What's purpose to lable this DIR"Evolution Vs. Creationism"

[Guy Threepwood]

This feels like a very intellectualised approach to me. What seems much important is serving God in His Creation, and feeling his presence directly from within your heart. This is how we attain to the Kingdom of God.

Well we agree here, for me the intellectual part led me to that more important part- my heart was not open until I began to question my naturalist beliefs.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Does it matter? The seemingly lack of thought in bacteria really don't make it any less important, for without millions of them functioning within your body, you cannot live. And without you, they cannot live.

sure, and so bacteria are important to God, in that they make our existence possible- they are a means to an end- the end being a sentient being, capable of knowing his creation.

 

[Kirran]

Well we agree here, for me the intellectual part led me to that more important part- my heart was not open until I began to question my naturalist beliefs.

If by naturalism you mean philosophical materialism, my own process was much the same.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Here is my question again.

But Evolution don't say about how everything came to into existence! and don't mention to origin of life.

So it's not suppose to be oppose the Creationism.

I understand that but capitalised 'C' Creationists create this conflict by rejecting Evolutionary Theory out of hand even though you're right that it doesn't address the question of how life actually started . For them it's an all or nothing - God/Allah/whoever created the Universe exactly as it is and that is the truth. No change over time, no evolution at all.

 

[Skwim]

It gets into semantics,

No it isn't semantics. Evolution deals with change. NOT origins, as much as creationists like to pin it onto evolution so as to make it a point of criticism.

I take your point though, technically 'evolution' doesn't speak to the origin of life, but in practice of course, most evolutionists assume the origin to be also 'naturalistic' as anything else would defeat the purpose of the theory

So what if that's what many of them assume? It's of no importance to any proposition of evolutionary development.

so maybe naturalism v creationism would be more accurate?

No it wouldn't, and I think you know this. Besides, a rose by any other name . . . .


.

 

[Godobeyer]

I understand that but capitalised 'C' Creationists create this conflict by rejecting Evolutionary Theory out of hand even though you're right that it doesn't address the question of how life actually started . For them it's an all or nothing - God/Allah/whoever created the Universe exactly as it is and that is the truth. No change over time, no evolution at all.

Nice notice , I don't mean anything by capitalized

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Nice notice , I don't mean anything by capitalized

Do you think the belief that God created everything should be taught in a science class?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If by naturalism you mean philosophical materialism, my own process was much the same.

Yes probably, naturalism/materialism has it's attraction, simplicity, too much so to account for reality though I think!

 

[Skwim]

Not at all, God can't create a universe that has only left and not right

It's not a matter of omnipotence but logic, like good and bad, they are relative terms which define each other, one has no meaning without the other.

Not necessarily at all. Good could be the opposite of poor, and have a valid meaning in this context. There need not be any bad at all.

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
​

(Poor would give meaning to good.)

​

Just as one might say good has no meaning without atrociousness.

Good
Fair
Bad
Atrocious
​

(Atrocious would give meaning good.)

Note that the two goods here derive different meaning by what they're contrasted to.

So it all depends on how one constructs the scale. And while it's right to say that good has to have some kind of opposite reference, this doesn't mean that all things should be measured on such a scale. Is a particular leaf on a tree, one like all the others, good or bad? Of course it isn't. So in calling something good one should contrast it with its opposite so everyone knows the extent of the goodness.


.

 

[Jose D Alvarez]

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Evolucion and creat

 

[Jose D Alvarez]

Creation and evolution are the same ting is no time and space for two .

 

[Godobeyer]

Do you think the belief that God created everything should be taught in a science class?

Are religions are science ?

 

[Kirran]

What do you make of Muslims who accept evolution?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Are religions are science ?

No, they are not. Which is why religious beliefs should not be taught as if they were scientific facts.

 

[Godobeyer]

No, they are not. Which is why religious beliefs should not be taught as if they were scientific facts.

Also much of parts of theory of evolution. Are not scientific facts!

Do you think should not we taught that parts?

 

[Godobeyer]

What do you make of Muslims who accept evolution?

I do accepted it to limits.
In micro: inside the same specie, in macro( from kind to kind) I rejected it.
I reject consider it as theory deny creation.

 

[sayak83]

I do accepted it to limits.
In micro: inside the same specie, in macro( from kind to kind) I rejected it.
I reject consider it as theory deny creation.

That is a denial of evolution. If you do not believe humans evolved from apes, who in turn evolved from earlier primates..all the way to mammals and reptiles evolving from ancient fishes in the ocean, then you reject the scientific theory of evolution.
If you reject that earth is 4 billion years old then you reject the science of geology and a lot of physics and chemistry.
If you reject that the universe is at least 13 billion years (from the Big Bang) then you reject cosmology and much of physics.

 

[Kirran]

I would like to point out for readers' edification that there are Muslim scholars and all sorts of people who totally accept evolution.

Also, I'd like to add - if you reject the scientific theory of evolution, you are really just blowing a huge hole in all of biological science. So much of what medicine, biotechnology, agricultural science, ecology etc relies on is totally embedded in evolution. If we reject evolution, we start biology again from scratch.

 

[Godobeyer]

That is a denial of evolution. If you do not believe humans evolved from apes, who in turn evolved from earlier primates..all the way to mammals and reptiles evolving from ancient fishes in the ocean, then you reject the scientific theory of evolution.
If you reject that earth is 4 billion years old then you reject the science of geology and a lot of physics and chemistry.
If you reject that the universe is at least 13 billion years (from the Big Bang) then you reject cosmology and much of physics.

Change of kind not proved.that just theory not fact.
What theory said human was apes, from my information Darwin and top evolutionists never admit that!

 

[Godobeyer]

I would like to point out for readers' edification that there are Muslim scholars and all sorts of people who totally accept evolution.

Also, I'd like to add - if you reject the scientific theory of evolution, you are really just blowing a huge hole in all of biological science. So much of what medicine, biotechnology, agricultural science, ecology etc relies on is totally embedded in evolution. If we reject evolution, we start biology again from scratch.

Who are these Muslims scholars?
Accept it as what?
As update of same kind or change of kind or origin of life?