Creation vs. Evolution

[Soggy]

Who lived and observed the Pleistocene or even Hadian eras? Certainly not me. So, direct observation is out.

I suppose it is conceivably possible that things occurred differently than how every experiment ever conducted in the last 150 years indicates along with visible evidence in DNA, fossils, and different species. Because I didn't physically watch that specific creature turn into that specific creature, even though the genetics and fossil record both verify it, there is some remote possibility that all that evidence was just planted there.

That's very rational.

I've never seen a Great White Shark in person, so I guess they are just a theory, too. I don't think GWS actually exist. The pictures and video of them were created by God in order to provide a more interesting life for me. Anyone who claims that the GWS exists is just blind and spiritually dead. They will go to hell because they are not saved. I pity them.

Based on my understanding, all things, upto where man begins in the evolutionary tree does make sense, but since I wasnt there, it's just circumstantial.

Please provide the definition of the word circumstantial that you are intending. To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[Thalassamania]

Who lived and observed the Pleistocene or even Hadian eras? Certainly not me. So, direct observation is out. Based on my understanding, all things, upto where man begins in the evolutionary tree does make sense, but since I wasnt there, it's just circumstantial. It looks like this leads to this, and then to this ... kinda thing, therefore it must be true. If I were to plant evidence at a crime scene, implicating someone else, does that mean they did it based on the evidence? I'm not arguing for or against either side since that's their own personal decision to make, just pointing out, perhaps another possibility.

-----

Mike.

There you go again, using words that you don't understand and making up their definition on the fly, that makes communicating with you quite impossible.

cir·cum·stan·tial (sûr'kəm-stăn'shəl)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances.
2. Of no primary significance; incidental.
3. Complete and particular; full of detail: a circumstantial report about the debate.
4. Full of ceremonial display.

 

[SeanQ]

Who lived and observed the Pleistocene or even Hadian eras?

We don't need to be present to theorize what happened. We can observe, theorize, test and verify evolutionary processes in person. By observing the evidence left behind from those eras and applying the knowledge of evolutionary processes we can come up with a pretty good idea of what it was like.

 

[Bryan]

DNA is not a building block rather it is a blueprint, you need a better and more accurate analogy.

OK, we understand that you think it is an inaccurate analogy. Moving on, how about the idea of Scenario 2?

Couldn't all forms of life have been created by a common creator, who used the same DNA [blueprint] for life? This is a similar notion used in programming: writing code once and reusing what works.

 

[Cacia]

I was actually referring to capacity for, as opposed to memorized concepts or formal education.

-----

Mike.

I cannot beleive how many people don't know that IQ is capacity.

This comes up all the time...and most of you are lost on it.

 

[Soggy]

Couldn't all forms of life have been created by a common creator, who used the same DNA [blueprint] for life? This is a similar notion used in programming: writing code once and reusing what works.

There's that word again..."could"

Yes, they "could" have. An all powerful being "could" have done anything. But this theory is as most "scientific creation theories" are...incomplete and grasping at straws.

 

[Soggy]

I cannot beleive how many people don't know that IQ is capacity.

This comes up all the time...and most of you are lost on it.

Yup...IQ != SATs

 

[Midnight Star]

I suppose it is conceivably possible that things occurred differently than how every experiment ever conducted in the last 150 years indicates along with visible evidence in DNA, fossils, and different species. Because I didn't physically watch that specific creature turn into that specific creature, even though the genetics and fossil record both verify it, there is some remote possibility that all that evidence was just planted there.

That's very rational.

Actually it's very rational, given there's no pre-disposition to a particular view to defend. There's no dna in the fossil records to trace. How can we trace a known evolutionary path over the eons using that - nothing? Do we have a mapping for the first algae or fish? Of course not. We can conclude that easily enough - a mammoth, yes, in pieces, but not quite complete. We can trace what we understand as "manifestations" of dna, which are given traits and this is called the evolutionary path. This would then lead us to say, in theory, todays algae are not much different from yesterday's, but without actual concrete proof, that's where it remains, just theory; based on observed, growing ever more complex traits, the fossil record circumstatially says evolution; again thats a given theory.

I've never seen a Great White Shark in person, so I guess they are just a theory, too. I don't think GWS actually exist. The pictures and video of them were created by God in order to provide a more interesting life for me. Anyone who claims that the GWS exists is just blind and spiritually dead. They will go to hell because they are not saved. I pity them.

I'm not sure how to answer that properly, because i'm not quite sure what your inferring there. Are you saying that because i'm posting in this thread, that i'm saying you or anyone else is going to hell? I hope not, since I made it clear in other posts that I am not the final judge.

Please provide the definition of the word circumstantial that you are intending. To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I been trying to, but sometimes a pre-disposition either for or against something can make that very difficult; even a non-positional statment seems threatening. and must be met with utter recourse - educationally first, then personally it would seem.

-----

Mike.

 

[Thalassamania]

OK, we understand that you think it is an inaccurate analogy. Moving on, how about the idea of Scenario 2?

Couldn't all forms of life have been created by a common creator, who used the same DNA [blueprint] for life? This is a similar notion used in programming: writing code once and reusing what works.

That was Scenario 2. If you mean Scenario 1, I defer to Dawkins: could there be a god who whipped it all up? Yes, but the word "could," permits anything. Could there not have been a god? Yes. Could the moon have been made of green cheese? Yes. The point is that dusting off a Bronze Age myth is not required for an explanation and does not explain anything any better once dusted. So why bother? And BTW: if you have a real need to dust off a myth ... how on earth can you choose which of the 2,500 or so that have been cataloged?

 

[Bryan]

There's that word again..."could"

Yes, they "could" have. An all powerful being "could" have done anything. But this theory is as most "scientific creation theories" are...incomplete and grasping at straws.

Sounds like any theory that has been discussed thus far, frankly. There are enough missing pieces in all of them as to make debates like these interesting enough for people to participate.