Evolution vs Creationism

Remove all ads!

Hey guys

I was just wondering who believed in which theory? Personally (and this may come from the fact that I'm very good at double-think after reading 1984 147 times!), I believe that both can be true if you treat one as a metaphor for the other.

So, what do you reckon?

BTW, I'm asking this out of interest, for once I'm not trying to start an argument (as I so love to do in the alleys!). Can we please refrain from the whole 'You're the spawn of Satan, my opinion is the only one that's right'
'You're a crawling God-botherer, you're only allowed an opinion if it's the same as mine!'
I want a good, clean fight, no biting, no gouging, and SERIOUSLY no whinging!

DING DING!

 

Well, Creationism can only be grounded in belief (as opposed to observations which are grounded in fact). It's not a scientific theory, and thus it doesn't really belong as an alternative to evolution. One is a question for theology and the other a question for biology.

To me, the question makes about as much sense as asking everyone here if they are left-handed or a male. Or asking everyone here if they work at a factory or a hospital. The two terms are neither mutually inclusive or exclusive. You can believe in one of them, neither of them, or both of them. Apples and oranges comparison.

 

I just want to know who believes which side of it hun, although, the lefty/righty thing may have to be brought up in another thread......hmmmm.....

 

That's kind of what I was getting at. Silvery kind of set it up as an either/or choice, which makes about as much sense as asking someone if they are left-handed or a doctor. It is also possible to believe in both or neither.

To put it a different way, the fact that the universe exists means it had a start point, that at some past time it was created. Which is a process that is complete different than evolution.

Given that I'm agnostic, I suppose I have a firmer belief in evolution than I have of whatever type of Creationism we are talking about.

 

Some time ago I started a thread about on whether or not there were multi universes. I think it was Montresor that persuaded me to use the term Multiuniverse and that this Mutiuniverse has always existed. In the beginning it was pure energy which eventually evolved into matter and we have the universe with which we are somewhat familiar.

As far as the origin of the universe goes no matter which line you take a certain amount of faith/belief is needed. There are quite a few theories as to how the multiuniverse got started. I think the Big Bang still holds the lead. My theory doesn't exclude the Big Bang. All that energy rolling around could have caused a big explosion.

Neither does my theory exclude the possibility of God. God is the multiuniverse. Christian Scientists believe that "all is Infinite Mind in all of its infinite manifestations".

From that point on I believe in evolution which again does not exclude the possibility of a god.

 

That's the issue - creationism or 'intelligent design' isn't a working hypothesis. Evolution is a theorem, which is as close to science fact as an intangible process can be. To be a scientific hypothesis, creationism must be testable through experimentation and empirical measurement, which it isn't. Any attempt to disprove a religious belief is summarily dismissed by believers, and explained away through all kinds of rationalizations. For proof, you can look around, but if you're a true christian, nothing will convince you anyway. An interesting discussion, sure, but ultimately pointless. I just hope the discussion doesn't degenerate to the level of youtube commentaries

 

Coin, darnit, you should have had a southpark clip to go with that!!!

Hmm, if the universe is all there is & all there will be & the universe is expanding, then what is it expanding into?(it already encompasses everything)

 

Good question, martaug. Think of an infinite desert composed of energy. The energy masses into the center forming an oasis. The universe as we think of it is formed here. Little rivulets of water spread out into the desert expanding the material multiverse. Because it is infinite it spreads in all directions creating layer upon layer of the Multiverse or Multiuniverse.

 

My physics teacher once said that the universe was expanding toward a bowl of porriage. When we all questioned him, he said 'Prove that it's not'.

I suppose that people could say that all that proves science is more science. What if we've got a decimal point wrong somewhere?

My initial thread wasn't really very clear was it? Why do you believe what you do? Is it fear of the unknown? Is it religion? Are there any other possibilities?

 

I actually can't choose between M-theory, bubble theory & the many worlds interpretation(Universal wavefunction theoy).
They all seem to do a good job of describing things & events in a very . . . . sensible manner(not exactly the word i want but not quite sure what word works better).

 

I don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive. I prefer the term Intelligent Design. It places an Intelligent Designer (God for us Christians) as a guiding force to oversee the evolution process.

 

Silvery, the problem with discussing the creation of the universe or as I prefer, the Multiverse, is that whether your belief is based on science or on religion it is just that a belief. Evolution is fairly well proven IMO but not how the Universe got here.

I agree with Gnarfflinger that the two (or twenty...) are not mutually exclusive. I have argued the existence of a First Cause in several prior threads. Nothing begets nothing. Call that First Cause whatever you want but it must exist. Isaac Asinov wrote a short story about this. Sorry I've forgotten its name and am not up to doing the needed research at the moment.

The reason I believe in the possibility of a Multiverse is because of an advanced Mathematics course I took. We tend to think of three dimensions but actually there are a multitude of dimensions...infinite dimensions. Which means that there might possibly be multiple universes or a Multiverse.

Topology interests me because it touches on this or seems to I think.

 

Well...I was raised to believe that God created everything...in under a week no less! He even meddled in the affairs of people thousands and thousands of years ago, but has been MIA since....

However, in spite of my upbringing, I tend to lean towards Darwinism. That being said, it's hard to believe in Darwin if you ever go to Wal-Mart or have ever worked with the general public.

In the end, what does it matter? There's no way to ever *prove* if any religions are correct, no way to prove there's an afterlife, a heaven, or even a hell. There *is* proof that we *could* have evolved from pond scum...but who can say what really happened.

 

Thank you, Montresor, that is the story.

A year or two ago we had a thread dealing with the same or similar subject. I argued for a First Cause because the 'buck has to stop somewhere'. Someone with very good reasoning finally persuaded me that it is quite possible that the Universe in some form or other has always existed and simply is. It may expand, contract, blow up or go in cycles or maybe Asimov is correct but it is infinite, no beginning, no ending, no limitations. Since I pefer the term Multiverse I may be confusing the issue. The Universe, call it whatever you wish, simply is.

Side note: Since what we call a day is based on having day and night of 24 hrs. the Biblical 'day' was probably much longer and people get confused. Of course they get confused. The whole thing is confusing.

 

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

You probably aren't serious, but I'll take it as an invitation all the same. I know what you were thinking about, so I'll link it here too. Evolution theory, as explained by Mr. Garrison. {Warning: Profanities in this vid}
If I had to choose a religion, I'd be a pastafarian. We all evolved from the primordial noodle soup!

 

Evolution theory's good. It's useful. Creationism or intelligent design has a lot to go to get working even as a half-decent hypothesis.

Evolution theory produces good working hypotheses for scientific study, creationism doesn't. So we have one way of thinking that's useful in the field of science, other one's which might be mainly useful for individual psychology and rhetorics.

I don't like to say that I 'believe' in anything. The word's a rhetorical tool with western theological overtones. Not a problem, the scientific tradition of the west has been based on theological studies for a long time during its history.

I don't like creationism, since it will harm the future generations way of making science. It's already hard enough for people to get a broader perspective in making research, creationism doesn't help...

 

From a scientific perspective, Creationism can only be inconsistent or consistent, it can never be a real theory. You can never test it and you can never disprove it. That being said, though, even a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 isn't inconsistent with evolution (except for that whole 'chance' thing). Read a book called Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Shroeder. Make sure you get that auther, because there's a second book out there by the same name, different author and topic. Dr. Shroeder shows how 6 days and 15.85 billion years can be literally and scientifically the same amount of time using General Relativity.

I know nothing about multiverses, but you can't have a single, continuous existence that has been since eternity and is still anything. The problem is entropy. In a closed system, entropy must increase. It's the third(?) law of thermodynamics. Since we're talking about Everything, it must be a closed system, therefore entropy must increase as things happen (any change in the physical reality). If this has been going on forever, entropy would be infinite and the universe would essentially be cosmic slag.

The other problem with the cyclical universe theory is that we now know the universe is not only expanding, the rate of expansion is accelerating. The universe will not collapse in on itself unless something truely cataclysmic happens.

Of course, both of those run into problems of some kind or another when you talk about multiverses, but entropy is still a strong contender.

Oh, and as to what our universe is expanding into, well, it's not just matter and energy that are expanding, but, according to M theory at least, time and space as well. The outer edge of the universe is expanding length itself. You could even say that we are the outer edge of the universe in the time dimention, and that we're riding the wave of the Big Bang now.

 

That's the second law of thermodynamics you're thinking of NOG, the third talks about absolute zero and all that. And very possibly the universe *is* cosmic slag...we would not know the difference. Entropy on a personal level would be handy in explaining away character flaws.....'I can't help when I behave badly, I'm disordered.'

As to what the universe is expanding into? Nobody should ever pretend that they can answer or even endeavor to answer that question. That is an unanswered and unanswerable question. I would say the same thing to Stephen Hawkings, although I imagine he could easily shout me down in that digital tone of his.