosmos (I merely call it a Creation, and I will explain that later) A Ladder of Creation, The roots of a Spiritual Tree. Each aspect, each level exists to perpetuate the whole, Universal Consciousness, yet individual and free to seek any path through Will. Singular Multiplicity.

But Consciousness does not stay stagant, on the individual level, we seek to climb this ladder. To better ourselves, to understand and grow. The Will to Know. But why, why do we climb, why Will ourselves to stand. The simplist reason, for the Universe to perpetuate itself, to reproduce. To lift consciousness up to create new Universal Consciousnesses and new Universes. To become Gods ourselves. Not out of Ego, but the desire to be that.

So interms of the Universal Consciousness, the Will of the Universe, is to grow, thus trickling down the Code of the Double Helix, to the various levels of consciousness, the Will which drives Evolution, cause the Universe to be exactly the way that it desires to be. For if we think in terms of a Universal Consciousness, as we desire to have control of our own soul, and not be victim to the False Self, so does the Universe. So the Universe will create itself exactly the way it wants to be. Thus we are subjugate to the Will of the Universe, but not in the sense that we have no control over our own destinies. It is our Free Will that is the Fuel that the Universe feeds off of.

So yes, in your terms the Universe creates itself exactly the way it needs to, but it is the Universes Will to Survive, that causes ourselves to survive and grow, and so on. Each a reflection of itself, on higher and lower levels. We are the product of the Will of the Universe. We as humans, are merely a rung upon the ladder. Our form is our own chosing, but the spirit of whom we are is a part of the climb.

I hope this clarifies my view. This perspective I have gained through my practice of Astral Travelling and meditation. This itself, fo believe it or not, I am a skeptic, I need proof. And I test my experiences with scientific experiements. Not per se in a laboratory, but proof enough for me to understand I am not hallucinating. And if my cat could speak, he would vallidate me, but that is another story.

Just note, that my understanding does not come haphazardly, or through blind faith. It comes through personal experiences.

Keith Dragon

[samiaminsane]

I sit on the fence.... It doesn't really matter to me either way all i care about is the fact that im here now, i dont care how fred and wilma got here

[Heathen Dawn]

Keith,

thanks for you views. I have never denied creativity, nor design in nature; but I do deny a creator external to the universe, or a designer of the designs. That is the central message of evolution—there is no creator and no designer, but living organisms have created themselves by their inherent power, the Divinity immanent within them. Evolution is pantheism. Evolution and the Bible cannot be reconciled, unless you stop taking the Bible literally and start treating it as mythology, like the myths of the Olympians, a collection of stories to be spiritually decoded. Evolution forms the core of my theology, the foundation of my beliefs. I would not be a pagan if it were not for evolution.

[Crystal_Raye]

My beliefs are that life evolved from a single celled organism created by the God and Goddess. I mean carbon-based life forms just don't pop out of thin air; something has to create them and give them a kick start. As for humans, I think we slowly evolved from apes and that Adam, Eve, and Lilith were the first Homosapiens like us. Then Eve and Adam gave birth to the human race and Lilith and Adam (not Cain or Lucifer) gave birth to the faeries, vampyres, werewolves, dragons, angels, etc. This theory makes some sense and I'm very comfortable with it (plus it keeps the scientist AND the Christians off my back).

[Keith Dragon]

Heathen Dawn,

I would never dishonor you spiritual path, and I respect you view, and feel I understand you better now. It's difficult to gather that in today's "sound bite" world. That was why I asked you to expound your views way back, and I thank you for the time you put into your reply.

And please correct me if I am wrong, cause I ask to know, but I've always believed Pantheism to be One God that is One with the Nature of the Universe, broken down into many lessor dieties, each a part of the Whole, but representing different aspects of the Whole. To speak of Divinity I feel is to speak of Godly Consciousness, and a Universal one at that. I speak of a consciousness not outside of the Universe, but the universe itself, and if the Universe has a consicousness, then it has a Will. And through this Will it desires itself to be a certain way, the way we do with our own selves. And if it desires to be a certain way, it changes itself, to make itself match what it desires to be, and by doing so, effects all within it to change accordingly to the pattern it desires to follow. Thus Evolution, becomes a product or effect of a Universal Cause. Maybe not intentionally, but indirectly.

Also, in regards to the Bible. I look at it as a work or art, in literature, as a way of descrribing abstract concepts in a way for people to understand, but not only that, but the people of that time to understand. The problem, was that in their ignorance, they took it literally.

Though I am curious as to how Evolution brought you to Paganism. For me it was to understand the Goddess, the Earth itself. Or was it more that Evolution led you away from your original path. I love the stories of fellow Seekers.

Keith Dragon

[Heathen Dawn]

but I've always believed Pantheism to be One God that is One with the Nature of the Universe, broken down into many lessor dieties, each a part of the Whole, but representing different aspects of the Whole.

That’s soft polytheism and it’s what I believe too: the Gods and Goddesses are the spectral colours of the Divinity behind the universe.


To speak of Divinity I feel is to speak of Godly Consciousness, and a Universal one at that. I speak of a consciousness not outside of the Universe, but the universe itself, and if the Universe has a consicousness, then it has a Will.

I differ here. I don’t believe the universe or the Divinity behind it has any consciousness. It is impersonal. However, the Gods and Goddesses are conscious and personal. How this works I can’t explain; it may be the one chink in my philosophical armour.


Also, in regards to the Bible. I look at it as a work or art, in literature, as a way of descrribing abstract concepts in a way for people to understand, but not only that, but the people of that time to understand. The problem, was that in their ignorance, they took it literally.

I think the writers of the Bible intended it to be taken literally. This is now impossible, not because of the Bible, but because of science.


Though I am curious as to how Evolution brought you to Paganism. For me it was to understand the Goddess, the Earth itself. Or was it more that Evolution led you away from your original path. I love the stories of fellow Seekers.

I had been an Orthodox Jew, a worshipper of a transcendent creator external to the universe. As an Orthodox Jew I believed (more accurately, tried to believe) in young earth creationism. Once that dissipated and I came to accept evolution, my faith in Orthodox Judaism was speedily eroded. I pondered on the meaning of evolution: no creator external to the universe; the natural universe can be worshipped. So, still an atheist, I became a nature worshipper. The way from nature worship to paganism is tremendously short. I became a pagan.

[Keith Dragon]

At last, we understand one another. I can see your path now. For, me I'm a recovering Catholic. Though was never really in it except by name. My parents allowed me to seek my own path. I thank them for breaking the family chains for me, and offering me my freedom.

Just know that my search is a deep one. As an Artist, I have tuned into deep energies flowing around me. I sense them, feel them, and can manipulate them. The deeper I go through experiment and learning, the more I feel an inherent presence. What this presence is I do not know, but I can feel it. Like an article of clothing I wear around me. I push further, and feel the connections to that which surrounds me, and others. And at times, have felt an all pervading presence, an all knowing.

For me, I know what I wish to grow in my spirit, and thus have created and found the tools to accomplish that, as you have. Someday, it will be known, but for now, I must believe in an all inclusive consciousness, for that is how my model works, and work it does. And that is what it is all about, finding the path that allows us to grow.

May your growth be ever onward toward True Knowledge. Seek it Study it, Absorb it.

I have enjoyed our discussion. For you have helped to clarify things for me.

Shine On You Crazy Diamond.

Keith Dragon

[lunachic420]

I didn't vote as I believe that evolution is creation in action.

Blessed Be and Namaste!

[jodarius]

the biggest problemi have with creation is who created the creator, where did he/she/it come from. there had to be some point where something immense happened to create this all powerful being/beings, i cant accept that it/they always just were.

[Nevwyn]

I declined to vote because I believe in evolution, however, I also belive that all of this could not simply be accidental. I feel that the Gods and Godesses are a few rungs up the evolutionary ladder from me and that after some more lifetimes (many more lifetimes :rolleyes: ) I just might evolve myself.

Keith Dragon and Heathen Dawn, that has got to be one of the finest theological discussions it has ever been my privilage to witness. Thank you both for sharing your views and beliefs so eloquently. :)

[Keith Dragon]

Jodarius,

One of the school of thoughts has that the Creator created the Universe merely as a means of trying to understand where they came from, and to understand themselves.

Part of my spiritual path is beginning to believe that what we think of as the Creator, is merely yet, another rung, on the ladder of consciousness. An infinite progression. The problem we face is we look at it linearly, but it is dynamic, and hard to follow at times, existing in multiple dimensions.

Keith Dragon

[Druchii]

I would like to say I am sitting on the fence, but I don't like heights, especially when the end on either side yeilds no safety net. I don't believe in the Illuminati, but I do believe that we are making judgements on either evolution or creation with only a page full of notes when we have reams of notebooks to cull from. We are fed information and humanity being what it is, takes that information, processes it, and regurgitates it so they are better off and happier. We ignore so much in an effort to streamline our exisitance into something more palatable. Depressing isn't it? Makes me wish a UFO piloted by decendants of the Mayan gods who were out looking for Mothman again, would crash into the white house, so I could be told by the mass media outlets that it was a weather ballon.

[Ouroboros]

Keith,

thanks for you views. I have never denied creativity, nor design in nature; but I do deny a creator external to the universe, or a designer of the designs. That is the central message of evolution—there is no creator and no designer, but living organisms have created themselves by their inherent power, the Divinity immanent within them. Evolution is pantheism. Evolution and the Bible cannot be reconciled, unless you stop taking the Bible literally and start treating it as mythology, like the myths of the Olympians, a collection of stories to be spiritually decoded. Evolution forms the core of my theology, the foundation of my beliefs. I would not be a pagan if it were not for evolution.

I'd like to back that up, the bible's version of Genesis I'll assume was written by Moses - who must have gotten his story from the Sumerian Clay Tablets. In the clay tablets - there's no real "God" mentioned at all, in fact Our human races creators were said to be created by the Nefilim, an alien race. Here's something to shock the grasp of the bible loose: In ALL translations of genesis, I believe it is 6:3? They all mention "Giants" or "The Nefilim." The funnier thing is that the original text of the bible, where you see Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the word for God, "Elohim", is Plural, not singular. There's more concepts on religious aspects of heaven, for example an "Angel" is defined merely as "A being that can move through heaven" - which notes it's own order of "Godhood" as it were.

I agree with Heathen Dawn on the lack of a source to creation. Past the pantheism and all that which he's been sort of biased as - Creation occured through itself with no central source point. For a better revolution, focus on "We are all One" - not neccessarily avoiding our own "godhoods", we're all of one being, regardless of planet, galaxy, universe...

[Ouroboros]

My beliefs are that life evolved from a single celled organism created by the God and Goddess. I mean carbon-based life forms just don't pop out of thin air; something has to create them and give them a kick start. As for humans, I think we slowly evolved from apes and that Adam, Eve, and Lilith were the first Homosapiens like us. Then Eve and Adam gave birth to the human race and Lilith and Adam (not Cain or Lucifer) gave birth to the faeries, vampyres, werewolves, dragons, angels, etc. This theory makes some sense and I'm very comfortable with it (plus it keeps the scientist AND the Christians off my back).

You think carbon-based life is cool? Think more ancient: Silicon-based life, this 3rd rock from the Sun has had em beneath our feet since it's birth!

[Ouroboros]

Jodarius,

One of the school of thoughts has that the Creator created the Universe merely as a means of trying to understand where they came from, and to understand themselves.

Part of my spiritual path is beginning to believe that what we think of as the Creator, is merely yet, another rung, on the ladder of consciousness. An infinite progression. The problem we face is we look at it linearly, but it is dynamic, and hard to follow at times, existing in multiple dimensions.

Keith Dragon

I think you could appreciate my article: Each Experience Makes You More Than "You" (http://newsfornow.com/ts_eachexperience.php)

[Autumn Clair]

I voted creation because I believe something bigger than life on earth made us all from me to you, animals, stones, water, air, clouds all magickal. And in the end I will come face to face with the creator as I go on my way thru reincarnation.. I can't see myself coming from an ape but I do like them..


Is that an okay answer????????

[Magnus]

I didn't have time to read the entire thread, but this has recently been a topic of interest to me. I will begin by saying that I'm a creationist; although, I'm unable to give the nature of the creation (I have several working theories, all of which can't be proved or disproved :-) none of which involve man evolving from an ape.

In my opinion, one cannot place themselves on either side of this issue - or any other - until one has done a bit of in depth study into both sides of the issue. I would venture to say that most people have done no further study than what they've been told in school or seen on the DISCOVERY channel. Neither are likely candidates for getting both sides of the tale in full. True study involves researching contradictory views and making an informed decision based on the material available. I've never seen an opposing view as a threat, but rather a learning or proving opportunity.

I think that the 'problem' with creation is that when one says they believe they have been created they are automatically put into the Christian category, and biggest problem with evolution is that it is taught as science fact instead of the science theory, which it is. It is as much a theory as creation is, but teaching creation is discouraged (disallowed!) in the classrooms of America. I'm currently living in Finland, and they do teach creation in the classroom, but only as a part of religion study, and as far as I know, none of the science against evolution is produced (Finland does not have a separation between church and state, so religion classes are taught in the schools).

It seems that people have many different definitions for evolution. The definition that I'm using is that man evolved from a single-cell accident that eventually became a primate and then to what we know as modern man.

In my opinion... evolution does away with the need for spirituality, and many scientists use evolution for the proof that there is no God/dess. I heard this statement last week on a radio interview from the author of the book "The God Part of the Brain" (http://www.godpart.com). His theory, which he states is based on evolution, is that the 'need for god' evolved in the human animal. You can listen to the interview at this URL: http://rense1.soundwaves2000.com:8080/ramgen/sw_archives/rense/rense02-16-04.rm I would suggest that the 'god part' of the brain is the part of the God/dess that gives us life and makes a part of the All, and not merely an evolutionary addition that doesn't really exist. If so, then all we do - morally and spiritually - is in vain. It is interesting to note that the original title of 'Origin of Species was actually 'Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', and that Jeffery Dahmer used evolution as his 'out' for the horrible crimes that he did.

"If there is no G!d to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? I always believed the theory of evolution as truth." -- Jeffrey Dahmer

I see the 'evidence' of evolution to be extremely flawed, and science is unable to justify the claims. Most notably, the lack of a missing link - not just for the human animal but all creatures. The fact is, older and older fossil of fully humans are found. Modern man just sort of 'appears' in the fossil record. It is unfortunate that most of the anti-evolution material has to come from the Christian sector; although, there are some scientists that do use a scientific approach to creation. Such studies as 'The First Eve' tend to give trouble to the theory of evolution.

I'm in full agreement that the human spirit is on a constant spiritual evolution, but the body itself is not. Humans beget humans, dogs beget dogs, monkeys beget monkeys, and horses beget horses.... It is only when an outside force interrupts the natural process that something other is produced. Could it be the human 'creation' is the result of someone/thing outside (the god/desses) interrupting the natural process of things? It’s possible that there may be more to the work being done in labs today - such as DNA study and cloning - and our creation than we may want to admit. But perhaps this is another subject.

If there is further interest... I will draw up a list of the challenges that I have with the theory of evolution, and the science used to support the creation theory.

Magnus

[Ouroboros]

"...I went to God just to see, and I was looking at Me..."

- Marilyn Manson / Antichrist Superstar

[Oridian]

That is the central message of evolution—there is no creator and no designer, but living organisms have created themselves by their inherent power, the Divinity immanent within them. Evolution is pantheism.

I dont get how no outside power is the central message of evolution. Yes, it can be taken in that context but that is not its message (to me). To me it would be more accurate to say the evolution is progression from one form to another. And such definitions of evolution are neither for or against guidence from a higher power.

In the absence of a higher power Evolution would occur within the current systems of the being( genitics for example). As said being evolves its base systems are slightly different which will open up new possibilities for evolution.

The presence of God would not negate the validity of evolution. Perhaps God simply put systems into place at creation that would insure evolution of systems (be they living systems or solar systems).

In the end it comes to two basic choices...

Did all this *looks around at the universe* just happen?

or Did some power have a hand into putting it all into motion?

I of course lean towards the second. For Im more satified with the question of who created the dirt than the idea that the dirt just was.

[bansidhe]

wow guys, this was started ages ago, and its still going!!! i havent been around for ages (due to lack of puter) but imagine my surprise when i finally get to callin in and see this at the top of the list! lol, some things never change!

[DragonsChest]

If by creation you mean the violation of natural law to zap beings into existence, then I'm an Evolutionist.

If by evolution you mean the the idea that that our universe, and the life within it is a matter of random chance, and that intelligence, love, and truth are nothing more than bizarre accidents, then I'm a Creationist.

Personally, I don't see the conflict between creation and evolution. Why not view the creator/creatrix as the architect of the process, who knew that the universe would strive towards increasingly higher levels of organization and intelligence? That such a striving was, in fact, built into the structure and initial conditions of the universe?

I have a good friend, a Christian, who on his car has both a "Jesus Fish" and a "Darwin Fish". I approve the sentiment whole-heartedly.

BB,
Aengus

Yep, my thoughts, too. The two theories can harmoniouslly co-exist.

[Magnus]

The point that I was trying to make is that scientist uses evolution (man from a lower form or animal) to prove the non-existence of G!d. This is really the central core of the scientific agenda. Here is an URL for an article that recently appear in a newspaper which should clarify the point. Notice how the scientists state that creationism is religious and evolution science, and that the two can not co-exist:

Ohio School Board OKs Evolution Lesson:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040310/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate_4

Magnus

[lednevir]

Life is too magical to have ONLY evolved.Think how herbs make substance to heal us.How did that evolve.Where are the fossils of evolving humming birds or garriaffs.
I like the modern creation theory called the string thoery
that was discover while scientist were shooting protons at each other and they noticed that gravatons disapear and reappear.That can not happen so they must have entered another dimention and returned to this one.Perhaps that is how life evolves with the help of other dimentions?

[asher]

im undecided so today im sitting on the fence
blessed be

[mudweed]

The point that I was trying to make is that scientist uses evolution (man from a lower form or animal) to prove the non-existence of G!d. This is really the central core of the scientific agenda. Here is an URL for an article that recently appear in a newspaper which should clarify the point. Notice how the scientists state that creationism is religious and evolution science, and that the two can not co-exist:

Ohio School Board OKs Evolution Lesson:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040310/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate_4

Magnus
I have to take exception to the idea that the "scientific agenda" is to disprove god. Sure some scientists do, and it means they have a personal agenda. But similarly some people use the Blble to disprove science, what have you. Neither one is right, and neither one is wrong. However, many scientists are also deeply spiritual: Christian, Pagan, you name it.

Both are searches for truth but approaching perhaps from different angles, and I think we can all agree that there isn't any real or final 'truth.'

I'm a scientist, and I deeply believe that the two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

[Dusk]

I have to take exception to the idea that the "scientific agenda" is to disprove god. Sure some scientists do, and it means they have a personal agenda. But similarly some people use the Blble to disprove science, what have you. Neither one is right, and neither one is wrong. However, many scientists are also deeply spiritual: Christian, Pagan, you name it.

Both are searches for truth but approaching perhaps from different angles, and I think we can all agree that there isn't any real or final 'truth.'

I'm a scientist, and I deeply believe that the two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

I am in total agreement with Mudweed. I've known too many non-religious scientists who will not rule out a creator.

Does the Sun orbit the Earth or the does the Earth orbit the Sun? It was once thought blasphemy to teach anything that did not have Earth at the center of the Universe. Look at the great lengths some went through to explain the irregular orbits of the planets "around the Earth." The Bible never specifically states that the Earth is the center of the Universe, but that was the belief at the time. You can not base science on people's interpretations of vague comments in the Bible.

[djmixon]

BOTH!!! One does not negate the possibility of teh other. . .even in teh Bible, there is a timeframe before the first day that is not clearly defined, however scholars have shown reason to believe this was the time prior to human beings. . .

[ChaosTheorist]

Here is something i found out on agood website, this is about the demise of human evolution and how "evidence" points to the fact that human beings or any other thing for that matter did not evolve.... i've posted the same article a couple times before in different places here.. i wanna know what you all think and i have more goodies in store.
___________________________________________________________________________
One of the oldest traces of man are the "footprints" found by the famous palaentologist Mary Leakey in 1977 in Tanzania's Laetoli region.
These remains caused a great furore in the world of science. Research indicated that these footprints were in a 3.6-million-year-old layer. Russell Tuttle, who saw the footprints, wrote:
A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them... In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans.
Impartial examinations of the footprints revealed their real owners. In reality, these footprints consisted of 20 fossilized footprints of a 10-year-old modern human and 27 footprints of an even younger one. Such famous paleoanthropologists as Don Johnson and Tim White, who examined the prints found by Mary Leakey, corroborated that conclusion. White revealed his thoughts by saying:
Make no mistake about it,... They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you.

These footprints sparked an important debate among evolutionists. That was because for them to accept that these were human footprints would mean that the imaginary progression they had drawn up from ape to man could no longer be maintained. However, at this point dogmatic evolutionist logic once again showed its face. Most evolutionist scientists once more abandoned science for the sake of their prejudices. They claimed that the footprints found at Laetoli were those of an ape-like creature. Russell Tuttle, who was one of the evolutionists defending this claim, wrote:
In sum, the 3.5 million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there were made by a member of our genus Homo... In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind, Australopithecus afarensis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:fofftopic :colorful: :huddle: :graduate:

[turtlerain46]

So I didn't take the poll, cuz my views didn't fit in any of the catagories. Here's what I believe, I'm a creationist in the fact that I do believe in a creation derived from a "higher being" or what-not. However I also believe in evolution. The original formula for life was "created" then left to "evolve" and let happen what may. That's my view.

[DragonsChest]

So I didn't take the poll, cuz my views didn't fit in any of the catagories. Here's what I believe, I'm a creationist in the fact that I do believe in a creation derived from a "higher being" or what-not. However I also believe in evolution. The original formula for life was "created" then left to "evolve" and let happen what may. That's my view.


You've put into words what I've always felt but couldn't say. Thanks!

[Grey]

I agree with angus, if the gods are so powerful, or even god if your monotheistic, then why would he have to go poof! there it is? Make everything, get it going, and nudge it as needed, youve got all the time in the world right? lol

[Toriach]

Personally I believe that both go hand in hand. I believe that an intelligent force directed the creation of the universe, the earth, living organisms etc. I believe that the evolutionary process is what we are able to see of the means by which this creation is achieved. No different than watching an artist paint or a writer write.

[The Shadowy Dawn]

i believe we were created in order to avolve. think of it like Age of Empires... you create the little people and they avolve.

[Keith Dragon]

Alright, I want to create a "WHAT IF".

Given:

1. Evolution, and all we know about it is accurate beyond a shadow of a doubt.
2. God Created the Universe, and everything in it.

WHAT IF, we knew that these 2 givens were indeed TRUE, how can they co-exist. How does the paradox resolve itself?

Any thoughts?

Dragon

[mudweed]

Hey Keith,

I'm just wondering if you could explain a bit more fully why the two seem to be paradoxical? (I swear I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt! :lol: ) For example, the theory of evolution gives no explanations for the origin of life, only the mechanisms through which it changes and adapts. So if "god" created the universe... could god perhaps have built in that mechanism to keep the system from being static? Er... What am I trying to say?

Right. Maybe for fun, maybe so she didn't have to keep tweaking stuff, maybe to avoid stagnation? The two don't need to be mutually exclusive, do they?

[Kalika]

I have to go with evolution on this one. :)

I don't know if its just me... but I have a hard time imagining who/whatever just snapping their fingers and saying "Let there be light/man/animal/planets....etc". Not to knock anyone that DOES think that... but it just doesn't work for me.

Now... those of you who believe in creation - what's your theory? (Sounds weird, but there ARE different opinions on HOW man was created)

Those of you who believe in evolution - what's yours? Do you believe we evolved from apes, or other life forms?

[Keith Dragon]

Hey Keith,

I'm just wondering if you could explain a bit more fully why the two seem to be paradoxical? (I swear I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt! :lol: ) For example, the theory of evolution gives no explanations for the origin of life, only the mechanisms through which it changes and adapts. So if "god" created the universe... could god perhaps have built in that mechanism to keep the system from being static? Er... What am I trying to say?

Right. Maybe for fun, maybe so she didn't have to keep tweaking stuff, maybe to avoid stagnation? The two don't need to be mutually exclusive, do they?
Well, for me they aren't. but it seems they are for some people. Not given, I left the Biblical Creation idea long ago, but I still feel the Universe was Created, but perpetuates itself through Evolution.

What I'm trying to pull out of everyone is what would be a good model of the Universe that incorporates Evolution and God. I believe that Evolution was 'programmed' into the design of the Universe. Why? Because when the Universe came into existence, the minute that happened, the Laws of Free Will take hold, and God cannot interfere, or will break that Law. Evolution is a part of the Chaos that exists in the Universe to allow Order to manifest itself.

But I'm looking for other ideas as well, no matter how off the wall, even the more off the wall the better. To use the imagination to take what we know as fact, and project a model of the Universe out of it.

Dragon

[Fang of Loki]

I voted Evolution.

The whole traditional creation theory holds little weight with me.

[Fianna]

I don't like the creation theory and the idea that some supreme being decided to take a week off from his usual stuff (whatever supreme beings day job is) and put a wee world together
And I find it hard to get my head around the evolution theory - I have too many unanswered questions about it

Just to be akward I am going to go for the alien theory.

[Tsuchimaru]

Hmm....an off the wall theory, eh? Alrighty then....

The omnipotent being, the grand essence, god, used energy from the stars around it to create layers of magma. It encased itself in the magma, letting it harden. This created the earth as we know it. After it became solid enough, it was able to break smaller pieces of it's being off and send them to the surface, creating rocks, water, air, fire, and various other primitive life forms. Having these "children" exist upon god gave it power, allowing it to create higher forms of life, thus evolution took place. As the number of creatures grew exponentially, god could no longer keep an eye on everything at once. It needed something to help it. Thus, humans evolved. These creatures had developed emotions and a sense of self, allowing them to become "guardians" of the planet, god.

How's that? :headphone

[Myrddyn Emrys]

The creation of all is merely the birth of the One, and evolution is just that, evolution and growth of the One. We are all a part of the One, every drop of water, every rock, tree, flower, God, Godess, person, animal, molecule of air. As each of these things changes, evolves, grows, progresses, so does the One

[Fianna]

ok so the alien things was a joke - but I still disagree with the 2 theories.

I believe that there was no beginning - everything was and is eternal. All of us pagans, wiccans, druids etc talk all the time about this endless circle - that is what I truly believe.

I just found out recently that my beliefs are not unique to me and I aint weird - go figure :-) I am an animist - I believe everything in creation has a spirit - a soul - so there couldn't have been a starting point or an ending - it just was.

It is like saying where does the universe end - ok for talking we say a billion billion light years away - errr...........so what is on the other side?

If it was creation - who made the creator?

If it was evolution - there must have been a starting point from which the first thing evolved from - so what did that come from?

I know - confusing - that is why I prefer to take the easy way and just believe that everything is eternal it never ends and never begins - it just is.

Anyway - why do we have to make life more difficult than it is by trying to think about it - much too confusing for me - like Terminator - that had me sleepless for weeks.

He was sent back by his son but if he hadn't been the son wouldn't have been born and couldn't have sent him back etc etc - argh it's happening again.

[Shanti]

We all evolved from the same pond scum.

The magick isnt in the biology, its in the spirit!

[Tsuchimaru]

Blah, I don't know what to believe any more..... :goodgrief

[Fianna]

I just like to be devils advocate lol

[Tsuchimaru]

Now I'm confused.... :wah2:

[Fianna]

Er - don't cry about it - most of us are confused - we just pretend we know we know what we are talking about. Call it - an organised facade of confusion lol

[Gracecat]

I have to go with evolution on this one. And I hate to think about it sometimes because it leads to more questions that I feel comfortable pondering.

Spirituality has it's beginnings. We have so called evidence of that. By dating methods, they've determined that most if not all of the human depictions on cave drawings occurred after a certain period. The common theory is similar to that of Native American's apprehension to the camera. A drawn image of man at one time was considered bad karma/luck/practice. The only prehistoric man drawn that matches the dates where they believe humanized drawings were ill thought of is a single shamanic drawing of a masculine face, the horns of an antlered deer, body of a bear I think and feet of a wolf. (This is off the top of my head, I don't remember the exact body parts).

The second evidence is the grave sites of four (or three) neanderthals that were found at the back of a cave whose entrance had evidence of "homelife". On excavation, they discovered remains of floral matter. This indicated the practice of burial, the belief that there may be an afterlife, a sense of mourning and keeping deceased loved ones close.

Now... this is all theory, but... it's also the beginning of known spirituality in mankind. What about before that though. When did it start, why did it start. Who or what was the great Goddess' purpose before we evolved into intelligent enough humans to actively worship any diety's presence. Did we pull spirituality out of our desire to explain why we're here?

I believe in evolution, but I also believe in a higher supreme being. I believe animals of all types, plants, lifeforms and the elements worship on the same baser levels. But we've evolved into creatures that are more materialistic in our spirituality. It makes us feel better to hold an sacred object, one we deemed sacred I may add, and claim it brings us closer to the Goddess. In a way we've overblown natural religion. Take the athame for instance. I know it's a sacred object, it serves it's purpose and it isn't to be taken lightly and used as a tomato slicer in the kitchen (tongue in cheek here). But is it absolutely necessary to have one to be able to honor patron dieties? I dunno, I think our culture has evolved too far some days.

But that's not the original question. I believe we scientifically evolved. I believe spirituality has always been there. I believe humans, containing a different type of intelligence, a different not necessarily higher place on the food chain, we also caused a shift in how we communed with nature, with Her presence. As I said, we as humans were no longer perfect. A cat, or dog, or mule or bug is perfection, it's innocent, it does not harm it's environment. It's spirituality is much more pure than ours. When we gained a conscience, we gave our purity away.

Did any of that make sense? :hrmm: It made my brain hurt. :awwman:

[edenbolake]

well, I never argue the point . I have one sure fired way of answering if anyone approaches me on the subject and that is:

The creationists were created and
The evolutionists evolved
because in many ways we have done both at the same time,
how could we not?


I know I'm horrible

edenbolake





I have to go with evolution on this one. And I hate to think about it sometimes because it leads to more questions that I feel comfortable pondering.

Spirituality has it's beginnings. We have so called evidence of that. By dating methods, they've determined that most if not all of the human depictions on cave drawings occurred after a certain period. The common theory is similar to that of Native American's apprehension to the camera. A drawn image of man at one time was considered bad karma/luck/practice. The only prehistoric man drawn that matches the dates where they believe humanized drawings were ill thought of is a single shamanic drawing of a masculine face, the horns of an antlered deer, body of a bear I think and feet of a wolf. (This is off the top of my head, I don't remember the exact body parts).

The second evidence is the grave sites of four (or three) neanderthals that were found at the back of a cave whose entrance had evidence of "homelife". On excavation, they discovered remains of floral matter. This indicated the practice of burial, the belief that there may be an afterlife, a sense of mourning and keeping deceased loved ones close.

Now... this is all theory, but... it's also the beginning of known spirituality in mankind. What about before that though. When did it start, why did it start. Who or what was the great Goddess' purpose before we evolved into intelligent enough humans to actively worship any diety's presence. Did we pull spirituality out of our desire to explain why we're here?

I believe in evolution, but I also believe in a higher supreme being. I believe animals of all types, plants, lifeforms and the elements worship on the same baser levels. But we've evolved into creatures that are more materialistic in our spirituality. It makes us feel better to hold an sacred object, one we deemed sacred I may add, and claim it brings us closer to the Goddess. In a way we've overblown natural religion. Take the athame for instance. I know it's a sacred object, it serves it's purpose and it isn't to be taken lightly and used as a tomato slicer in the kitchen (tongue in cheek here). But is it absolutely necessary to have one to be able to honor patron dieties? I dunno, I think our culture has evolved too far some days.

But that's not the original question. I believe we scientifically evolved. I believe spirituality has always been there. I believe humans, containing a different type of intelligence, a different not necessarily higher place on the food chain, we also caused a shift in how we communed with nature, with Her presence. As I said, we as humans were no longer perfect. A cat, or dog, or mule or bug is perfection, it's innocent, it does not harm it's environment. It's spirituality is much more pure than ours. When we gained a conscience, we gave our purity away.

Did any of that make sense? :hrmm: It made my brain hurt. :awwman:

[Equinox]

Evolution is great spiritual metaphor for me.

Evolution states that all animals and plants are descended from a common ancestor, so your great great (times billions) great grandmother was also the great great (times billions) great grandmother of the deer, and the trees, and the flowers. We are all connected by parent/child relationships. Everything, from the mushroom to myself, is all part of the same growing, living, thriving web of life. We are all one family. :antennae:

By realizing that I'm not separate from this web, but instead that I'm a part of it as much as the deer or the trout, I feel a respect for it that goes beyond environmentalism. That's not a mollycoddling type of respect - after all, predators and prey alike are part of the natural cycle, and I'm a hunter myself. But instead, it is the kind of respect one has for oneself - it just extends out to include more than just my own body. Evolution is central to my spirituality. :flowers:

It also happens to be true. Granted, it would still work as a metaphor it if weren’t, but it is backed up by literally mountains of evidence from all kinds of scientific fields, such as biology, zoology, genetics, paleontology, geology, anatomy, molecular biology, and others. All these different ways of studying the world say the same thing – evolution happened. Good information on the controversy and on evolution can be read here: www.talkorigins.org.

May the sun warm your face-

-Equinox

P. S. Remember that some people (scientists) have looked at the data more than others. 95% of scientists believe in evolution, and that even includes scientists in unrelated fields, like physics. The highest proportion of beleivers in creationism are when you look at the beliefs of high school dropouts. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

[Myrddyn Emrys]

I like that viewpoint.

[Ladyvi]

there isnt a selection for my answer .. both. there are three working theories . creationist . darwinist and the alien genetic manimpulation.

i believe in creation to a point of divine intervention. strange things happen and even stranger events happen seemingly to the untrained eye, out of whim.

evolution i believe as a means of adaptation . not totally changing genis or species. take the equus line for instance. if you open one of those early horses. you will find the same innards as the horses today. they evolved out of adaptation not changing species as some darwinist proclaim.

alien thing .. i do believe in other worlds interferring or upgrading our developement. rather we wanted to or not. it is funny that all 26 phalanxes of the animal kingdom showed up all of a sudden all at once. spontaneus creation by a divine spark. maybe? .. one of those blurbs of sudden evolution? maybe. aliens developing species in their labs and releasing . maybe? ..

all have valid points all have science and fact to back them up. i personally believe in the cummolnation of all three( ok i think i butchered the spelling on that one but i have had no coffee and just woke up)

[Luminessence]

Is "both" an option? I believe that the universe was created by whatever Divine force is out there, and that its evolution was guided by that same Divine force.

[Epona44]

Life has evolved.

I have dug fossils in many rock beds such as New York shale, and I've no doubt the trilobites I found are the result of the existence of an ancient sea.

There is something powerfully affirming about cracking open a rock and finding a crinoid, or a brachiopod, or a limpet. This is empirical evidence.

I am reading Darwin's Origin of Species now, and it's fascinating.

Is it all there is? How can I ever answer that question? Honestly? I think there is some sort of evolution constantly going on in humanity, as well.

Does that mean there's no divine hand in any of it? I find that hard to believe. I guess my friend, who's professes to be an atheist, would say that I'm afraid to take that final step and say, yes, I guess this is the nature of the universe.

But, then I've had other experiences in my life (that have no explanation in science) that tell me that the universe is something more than a bunch of chemicals bashing into each other.

I'm not ready to swallow a religious mythological explanation of the birth of the universe. There are simply too many mythological creations in too many cultures of the world, and what would make one more valid than another. The answer cannot be because the proponents of the religion say theirs is THE one.

Hey, maybe they all are, I don't know. What I do know is that I don't know.

So, I guess I can be certain of evolution, and that there are things in heaven not dreamt of in my philosophy.

:woot: :collapse: :falloffch

[halfwaynowhere]

well, with the intricacy of life, i don't think we were randomly put here. i am a strong believer in evolution though. i believe life was placed here, and a higher being/nature/whatever-you-believe is constantly changing things... sort of... i dunno, i'm not doing a very good job of putting it in words right now, the way i said it isn;t entirely what i mean... gar.. now this is bugging me. i have to think about this, and maybe once i get it figured out, i'll post again.

[Enigma]

Evolution

[ancestral_lee]

i have to say im finding all of this disturbing indeed.

there seems to be lack of simple understanding of the theory of evolution and in some cases a shocking lack of understanding of what evolution is and what it isnt.

evolution is a fact. it has been observed, it can be observed e.g 'flu, mrsa etc.

another thing whcih seems to be causing some confusion is the word 'theory'. a 'theory' is an idea which is supported by evidence.. just because we use the word theory doesnt mean it isnt any use, to be a thoery then an idea must have evidence to back it up and in the case of evolution there is one hell of a lot of evidence to back it up (i know, im a palaeontologist and im required to study evolution)

you can start with an 'idea', if your idea can be tested scientifically, then it is an 'hypothesis', if all the evidence supports your 'hypothesis' then it is a theory..

creatoionism (the idea that an almight being or beings created the universe and everything in it, in the case of xtianity created everything as it is now 6000 years ago) cannot be tested and has NO evidence whatsoever to support it and it is therefore a matter of faith, it is an 'idea', it is in no way comparable to evolution.

could people bear this in mind please?

oh and evolution has no anti-god agenda, scientists have no anti-god agenda. science sets out to explain and provide answers, if those answers shatter peoples visions of how god did things then tough luck.

the theory of evolution seeks to explain how the variety of life appeared, and the relationships between organisms.

as to the very beginnings of life - there is a lot of work that has been done on this, testing hypotheses as to how the first protocells may have appeared, self replicating chemicals etc - i can provide more info if you want.

fully formed living cells didnt just pop into being, no scientist suggests that, though what they do is try to offer evidence to support that life appeared of its own accord and show the various means as to how it MIGHT have happened.

lee

<puts on asbestos pants>

[Ron]

Well said, Lee. Well said.

[Shippo]

It's hard not to believe in evolution. Some people turn it into something complicated and unbelievable. Isn't it possibl for evolution and religion/beliefs to co-exist? Anyway, it's really just the weak and unsuited animals dying so only the stronger ones are left to pass on their genes, until the species is well adapted to the environment aftr years and generations of naturally selecting the best traits. Needless to say, I'm very interested in biology and I vote evolution all the way.

[odubhain]

People are spirits inhabiting bodies. We share the organization of these bodies with personalities that are shaped by memes, life experiences and other spirits. Our spirits are eternal and move from one body to the next at death or during out of body experiences/soul transference. These eternal spirits are sometimes called souls and are a part of the first soul. Memes are a part of the first meme. All of creation is a part of the first creation. All of eternity is a part of the first moment. Every body is a part of the first body. Each thought has a stream back to the first thought for each of us and all of us. The world is eternal but fire and water will at times prevail. I went to sleep last night ebbing with energy and slow of thought, yet I have arisen today with renewed energy and thoughts increasing. Where did it go? Where did it come from? How long is a moment? How short is forever? The point is the periphery over time.

The messages in this computer came into being in much the same way that everything else did. Were the messages created or did they evolve? Where were they before this computer? Where were messages before the first computer? Where were messages before the first message? Did these messages get created or did they evolve?

Searles

[DraoinanDuanaire]

Other.

Evolution is a fact. It fails to account for some things, however, and a spiritual explanation is, I feel, not unreasonable. I believe natural evolution is sometimes added by various beings (a minor example is possible for humans through genetic engineering in our present day), an example being the birth of humans.

Needless to say, this makes unpopular at those functions which serve to host this argument, as both sides are incorrect, and cannot seem to understand the truth (because I, you know, have it, and not they). No, we're not just evolved apes, and no, you god didn't just zap everything into being.

:whatmewor

[Kern]

I was thinking about creation last night.I dont know why,but I was thinking to myself well All paths cant be right on the subject of creation and if any are correct then it can logically be only one,but there is no way to prove any of them.If there were a way to prove it then I would have to follow that path.So in my conclusion it really doesnt matter how the earth was formed but where we go from birth to wherever.Personally though I believe that it was created,and evolution doesnt make any sense,the logic that everything came from nothing and evolved into higher creatures etc.If that were the case then why didnt aligators/crocodiles evolve into beings that stand upright and talk in the same way as humans,they have existed way longer than mankind,so by logic they should be the more advanced creature,but they have been the same for millions of yrs....Also if you take a baby human and throw it into a lake,it will not remain alive long enough to mate with other creatures and their offspring evolve later into something else or they wouldnt live long enough to evolve into something different on their own .So evolution just seems like the stupid theory it is,a stupid theory.An far as I know the only black people that have light hair and skin tones are those that came from interracial marriages and births,not because they have been living in the Northern Hemisphere for 400 yrs.(I read some where the reason why different races are the way they are was because of where they came from.)And Eskimos are darker than White people that lived in the same longitude for thousands of yrs.Thats a stupid scientic theory also.And Evolution is not a proven FACT,its a theory,which means its an unproven oppinion.Finding remains of a creature that has similar qualities as man doesnt prove that it was human,it may have been a similar creature that now is extinct like a extinct type of ape or something.It cant be proven either way.

[QUEEN OF THE DAMNED]

Evolution all the way!!!! I'm coming back to this one when I have more time :)

[ancestral_lee]

.And Evolution is not a proven FACT,its a theory,which means its an unproven oppinion..

you are misunderstanding completely.

in science a theory is as good as it gets, to reach the 'status' of theory all the evidence must support it which in the case of evolution it does. evolution has yet to be proven wrong and has up until now been proven correct - the evidence that supports it is vast - it isnt A 'STUPID' thoery at all, the evidence to support evolution is vast.

i suggest you go out and perhaps study it for a while and try to understand what it is rather than making silly comments and disregarding the hard work of 1000's of scientists - all of who are convinced by the VAST amount of evidence for it.

can you provide a single shred of evidence for creation? a single shred that can be tested?

you are also missing the point when you mention alligators and crocodiles - evolution isnt about getting to a certain point - humanoids arent the ultimate goal of evolution. gators and crocs havent changed much (trhough they have changed a lot) because they dont need to, they are bloody good at what they do and are able to cope with all sorts of situations therefore there is no environmental pressure on them to evolve.

as a simple example - say a virus appears and kills of most of the people on the planet, some people will have a natural immunity. they wont die and they will live to breed. from then on the species will have changed a ittle bit and will have adapted - thats natural selection, carry that on for millions of years and populations will change.

have a look at.... http://reporter.leeds.ac.uk/500/s1.htm it describes what is clearly evolution in action. these snails are speciating, developing in two different directions in response to predator -pressure. given more time they will be two distinct species.

lee

[equinox2]

Lee - thanks for the good description. It's certainly true that the term "theory" means something different in scienfitic circles as opposed to the general public. A theory is much more than a fact - it's the idea that makes facts make sense. Evolution as a theory is as well proven as Germ theory (the idea that some diseases are caused by viruses and bacteria), or the theory of gravity, or the theory of atoms (that matter is composed of atoms). All of those don't get singled out for attack because Christians don't seem to be bothered by them, not because they have more evidence than Evolution (which they don't).

The view so often expressed about a god or gods "creating" by using evolution is a good way to fit science and religion. It's called "theistic evolution".

Anyone interested in either side of the debate can find a lot of good info at www.talkorigins.org. This site is huge, and is also neatly organized so any information can be found easily. I especially find http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ to be quick, useful, and fun. There is a reason why almost no one who has studied the evidence supports creationism.

May your mind soar like the eagle-

[leaf-shadow]

i believe in creation. creation explains the meaning of being human, and i believe humans r here for a meaning, and that we are not just another way to arrange atoms into cells. also, how does evolution explain magic? spirits cant evole can they? the theory of evolution is mutations+natrual selection+adaptation caused single cells to evole into complexed creatures. now that means it took a long time for things to come into being. if so, then how come so many things proved that there were many civilizations before this human civilization? people found many things crafted by humans hundreds of thousands of years ago, how s that possible? according to evolution, that many years ago, we were monkeys and apes. how can monkeys and apes craft things only mordern day people can make?
and also, where did this theory come from? it was Darwin who made the idea popular, but Darwin is a human. todays people says, that creation was a theory made up by people who trys to explain things that they cant explain. in truth, thats what evolution is -- a theory made up by people who trys to explain things that they cant explain. people who denies the existance of gods created evolution theory to explain where we came from.
and also, almost all the scientific theories are either totally wrong or slightly off. say for example, the whole in the ozone layers above the antiarctic. scientists says its a whole created by wast gases released from factories. any one thinks thats possible? think about it, the four winds, the breeze of the seasons, gases floating around... those are all gods, goddesses, and spirits. how could the waste gases created by HUMANS harm gods? and if they can, why would there be a whole in the antiarctic atmosphere where human lives instead of china or europe where there are so many factories and air polution?
and of course, there r many more things science boasts about, thats only one. and as for how did the whole in the ozone layers came to be, it's actually a door opened by gods whos saw that there s too much poision floating around, they made a whole in the sky to let the poisions out. watch, when the poisions are cleared, the whole will close.

[ancestral_lee]

you ignorance and inability to understand simple scientoific principles is shocking and more than that it is disturbing.

your whole take on the ozone layer is very scary. i suggest you try reading books at some point - even try the internet.

lee


i believe in creation. creation explains the meaning of being human, and i believe humans r here for a meaning, and that we are not just another way to arrange atoms into cells. also, how does evolution explain magic? spirits cant evole can they? the theory of evolution is mutations+natrual selection+adaptation caused single cells to evole into complexed creatures. now that means it took a long time for things to come into being. if so, then how come so many things proved that there were many civilizations before this human civilization? people found many things crafted by humans hundreds of thousands of years ago, how s that possible? according to evolution, that many years ago, we were monkeys and apes. how can monkeys and apes craft things only mordern day people can make?
and also, where did this theory come from? it was Darwin who made the idea popular, but Darwin is a human. todays people says, that creation was a theory made up by people who trys to explain things that they cant explain. in truth, thats what evolution is -- a theory made up by people who trys to explain things that they cant explain. people who denies the existance of gods created evolution theory to explain where we came from.
and also, almost all the scientific theories are either totally wrong or slightly off. say for example, the whole in the ozone layers above the antiarctic. scientists says its a whole created by wast gases released from factories. any one thinks thats possible? think about it, the four winds, the breeze of the seasons, gases floating around... those are all gods, goddesses, and spirits. how could the waste gases created by HUMANS harm gods? and if they can, why would there be a whole in the antiarctic atmosphere where human lives instead of china or europe where there are so many factories and air polution?
and of course, there r many more things science boasts about, thats only one. and as for how did the whole in the ozone layers came to be, it's actually a door opened by gods whos saw that there s too much poision floating around, they made a whole in the sky to let the poisions out. watch, when the poisions are cleared, the whole will close.

[skilly-nilly]

ignorance is shocking and disturbing.

lee

I agree. I think if one is going to be rabidly anti-something it behooves one to know about it.

On the other hand, if the world/humans are wholly created, then why doesn't it work better???

On the gripping hand, the rift in the ozone is a hole! The whole argument shudders and lumbers.

[ancestral_lee]

and as for how did the whole in the ozone layers came to be, it's actually a door opened by gods whos saw that there s too much poision floating around, they made a whole in the sky to let the poisions out. watch, when the poisions are cleared, the whole will close.

its a door eh? so told you this? they are fibbing whoever it is..

the hole in the ozone is caused when chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) react with Ozone (a reactive molecule made from 3 oxygen atoms) this breaks down the ozone. as it happens - there isnt a 'hole' as such, its an area where the ozone layer is much thinner and so isnt acting as a filter for UV radiation any longer. so - if it is created by the gods they are doing a crap job, its not even a hole so nothing will 'escape' its not going to work is it?

did the gods mention how they plan to let only poisons escape but stop oxygen and other important gases excaping?

also - its doubly crap because its letting in dangerous radiation which is causing an increase in skin cancers.

you see - it helps to have an understanding of the science behind all of this.

i find you attitude disturbing also because its a 'head in the dans and fingers in the ears going LALALALALALA' attitude. it fails to engage in the actual causes of problems and so address them.

[HorseCrow]

I believe creation is evolution. I believe there was/is intent and purpose behind evolution. I do not distinguish between the two.

[Dave the Druid]

there's a difference?! :jawdrop:
omg!!

Personal belief being what it is I feel the need to be rotten here. If you read the world's(yes, all of them) religious texts you might get the idea that we were created. Being trained in science (biology, chemsitry, astrophysics, geology....) I know better.

Blind luck? ok, Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice."

Do you pray to an all powerful creator/destroyer?

If you've answered "yes" to any of the above your fine. If you answerd "no" to any of the above you are also fine.

The are huge questions that have caused some of the best knock down drag out brawls I have ever seen. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter you know. Fact will never supplant belief for some and belief will never trump fact for others.

[Valz]

God created and used Evolution to do so. I honestly don't see why there is the need to set up one against the other.

Valz

[Karma Chameleon]

okies, this might not be technically the right place for this thread, but im desperate to get some life going in here, and it ll even help with my studies in religion assignment! :)

so, what are your views on creation versus evolution? or do you sit on the fence ?

take care and brightest blessings,
bans. :bubbles:


My view is that evolution is a scientific fact and I don't believe in creation.

[Epona44]

In the same way gravity and electricity are theories.

What's holding you in your seat? Is it an imaginary force?

Hmmm ... :abbed:

[ancestral_lee]

God created and used Evolution to do so. I honestly don't see why there is the need to set up one against the other.

Valz

which god would that be? every cutlure has a creation myth, which one is right? they are all very different so they cant all be right.

[leaf-shadow]

some times, i really dont know wat gave us the power we have. it seems that we have abosulutely no faith in god and old wisdoms, and all the faith in the evil science....

[ancestral_lee]

and all the faith in the evil science....

yes science is truly evil, think about the great evils it has brought: antibiotics, anaesthectics, healthcare, electricity,water treatment, [asteurisation etc etc etc

for someone to think science is evil, they must be truly ignorant as to what science is

[Necrosapien]

I may get flamed but I was asked for my opinion so here it is.

I am a Creationist. Not too hard to understand. As of the moment, I don't personally feel as though there is enough evidence to call evolution a law/fact. If science eventually proves me wrong, I may have to change the way I look at things. From what I understand, I haven't seen any distinctive or conclusive fossil records as to prove evolution. While I most definately believe in micro-evolution, macro-evolution (imo) hasn't been proven. If there are fossil records showing a change from one type of animal/fish/plant/human/whatever to another, who is to say that the two different "species" could not mate? After all, one species cannot mate with the other. If a cro-magnon man/woman could mate with todays man/woman, they are not a different species, but have just adapted into something that slightly resembles the other, but is distinctively different.

If we take one group of humans and put them in the ocean, another group of humans and put them in caves, and another on a different planet and wait x-gazillion years and then have them all meet up and they can't mate, then I will most definately reconsider my thoughts. Unfortunately, I can't live that long (at least not yet). But like I said, if some hardcore proof/evidence comes up, I'll reconsider.

Not to be picky/a Devil's Advocate, but isn't the definition of evolution include "unguided"? If I had to change my beliefs, I would not call Godde guiding the development of everything evolution for that reason. Don't know what lable I'd put on it, but meh. I've spoken enough now...

[odubhain]

Creation is one thing while evolution is itself many ongoing acts of creation. Creation is the still picture while evolution is the movie! :-) An idea is an inspiration while an actual invention is 99 times its effort in sweat and work. In simple human terms, a baby is an act of sexual union between sperm and eggt while it is also nine months worth of work for the mother. If the zygote never evolved into a human being after its creation, where would any of us be?

Searles

[wolfchild]

Creation is one thing while evolution is itself many ongoing acts of creation. Creation is the still picture while evolution is the movie! :-) An idea is an inspiration while an actual invention is 99 times its effort in sweat and work. In simple human terms, a baby is an act of sexual union between sperm and eggt while it is also nine months worth of work for the mother. If the zygote never evolved into a human being after its creation, where would any of us be?

Searles
_handclapp
Very nicely put!

[MoonDragn]

I think that the two can exist side by side with one another. The problem I see with the current debate is that one particular religious group is trying to push their views into a general school enviornment and while they claim its not religiously bias, it has alot of religious overtones. In order for a true theory to exist it has to have an observable phenomenon. Unfortunately what we observe in nature cannot be proven one way or another to be intelligently designed or randomly evolved so even though it is a valid theory, it has no basis in science.

[ancestral_lee]

Unfortunately what we observe in nature cannot be proven one way or another to be intelligently designed or randomly evolved so even though it is a valid theory, it has no basis in science.

is that creation has no basis or evolution?

evolution can be observed, there are three instances at least that i can think of where evolution has been observed.

the difference is that evolution has mountains of positive scientific evidence to back it upo whereas creation or intelligent design has none at all other than the bible. evidence for creation is usually some lame attempt to poke at a hole in evolution theory rather than coming up wth positive evidence for creation.

one belongs in the science class, the other in religous studies/scripture - they should stay that way. thankfully the situation is different here in the UK

[MoonDragn]

Yes I was refering to creation. Yes Evolution has been observed and therefore is taught in schools. I think the only way an observation of intelligent design can be shown is if god/goddess somehow signed his/her name on someone's genes LOL. Imagine that, designer genes.

[argento_occhi]

Meh, I've ranted about the whole creationism vs evolution debate long enough, so I won't continue it here. Truth be told, I'm sick of arguing it to people who won't understand (not directed at anyone in particular, I might add). If someone can't see that creationism/intelligent design/etc is not science, I'm not going to bother anymore trying to convince them.

But, that's not what this thread is about.

Personally, I've got the 'guided' (though I think 'directed' is a better term) evolution thing down pat. It makes sense, especially when I take Kemetic Creation myths into account. They make a whole lotta sense re evolution. I mean they start out in the waters of the Nun. Those ancient Kemetics knew stuff, I'll give them that. Might be reading too much into that, but I find it wonderfull fitting. That's my personal beliefs.

I believe in evolution all the way, and I'm quite capable of separating my spiritual beliefs from my scientific ones. Yeah, another science geek here. Did three years of biology at uni, got bored of environmental science, now I'm doing human biology.

I know I shouldn't read editorials in our state paper, they are an awfully ignorant bunch (mostly), but I find it hard not to take some of them personally when there are repeated claims of scientists and our ilk being godless, or atheists, or out to disprove God, or something to that effect. A couple set off a nice rant in my LJ, which I won't reproduce here as it's pointless.

*sighs* But, I digress. I'll leave the ranting about this for another time perhaps.

Argent

[Choro's Mom]

Imagine that, designer genes.

BAD Moon. BAD BAD BAD Moon.:alol:

I read a quote somewhere that said something to the effect that "once you accept the idea that God [the gods] created the heavens and the earth and all therein, evolution is a perfectly acceptable way of explaining the process." Along the same lines, science explains when and how; faith addresses who and why.

The problem with the "creationist" outlook is that it starts with a given (this is how it all happened) and then searches for "proof," while rejecting all evidence that contradict that initial claim.

Evolution occured (and continues to occur). I can make this statement with the same assurance that I can state that the Hammurabi wrote a legal code. No one was around to see him do it, but we have the archaeological evidence. We HAVE the graduated species; the horse is one of the best examples. We KNOW that species change over time. What, exactly, prompts that change remains a matter of theory and belief.

Why can't the "big bang" be the moment at which [the] God[s] say[s], "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"?

And perhaps the cataclysm (a meteor?) which cause the extinction of the dinosaurs was [the] God[s] saying, "OK, this is BORING. If you guys haven't evolved in a hundred million years, let's just let the mammals have a shot."

[argento_occhi]

And perhaps the cataclysm (a meteor?) which cause the extinction of the dinosaurs was [the] God[s] saying, "OK, this is BORING. If you guys haven't evolved in a hundred million years, let's just let the mammals have a shot."

:rotfl:

I don't think it's a coincidence that Djehuty popped into my head when I read that! :lol:

What a wonderful explanation! I want to stick that on a t-shirt!

Argent

[Zibblsnrt]

And perhaps the cataclysm (a meteor?) which cause the extinction of the dinosaurs was [the] God[s] saying, "OK, this is BORING. If you guys haven't evolved in a hundred million years, let's just let the mammals have a shot."

I am now picturing omnipotent entities with ADD. It is truly a terrifying image.

[Choro's Mom]

I am now picturing omnipotent entities with ADD. It is truly a terrifying image.

Would they be DADDies? Deities w/ADD? :toofless:

[zede]

i think there was alittle of both!

[plumedsnake]

Me thinks,

1) The ultimate origin of this world is in Eternity. That is timeless existence.

2) One of the things created is Time itself.

3) Therefore the origin of all things cannot be placed in time. It cannot be said to have occurred sometime way off in the past. Past is just an area in time that is just another aspect of creation.

4) The world was created right now in this eternal moment, Is being created right now in this eternal moment, will be created right now in this eternal moment. If only we can be in that eternal moment. By moment I don't mean this point in time. I mean the Always Now.

5)The sense of Time and the passage of time is just an effect that has been created from the ultimate eternal moment. Therefore all Process whether it be evolution, or the lifecycle of a human being, or the rise and fall of nations, being mere processes in time cannot be said to be the ultimate causes of anything.

6) The idea of the world being created at some point in the past (creationism) is fallacious because the world is being created not in any point in time but completely outside of the scope of time.

7) Those seven days were not made up each of 24 hours. Heck there wasn't even a sun and moon to count the hours in the first couple of days. That should be enough to alert any intelligent person to the fact that the story is hinting at a lot more than what they think.

8) If we understand the 7 days, or the crossing of the 7 hills that separate creation from the 'other side', or in other words how to unveil the 7 garments, then we could become co-creators of the world in this eternal moment.

9) Creation is a sexual act. Love making is sweetest when we are totally given up to the act and the ego is slaughtered at the breast of the beloved.

[morningstar2651]

Creation and evolution are not contradictory.

There must be life existing for it to evolve. Evolution has nothing to do with the source of life.

[Xentor]

Creation and evolution are not contradictory.

There must be life existing for it to evolve. Evolution has nothing to do with the source of life.
agreed

[Sea-Witch]

Those of you who believe in evolution - what's yours? Do you believe we evolved from apes, or other life forms?

Humans did not evolve from apes. African apes and humans share a common ancestor. We still aren't sure who this ancestor is, only that there was a split in the evolutionary line with apes evolving on one branch and humans evolving on another.

The oldest known hominids that I am aware of are Orrorin tugenensis - 6 million years old, and Ardipithecus ramidus - approx. 5.8 million years old. Scientists generally agree that Ardipithecus was a hominid. As for Orrorin, it has been suggested that he is the last common ancestor of the hominid and chimpanzee-bonobo lines. However, more research needs to be done.

One of the problems with identifying the common ancestor is that early hominids were very primitive and they retained a number of apelike traits [which makes Creationists very uncomfortable], and it is exactly this primitive nature shared by both species that makes evolutionary relationships so difficult to interpret. The closer we get to the ape-hominid divergence, the more difficult it becomes to tell which line a given species belongs to.

It is fascinating stuff, for sure!

[Grimr]

I see nothing wrong with evolution as I view it to have good logical principles.

Has any of us seen creation for all it's glorious surfaces?

Not one human being can claim to have seen it.

It is my opinion that evolution is the system in which the Gods and the higher power of all things came to make this beautiful world of the mother Goddess.

Evolution is just another intelligent way of looking at creation.

[Tarbh Nathroch]

Once when asked this question by my science teacher in seventh grade by a nun. Yeah that was a loaded question from a nun. I, unlike the rest of the class who said “creation Sister Peggy”, said “both”. When asked to explain myself. I said that god created haven and earth and that god in his infinite wisdom gave his most treasured creation…life…the ability to change and adapt to this ever changing and dynamic universe god set in motion. He allowed the planet I live on, yes I believe there is life all through out the universe, to produce the best vessel for a soul. The planet evolved my body for my created soul.


Don’t feel creation, intelligent design and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. If you create a life form and build into it the ability to self upgrade through the mutations of evolution for improved survivability…That’s an intelligent design.

[Zibblsnrt]

Once when asked this question by my science teacher in seventh grade by a nun. Yeah that was a loaded question from a nun.

You'd be surprised; the Catholic Church has been behind the idea of evolution in general since the sixties, and has been much more explicitly so since the late nineties.

What were the reactions to your answer, if I might ask?

[Grimr]

Once when asked this question by my science teacher in seventh grade by a nun. Yeah that was a loaded question from a nun. I, unlike the rest of the class who said “creation Sister Peggy”, said “both”. When asked to explain myself. I said that god created haven and earth and that god in his infinite wisdom gave his most treasured creation…life…the ability to change and adapt to this ever changing and dynamic universe god set in motion. He allowed the planet I live on, yes I believe there is life all through out the universe, to produce the best vessel for a soul. The planet evolved my body for my created soul.


Don’t feel creation, intelligent design and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. If you create a life form and build into it the ability to self upgrade through the mutations of evolution for improved survivability…That’s an intelligent design.

It is my belief that creation and evolution are one in the same infinite power of the Gods.

[Calen]

For me, spirituality is getting to know the creative energy of the world, and science is understanding how that creative energy manifests itself to make the world work.

Two sides of the same coin, with no conflict I can see. It's only when people get hard-assed and single-sighted about it that it becomes a problem.

I put 'sitting on the fence', because I am touching both sides. I have an opinion, and I don't favour one side over the other.

[Grimr]

For me, spirituality is getting to know the creative energy of the world, and science is understanding how that creative energy manifests itself to make the world work.

Two sides of the same coin, with no conflict I can see. It's only when people get hard-assed and single-sighted about it that it becomes a problem.

I put 'sitting on the fence', because I am touching both sides. I have an opinion, and I don't favour one side over the other.

I think religion and science can coexist just fine.

I know to most scientists that might sound heretical , but there are ways of understanding both if one was to pierce both thoughts and views.

[Tarbh Nathroch]

What were the reactions to your answer, if I might ask?
The beating of a life time, like I said hahaha. That and copying several pages from the Book of Genesis, a talking to by the nun, the principal and the priest next door at the church when I had to go over for confession.

This place was still pretty strict in the late 70's and early 80's, we still had boys and girls sides of the play ground and shit…lol

They did give me a great education though

[Little Billy]

Creation and evolution are not contradictory.

There must be life existing for it to evolve. Evolution has nothing to do with the source of life.

The start of life on Earth has been adequately explained.

[Grimr]

Anyone familiar with the writings of Henri Bergson?

[plumedsnake]

Anyone familiar with the writings of Henri Bergson?

HA! lol. You don't give up, you just take a break.

[Sethserpenthus]

I fully and entirely accept the theory of evolution. I also believe, simply because of having certain arguments thrown at me, that most people who do not accept evolution don't really understand the concept of evolution. Wouldn't bother me so much if they understood it, but unfortunately they don't.

As far as my personal beliefs go, I guess one could say I believe in Intelligent Design. However, ID is NOT science, it is religious belief. That doesn't make ID wrong (like I said, it's what I personally believe), but it doesn't belong in classrooms and it bothers the hell out of me that people actually think it belongs there...

[SweetIsTheTruth]

True study involves researching contradictory views and making an informed decision based on the material available.

True study involves paying attention to the evidence we have and dismissing ideas for which no evidence exists.


I've never seen an opposing view as a threat, but rather a learning or proving opportunity.

Opposing views which lack evidence have no standing whatsoever, because lacking evidence, they also lack any means of proof.


biggest problem with evolution is that it is taught as science fact instead of the science theory, which it is.

Evolution is both fact and theory. We can easily and repeatedly prove evolution occurs in any lab found in the world. Why do we have superstrains of certain diseases, like say, tuberculosis, which we can't treat? Oh, that's right, certain strains of TB have EVOLVED to become resistant to the drugs we currently have available. This is a scientific fact, which only serves to further prove the scientific theory of evolution. You can't point to any such proof for creationist views, since no such proof exists.



It is as much a theory as creation is,

You really need to learn the difference between scientific theory and scientific hypothesis. Evolution, just like gravity, is both fact and theory. Creationism is hypothesis. The reason it remains hypothesis is, no evidence has been found nor presented which would allow the creationist hypothesis to graduate to the level of scientific theory.



but teaching creation is discouraged (disallowed!) in the classrooms of America.

The teaching of the creationist hypothesis should be disallowed in a scientific classroom, since there is no evidence to support the hypothesis. It's the same reason the flat earth hypothesis isn't taught in science classrooms. However, creationist ideas could well be taught in a classrooom which discusses myths of the world. Good luck deciding which of these numerous myths will be discussed in such a class.



I'm currently living in Finland, and they do teach creation in the classroom, but only as a part of religion study,

It's good to know the Finns can easily distinguish the difference between the fact and theory of evolution, as compared to religious hypotheses.



and as far as I know, none of the science against evolution is produced

What science is against evolution? Given that the fact and theory of evolution is the very foundation for our understanding of biology, germ theory, paleontology, archaeology, geology, etc and so on, and given the fact the evidence supporting evolution is an overwhelming mountain, I am very curious to hear exactly what science is 'against' evolution.



It seems that people have many different definitions for evolution.


People might but scientists don't. There may be quibbles about the details of evolution, just as there are for genetics, but evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by the world's scientists, based strictly on the evidence.



In my opinion... evolution does away with the need for spirituality,


Then you might wish to explain how theistic evolution can exist if evolution 'does away with the need for spirituality.' Theistic evolution is the belief that evolution is the intelligently designed means by which Deity creates new species. That hardly sounds non-spiritual to me.



and many scientists use evolution for the proof that there is no God/dess.

Can you name one who use evolution in this manner? It sounds as ridiculous as claiming germ theory or gravity is used as proof there is no god.



I heard this statement last week on a radio interview from the author of the book "The God Part of the Brain" (http://www.godpart.com). His theory, which he states is based on evolution, is that the 'need for god' evolved in the human animal.

That could well be. There is much evidence which suggests people ditch religion in droves when all of their basic needs are met. One need look no further than modern Europe to see this does, in fact, happen.



If so, then all we do - morally and spiritually - is in vain.

Huh? So two atheist parents who make financial sacrifices to ensure their kids can go to college do so 'in vain?' That does not compute at all.



It is interesting to note that the original title of 'Origin of Species was actually 'Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', and that Jeffery Dahmer used evolution as his 'out' for the horrible crimes that he did.

It is just as interesting to note Christian parents who have been prosecuted for abusing their kids have claimed to be attempting to 'beat the devil' out of them, as the bible instructs. Such lunacy is hardly an indictment of Christianity as a whole.



"If there is no G!d to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?


Hmm, maybe love for one's spouse and kids and/or love for humanity as a whole? You appear to accept the logical fallacy that morals can not exist without religion. You might wish to consider the laws humans enact in our socieities are simply the morals which the majority in the society agree. Alternatively, if you have any proof that some Deity informed us the speed limit on the highway should be no greater than 70 miiles an hour to insure that other humans aren't harmed too badly in the event of accidents, by all means, please presernt such evidence.



I always believed the theory of evolution as truth." -- Jeffrey Dahmer

So if Hitler believed in the theory of gravity, are you saying the rest of the world should NOT believe in gravity?



I see the 'evidence' of evolution to be extremely flawed, and science is unable to justify the claims.

Then you obviously are not acquainted at all with the overwhelming mountain of evidence which proves evolution to be fact. Please explain how certain diseases are resistant to modern drugs without evolution.



Most notably, the lack of a missing link

What missing link do you reference here? There are missing links all throughout the fossil record.



The fact is, older and older fossil of fully humans are found.

Yet we don't find human fossils in geologic layers containing trilobytes, simply because humans had not yet appearred on the planet at the time the trilobites existed.



Modern man just sort of 'appears' in the fossil record.

Just like every other creature 'appears' in the fossil record, which proves everything was not created at once, but instead evolved, just like drug-resistant strains of diseases evolve.



It is unfortunate that most of the anti-evolution material has to come from the Christian sector;

What's even more unfortunate is that some people are foolish enough to fall for the wholly fallacious idea that attacking evolution will somehow prove creationism. If every scientist threw evolution out the window tomorrow, creationism would still be mere hypothesis, since there is no evidence WHATSOEVER to support creationism.

We might wish to note here, Darwin's work was published in the early 1800s. This means creationists have had well over 200 years to provide scientific evidence to the scientific establishment, by publishing studies in support of the creationist hypothesis, but have failed to do so. Instead of offering even one shred of evidence to support the creationist hypothesis, they still foolishly and ignorantly believe that attacking evolution will somehow magically transform creationism from hypothesis into scientific theory. It's sad really to see people repeatedly make fools of themselves in this manner.



although, there are some scientists that do use a scientific approach to creation. Such studies as 'The First Eve' tend to give trouble to the theory of evolution.

And what trouble would that be? Explain how "The First Eve' offers proof of creationism, yet also provides a firm foundation for other sciences such as biology, germ theory, paleontology, archaeology, geology, etc and so on. Oh nevermind, you can't provide such evidence since no such evidence exists.



Humans beget humans, dogs beget dogs, monkeys beget monkeys, and horses beget horses....

Yet we can prove evolution easily in any lab, by allowing one species to evolve into another, with the new species being wholly incapable of reproducing with the original species from which it evolved. Creationism can't explain this but evolution can.



It is only when an outside force interrupts the natural process that something other is produced.

And that outside force is called the environment, which naturally selects the species most fit to survive.



Could it be the human 'creation' is the result of someone/thing outside (the god/desses) interrupting the natural process of things?


Oh why not? An invisible pink elephant is causing it, rather than the environment acting on the species. Or maybe Santa is 'interrupting the natural process of things?' People like you don't realize the full extent of what you are suggesting. Once you claim some 'designer' or 'creator' is behind these things, then ANYTHING can be postulated as the prime cause, whether it be unicorns or the Keebler elves.



It’s possible that there may be more to the work being done in labs today - such as DNA study and cloning - and our creation than we may want to admit. But perhaps this is another subject.

It's definitely the same subject. Super strains of TB have EVOLVED resistant to our drugs. Creationism can't explain that but evolution explains it EVERY SINGLE TIME!



If there is further interest... I will draw up a list of the challenges that I have with the theory of evolution, and the science used to support the creation theory.

You might first wish to learn the difference between a scientific theory like evolution and a hypothesis like creationism.

[SweetIsTheTruth]

The point that I was trying to make is that scientist uses evolution (man from a lower form or animal) to prove the non-existence of G!d.

Science doesn't concern itself with God or any other supernatural beings, since science concerns itself with observable phenomena.



This is really the central core of the scientific agenda.

You really need to gain an understanding of science and what it is for in order to clear up your own confusion here.



Notice how the scientists state that creationism is religious and evolution science, and that the two can not co-exist:

Creationism is religious, as the the court decision in the Dover, PA school board case reiterated. The job of our government is not to propagate any one theology over another. The science classroom therefore can not be used to promote religion. If such were allowed, by what process would one choose which of the thousands of creation myths could be taught as 'science?'

[SweetIsTheTruth]

These footprints sparked an important debate among evolutionists. That was because for them to accept that these were human footprints would mean that the imaginary progression they had drawn up from ape to man could no longer be maintained.

Your source blew all credibility with the section above in bold text. Evolution does not now, nor has it ever stated that man evolved from apes. Only one truly ignorant of evolution would ever claim such.



However, at this point dogmatic evolutionist logic once again showed its face.

So those who accept the fact of evolution are 'dogmatic,' while an author who lies about what evolution states in claiming it teaches man evolved from apes, is NOT dogmatic? That's rich.

[SweetIsTheTruth]

I do believe in a creation derived from a "higher being" or what-not. However I also believe in evolution.

You believe in theistic evolution.

[SweetIsTheTruth]

If it was evolution - there must have been a starting point from which the first thing evolved from - so what did that come from?.

Google for 'abiogensis.'

[SweetIsTheTruth]

As of the moment, I don't personally feel as though there is enough evidence to call evolution a law/fact.

Familiarize yourself with the evidence as it exists NOW and that will change.



If science eventually proves me wrong, I may have to change the way I look at things.

The science already has proven you wrong. All you need to do is look at the evidence to see this.



From what I understand, I haven't seen any distinctive or conclusive fossil records as to prove evolution.

The fossil record is not the only evidence. Explain why certain strains of tuberculosis are resistant to our drugs. You can't explain it without evolution.



While I most definately believe in micro-evolution, macro-evolution (imo) hasn't been proven.

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution, other than the time period required for them to occur.



If there are fossil records showing a change from one type of animal/fish/plant/human/whatever to another, who is to say that the two different "species" could not mate?

You don't need the fossil record to see this. We can easily and repeatedly reproduce this with fruit flies in any lab in the world. They evolve into a wholly new species which can not reproduce with the original species.



After all, one species cannot mate with the other.

And the short life span and reproduction of the fruit fly proves the newly evolved species can' reproduce with the original species.



Not to be picky/a Devil's Advocate, but isn't the definition of evolution include "unguided"?

Nope. Evolution is guided by the environment, which dictates which species is most fit to survive.

[SweetIsTheTruth]

The problem I see with the current debate is that one particular religious group is trying to push their views into a general school enviornment and while they claim its not religiously bias, it has alot of religious overtones.

That has been nipped in the bud by the Dover, PA school board case, which ruled intelligent design is religiously based, and therefore can not be taught in a science class. You really should read the court decision. The judge notes how the creationists repeatedly lied to the court in claiming intelligent design had no religious basis. It was noted on page 37 of the court decision, if I remember correctly.

[omar]

It was a created evolution by the self creator. Some species can mate with others. It takes a donkey & a horse to make a mule.

[Branwen_Yr_Hardd]

Evolution with some guidance

[Stormbeard]

Evilution

[Doodlebug]

I personally believe that the God and Goddess created the Universe using evolution and the big bang.

[thought_on_a_wind]

okies, this might not be technically the right place for this thread, but im desperate to get some life going in here, and it ll even help with my studies in religion assignment! :)

so, what are your views on creation versus evolution? or do you sit on the fence ?

take care and brightest blessings,
bans. :bubbles:

NOTE: The opinions mentioned here within are known to the State of California to contain words that might contain cancer to some. It is not the intent of the smither of said words to cause said cancer or step on toes so to speak... Just an opinion

Ehhh... I more know it's real than think it is (not too big on creationist assertions like their last failed attempt [intelligent design])... but my Dad has an interesting way of melding the two together, monkey men and all (he's a Christian). Time to a God would be completely different than time is to a man given the law of relativity. Therefore, what would seem like seven days to an omnipotent being would be invariably a tremendous amount of time to we the so small. Since the earth would have the time to go through all the stages who is to say that evolution is not a process mandated by a higher power from monkey to man and monkey-man? He brings up that the bible doesn't actually mention the time-period for how long it took to all go down.

Come to think of it, wasn't Darwin also of that religious persuasion?
I just think that the biggest problem Creationists have with Evolution is that they don't want to accept that we are the offspring of shrews and monkeys. Or that we're animal just like everything else.

[thought_on_a_wind]

That has been nipped in the bud by the Dover, PA school board case, which ruled intelligent design is religiously based, and therefore can not be taught in a science class. You really should read the court decision. The judge notes how the creationists repeatedly lied to the court in claiming intelligent design had no religious basis. It was noted on page 37 of the court decision, if I remember correctly.

hee hee hee, you know I read that in a book I have "defunct science" or something like that by this pissed of Scot. He quoted Pat Robertson as saying on the 700 club something to the effect of "God saw that, and if a natural disaster were to come upon that town, God would not be there because that whole town has rebuked his name. And the judges... blah blah blah (can't remember the rest as it does funny things to my palate)"

Didn't the judge say something to the effect that it was completely un-constitutional to assert that belief on impressionable children?

Either way, I know that with that judgement, Intelligent Design was pretty much shredded to bits

[David19]

NOTE: The opinions mentioned here within are known to the State of California to contain words that might contain cancer to some. It is not the intent of the smither of said words to cause said cancer or step on toes so to speak... Just an opinion

Ehhh... I more know it's real than think it is (not too big on creationist assertions like their last failed attempt [intelligent design])... but my Dad has an interesting way of melding the two together, monkey men and all (he's a Christian). Time to a God would be completely different than time is to a man given the law of relativity. Therefore, what would seem like seven days to an omnipotent being would be invariably a tremendous amount of time to we the so small. Since the earth would have the time to go through all the stages who is to say that evolution is not a process mandated by a higher power from monkey to man and monkey-man? He brings up that the bible doesn't actually mention the time-period for how long it took to all go down.

Come to think of it, wasn't Darwin also of that religious persuasion?
I just think that the biggest problem Creationists have with Evolution is that they don't want to accept that we are the offspring of shrews and monkeys. Or that we're animal just like everything else.

I think that makes sense, I don't know if any divinity helped humans evolve, but I don't think it'd be literally "7 days". I think in Islam, the belief is that it may only have been 7 days to Allah, but billions of years in human time, and that time moves differently for Allah than for humans, I think it's something like that.

[thought_on_a_wind]

I think that makes sense, I don't know if any divinity helped humans evolve, but I don't think it'd be literally "7 days". I think in Islam, the belief is that it may only have been 7 days to Allah, but billions of years in human time, and that time moves differently for Allah than for humans, I think it's something like that.

Yeah, I don't much believe in the divinity creation thing either, just had to give props to my Dad for having an open mind on the matter... not too much a fan of the Big Bang theory either come to think of it... *scratches head* to tell you the truth, I'm not sure that's a subject humans are ready for (universal creation).

As for the whole Islam thing, I believe I read that somewhere too can't think of it 'cause my brain is melted from doing taxes :falloffch

[KiNoRonin]

Konnichi Wa to All:

I Voted for Creation All The Way.

But in that Past Few Thousand Years, we Humanity has done our own Creations of Life by our Selective Breeding and more Poigantly with our Genetically Modifications of Life (ie: Dolly The Sheep).

So I think that it was due to our own Creations of Life that the Creationists originally got there Idea that since We have managed to Create some types of Lifeforms, that All Life must have gotten Created by some other Supreme Being.

But as Charles Darwin observed, it was all down to Evolution that All Life came about including Us.

KNR - 3X3

[Infinite Grey]

Evolution all the way!

Oh, to the people that believe the non-theist version of evolution is random really do not understand the theory. Evolution, or more appropriately Natural Selection is anything but random. The mutations are the energy propelling evolution yes, but it is natural selection that allows the progression of a species; the best suited to a circumstance, the inferior specimens are ruthlessly removed from the equation.

There is no purpose behind it, no guiding intelligent force; but that doesn't mean it is random.

[DoktorSick]

There is evidence to support evolution and there are application of evolution that lead to the discovers varies fields of science such as genetics for one.
On the other head there is creationism which has no evidence to support and there are no application of creationism that lead to new discoveries.
With creationism you get one answer. Your god of choice did and that's it.You don't get an explaination or reason and depending your particular faith .You are not allowed to even ask
why or how it all happen.
It's basically like this you can take the time understand science and how it works and the benefits of it or hold on to your lucky charm and say magic words and live in the dark ages
and hope the boogie doesn't get you.

[Gwyddyon]

Evolution all the way. In fact, most of my post-secondary education was built on it, being an anthropologist by training (although an archaeologist in specialization, and yes, there is a difference!).

Reading over some of the responses here, and thinking back to all the times I've debated this issue with (typically) Christians, something just struck me. The university setting is widely known to be fairly non-religious - it's famously that point in life when kids-turned-adults are exploring newfound freedom from old restraints and all that. But if I do a mental tally of the people I went to classes with, organized anthropological conferences with, measured Neanderthal skulls and Paleolithic spearheads with, neither the idea of a godless university system nor that of religious belief and evolution being opposing forces (and specifically, of evolutionary scientists being anti-religion) tracks. I'm a hedgewitch. There's a solitary eclectic somethingorother. Another is a Wiccan. Another is a kind of Italian hedgewitch/strega/Bronze Age reconstructionist member of OBOD as far as I can tell. Another is Asatru. Then there are the handful of Lutherans, a lapsed Catholic, a Quaker, a Jew, and a few non-denominational Christians. In fact, out of all the people I've worked extensively with during the last five years within my age group (so, essentially, not counting my profs and advisors, who are a mix of atheists, Jews, pagans, and Christians), I can only think of three atheists out of perhaps twenty individuals.

If that doesn't poke a hole or two in the idea of the skeptical atheist scientist out to ruin everyone's creation stories, I don't know what can.:lol:

[Earthwalker]

Gah... why isn't there a 'both' option! These ideas are NOT mutually exclusive. >.<

[RoseKitten]

With creationism you get one answer. Your god of choice did and that's it.You don't get an explaination or reason and depending your particular faith .You are not allowed to even ask
why or how it all happen.
It's basically like this you can take the time understand science and how it works and the benefits of it or hold on to your lucky charm and say magic words and live in the dark ages
and hope the boogie doesn't get you.

There's not an option for me, so I'll just base off this since it annoyed me.

Evolution is real. Science has proven it. What it doesn't prove is how it all "started." The single-cell theory is just that, a theory, as there is no real way to prove how it all got started.

It also seems kinda rude to say that anyone who believes a deity did it is just speaking magic words. Certainly, you are allowed to believe what you want, but don't put down others in the process. You know no more than the rest of us what happened when everything started, so drop the "my science makes me teh holier" attitude, please? Why is it that we've come to the attitude of "if you don't believe science only for creation, you = teh stoopids!"?

[thought_on_a_wind]

Evolution is real. Science has proven it. What it doesn't prove is how it all "started." The single-cell theory is just that, a theory, as there is no real way to prove how it all got started.

Technically there is a way to prove it... it'd just suck real bad for a human volunteer, and require an energy source the likes we haven't harnessed yet (maybe matter-antimatter reaction or beyond???) not to mention an engineering feat that would be close to divine given our current understanding of travel (the whole we can hardly make it to our moon let alone anything else). Also, we've got the physical limits the body can take, and the question of how we could communicate with the test "monkey". I speak of time travel, and how the faster you go the slower time runs and if you go faster than the speed of light you'd jump back in time. (correct me if I'm wrong please, I dunno if this is part of Hawkings theory that got scrapped- if it is, I'm sure it's his theorem of how particles on the event horizon tend to jump back in time in a continual loop)...

Even if we do not specifically have a theory of time travel, were we to achieve it, how would someone return??? I'd hate to see some bored person stick a thumb in the primordial ooze...

[RoseKitten]

Technically there is a way to prove it... it'd just suck real bad for a human volunteer, and require an energy source the likes we haven't harnessed yet (maybe matter-antimatter reaction or beyond???) not to mention an engineering feat that would be close to divine given our current understanding of travel (the whole we can hardly make it to our moon let alone anything else). Also, we've got the physical limits the body can take, and the question of how we could communicate with the test "monkey". I speak of time travel, and how the faster you go the slower time runs and if you go faster than the speed of light you'd jump back in time. (correct me if I'm wrong please, I dunno if this is part of Hawkings theory that got scrapped- if it is, I'm sure it's his theorem of how particles on the event horizon tend to jump back in time in a continual loop)...

Even if we do not specifically have a theory of time travel, were we to achieve it, how would someone return??? I'd hate to see some bored person stick a thumb in the primordial ooze...

Fallacy: It's not "technically" if we don't have that technology. It's still just speculation, theory, and assumption.

[Infinite Grey]

Ummm, just pointing out that this thread should be Creation vs Abiogenesis if it one is referring to the formation of life; Evolution is the process that organism go through after its formation.

[RoseKitten]

Ummm, just pointing out that this thread should be Creation vs Abiogenesis if it one is referring to the formation of life; Evolution is the process that organism go through after its formation.

I wanted to look up Abiogenesis before commenting, and it says that the theory is discredited (I assume by science, but since I didn't look up more than a def inion, it's hard to say. At any rate, I agree. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. :)

[Gwyddyon]

I wanted to look up Abiogenesis before commenting, and it says that the theory is discredited (I assume by science, but since I didn't look up more than a def inion, it's hard to say. At any rate, I agree. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. :)

Uhhh...where exactly did you "look up" Abiogenesis? Since there's not really a single specific theory called Abiogenesis, I'm not really sure how "the theory is discredited". And since most current scientific discussions of the origins of life on earth still talk about abiogenesis (the scientific alternative being an extraterrestrial origin), it's far from "discredited" by science.

[Infinite Grey]

I wanted to look up Abiogenesis before commenting, and it says that the theory is discredited (I assume by science, but since I didn't look up more than a def inion, it's hard to say. At any rate, I agree. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. :)


Ummmm Abiogenesis discredited? How could the theory of Abiogenesis be discredited when it isn't even a theory, but hypotheses? Secularist usually use it as blanket term concerning hypotheses involving the formation of life; not the Abiogenesis hypothesis exclusively. (The two other main replacement hypothesis are; Panspermia [which doesn't answer the question of where life comes from] and the Clay Hypothesis). The Abiogenesis Hypothesis is superior to the Creationist Hypothesis in that it is a supposition based on observable chemical and biological phenomenon, where as the Creationist Hypothesis is a supposition based on Mythology impossed onto observable chemical and biological phenomenon.

[RoseKitten]

Ummmm Abiogenesis discredited? How could the theory of Abiogenesis be discredited when it isn't even a theory, but hypotheses? Secularist usually use it as blanket term concerning hypotheses involving the formation of life; not the Abiogenesis hypothesis exclusively. (The two other main replacement hypothesis are; Panspermia [which doesn't answer the question of where life comes from] and the Clay Hypothesis). The Abiogenesis Hypothesis is superior to the Creationist Hypothesis in that it is a supposition based on observable chemical and biological phenomenon, where as the Creationist Hypothesis is a supposition based on Mythology impossed onto observable chemical and biological phenomenon.

I don't know, I just said I looked it up (www.dictionary.com) and that I didn't know for sure as I didn't do research on it (at least I'll admit it when I don't actually know for sure). It just amused me that in the dictionary definition, it says it's discredited.

[Infinite Grey]

I don't know, I just said I looked it up (www.dictionary.com) and that I didn't know for sure as I didn't do research on it (at least I'll admit it when I don't actually know for sure). It just amused me that in the dictionary definition, it says it's discredited.

Mmmmm considering it hasn't really made it to "theory" makes me wonder about the editors of Dictionary.com .

Side note, the other listed definition are cited as saying:



American Heritage Dictionary
n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

Wordnet
noun
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary
noun
the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter called also spontaneous generation


Word to the why, use www.answers.com (http://www.answers.com/) it cites most of the same sources as dictionary.com and more.