Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Valjean]

What's meant by "intelligence?"
If I take a bucket of sand and pour it on the ground it will form a cone. Is that intelligence? Is it design?
A puddle conforms in every minute detail to the depression containing it; electricity takes the path of least resistance; natural selection weeds out ill adapted individuals; rocks in space accrete into spheres; gravity decreases by the square of distance -- Intelligence? Design? Blind, uncaring physics?

 

[Etritonakin]

You are chasing your own tail

Of course I am, but only when it is correct to do so -it's kinda fun -but you have to move on, eventually -and I am not responsible for the cyclical nature of nature.

Circular reasoning is not necessarily a bad thing -and can actually be evidence and proof of truth.
Being stuck in an illogical loop is different.

The whole evolution vs. creation controversy is chasing its own tail endlessly -but I have noticed that the greatest controversies arise from two sides both having a valid point and part of the whole truth -but which are unable to open their minds to see it because they also both have invalid points they are unwilling to reconsider.

 

[McBell]

Of course I am, but only when it is correct to do so -it's kinda fun -but you have to move on, eventually -and I am not responsible for the cyclical nature of nature.

Circular reasoning is not necessarily a bad thing -and can actually be evidence and proof of truth.
Being stuck in an illogical loop is different.

The whole evolution vs. creation controversy is chasing its own tail endlessly -but I have noticed that the greatest controversies arise from two sides both having a valid point and part of the whole truth -but which are unable to open their minds to see it because they also both have invalid points they are unwilling to reconsider.

 

[Etritonakin]

If you start with the fact that something actually happened, it all gets easier.

 

[viole]

God doesn't tinker with anything, He decrees everything from the beginning. And regarding objectives. God has already technically achieved His objective. Time doesn't exist for Him. It's just that we humans who are living within this process of change (time), are seeing everything unfold in a straight pattern. But for God, it's like boom boom, snap of fingers, universe came into existence, universe came out of existence.

So, you believe that we and baboons have a common ancestor and that this fact has been defined in the "initial conditions" of the Universe?

Ciao

- viole

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Intelligence did not arise from non-intelligence, simple intelligence became more complex and capable.

Now you're just playing with words. An intelligence that's more capable is a more intelligent entity. So you're saying we arose from something less intelligent. Saying it's the same intelligence, but less capable is just twisting words.

There was never truly non-intelligence, but the most simple intelligence.
Everything is intelligence -and what you call non-intelligence is only more simple intelligence which is part of the one intelligence.

If you want to call basic organic chemistry simple intelligence, then fine. But the point is, the increase in complexity and intelligence was still due to a completely natural and blind process of selection.

We are not more intelligent than OUR creator -but we may begin more intelligent than our creator may have begun. It is not a static thing -but a dynamic thing. Our creator is essentially everything -and we are only part of everything.
We are part of everything becoming more complex and increasing in intelligence.
We are part of one intelligence becoming many somewhat independent intelligences.

An original intelligence may have arisen from the most simple intelligence -but, as the original, would have power over all as it became more complex -and more aware of what it made to be aware of. So, while the original may have begun in a more simple state, it's present state is far greater than ours.

How did the original intelligence arise, and how did it get more intelligent?

 

[viole]

That would be consistent with biblical scripture.
God is able to act directly, but is often described as acting through "nature".

On a global scale, a third of sea life and a third of the ships on the sea are to be destroyed by "a great mountain burning with fire" being "cast into the sea".
Whether a volcano/landslide or an object from space, that would at least indicate foreknowledge -but other scriptures indicate overall intent.

On a smaller scale, it is said that God has his way in the storm -directs the actions of animal life -uses diseases to affect change, etc....

He uses diseases to affect change?

I don't want to strain your imagination, but if you were an omnipotent and, allegedely, benevolent being, could you not think of better ways to change things? And why do you need to change things, to start with?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Milton Platt]

To me both are some sort of belief systems. People simply choose to follow one or another not because they are scientists, theologians or have specific compelling evidence but merely because they are free to choose what they believe in and when they choose, most people mainly follow the thoughts or teachings of others that they think can be trusted (whether right or wrong). In that sense, both Evolution and Creationism are similar. What do you think?

That's absolute Bulls**t

 

[Milton Platt]

My point was that whatever you follow is a choice of a free individual in an act of faith that for most people may not be actually dependent on clear or solid facts.

If you talk about science, it's important to acknowledge the difference between facts and theories. Science itself is ever changing. Accepted since principals according to Newton were revolutionized by Einstein.

Yes, I am a creationist but that doesn't mean I am against science. It's actually totally the opposite. Yes science is an extreme necessity in our lives. I even would accept specific scientific aspects of the evolution itself. I accept that live as created can adapt and evolve within limits but as a theory, the evolution is by no means a solid fact nor it explains the origins of live.

Evolution is theory that try to explain live in absence of creation but creation is not limited to live, its about every thing in existence. So if I would compare, I would compare Creationism vs the Big Bang not the evolution.

Creationism is an attempt to insert a deity in the creation of life, nothing more. But even if you want to stretch is to cover the creation of the universe, it is still just garbage.

 

[viole]

Circular reasoning is not necessarily a bad thing -and can actually be evidence and proof of truth.
Being stuck in an illogical loop is different.

.

True. Look at this

Premise: there is no God
Conclusion: ergo, there is no God

A bit circular, but perfectly logical. A wonderfully simple proof that atheism is true

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

He uses diseases to affect change?

I don't want to strain your imagination, but if you were an omnipotent and, allegedely, benevolent being, could you not think of better ways to change things? And why do you need to change things, to start with?

Ciao

- viole

Creation is change. When you start creating, you start changing.

You may not need to change anything, but what else ya gonna do with eternity?

I can think of no better way to produce the end result which will be than the way it is being created.

Humans use diseases to cause changes -sometimes for destruction alone -sometimes to prevent greater disease.

It would depend what sort of changes you were trying to make.

That did strain my imagination a bit -but that's not a bad thing.

That which will bring about the end result of making us perfect and God-like (the ultimate in benevolence) may not seem benevolent -especially while we experience it -but it is only a temporary situation. The immediately harmful aspects will be nullified.
The death penalty, etc., in ancient Israel, for example, allowed for a people to become prepared for the new covenant -which will result in a capable world -eventually universal -government.
Those who died under the old testament judgments will be resurrected to that new situation -and, as written, the former things will eventually not be remembered or come into mind.
Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

 

[Etritonakin]

True. Look at this

Premise: there is no God
Conclusion: ergo, there is no God

A bit circular, but perfectly logical. A wonderfully simple proof that atheism is true

Ciao

- viole

Exactly.

Something happened -therefore, something happened.

 

[Etritonakin]

How did the original intelligence arise, and how did it get more intelligent?

One step at a time.

 

[Sapiens]

One step at a time.

The original intelligence arose "one step at a time?"

The original intelligence got more intelligent "one step at a time?"

Or both?

Could you please outline its origin prior to its first step, and then describe the steps it took?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

One step at a time.

Vague much? You're coming across as dishonest now.

I think now is the time to admit you're wrong. You know it. I know it. Don't hide it (clearly you're bad at it).

 

[NoorNoor]

-The universe has not existed forever. the universe, had a ""beginning"" in the big bang.

-The big bang is a singularity where all laws of physics would have been broken down. In other words all laws came to effect after this point.

-The universe after the big bang is completely different from what is beyond this point. even matter would be different or non existent, conservation of matter would not apply beyond the boundary of the beginning.

-Whatever beyond the beginning is undefined and not subject to the boundaries of space, time or any physical law, that was only imposed on our universe after the big bang.

-A ""beginning"" point beyond which, the universe did not exist, imply an intervention of an external power that forced the non existent word to come to existence.

-The external power should have independent existence beyond space, time and any law that was imposed on the universe after the beginning.

-The external power can't be defined, observed or explained by science.

-The external power is what a creationist call God.

-No time, no progression, no steps, no changes. God's existence is external to spacetime. The laws imposed on our world at the beginning of creation have no relevance to him and can't be Imposed back on him. He is external to laws of physics that people try to utilize to understand his being. His being is different than any thing within our knowledge or imagination.

-He is the single limitless origin by him every thing came to existence. His being is unchangeable with no partners or associates of any kind and external to all boundaries imposed (by him) on our physical world.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

-The universe has not existed forever. the universe, had a ""beginning"" in the big bang.

-The big bang is a singularity where all laws of physics would have been broken down. In other words all laws came to effect after this point.

-The universe after the big bang is completely different from what is beyond this point. even matter would be different or non existent, conservation of matter would not apply beyond the boundary of the beginning.

-Whatever beyond the beginning is undefined and not subject to the boundaries of space, time or any physical law, that was only imposed on our universe after the big bang.

-A ""beginning"" point beyond which, the universe did not exist, imply an intervention of an external power that forced the non existent word to come to existence.

-The external power should have independent existence beyond space, time and any law that was imposed on the universe after the beginning.

-The external power can't be defined, observed or explained by science.

-The external power is what a creationist call God.

-No time, no progression, no steps, no changes. God's existence is external to spacetime. The laws imposed on our world at the beginning of creation have no relevance to him and can't be Imposed back on him. He is external to laws of physics that people try to utilize to understand his being. His being is different than any thing within our knowledge or imagination.

-He is the single limitless origin by him every thing came to existence. His being is unchangeable with no partners or associates of any kind and external to all boundaries imposed (by him) on our physical world.

Insert unified M-theory and this all breaks down. No gods are necessary, in fact there is no room for gods to exist as all universes would be a product of the interaction of physical, describable forces. There'd be no step in which a creation point could have happened.

 

[Etritonakin]

Vague much? You're coming across as dishonest now.

I think now is the time to admit you're wrong. You know it. I know it. Don't hide it (clearly you're bad at it).

Cease seeking wrong. Seek right.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Cease seeking wrong. Seek right.

Answer the question without being vague. Did this so-called original simple intelligence get more complex entirely on its own?

 

[Etritonakin]

Answer the question without being vague. Did this so-called original simple intelligence get more complex entirely on its own?

Yes.