Quote by undeadsymphonyi think
both theories can exist in harmony.
think about it; creationism is how it all began, evolution is what happended
since then. not that hard. ^_^
I was thinking about my post on the evolution versus creationism thread, and i
was wondering who else thinks that both theories can potentially exist in
harmony?
If you don't, say why.
And if you DO, say why too!
They can't exist in harmony, in my opinion, but that's for each person to
decide.
My reasoning for this, is that creationism is a basis of psuedo science and that
they lack the proof that gives science reliablity. And Evolution has been
proven.
And secondly, I don't know if anyone else has this view, but the two theories
contradict each other.
What exactly do you mean by Creationism? I agree with Hasaki-Keissi. Evolution
brought us IMPERFECT and POORLY DESIGNED creatures to existence in this POORLY
DESIGNED and IMPERFECT world. Creationism is bull. No evidence behind it.
Evolution is the way. It has evidence behind it. I think the choice is obvious.
No need to create an entirely new thread on this topic; you should have just
raised this question in one of the existing threads on the creation/evolution
debate.
Sure they can, but doing so requires rejecting certain factors of one or both
theories. There is the idea that science has faulty dating processes, or that
"day" is a very loose term used in Genesis to describe a general
"period of time" as opposed to 24h as we denote a "day" now.
There is also the theory that creationism occurred to the exclusion of
macroevolution, and then microevolution and the basic idea of "survival of
the fittest" shaped the gene pool for future generations as the world
changed (which is undeniable, really...even today the earth continues to
change).
So there are theoretical ways they can coexist. The problem is that most of
those who choose to get into such debates are uninterested in that kind of
outcome. They are busy being entrenched in an "I'm right, and you're just
plain wrong" position. And who knows, one or the other may be completely
right and the other completely wrong. Only God knows for sure ^_~
no can't exist
creationism- is a God
evoution- no god
creationism- world created by God
evolution- World created by itself
creationism- animals created by God
evolution- animals happened by chance
each "theory" has its own structure like story of what happens which
is totally contradictory. to co-exist means that u can't reject any part of each
of their theories like what most people do. like God created big bang etc. but
in doing so,you've created like an entire new theory and u've rejected both
thoeries at the same time like God did not create the world but the big bang and
that the big bang was not caused by a natural phenomonen.
Quote by mountainno can't exist
creationism- is a God
evoution- no god
creationism- world created by God
evolution- World created by itself
creationism- animals created by God
evolution- animals happened by chance
each "theory" has its own structure like story of what happens which
is totally contradictory. to co-exist means that u can't reject any part of each
of their theories like what most people do. like God created big bang etc. but
in doing so,you've created like an entire new theory and u've rejected both
thoeries at the same time like God did not create the world but the big bang and
that the big bang was not caused by a natural phenomonen.
i DID say "potentially" exist in harmony.
i'm aware that the result may be an entirely new theory all together,
but what i'm saying is what if God planned out evolution?
what if He were the one who started life on this earth and made it grow into
what it is today?
keep in mind that there are several holes in the theory of evolution.
furthermore, what you're saying is "evolution" is a completely
different theory altogether. the theory of evolution says that creatures change
over time, and they most likely do it through mutation, variation in population
and natural selection.
the big bang has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.
of course the combining of the two theories would contradict some of the Old
Testament, but many people don't take the bible literally in terms of historical
evidence.
Depends on the individual I suppose. The problem is that the biggie religions
are specifically against the idea of the world being older than a few thousand
years. And since whatever book each religion doesn't change much anymore, I
don't see there ever being a concensus. Neither scientists nor devout people are
known for their 'give and take' attitudes.
Taking in account the conventional definitions of each theory (i.e. Creationism:
God created the world in 6 days as stated in Gen 1, but NOT Gen 2 [which I might
add, contradicts the previous chapter quite openly] and Evolution: the world
came into being by means of the big bang and is still evolving etc.), its easy
to state matter of factly that they contradict each other. But suppose you
hypothise that God is still in control of evolution? How did the big bang come
into being? Could God have sparked it off? What drives the potentiality in
living organisims to better themselves over their natural environment? Could God
in the first place give them that potential or drive them like that? Think about
it.
Anyway, in a more academic sense: The first chapter of Genesis is almost
identical to Babylonian Cosmogonies (lit creation of the cosmos) and there is a
CLEAR link between their and Genesis 1's version (despite whatever the
fundamantalist say: I'm sorry, but I've studied both versions as well as the
Babylonian myths in translation). Genesis 2, on the other hand switches the c
reatyion sequence: go check it up. Man is created second. Now THAT version is
comparible with Syro-Palestinian versions prior to the Babelonian exile.
Thus, you can argue and compare the theories of Creationism and Evolution
metaphorically or analogically, but NOT if you are going literally by the
Biblical version. There are contradictions which CANNOT be taken literally.
Whatever! Don't take it so personaly. I know they are separate, but
conventionally they are tied together. Its like saying that the sun and daylight
are different theories - even though the one happens secondary to the other.
ok, i'll throw my two cents in. i think i've made it pretty clear that i'm a
believer in evolution, but i'll openly admit that both can exist. i read a
really interesting article in TIME magazine that dealt with this exact topic.
they interviewed a bunch of scientists (who you'd think would be "evolution
all the way!") and surprise surprise... there was a huge chunk of
creationists among them. however, their theory went something like "God
created the world and gave it the means to evolve". thus bringing in both
theories.
Quote by fireflywishesGod created
the world and gave it the means to evolve
That would
contradict the Adam and Eve story which speaks of God creating man as man, not
as an ape.
Read Gen 1 and 2 carefully. They contradict each other. Gen 1 states that man
was created last, after everything else was finished, but Gen 2 switches it
around. Man cam first, then the plants and animals.
By saying that God created the world doesn't necassarily mean by the way such as
mentioned in Genesis. The whole point of this statement is that He created the
universe and subsequently the world by means of, say, the Big Bang, and natural
evolution followed according to the mathematical and scientific rules which He
had set down.
hmm i do not have a strong believe i criticism but i am a strong believer off
evolution.. the fact that today we have such advanced technologies and what not
there is so much we don't know but the big bang is the most logical in MY EYES.
Yeah creationism and evolution cannot possibly coexist. Creationism says that
all life was created as is (I think). So humans started off as humans. There
wouldn't be any of that dog evolving into a cat that could occur in evolution. I
suppose God could have made the first life form and then started evolution. That
might be acceptable as a creationism/evolution mixture. However since
creantionism has by far the weaker argument as compared to evolution it would be
foolish to fuse the two because the theory would be weakened by creationism's
flaws.
Quote by ProgramZERO[quot(...)
created the world and gave it the means to evolve
That would
contradict the Adam and Eve story which speaks of God creating man as man, not
as an ape.
Read Gen 1 and 2 carefully. They contradict each other. Gen 1 states that man
was created last, after everything else was finished, but Gen 2 switches it
around. Man cam first, then the plants and animals.
By saying that God created the world doesn't necassarily mean by the way such as
mentioned in Genesis. The whole point of this statement is that He created the
universe and subsequently the world by means of, say, the Big Bang, and natural
evolution followed according to the mathematical and scientific rules which He
had set down.
Yes! Yes! Exactly! Why don't more people think of that?
i think they can co exist...if you believe that God or Gods created the
universe, and then let nature takes its course...then both theories can
co-exist...however, the whole adam and eve thing has so many loopholes thats its
not even near funny....and i dont think i need to go into the
loopholes
though i am not a believer of god create life form.... but i wont deny that
if... and i say "IF" god or some other higher life form create life
forms....(very ironic ain't it) a system of change or evolution would be put in
place.....
Creationsim.... only state of creation.... a begining....
Evolution...... the process of change... to adapt....
i don't see why both cant co-exist....
I dunno why ppl want to mess up terminolgies and stuff like that.... to
me....
Creationism should be higher beings create life form..... not GOD from
Christianity create life forms though both ideas are connected.....
and Evolution is s system of change so life form can adapt.... not that human
must be evolved from apes and such....it is only a SUGGESTION!
Anyhow... back to topic... from the basic meaning of both terminology(explained
above) i think both can co-exist......sorry... if i somehow messed up and
insulted some of you......
Quote by RubyDrg0ni don't see why both
cant co-exist....
The two theories can be fused. Some higher being could have created the first
life form and then set into motion evolution.
However, an argument against fusing the two is that creationism has a very weak
argument and evidence base. If you were to fuse creationism and evolution the
new theory would be weaker than evolution on it's own.
Secondly the two theories deal with different things. Evolution deals with how
life changes over time. Creationism is how life first came about. It wouldn't
make sense to combine the two because they aren't talking about the same thing.
It would be like fusing the ideas behind conservation of energy (energy is
always constant in a closed system) and thermal equilbrium (two objects of
different temperatures touching each other will reach a state where the
molecules of both objects will have the same average kinectic energy i.e.
temperature.) They both are talking about roughly the same topic but in
completely different contexts.
Thirdly creationism by all definitions is NOT a scientific theory. The United
States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in
fact not science and should not be presented as such." Why would you fuse a
non-scientific theory to a scientific theory? That would be a bit foolish. It
would be like fusing something that is a lie with something that is the truth.
Not that I'm saying that creationism is a lie and evolution to be the truth. I'm
just saying that creationism is not science. It cannot possibly be combined with
something that is science.
Finally creationism has very little direct evidence of someone actually making
all life. There's no videotape, no photos, etc. Evolution has abundant pieces of
evidence. Unless you want to argue over the credibility of macro vs micro
evolution that is. Evolution is practically fact. There are some parts in which
it is weak, but for the most part it is very strong evidence-wise.
actually we are not evolved from monkeys...that theory is just that, a minor
theory...
Im not sure what the standing theory of where we came from is other than that
humans and monkeys came from the same basic thing, just took different
branches...like humans did...remember the cave men? they are a different strain
than us, and its been speculated that our strain wiped out the other
ones.
ok.... CyberDragoon
*really want to argue about this one*
how do you define "science"...? i define it as a study of the nature
of the world..... so before you make certain the creationism is true or not.....
i dont think you should categorize creationism as "not
science"....
and something else.... any arguement about something which havent been proved
always go with "if" so it doesn't really matter if creationism have a
weak argument.... it just that wat will happen "if" it exist!
I was thinking about my post on the evolution versus creationism thread, and i was wondering who else thinks that both theories can potentially exist in harmony?
If you don't, say why.
And if you DO, say why too!
They can't exist in harmony, in my opinion, but that's for each person to decide.
My reasoning for this, is that creationism is a basis of psuedo science and that they lack the proof that gives science reliablity. And Evolution has been proven.
And secondly, I don't know if anyone else has this view, but the two theories contradict each other.
What exactly do you mean by Creationism? I agree with Hasaki-Keissi. Evolution brought us IMPERFECT and POORLY DESIGNED creatures to existence in this POORLY DESIGNED and IMPERFECT world. Creationism is bull. No evidence behind it. Evolution is the way. It has evidence behind it. I think the choice is obvious.
No need to create an entirely new thread on this topic; you should have just raised this question in one of the existing threads on the creation/evolution debate.
Actually since this subforum is so specific, this subject is really a different one. Reopened.
Sure they can, but doing so requires rejecting certain factors of one or both theories. There is the idea that science has faulty dating processes, or that "day" is a very loose term used in Genesis to describe a general "period of time" as opposed to 24h as we denote a "day" now. There is also the theory that creationism occurred to the exclusion of macroevolution, and then microevolution and the basic idea of "survival of the fittest" shaped the gene pool for future generations as the world changed (which is undeniable, really...even today the earth continues to change).
So there are theoretical ways they can coexist. The problem is that most of those who choose to get into such debates are uninterested in that kind of outcome. They are busy being entrenched in an "I'm right, and you're just plain wrong" position. And who knows, one or the other may be completely right and the other completely wrong. Only God knows for sure ^_~
no can't exist
creationism- is a God
evoution- no god
creationism- world created by God
evolution- World created by itself
creationism- animals created by God
evolution- animals happened by chance
each "theory" has its own structure like story of what happens which is totally contradictory. to co-exist means that u can't reject any part of each of their theories like what most people do. like God created big bang etc. but in doing so,you've created like an entire new theory and u've rejected both thoeries at the same time like God did not create the world but the big bang and that the big bang was not caused by a natural phenomonen.
i DID say "potentially" exist in harmony.
i'm aware that the result may be an entirely new theory all together,
but what i'm saying is what if God planned out evolution?
what if He were the one who started life on this earth and made it grow into what it is today?
keep in mind that there are several holes in the theory of evolution.
furthermore, what you're saying is "evolution" is a completely different theory altogether. the theory of evolution says that creatures change over time, and they most likely do it through mutation, variation in population and natural selection.
the big bang has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.
of course the combining of the two theories would contradict some of the Old Testament, but many people don't take the bible literally in terms of historical evidence.
Depends on the individual I suppose. The problem is that the biggie religions are specifically against the idea of the world being older than a few thousand years. And since whatever book each religion doesn't change much anymore, I don't see there ever being a concensus. Neither scientists nor devout people are known for their 'give and take' attitudes.
Taking in account the conventional definitions of each theory (i.e. Creationism: God created the world in 6 days as stated in Gen 1, but NOT Gen 2 [which I might add, contradicts the previous chapter quite openly] and Evolution: the world came into being by means of the big bang and is still evolving etc.), its easy to state matter of factly that they contradict each other. But suppose you hypothise that God is still in control of evolution? How did the big bang come into being? Could God have sparked it off? What drives the potentiality in living organisims to better themselves over their natural environment? Could God in the first place give them that potential or drive them like that? Think about it.
Anyway, in a more academic sense: The first chapter of Genesis is almost identical to Babylonian Cosmogonies (lit creation of the cosmos) and there is a CLEAR link between their and Genesis 1's version (despite whatever the fundamantalist say: I'm sorry, but I've studied both versions as well as the Babylonian myths in translation). Genesis 2, on the other hand switches the c reatyion sequence: go check it up. Man is created second. Now THAT version is comparible with Syro-Palestinian versions prior to the Babelonian exile.
Thus, you can argue and compare the theories of Creationism and Evolution metaphorically or analogically, but NOT if you are going literally by the Biblical version. There are contradictions which CANNOT be taken literally.
For the millionth time....
EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN HOW THE WORLD CAME TO BE.
It is the theory that animals evolve into other animals. Nothing more, nothing less.
Whatever! Don't take it so personaly. I know they are separate, but conventionally they are tied together. Its like saying that the sun and daylight are different theories - even though the one happens secondary to the other.
ok, i'll throw my two cents in. i think i've made it pretty clear that i'm a believer in evolution, but i'll openly admit that both can exist. i read a really interesting article in TIME magazine that dealt with this exact topic. they interviewed a bunch of scientists (who you'd think would be "evolution all the way!") and surprise surprise... there was a huge chunk of creationists among them. however, their theory went something like "God created the world and gave it the means to evolve". thus bringing in both theories.
That would contradict the Adam and Eve story which speaks of God creating man as man, not as an ape.
Read Gen 1 and 2 carefully. They contradict each other. Gen 1 states that man was created last, after everything else was finished, but Gen 2 switches it around. Man cam first, then the plants and animals.
By saying that God created the world doesn't necassarily mean by the way such as mentioned in Genesis. The whole point of this statement is that He created the universe and subsequently the world by means of, say, the Big Bang, and natural evolution followed according to the mathematical and scientific rules which He had set down.
hmm i do not have a strong believe i criticism but i am a strong believer off evolution.. the fact that today we have such advanced technologies and what not there is so much we don't know but the big bang is the most logical in MY EYES.
Yeah creationism and evolution cannot possibly coexist. Creationism says that all life was created as is (I think). So humans started off as humans. There wouldn't be any of that dog evolving into a cat that could occur in evolution. I suppose God could have made the first life form and then started evolution. That might be acceptable as a creationism/evolution mixture. However since creantionism has by far the weaker argument as compared to evolution it would be foolish to fuse the two because the theory would be weakened by creationism's flaws.
Read Gen 1 and 2 carefully. They contradict each other. Gen 1 states that man was created last, after everything else was finished, but Gen 2 switches it around. Man cam first, then the plants and animals.
By saying that God created the world doesn't necassarily mean by the way such as mentioned in Genesis. The whole point of this statement is that He created the universe and subsequently the world by means of, say, the Big Bang, and natural evolution followed according to the mathematical and scientific rules which He had set down.
Yes! Yes! Exactly! Why don't more people think of that?
i think they can co exist...if you believe that God or Gods created the universe, and then let nature takes its course...then both theories can co-exist...however, the whole adam and eve thing has so many loopholes thats its not even near funny....and i dont think i need to go into the loopholes
though i am not a believer of god create life form.... but i wont deny that if... and i say "IF" god or some other higher life form create life forms....(very ironic ain't it) a system of change or evolution would be put in place.....
Creationsim.... only state of creation.... a begining....
Evolution...... the process of change... to adapt....
i don't see why both cant co-exist....
I dunno why ppl want to mess up terminolgies and stuff like that.... to me....
Creationism should be higher beings create life form..... not GOD from Christianity create life forms though both ideas are connected.....
and Evolution is s system of change so life form can adapt.... not that human must be evolved from apes and such....it is only a SUGGESTION!
Anyhow... back to topic... from the basic meaning of both terminology(explained above) i think both can co-exist......sorry... if i somehow messed up and insulted some of you......
my 20 cents
The two theories can be fused. Some higher being could have created the first life form and then set into motion evolution.
However, an argument against fusing the two is that creationism has a very weak argument and evidence base. If you were to fuse creationism and evolution the new theory would be weaker than evolution on it's own.
Secondly the two theories deal with different things. Evolution deals with how life changes over time. Creationism is how life first came about. It wouldn't make sense to combine the two because they aren't talking about the same thing. It would be like fusing the ideas behind conservation of energy (energy is always constant in a closed system) and thermal equilbrium (two objects of different temperatures touching each other will reach a state where the molecules of both objects will have the same average kinectic energy i.e. temperature.) They both are talking about roughly the same topic but in completely different contexts.
Thirdly creationism by all definitions is NOT a scientific theory. The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." Why would you fuse a non-scientific theory to a scientific theory? That would be a bit foolish. It would be like fusing something that is a lie with something that is the truth. Not that I'm saying that creationism is a lie and evolution to be the truth. I'm just saying that creationism is not science. It cannot possibly be combined with something that is science.
Finally creationism has very little direct evidence of someone actually making all life. There's no videotape, no photos, etc. Evolution has abundant pieces of evidence. Unless you want to argue over the credibility of macro vs micro evolution that is. Evolution is practically fact. There are some parts in which it is weak, but for the most part it is very strong evidence-wise.
All i got to say is monkey's?
actually we are not evolved from monkeys...that theory is just that, a minor theory...
Im not sure what the standing theory of where we came from is other than that humans and monkeys came from the same basic thing, just took different branches...like humans did...remember the cave men? they are a different strain than us, and its been speculated that our strain wiped out the other ones.
hmm.... got a few point there... but still.....
ok.... CyberDragoon
*really want to argue about this one*
how do you define "science"...? i define it as a study of the nature of the world..... so before you make certain the creationism is true or not..... i dont think you should categorize creationism as "not science"....
and something else.... any arguement about something which havent been proved always go with "if" so it doesn't really matter if creationism have a weak argument.... it just that wat will happen "if" it exist!