Creationism or Evolutionism? Or could it be a combination of both?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Evolutionism or Creationism?

Over the years I have read and watched many debates and discussions on this subject. The end result is usually a discussion of the flaws of each stance. I would like to discuss the possibility that perhaps the truth is a mixture of both. There is undeniable evidence of progressive evolution within the fossil record. Not to mention we can still see evolution in progress in humans.

There also is evidence to support intelligent design (creationism). The fine-tuned universe argument is a compelling one. The stances of irreducible complexity and specified complexity also have compelling evidence.

First let me define, briefly, what I mean when I discussing Evolutionists and Creationists. I will not be able to list all the details of each stance, but hope to list some of the main points from each camp as I understand them.

Evolutionists:

To start off they seem to utterly disregard that God had anything whatever to do with the creation of the Universe and all that pertains thereto. To include life itself. It all was an accident and by chance.

To combat the inconsistencies of that theory the Multiverse hypothesis was introduced. I don’t recall reading what they claim the source of these multiverses are, but logically it must be something outside of time and space.

The theory is that we happen to exist in one of the multiverses that, by chance, everything worked out. After the Big Bang, which now is believed to have happened around 13.5 Billion years ago, all the necessary elements were created that will eventually form into all the heavenly bodies.

By some kind of unknown process life began on a small planet in the outer edges of creation that we call home. Life began the long and slow process of survival of the fittest. All parts of what we call our body are the result of a long trial and error process.

This brief description certainly does not cover all the details of the theory of evolution. The primary point I’m trying to show is that the theory of evolution believes everything happened by chance. Also, generally they do not believe in life after death.

Creationist:

One of the core beliefs is that the universe was purposely created by God, i.e. Intelligent Design. Most who are in this camp are of the Christian faith and therefore follow the Christian account of creation. The 7 days for creation, Adam and Eve, and Noah’s flood being a few of the traditions. Most seem to also follow the line that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

That God created man and woman as is/whole and that Adam and Eve were the first humans. Following that, God also created all species as they are, direct creation. Some, but not all say that was about 6 thousand years ago.

As mentioned earlier my intention was not to list every point of argument but just a few to show the differences.

Now for my theory, Progressive Evolution.

This theory combines elements from both creationism and evolutionism.

We must start with the source, the first source and center of creation, God. God is the only uncaused cause, meaning he is the only being who does not rely on another being for existence. Everything and everybody else exists because of God.

Another important aspect of this theory is to realize that God does not do it all alone he has created an almost infinite host of beings, mortal creatures being just one of them. Some beings are purpose built. For example there are beings whose sole purpose is the control and dissemination of energy. There are many orders, from beings who, by their presence, begin the process of nebula creation to beings who directionize energy flows.

There are also beings whose purpose is the design and dissemination of material life. They are the ones to foster life on a world until development reaches a certain point. Also there is a vast number of administrative types who manage the affairs of the universe. God has also created living machines, devoid of will, but intelligent that control certain aspects of the material universe.

I believe one of the stumbling blocks when people think about God and creation is that it is usually portrayed as God doing it all himself. Which is pretty much what the Christians teach. It’s like saying the owner of a larger multi-national company does everything himself. It just doesn’t make sense. Also, God is not man like. God is spirit. When it is said we are made in God’s image that is referring to our potential spiritual nature.

The universe is organized into administrative units.

When solar systems form and planets develop according to the universal laws, if conditions are favorable, life is initiated on the barren planet. There is a wide range of material life. What we are being just one of many. Life can be designed to function on planets that are cooler or hotter. That has thinner or thicker atmospheres. Even to adjust to the gravity of the planet.

The beings entrusted with this task are called Life Carriers. The Life Carriers project and develop life depending on the planetary conditions. Life is generally initiated in several areas of a planet simultaneously. As such will develop independently for long periods of time, but will ultimately commingle. Life Carriers can and do manipulate the material forms, or physical patterns of living beings, but God provides the living spark. After that the lifeless forms of matter are living.

A corps of Life Carriers will stay on the planet to foster the development of life. They are able to activate the sudden evolutionary changes from the superior genetic stocks of the given species into something completely new. This process is continued until a species exhibits the higher intellectual processes of wisdom and worship. At this point they terminate their influence and biologic life must progress on its own.

That is my theory in a nutshell. I could go into more detail, but didn't want to have the OP be too large.




posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I have never understood why these two positions are considered mutually exclusive. God uses evolution as part of ITs plan has always been my theory. In the end, I think most scientific and spiritual processes will come down to a synthesis of the two.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

So you're a creationist then?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Holy crap! Evolution proponents don't say that religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. There is no part of the theory of evolution that says that god cannot exist. Evolution makes ZERO claims about spirituality, it also doesn't have anything to do with the creation of life. If you want to believe in god and say that god is the answer to why and evolution is the answer to how then so be it, but the only people pretending that evolution and god are mutually exclusive are the bible literalists, otherwise known as young earth creationists.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: helldiver
a reply to: UB2120

So you're a creationist then?



A creationist who believes in evolution.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Unfortunately that's the problem with this kind of conundrum. Is it this one? Or this one?
Maybe we should ask ourselves, one of us must know. What happens when we know the answer? Would we all change or just the person that believes the answer?

I've spent countless aeons trying to figure this out, I'm finally coming to a conclusion but it doesn't satisfy either of the 2 or maybe 3 or any for that matter.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
God created Atom. God is photon. Our entire reality is based upon light and vibration.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
God uses evolution as part of ITs plan.


This is the thing I can't seem to understand looking out into the world through my eyes.

If there were no other people on this planet, and you had never heard of the idea of god in your life, would you look out into the planet and still believe? Would you just... know?

Because when I look out into the world, I see nothing that indicates, whether a feeling or intuition that there is a god.
I see nature. And energy. Which feels like what people might have meant when they thought god back then.

But these days, with 7 billion people on Earth all experiencing different things at different moments in time, it just seems like something that all evolved by itself through a trillion small events unimpeded or guided by anything



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Holy crap! Evolution proponents don't say that religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. There is no part of the theory of evolution that says that god cannot exist. Evolution makes ZERO claims about spirituality, it also doesn't have anything to do with the creation of life. If you want to believe in god and say that god is the answer to why and evolution is the answer to how then so be it, but the only people pretending that evolution and god are mutually exclusive are the bible literalists, otherwise known as young earth creationists.


As you said, they make zero claims about spiritually. I've never read, and that certainly doesn't mean it hasn't happened, someone discussing evolution ever mentioning anything about God. They seem to try and find some "natural" explanation. There have been many debates in the last couple years and the sides seem to be mutually exclusive.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120




There also is evidence to support intelligent design (creationism). The fine-tuned universe argument is a compelling one. The stances of irreducible complexity and specified complexity also have compelling evidence.


The fine-tuning argument in its basic form states that if the universe was any different, it would be different. It's a tautology. The rest is more anthropomorphic conjecture based on zero evidence.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Actually it is neither.

The system has brain-washed you, and most other people on this board into thinking that there can only be Creationism, and if people believe in God they have to be Creationists.

This is incorrect.

Creationism is actually a very narrow-minded and inaccurate interpretation of Holy Scriptures, that state that the six creative days in the Bible have to be literal 6 24 hour periods.

And ALL evolutionists and atheists only argue with this ridiculous falsehood, and group everyone who believes in the Bible to this very narrow and segregated group of radical fundamental "Christians."

Until you start thinking for yourself, and opening up your mind you will continue to fight with these fundies, who give the Bible and God a bad name, and never open your mind up to understand the truth of the matter.

=31c3e167-7855-4778-801f-fc5c779fac36&insight[search_result_inde x]=9]The Bible and Creationsists Claims
edit on 18-8-2014 by iSomeone because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Just call the whole thing a soup pot full of soup. All the ingredients make the soup (life), then you need the pot (earth). But also remember, some sort of being is making the soup.

The being could just be structured energy, created form life itself. It does not have to originate in the thing we call the universe. There is much more than just what we can see, this universe blocks our view of something bigger because of the gravitational forces of the universe itself.

Someday god may turn on the light so we can comprehend what this reality is.
edit on 18-8-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are wrong Krazyshot.

Many atheists are evolutionists and they all believe humans came from monkies.

The whole point of this post is proving that Aliens can and will terraform planets and colonize them.
Is it the outcome 100% of the time?

Of course not, That would be rediculous.

And it's got nothing to do with Life spawning more life.

Life did not come from God, Life comes from every spark that makes it way to physical existance.
The universe is folded on itself. There is no multiverse as there is no need of a multiverse.

The universe is entirely full, Only a huge portion of the universes mass and energy is compressed into NON IONIZED STATES.

Do you know what an Ions are? Do you know what an electron a proton and a neutron are? They are the building blocks of all mass and energy. All rocks and froms of life in the UNIVERSE. Yes they have sub-atomic structures. They are not solid peices of 1 block or 1 one bent fragment but rather is a collection of slivers that all point in the direction of its rotation, Just like how a turbine electric generator works. Only this is on a sub atomic level.


Mass can seem to not exist because part of what we see is an *illusion*
Like a fan blade spinning the object casts the appearence of being spherical but it is just the fast rotation of the electrons/protons generating the effects. Everything that is built properly in the universe will function properly if assembled under the right conditions. There are places in the universe where this does not occure.

Where anything is smashed and condensed ripped aparted and condensed reguardless of positive/negative electric charges- Which govern all physical mass and energy.

Instead its subject to a drain, A literal vortex in space. Every Galaxy holds a black hole. And it is constantly feeding on mass which keeps it stable. The presence of mass and energy fuels the initial implosion.

Its area pull is limmited tho, The degression in pull gives the surrounding areas some stability as everything is flying in the drections of its waves. At the same time compressed mass is being ejected. These cannot be ionized simply because they are randomly assorted. Very high probability of non reactive substances being drawn out of the black hole. Only physical mass and energy is subject to its decompression, Since its a funnel and not a solid object. There are 2 openings in a black hole.

While mass and energy is being ripped apart it's Releasing the same energy as would cracking an atom and its sub-collective particles.

We call this Nuclear energy, But the ex-plosion is muffled and over powered by space hurricanes. * well it started off as a big ball of gas did it not? lol*

Anyways if anything does excape a black hole, It would be Gammas that were generated by these pressures. Black energy and black matter is carried along the currents into space at opposite ends. The spinning of the black hole causes the gamma rays to arc. There is a large buzzing in space that is relative to our galaxy. The dispersion of gammarays ionizes nearby particles generating a vast electromagnetic feild that sheilds and holds our planets together much like how Neutrons or neutrons and protons catch an electron and have it orbit based on the laws of attraction.

You can have an extremely dense particle that cannot be measured by gravity in existance. As gravity is the cause and effect of spinning. Rather than simply mass density.

To calculate if gravity exists in mass density, We would need to drop a feather on dense and non dense particles in space and see if one falls faster than the other.

Its hilarious because you can't have any of these effects.
It's the presence of electrons that cause pull, Because huge swarms of matter is spinning drawing things In and holding things in place. IF we didn't have an strong electromagnetic feild *gravity* would be weaker. But having no electric feild is impossible for physical mass but not impossible for randomly assorted particles.

This process has been going on for infinity. Eternity. Forever. Because a universe cannot hold all these bodies of stars if there was a *tare* in the universe Everything would be drawn to that tare. And mass would not be returned. To say another universe feeds this tear from another tear would be like saying The otherside is less pressurized and so sucks, But for some reason decides to blow? I'm not following that trail of thought as it creates paradoxs. And a theory is 100% inaccurate once you draw up even 1 paradox.

There cannot be a paradox. As paradox's do not exist. They are just a product of ignorance nothing more.

All Mass and energy at once point was a living breathing creature. There is no need of God on a universal scale because everything is self reliant on self. It only relies on its own existance coupled with dependence on other LIVING creatures.

Without life, Planets and stars would hold no stories. Nothing to hold onto. Earth would spin into the sun and that would be it. No epic story of humans and our advance to space and eventually escaping the demise our planet will have.
No carrying on the Earth's and our solar systems legacy. Life gives the universe meaning. Life is the consious output in the universe.
As everything else is sleeping in a dorment state or not at the right place at the right time to form life.

It does not mean that these baren rocks in space CAN'T hold life. Shift its position, Add an atmosphere and you could very well give it life. And the thing is, What will be used to build that life? But the minerals and particles of the planet itself? It's very dust. Will become the living output of which life will thrive. So all mass and energy for the most part at one point or another has the chance to generate life by releasing some of its contained energy to do so.

In a universe where entropy exists. It only occures because the objects fly off or lose a large portion of their vibration.
Energy cannot be destroyed but it can be deminished in its processes. The universe recycles all this by drawing it into black holes once its charge has become very weak it is subject to the lesser forces of the black hole.
This is what the black hole MOSTLY feeds on. And is not entirely reliant on stars and gass clouds/asteroids as that energy alone is not enough to fuel a black hole.

Anyways. As i explained life is the consious outlet of the universe. Our purpose is to build a story. That's it.

We generate a story for where ever advanced life is forming. Then we get the !@#$ out of there. And we carry the memories and respects of the planet, materials and life essence of that solar system with them.
To seed waiting planets or experiment on living ones.

Evolution very much does exist but its only the Method of How to. Intelligent design speeds up colonization. Which is enivitable as humanity will be required to do it if we wish to exist as a species in the galaxy...

The main argument is if we were created by Aliens or poped up as monkies. God in that case would be an Alien.
As living beings are the only consious output. We can create things in our image. But the universe cannot create Us in our image in one single flash. It is a very slow process to get to where we are now. The Galaxy could be 13.5 billion years old. Or it could be older. Who knows.

But don't confuse the galaxy and universe. The big bang is only relative to our galaxy.
edit on 18-8-2014 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
God only came into 'being' through humans. It never existed all those millions of years when dinosaurs were around. It also doesn't exist in a lot of people's minds that live happy, meaningful and peaceful lives [and I am not talking atheists but actual tribes around the world].
We can explain almost everything with evolution and now quantum physics.

Did god invent all those things? Well to someone who believes in a god [here are numerous ones] it is an easy cop put. Everything science will explain from now on, it is obviously god's will. An unwinnable argument for all the creatures that don't have a god in their life.

Does spiritualism exist? Yes it does, thanks to science and some [still] illegal substances, humans always had spirituality. There is more to our lives than just the reality you can perceive with just your senses.
Is there an afterlife?
I don't know, it is possible. Is there reincarnation? Again, I have no idea but again why not?

However is a god really necessary to explain these things?

Absolutely not. All the above can easily be because of the way this universe functions and we just don't know about it yet.
Do humans have to believe in old writings that have been translated [often wrong] many times and which are more relevant to people who lived a couple of thousand years ago?
No way.

Learning and gaining knowledge means that sometimes we have to discard old ideas that worked before. Flat earth for example. Instead we get new ideas.

IF...and I am devil's advocate here...if there is a god it would also know that humans have a capability to live good lives without it and it should neither be surprised nor threaten eternal damnation for it. It would understand.

The only thing that holds back a human's spiritual evolution [yes] is not to be allowed to embrace other ideas, ideals and explanations. Only then can we grow. If people stick to an old book and close their minds to other options without fear then they can never ever have spiritual growth.

Sometimes I think religion and especially creationism is for people who are not intrinsically spiritual but wish to be. They then go by the 'book' [literally] and can say "hey look, I am spiritual", but in ll honesty, I have never met a deeply philosophical christian. They cancel each other out.

If you are one with your body, mind and universe and embrace science to even further your thoughts, no god is needed.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

The only way I could reconcile Creationism with Evolution is if "aliens", acting as "The Creator", somehow manipulated the DNA of apes or some other animal on this planet millions of years ago, to eventually led to humans as we are now. That is the only "Creator" I will accept in a Creationist's argument.

Creationism, in the traditional "God created us in his image" sense is too juvenile for me - too easy. Plus, there's zero evidence to support it.

Whereas conversely, there is an abundance of supporting evidence to the theory of evolution. Of course, there are holes - but that is the beauty of science : it can admit when it's wrong and change it's theory to support the observed evidence. Creationism, based on faith alone, cannot.
edit on 18-8-2014 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666

the threat of god's wrath stems from the fact that the Earth was probably most likely visited in the passed.

If Humans were created on Earth and are Invasive to the milkyway galaxy.
It would explain why we have so many myths of Gods fighting in the skies.

Even in that instance you could call Rapture, the great cullling.
Where humans are mass abducted before a catastrophic event.

I myself have had a vision of this in a lucid dream.

Yes the universe may not grumble at its distain for our sins.
But the most terrorfying and realistic aspect to all this is humanity very well could of been pillaged in the passed.
The scars all over the planet would hint towards this.
If this is true, What does it mean for all the non believers when the !@#$ has finally hit the fan and you only have 15 minutes to decide if you want to board that E.Ts ship or not.

edit on 18-8-2014 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I too am a Christian who has no problem with evolution.
But I see no reason to introduce the idea of "beings" for God work through.
Why can't he just be working through natural forces?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

"We must start with the source, the first source and center of creation, God."

I will play Devil's, no make that God's advocate here and accept your opening premise.

No true scientist will state that God is not the first source and center of creation.

This has yet to be reasonably accepted as fact.

Since I call myself a true scientist, I will call this an hypothesis.

The way I see it, biological evolution has nothing to do with theism.

Perhaps abiogenesis does.

Perhaps cosmology does.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

I cannot begin to fathom how God operates. In my mind, I see Him snapping His fingers and saying, "exist", and poof, there it is, but the reality is that I don't know how He does what He does. All I know is that He does it. Perhaps He chose evolution as a means of creation -- an instrument of His glory. Perhaps He used a different method. Who knows?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: yourmaker

originally posted by: Metallicus
God uses evolution as part of ITs plan.


This is the thing I can't seem to understand looking out into the world through my eyes.

If there were no other people on this planet, and you had never heard of the idea of god in your life, would you look out into the planet and still believe? Would you just... know?

Because when I look out into the world, I see nothing that indicates, whether a feeling or intuition that there is a god.
I see nature. And energy. Which feels like what people might have meant when they thought god back then.

But these days, with 7 billion people on Earth all experiencing different things at different moments in time, it just seems like something that all evolved by itself through a trillion small events unimpeded or guided by anything


No, if you were the first human to evolve on the planet you would not have the same concept of God. I believe one of the first things you would know is that you are different than everything else. That you were something more than an animal.

Just as life evolved, so does religion. Primitive religion had a biologic origin, a natural evolutionary development, aside from moral associations and apart from all spiritual influences. The higher animals have fears but no illusions, hence no religion. Man creates his primitive religions out of his fears and by means of his illusions.

So you would have a different concept than what most call religion today, and there is nothing wrong with that. God is no respecter of persons. He responds to even the faintest flicker of faith. He is fully aware of the evolutionary process and the status of your environment.

Concerning the hardships of life, consider the following.

1. Is courage — strength of character — desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.

2. Is altruism — service of one’s fellows — desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.

3. Is hope — the grandeur of trust — desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.

4. Is faith — the supreme assertion of human thought — desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.

5. Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.

6. Is idealism — the approaching concept of the divine — desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.

7. Is loyalty — devotion to highest duty — desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.

8. Is unselfishness — the spirit of self-forgetfulness — desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.

9. Is pleasure — the satisfaction of happiness — desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities.





top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join