Is the Creation vs Evolution/Darwinism DNA evidence/Fossil evidence and or how Life got here for exa

reply to post by visualmiscreant

Notice the part where it says "or", which implies one or the other:

It's not uncommon to see "or" used to combine alternate titles for the same work in writing from the 1800's. There's a difference in its use simply as a conjunction vs its use as a logical operator.

The dropping of this second part of the title should raise a flag.

Should the dropping of the second half of the first clause of the title not also raise a flag, then? I mean, there must be some kind of insidious meaning behind "by Means of Natural Selection", right? Wow, and now I see that many modern print editions are dropping the "On" from the title! Why would they do that? Let's see... "o" is the 15th letter of the alphabet, and "n" is the 14th... and if you add them together you get 29... which is a prime number... and if you add 2 and 9, you get 11... That's it! 2 9/11! They're saying there's going to be a second 9/11 attack by removing the first word of the title of a book written in the 1800's!

Or, sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar, to paraphrase Freud.

reply to post by GmoS719

I said "most" because a lot of the scientific community doesn't believe in a "creator".

Actually you'll find quite a few scientists including many working in theoretical and particle physics that believe in some "creator" but they are smart enough to keep that belief to themselves because saying as much immediately leaves them open to the religious groups latching onto their beliefs and having it twisted around.

I'm also fairly confident that they might meet some ridicule amongst their peers as well, but more out of misunderstanding than anything.

Science can never prove or disprove the existence of a "god" or "creator". And in reality, that isn't under sciences jurisdiction anyway. But what it can do is go about explaining the world around us and how it works at the fundamental mechanical levels. Science can prove that god didn't create the earth in a blink of an eye, rather, it was created thanks to gravity and time. Science can prove god didn't create the stars, they were merely another manifestation of the physical laws of our universe.

BUT

Science can't really explain why the laws are what they are. And there is your religion, there is the room for your creator. If any of the basic laws of our universe were different we wouldn't be here. If any number of variables relating to earth being habitable changed slightly, we wouldn't be here.

The laws of physics, at least the ones that aren't in dispute currently, are elegant. So elegant that there must be a reason.

One thought is our laws are so elegant by chance, because we occupy but 1 of an infinite number of universes, all of which could contain every possible combination of laws and variables.

Originally posted by visualmiscreant
In case anybody is seriously tripping on this, let me at least give you the baby steps so you can see where Creationists are coming from. I understand this will not be popular, but that's the nature of it....

Darwin's Landmark Book Published in November 1859
Darwin finished a manuscript, and his book, titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races In the Struggle for Life, was published in London on November 24, 1859. (Over time, the book became known by the shorter title On the Origin of Species.)

Source

Notice the part where it says "or", which implies one or the other:

or the Preservation of Favoured Races

The dropping of this second part of the title should raise a flag.

Seriously? You can't be serious.

It is quite common, well, was, to have titles in literature and in some cases movies like this example:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races In the Struggle for Life

Two ways of saying the same thing. Natural selection is a process of preservation of favored "races".

The term "races" being in this case synonymous with "species"

And you guys wonder why we get sarcastic and short tempered with this topic, THAT right there is a prime example of the level of "debate" we can have on this subject. Sad really.

We can provide facts and data, but heaven forbid if someone somewhere interpreted that as something else, and dear god don't let them use a comma instead of a period.

Evolution is racist, that's awesome, seriously, I want that on a T-shirt.

Even if the Origin of Species was written by Hitler, it still doesn't take anything away from the the beauty and eloquence of the theory in explaining why the world is the way it is today.

One often sees creationists attacking Darwin and then believing this discredits the entire theory. Obviously back in 1859 he did not have all the answers, and some of what he claimed has since been surpassed by more progressive theories as more information became available. But one will rarely see an evolutionist tearing apart a paper on say 'the evolution of deep ocean viper fish' as published in Nature magazine for the facts have moved on, yet creationist still keep reviving old arguments which have all long since been discredited.

The main difference between science and creationism is that science constantly changes its view based on the most current information available, while creationists keep referring back to a book of myths and metaphors as written by a group of bronze age middle-eastern goat herders 2000+ years ago and collated by a Roman emperor with an agenda, then picking small parts out of a vast array of scientific fact which seem on the surface to support their cause, while ignoring everything else.

reply to post by mikejohnson2006
well, there is a third possibility and its called Intervention-Theory, have u heard of zecharia sitchin or Lloyd Pye? if not its well worth googling

reply to post by mikejohnson2006


Creationism has no objective evidence to back up its claims, even worse, it's demonstrably wrong in many cases. For example, we know for a FACT that humans didn't just pop up on earth in their current form. We know that because the theory of evolution is backed up by objective evidence.

So no, creationism and evolution isn't the same, as one's backed up with real objective evidence, and the other isn't

doublepost...sry

Originally posted by faeriequeen
reply to post by mikejohnson2006

 

well, there is a third possibility and its called Intervention-Theory, have u heard of zecharia sitchin or Lloyd Pye? if not its well worth googling

They're both pseudo-scientists without any objective evidence to back up their claims

Sitchin for example mistranslates a ton of stuff, and draws conclusions that have no proof as backup.