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

[Godobeyer]

If you'd point to an example where I did that I'll gladly apologise. And I'll have a cup of tea as well.

I am not refer just to you.

If you notice, I made some interesting threads last days, some people just turn the discuss the accusation or personal,which level of speech I personal dislike and despise.

I like respectful way of conversation,avoiding personalizing or accusation,and prejudging.

 

[Godobeyer]

Yes, I understand. I think it is worth some consideration, though. "Science and religion" used to have a "vs" in there too, a few years ago. It was changed because it implied a necessary contradiction between the two, when there is none. The same case could be made of this particular subforum.

Do you want me to creat a thread there too ?

I will ask : What purpose to lable "science vs religion" ?

I suggest to creat a DIR : "Abrahamic Religions VS Left-Hand Path Religions"


Just kidding

 

[Godobeyer]

@Quintessence It's seems to me both sub "VS" , it's all about atheists vs theists to some degree ?

 

[Kirran]

It's seems to me both sub "VS" , it's all about atheists vs theists to some degree ?

I am still not an atheist!

 

[idav]

Does evolution and creationism had same object of "original of life" ?

No evolution uses evolution, not necessarily biological evolution. Creationism uses a creation account somehow circumventing one or more evolutionary processes.

 

[Godobeyer]

No evolution uses evolution, not necessarily biological evolution. Creationism uses a creation account somehow circumventing one or more evolutionary processes.

Some said evolution is discuss the origin of life.

I still don't get the point about making "evolution" oppose to "creationism".

 

[idav]

Some said evolution is discuss the origin of life.

I still don't get the point about making "evolution" oppose to "creationism".

Some might say that and that's the difference with biological evolution which concerns itself with animals already formed. There is chemical evolution to consider when getting into origin of life.

Creation could also be aliens manipulating the evolutionary process.

Evolution doesn't adhere to the idea creatures were created but come about through natural processes.

 

[Papoon]

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.

Generally, the problem creationists have with evolution is they believe that humans are a special case in the animal world...in fact, not even 'animals'.
So evolution is rejected because creationists want to believe in Adam and Eve.

 

[Godobeyer]

Evolution doesn't adhere to the idea creatures were created but come about through natural processes.

So don't suppose to be opposed to each other in matter of "origin of life"?

 

[viole]

Some said evolution is discuss the origin of life.

I still don't get the point about making "evolution" oppose to "creationism".

First of all, evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. In the same way prices evolution is not concerned with the origin of money. So, you can be a creationist for what concern the birth of life and a naturalist for what concerns its development, without evolution and creationism contradicting each other. Non overlapping magisteria, so to speak.

Therefore, creationism is at odd with evolution (by natural selection) if and only if it introduces the tinkering of a supernatural being in the development of (pre-existing) life.

Alas, all the theists I know (but not all deists I know) do not accept that we came from amoebas via purely naturalistic and blind processes, independently from that amoeba having been created or not.

So, what do you think? Do you think it is possible that one of your ancestors was an amoeba look-alike, even if I concede that Allah created that amoeba?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

As I answered to my own question.

The study of early life is still the study of biological evolution. How it came to be comes down to determining what early life was like and where it came from. The very very beginings of abiogensis mostly deal with thermodynamics and chemistry. Once we get to early forms of rudamentary processes that resemble heredity we get into a more grey area of whati s biology and what is no biology. Self replicating protiens that gradually become more and more advanced to the point of developing lipid bilayes to become more distinct as well as the development of what can be describe as a simpler form of RNA appears and again I ask if you still don't see the connection between the study of evolutino and abiogensis. In fact it usess evolution as a basis for the theory. Without evolution there is no abiogensis. Nothing in the theory makes any sense without evolution.

Just to recap.
1. Evolutionary processes did not start with life. IT started prior to life during the grey period. To suggest otherwise suggests special creation which is unscientific.
2. The basis for abiolgenisis is nearly 100% rooted in evolution with helping hands from other branches of science such as thermodynamics and geology.
3. It is the study of the beginigng of evolution. Abiogensis, especially when talking about the tail end of it just before it becomes life as well as having the conversation of where we draw that line (much harder than one would think and is still debated today)
4. You will not quote me saying that abiogensis and evolution do not have their differences. The study of life a million years ago and how it changed is fundamentally different than how we study the origin of life. But you cannot say they are not connected. You cannot say they have nothing to do with each other.

I was afraid of this and even considered pointing it out earlier, but figured it really wasn't necessary. However . . .*sigh* . . . . When we discuss evolution here in the Evolution Vs Creationism forum we specifically limit Evolution to biological evolution: the evolution of life. We aren't concerned with the evolution of society, the evolution of warfare, or the evolution of chemical reactions. So, although one could certainly perceive the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds (abiogenesis) as an evolutionary process: the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form, it still fails to meet the criteria of biological evolution, and therefore cannot be included under the label of evolution as used here.
Biological evolution ONLY deals with the evolution of life. Not with the evolution of social graces; not with the evolution of the toaster; and NOT with abiogenesis. Want to say that the process of abiogenesis is an evolutionary process, go right ahead; however, IT IS NOT biological evolution, the only kind of evolution---the process through which the characteristics of organisms change over successive generations, by means of genetic variation and natural selection---of interest here. Stop conflating the two.

Do you know what that means when you list these three?
Special creation (god) is not considered in science. IF we have evidence of it great it will no longer be special creation but just creation with measurable and defensible points. But this is already thrown out of the window when talking in the context of a science. Even if you believe in theistic evolution where god's guiding hand used natural processes to bring about evolution you still have no need to believe in special creation as you could then simply believe that the creation of life is as abiogenisis suggests and that it was simply god's will via natural processes.

Panspermia is not really supported by any evidence. Its "possible" through big leaps. Typically any seroius conversation is dfiscussing Mars having developed early forms of life and it was some how jetted over here through a massive collision of some kind at just the right time for Earth to accept life. This seems far less likely than it simply developing on Earth. It also kicks the can down the road. If it wasn't abiogensis here then it was abiogensis there. Still back to abiogensis but simply adding unecessary steps.

Lastly you have abiogensis. The only real explanation one has when talking evolution with any degree of scientific or empirical judgement. Any other discussion is really non-scientific with the only exception being "the unknown". Saying we don't know for sure is a correct answer but it is also a misleading one. We do have a "best scientific explanation" for the phenomenon. Unless there is a god who has neglected to show himself in any other way shape or form except to start life, life must have started on its own. That is a fact.

And do you know that merely listing proposed possibilities does not necessarily mean advocating any of them?


.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I was afraid of this and even considered pointing it out earlier, but figured it really wasn't necessary. However . . .*sigh* . . . . When we discuss evolution here in the Evolution Vs Creationism forum we specifically limit Evolution to biological evolution: the evolution of life. We aren't concerned with the evolution of society, the evolution of warfare, or the evolution of chemical reactions. So, although one could certainly perceive the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds (abiogenesis) as an evolutionary process: the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form, as evolution, it still fails to meet the criteria of biological evolution, and therefore cannot be included under the label of evolution as used here.
Biological evolution ONLY deals with the evolution of life. Not with the evolution of social graces; not with warfare; and NOT with abiogenesis. Want to say that the process of abiogenesis is an evolutionary process, go right ahead; however, IT IS NOT biological evolution, the only kind of evolution---the process through which the characteristics of organisms change over successive generations, by means of genetic variation and natural selection---of interest here. Stop conflating the two.

It is not conflation. Discussing the evolution of archaeic bacteria is most definitly evolution. Discussing what came before archaic evolution is still discussing biological evolution. They are not differnet mechcanisms but the same mechanisms slowly becoming more and more advanced. IT IS NOT the same for either of them as it would be fore the evolution of any other inorganic substance or concept. The evolution of education, the economy, countries ect, are not subject to the same mechanisms.

You seem to feel or believe that life and non-life are simple to distinguish from one another in abiogensis. It is not. At what point do you declare it to be life? Where in the evolution does it become biological evolution rather than non-biological evolution? A semantic self-describing answer such as "when it becomes life" is meaningless in that context. When does an organism become a living organism rather than a sac of chemicals functioning as a living organism? Is it when it obtains working DNA? is it working RNA? Is it when it has a lipid bi-layer?

The line is not clear which is precisely the point.

I have conflated nothing.

And do you know that merely listing proposed possibilities does not necessarily mean advocating any of them?


.

You realize any serious discussion of evolution implies abiogensis correct? The theory of relativity? yeah thats all good but gravity is totally separate. I mean we are only discussing relativity but gravity is its own theory. Its the theory of gravity.

It is very much the same thing people do with abiogensis and evolution.

 

[McBell]

Hello everybody

I discuss this with some member, they told me theory of evolution had nothing to do with origin/start of life. it's abiogenesis.

I thought this DIR main goal is about how life appears,according to two different methods "believe in God is Creator, believe in nature is creator", yes or not ?

Since evolution had nothing to do with life appears why compare/oppose it to creation ?
So,What is the purpose of discuss evolution VS creationism ?

i suspect it is because there are so many creationists who think if they somehow manage to disprove evolution, creationism takes over by "default".

So they are the ones who have made "evolution vs creation" or as I prefer "creation vs evolution" such a popular buzz phrase.

 

[Skwim]

You realize any serious discussion of evolution implies abiogensis correct?

It does not. I strongly suggest you avail yourself of a good introductory book on evolution. See HERE.

I have conflated nothing.

You are, but that's okay. Have a nice day.


.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It does not. I strongly suggest you avail yourself of a good introductory book on evolution. See HERE.

Pissing contests are not something i'm interested in. Good day.

 

[idav]

So don't suppose to be opposed to each other in matter of "origin of life"?

Creation is opposed to evolution far as I can tell. Slow process vs instantaneous miracle. Even in the case someone wants to say both, the theory of evolution covers such scenarios in that there are no missing links from ape to man. So evolution is opposed to humans being created instantaneously.

 

[Godobeyer]

Creation is opposed to evolution far as I can tell. Slow process vs instantaneous miracle. Even in the case someone wants to say both, the theory of evolution covers such scenarios in that there are no missing links from ape to man. So evolution is opposed to humans being created instantaneously.

Seems ,you don't get my point yet !
I am refering to "origin of life" or "How life comes to existence"

Evolution don't teach about how life comes to exist.
Creation don't deny the slow process of creation..

 

[Kirran]

If you deny macroevolution, you deny evolution.

 

[Godobeyer]

If you deny macroevolution, you deny evolution.

Yes,I deny macroevolution,because it's does not proved.it's just based on theories/claims.

 

[McBell]

Yes,I deny macroevolution,because it's does not proved.it's just based on theories/claims.

Your denying macroevolution holds no weight.
Why?
Because you do not even know what evolution is.