0
   

Creation or Evolution ?

 
 
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 05:23 am
I just thought I'd do a poll to see the acceptance of Creation or Evolution among Amateur Philosophers( i.e YOU).

I'll start you off, yes I acknowledge the fact that species(including us) have changed(physically,mentally etc ) and are still changing, but give little care as to the specifics.

What about you?

Thanks
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,003 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 05:59 am
@ikurwa89,
I'm not an amateur philosopher, but evolution is the way to go.

Why don't you care about the specifics? Are you uninterested in the subject?
ikurwa89
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 08:00 pm
@rosborne979,
Yes, I'm a deeply devout "evolutionists" lol, but you know what I mean...

I'm baffled on how life changes here on earth, and yes I do care about specifics only when it comes to a general agreement about certai topics.

For example, on evolution... before I began thinking about evolution.. I needed to be certain that species do infact change and are not immutable. Then I can focus on say human evolution (specifics) etc.. But because I'm after a general poll, I tried to make it consice by either species do change or do not.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jun, 2012 04:32 am
Both evolution and creation are terms we have invented and use to describe what we perceive. One caters to the emotional needs of understanding, the other to intellectual need of understanding. It is likely that neither are "true". Time will tell, I guess...
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jun, 2012 05:51 am
@Cyracuz,
Evolution happened and is happening. In as much as the human mind is capable of knowing anything, we know this. The only escape from that reality is the philosophical dust bin of "we can't know anything". And that's a waste of time (IMO).
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jun, 2012 06:11 am
@rosborne979,
Well, consider that almost everything we knew about the world 500 years ago is wrong, it is likely that in another 500 years everything we know today will be inaccurate. Evolution is a theory that works, but it is not impossible that new information may present itself to us in the future that may make evolution theory obsolete.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jun, 2012 12:01 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Well, consider that almost everything we knew about the world 500 years ago is wrong, it is likely that in another 500 years everything we know today will be inaccurate.
I hear that a lot, but it's not a valid argument. Due to the prevalence of the scientific method in modern civilization, what we "know" today is qualitatively different from what we "knew" years ago. Five hundred years ago people didn't "know" the earth was flat, they just assumed it was flat. Today we KNOW the shape of the earth. That's not going to change. Nor is the fact that the Earth orbits the sun, or that biological evolution happened.
Cyracuz wrote:
Evolution is a theory that works, but it is not impossible that new information may present itself to us in the future that may make evolution theory obsolete.
Nothing is "impossible" in a philosophical sense. But many things are so improbable that they don't warrant consideration in a realistic sense. The basic fact of biological evolution is one of those things.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jun, 2012 03:29 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Five hundred years ago people didn't "know" the earth was flat, they just assumed it was flat.


That is true. But our modern knowledge, obtained via the scientific method, also rests on assumptions. One such assumption is that consciousness happened as "a fluke of nature"; that is somehow happened at some point in evolution, and had not existed prior to that point. This assumption is fundamental to our materialistic understanding of reality, and were it to be proven false, many things we know today would just be wrong, even though the facts we now use to support such knowledge may still be valid. We might just perceive them in a different context, but that can change a lot.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2014 08:44 am
@ikurwa89,
Creation, of course.

The theory of evolution started with the idea that species "evolve". The meaning of this word "evolution" in those years was "developing, unfolding, changing from worst, simple and lower into better, more complex and higher.

The theory of evolution hold these ideas centuries after Darwin, who also stated that "...natural selection acts SOLELY by accumulating slight, succesive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification, it can act ONLY by very short and slow steps." (emphasis mine).

In the 70's, evolutionists found out that these ideas were completely against reality, and the "Neo-Darwinian" theory was invented. The new theory evolution changed 99% of the old one, and only the title and some key terms were saved. The Neo-Darwinian theory accepted that species can degenerate and that can have sudden noticeable changes, and this part was against Darwin -who speculated SOLELY favourable and ONLY short slow steps-.

Still, the theory was a contradiction to reality, the argument against the meaning of the word "evolution" in the title of the theory was not only irrelevant but a nonsense. The reason was that "evolution " still means unfolding, changing from worst to better, etc...

Evolutionists performed another change, and they -with absolute right- made the word "evolution" a technical term to be used solely in Biology. This technical term "evolution" will simply mean "change". So, now evolutionists enjoy the luxury to say that their theory finally can go in accord to reality, by having the technical term "evolution" used in its title as simply "change".

But, evolutionists never win... it happens that the verb "evolve" still having the original meaning. You can't change the meaning of the verb "evolve" because "evolve" means a change with a fixed arrow, that is unfolding, from worst to better, etc. You just can't say that when a city changed cell phones by the old telegraph, that this city has "evolved" its communication system, right?

The verb "evolve" still is the same and can't be changed. So, when evolutionists say that a species lost some characteristics, that this species has "evolved", such is JARGON. The species might have passed through a step in "evolution" (the tecnical word) but you can't say that this species have "evolved" because technical words cannot be used as verbs.

Here is an example. Lets use the word "Penguin" as a technical word to define the birth of a volcano. After earthquakes and changes in the area, you can't by any means, say that the volcano "penguined" when you saw its birth and coming up from ground spreading lava everywhere.

It is accepted without arguments, that people who use JARGON are people who want to deceive others. Evolutionists use JARGON, and this is enough evidence that whatever they say is a lie.

On the other hand, Creation is 100% accurate. The most popular book about creation is the Bible, and the bible states that species, and even planet earth are decaying. And this argument goes 100% in accord with reality.

By observation, the older stars produced and recycled heavy elements, from here, the new stars DO NOT PRODUCE but solely recycle heavy elements and produce heavy metals. From here, planets DO NOT PRODUCE NEITHER RECYCLE heavy elements and heavy metals, but recycle metals.

The arrow of the entire universe is decay, and species can't go against the continued decaying of the elements, so the Bible is correct, by consequence, Creation rules.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2014 12:18 pm
@carloslebaron,
carloslebaron wrote:
Creation, of course.

You chose creation because of a logomachy?

carloslebaron wrote:
The verb "evolve" still is the same and can't be changed. So, when evolutionists say that a species lost some characteristics, that this species has "evolved", such is JARGON. The species might have passed through a step in "evolution" (the tecnical word) but you can't say that this species have "evolved" because technical words cannot be used as verbs.


There are technical words that are verbs. Where do you get the idea that technical words cannot be used as verbs? One word is the noun "evolution," another word is "evolve," which is a verb. They are two different words.

carloslebaron wrote:
Here is an example. Lets use the word "Penguin" as a technical word to define the birth of a volcano. After earthquakes and changes in the area, you can't by any means, say that the volcano "penguined" when you saw its birth and coming up from ground spreading lava everywhere.


Who's to say these words cannot be used in this manner if it's agreed that "penguin" defines the birth of a volcano, and "penguined" defines the action of bearing a volcano?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2014 08:58 am
@ikurwa89,
Creation or evolution...

Most likely neither. After all, both are concepts we invented after studying the world from OUR perspective, which is rather limited, to put it mildly.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution vs. Creation - Discussion by KSeniorProject10
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
C'mon fellas - Question by dalehileman
Evolutionry/religious nonsense - Question by dalehileman
In religion... - Question by dalehileman
Why are things the way they are.... - Question by dalehileman
Consolidation of some writings of my experiences. - Discussion by Alan McDougall
Who do you I say I am? - Question by Alan McDougall
theory of creation taken from ancient texts - Discussion by saint martin
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Creation or Evolution ?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 03:00:33