Evolution v’s Creation.

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Things obviously evolve otherwise nothing would ever progress, however you are more likely referring to the existence of humans i.e. where did humans come from, did they evolve or were they created.

Well we obviously do evolve, for the same reason as given above. Was there a time when we suddenly "popped" into existence due to creation? It's purely a matter of belief. I don't believe we did, in the sense that there was a creator and we were created in a sentient form as we are now. However, scientifically, there must have been some point in time at which, assuming evolution is the creator, the chemistry needed to create human life forms at their most basic level, happened.

So the question then becomes... what caused those initial chemical events to happen, chance meeting or outside influence?

We could go on... and I'm sure we will. 😀

Love and Reiki Hugs

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Hi all

We have undoubtedly all evolved by mutation- although due to the timescales involved, it is difficult for most people to conceive. All living things are made of the same stuff - water and organic molecules, which is evidence enough to suggest we all have a common ancestor. For example Earth originated 4.6 billion years ago, and life shortly after at 4.0 billion years. Primitive life nonetheless, but our universe (not just Earth) is full of organic molecules, which have been proven in some very famous experiments, to reactand form amino acids, nucleic acids and lipids - the precursors for living cells! It is thought life originated through chemical evolution - that is, from non living material such as thatdescribed above. A second theoryis the belief thatlife hitched a ride on the back of a comet or meteorite which is also possible, and is one of the most fiercely researched areas for obvious reasons! What I find amazing is the fact that the cells in our body, are completely regenerated over a 10 year period. That means the person you were 10 years ago, is not the person you are today, and part of you has been recycled in to the earth systems! This I believe gives weight to the fact that all living things are connected - we are trees, jaguars, pelicans, even perhaps dinosaurs (now there's something to think about)! Hope this has been enlightening! xxx

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Creation - no evidence apart from a story.
Evolution - the evidence is all around you, in fossils and living forms and embryology. I don't thing there is anything special about humans - all of our characteristics can be seen in animals. Some of the ones we think make us distinctive arejust more developed in us.

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Hi Carlov,

Why only two choices????

From a purely material perspective, obviously there is evolution.

But what about Intelligent Design?

Or what about the fourth possibility that very few have considered? Here's a discussion about it, from

[url] Creation controversy: taking the questions deeper[/url]

and here's just one remark from one of the participants, Dr. Laurance Doyle, a principal investigator studying extrasolar planets for the SETI Institute

The math isn’t in the chalk. You can see math expressed, in a way, by looking at chalk correctly written on the blackboard, but the math is never in the chalk. And arguing over whether the math got in the chalk a long time ago by accident, or much later by design, starts with the incorrect assumption about what math really is; it is not chalk.

'Nuf said too!

Judy

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Hi bluemagpie,

ORIGINAL: bluemagpie

We have undoubtedly all evolved by mutation-

I'd just like to say that you sound like me when I was younger. :DAs the years pass by I find "undoubtedly" a word less and less useable, as IMHO so many scientific hypotheses seem to prove quite flawed and incorrect ....

V 😉

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Hi Pricipled
Only two choices to encourage people to think about what they believe I suppose.

Surely Intelligent design is an argument for creation not another choice?

How about; evolution is a function of intelligent design?

I consider the notion in very much the same light as Psychic phenomena. You may have guessed I am empiric by nature; neither Christian Science (something of a misnomer to my mind,) nor spiritualist, can (or will not) provide evidence to prove. Nevertheless, plenty of people are aware of instances of a “supernatural” quality that defy these criteria. Indeed, I have had some experiences myself.

Resistance to our materialistic existence heightens the need for a spiritual release in whatever structure appeals to our vanity to place form into our reason.

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Judy,

I'll have a read of that link when I get a few moments (I've started, but yet to finish! looks interesting though). In the meantime...

ORIGINAL: Principled
and here's just one remark from one of the participants, Dr. Laurance Doyle, a principal investigator studying extrasolar planets for the SETI Institute

The math isn't in the chalk. You can see math expressed, in a way, by looking at chalk correctly written on the blackboard, but the math is never in the chalk. And arguing over whether the math got in the chalk a long time ago by accident, or much later by design, starts with the incorrect assumption about what math really is; it is not chalk.

I don't see how this relates to evolution or creation? It's just like saying that the "I" is not the physical body (which, incidentally, is what tonights Buddhist workshop is going to be about). It doesn't proove creation or evolution. Abstract statements are great for discussion ;), but provide no proof.

Love and Reiki Hugs

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Hi Giles,

To me, what Doyle is saying there is that looking at the matter to find out how life started is like trying to find the math in the chalk. Of course it doesn't prove creation or evolution Giles - no one can at the present moment because no one has the full picture! 😉 I just put that in because this is a philosophical discussion and it hopefully makes us think and expand our concepts and ideas.

Judy

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Hi Carlov,

I think it's obvious that the intelligent design movement is an effort of spiritual-thinking scientists to find a middle way between the two. But then, I also think there's something higher and deeper than all of it. It's not a question of resisting our materialistic existence, it's a question of seeing the spiritual substance behind it. I often liken it to those Magic Eye pictures. On the surface is a puzzling pattern, but if you focus beyond the surface, the true image appears, but it's all the same piece of paper. You know, every chair in the world could be destroyed, but the idea of a chair behind the material evidence is eternal - that's a crude way of putting it.

Science and the divine have got to come together and they will one day and then we will have the answers.

A few years ago, there was a wonderful video webcast with Dr Doyle of the SETI Institute who I have given a link to in the post above and thankfully (as it's no longer on line) I copied some of it. With his learning and understanding, I just love the logical way he sees things:

by Dr Laurance Doyle on Science and the Sacred: Separate or Synonymous? from a video webcast

"You can be the world's expert, but if the data does not back it up, if you cannot demonstrate the truth of it - you have no final authority. The final authority in science is what the universe has to say about the subject.

I think that's the difference between dogma and belief. A scientist at no point encounters the dogma, or shouldn't (accept the dogmatic response) "I'm sorry, that's just the mystery. You're going to have to accept that on blind belief." That is anathema to science. The scientific process is, question, question, question, and only truth will survive.

"Where science runs into a conflict with the sacred is in not accepting a limited version of the Source – a limited version of Mind. You can’t convince a scientist who works with googleplexes and galaxies and accelerating universes, much less quantum probabilities, that God is a tribal god that will fight. In the scientific community, a colleague of mine said, "You’re not trying to mix religion and science, are you?" I said, "Oh, no, no, no. I’m trying to make religion scientific."….

"The philosophy I have of science is that you’re doing science when you take the evidence of intelligence above the evidence of the senses. The earth used to be thought to be flat. Well, it took evidence of intelligence to say it was round, because the senses say it’s flat."..

But you know Carlov, all the evidence of the senses for millions of years saying that the earth was flat never made it so. And when the truth was discovered, nothing changed (except people's perceptions and understanding).

Your remark about being empirical by nature reminded me of an interesting interview with a former biologist, Dr Robert Ennemoser, who said "As an empirical thinker, I had to explore Christian Science before I could judge it."

It was posted in 2002 and I had to smile when I saw the old look HP which I used to love so much (I really disliked the present softer colours when it all changed) and now it looks so brash and old fashioned! Ah well. Do have a read - it's not "religious" at all.

The Search for Better Healing
An Empirical Approach

Judy

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Hows it going Judy

The Flat Earth argument is a misrepresentation that has developed in historical writing C19th century and is still clinging on in popular belief to this day.

[link= http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/educational_issues/bcs105.html ] http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/educational_issues/bcs105.html [/link]

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

[link= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth ] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth [/link]

I have no desire to judge Christian Science. It is what it remains. My opinions are unlikely to have any effect on this leviathan.

Everyone has a unique truth of their own. Seldom do they fit together with others.
All that we can do is accept them.

Healing methods from whatever philosophy you care to mention are a wonderful gift. (I do not deny their validity.) Do you not think that if these stood up to, dare I say it, scientific scrutiny that they would not be readily accepted by the medical profession regardless of any spiritual implication?
I know what you mean. I sense it too but can Iquantify it?

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

ORIGINAL: Carlov
How about; evolution is a function of intelligent design?

This is exactly my belief Carlov, a process err.. fuelled by desire.🙂

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Hi again Carlov,

Flat earth - groan groan. I use it because it's something everyone can relate to. Our senses fool us all the time. If we took the evidence of the senses, we would believe that the earth was still while the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It's taking the evidence of intelligence above the evidence of the senses.

How about this then:

The Universe of Aristotle and Ptolemy

If you tried to make calculations from either of those models, they would be incorrect, because the premise is incorrect. Yet, all the wrong calculations in the universe, all the wrong models can't change what actually is. We have obviously come a long long way since those days, but, apart from mathematics, I have a feeling that "science" is not yet an accurate science because it changes all the time, with new discoveries.

So, as far as this thread goes, my understanding is most probably evolution from a material perspective, (though am I right in thinking that the vital link between man and apes has yet to be found?) but there is much more to the beginnings of life than that!

In fact, I'm just popping back here to ask when did Truth begin? When did Love begin? And that is synonymous with when did Life begin? Material science can't answer those sort of questions.

'Leviathan' Carlov? Hardly 😀 You're not getting confused with a similar-sounding organisation with celebrity members are you?

Judy

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

I guess I really showed my ignorance there. I will gladly put it down to the lateness of the hour and I hope I ruffled no feathers. Poor choice of words and I did actually think there were more. No confusion with L.Ron’s crowd. (Good author BTW)

Who was it who said,”never let the facts interfere with an argument?”:D


Never been able to see the hidden image in any of those magic eye pictures so the analogy is somewhat lost on me.

Progressive scientists freely admit the transitory nature of their fields.



For the “missing link:”

[link= http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s877478.htm ] http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s877478.htm [/link]

You will note the dismissal of Neanderthal’s from the species Homo sapiens. Ironically a leap of faith is still required to accept this as the truth of origin of species, though the evidence and therefore the hypothesis is strong enough for many.

[link= http://atheism.about.com/b/a/196538.htm ] http://atheism.about.com/b/a/196538.htm [/link]
This makes for a better analogy on the subject.

Nicely put about Love and Truth. But I would add that it is reasonable to assume they did not come about before cognitive thought.

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

So where did cognitive thought come from and when did intelligence begin??????? [sm=dance.gif]

Judy

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

I wish I knew is the short answer.

To respond one must firstly define intelligence: But what you ask is formy definition, and as such will be inconclusive becauseasupreme designer's measure of cognitive thought would be as unimaginableto us as ours might be to a single celled organism, I imagine.

I am workingtowardrationalizingmy beliefs. As soon as I have a presentable explanation, well.... Iwill post it.
It is far from easy; It would seem that I am a very confused individual.

Break me in two and you will find agnostic running through the centre.

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

ORIGINAL: Principled
So where did cognitive thought come from and when did intelligence begin??????? [sm=dance.gif]

Tell you what Judy, you define what you mean by "cognitive thought" and "intelligence" and then we may be able to give you an answer.

😉

Love and Reiki Hugs

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

I personally don't understand the entire argument of evolution vs creation. People say that if one believes in evolution, then they are denying the existance of God because God "created everything". I think both of these things can work together, for example, God created everything and then created the mechanisms of evolution to keep things "running".

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

The posts of Seaway, Roger and others are similar to my own views. I don't believe the universe is an accidental creation, I don't believe that life "happened" to evolve from matter. Creation to me wouldn't work by magic but could utilise evolution .... which however doesn't rule out some means of species suddenly appearing, in theory.

Oh, and I don't believe consciousness even exists in matter at the level we know it. (The brain is a kind of radio to send impressions to the real non-physical "I" and to receive orders for mechanical movement. No neuropsychologist has found the "person" or "I" part of us in the brain. It's more mechanical than that.

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Break me in two and you will find agnostic running through the centre.

Is Agnostic any relation to Road Runner

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Didn't have time to reply this morning.

ORIGINAL: Energylz

Tell you what Judy, you define what you mean by "cognitive thought" and "intelligence" and then we may be able to give you an answer.

[sm=wasntmesign.gif] This was me:

I'm just popping back here to ask when did Truth begin? When did Love begin? And that is synonymous with when did Life begin? Material science can't answer those sort of questions.

And this was Carlov:

Nicely put about Love and Truth. But I would add that it is reasonable to assume they did not come about before cognitive thought.

Hey, I didn't expect anyone to try to answer these questions! I don't think there is an answer to how old Love is, or how old Life is or how old Truth is or how old divine Mind, the Source of all intelligence, is. Personally, I believe that absolute spiritual realities never began and will never end. That they are eternal, incorporeal, infinite and beyond the grasp of our limited human experience and understanding, and that natural science, while it may be able to measure and weigh matter and form various hypotheses, will never be able to explain for instance, where spiritual qualities like compassion, mercy, truthfulness, honesty, integrity, insight, perspicacity,(sp?) intuition etc etc etc come from. To my understanding, intelligence does not reside in a mass of grey matter called a brain. I have had an out-of body experience when I was above my body and in those few seconds had the greatest insights of my life that this material existence is not all there is.

There was a case where a car was hit from behind by another car that didn't stop. The car turned over and the woman who was trapped in the bottom "died" . She left her body and got the number plate and after being revived, the other car was caught. (I somehow don't think that would have been my first priority!)

There have been several cases where people have "died" during operations and have told the medical staff afterwards what was written on the graph at the bottom of the bed, and even what was printed on some papers on top of a high cupboard. Nothing to do with grey matter in a skull.

I agree with Seaway and Venetian above. How could this all be accidental? There's far too much order and beauty for starters! If we take the evolution argument (which is very strong) surely there still had to be some universal Intelligence directing the evolution?

Judy

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Subject sound interesting! I will comment on this in the future...starguy

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

ORIGINAL: Principled

If we take the evolution argument (which is very strong) surely there still had to be some universal Intelligence directing the evolution?

In my teens I read the book "Creative Evolution" by Henri Bergsson. All this (the debate) is not new, as I think the book came out in 1908. (No, I'm not that old - I wasn't reading a freshly-minted copy!)

In that book he basically looks at all parts of human anatomy. He was a philosopher of the day, and using logic. He demonstrated to my satisfaction that - well, put it like this ... he have an alimentary canal to provide energy to the body. Same reason for the lungs. The heart essentially pumps the blood. We basically do need arms and legs, most of us, to survive and function. We need bones to give us structure. Perceptions also keep us alive, as a race.

All of this would appear, he argues, to be just a system of methods chosen to house the brain, whether the "person" is in the brain or whether the brain just connects to a para-physical person. You have to read the book, but I found it convincing that the body is formed not just as an accident, and not even just to ensure "survival of the fittest", but to allow for the expansion of intelligence / consciousness within the material world.

V

RE: Evolution v’s Creation.

Have to sayI agree with Seaway "God/Big Bang" created (brought into existence)everything and it is constantly evolving (developing) from there.

Did Darwin Kill God?

Tuesday 31 March
7:00pm - 8:00pm
BBC2

There are some who believe that Darwin's theory of evolution has weakened religion, fuelled in part by Richard Dawkins's publishing phenomenon The God Delusion. Conor Cunningham argues that nothing could be further from the truth. Cunningham is a firm believer in the theory of evolution, but he is also a Christian. He attempts to overturn what he believes are widely held but mistaken assumptions in the debate between religion and evolution.

I believe in both.
God existed since you the solar system somehow had to be made right?
He made the first step and let evolution take it's course.

sorry, wrong forum<a class="go2wpf-bbcode" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="">

Did Darwin Kill God?

Tuesday 31 March
7:00pm - 8:00pm
BBC2

There are some who believe that Darwin's theory of evolution has weakened religion, fuelled in part by Richard Dawkins's publishing phenomenon The God Delusion. Conor Cunningham argues that nothing could be further from the truth. Cunningham is a firm believer in the theory of evolution, but he is also a Christian. He attempts to overturn what he believes are widely held but mistaken assumptions in the debate between religion and evolution.

I believe Darwin's theory might kill religion but not God. I am a secular humanist but I still believe in God. Darwin openned up a new enlightenment. Religion although very helpful to society has also a lot of faults and flaws. Where power lies, lies corruption and abuse. The original purpose of religion might be pure but the churches and people of the cloth will never be holy and pure. If you are familiar with history specially the ancient romans and the spanish inquisition, you'll see what i mean. I share many beliefs and opinions of that of John Locke.