Suggestion to Rename this Forum

I believe in physical causes, so creationism is somewhat ludicrous, but I also think that 'mutations' is a bit suspect. Perhaps the term is just obtuse, and fatalistic almost, change is better. So yes, genetics changes, and as two distinct species mate, the bi-product has distinct qualities, which then influences future offspring. Species themselves act in a similar way, so that diversity through reproduction is more sensible and easily identifiable. Where did it all begin? That would be a different question, mostly based on the notion of a common origin.

Now I agree that it would have to be a self-replicating organism, and therefore there has to be a first. If there were two, it wouldn't need to self-replicate. So that curiously sounds like a "God" or some type. Even if it is just a bacteria, as it more likely the case, where did it originate in? The humidity, I suppose? After the earth received an atmosphere. Interesting, stuff, I don't know all the answers, but I think the topic is so broad that 'Evolution vs. Creationism' just kind of limits it.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

I rather enjoyed your comments hahahhahahhaa

I agree, the current name suggests evolution and creationism are on an even footing.....

a reply to: filosophia

It's a canvas with a infinite ways to paint it. Oh wait i meant the Universe.

You know you could literally paint a sign on mars or the moon if you tried and had the tools + the time. lol.
If the universe is a hologram, It is the most interactive game of minecraft RTS space war civ colonizaing physics developmental kind of universe simulator. Lol. I don't think the Universe actually is a Sim. But i think it's the most advanced form of Minecraft yet.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Flatfish

I would think by definition If a human spreads life. A quantity to create great biodiversity, that makes them a creatonist.

Even if we ourselves were not created by E.T. We will very soon be filling the roles people of all wakes of life deny that any other species in existance could fullfill here.

There really is no right answer, But only what we can see in the current present and the lessons of the past.

As a species, These things we talk about. As long as science progresses the way it is. Will be eliminated. No one world government will event do it because science and spirituality will merge together. Or we will become hopelessly brutal.

The outcome can come from either direction. We will be creating life and technology reguardless and continue to do so. But how we approach it with signifigance or non at all will chance how society as a whole respects what we create and it will effect how our creations act as well.

Once life gets passed the point of self reflection to where technology becomes available to manipulate matter into life. It really puts a whole new perspective on the Denying creation and having us being created by something that creates everything. As it really dampers out the 2 by taking the keyfactors of both and combining them into one. Which literally is the ultimate truth of the observable universe as far as i can see. Things do in fact come out of existance via evolution. And otherthings well, Come about in a totally non natural sense. And the longer our modern society exists on this planet with its advancing technology. The more that line of natural vs Engineered Earth will become more blurred.

Vs our Terra forming efforts on Mars. For the marsian people and life to be created on that planet. Creationism will be a 100% recorded statement. And that seems to be a pretty hottopic in astrobiology right now. Terraforming mars.

I too, believe that we are all creators. But then, that's what I was taught since childhood. My mother taught me that "Thoughts held in mind, produce of their kind," which by it's very nature implies that consciousness itself, and those who possess it, are all "Creators."

Problem is, I don't think that's what mainstream "Creationist" are talking about. I truly believe that by and large, they're dead set on a much more singular use of the term "Creator." One that sits on a throne in heaven utilizing his/her judgement to either welcome us into his/her realm or, condemn us to hell.

While I agree that the term "creationism" could be, (in the broader sense) used to define both ideologies, I doubt that most self-described "Creationist" would agree. Maybe we should call them "Religious Creationist."

I remember a question on okcupid: Do you think evolution & creationism should be taught side by side in school?

My answer:
Maybe; by creationism do you mean God or aliens?

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

How about we just call it "Theories" ?

We already have a Science and Technology forum to discuss scientific theories. That is unless you are trying to conflate the layman's definition of theory with the scientific one.

When is anything new ever really brought to the "debate" over Evolution vs Creationism? It's the same tired arguments ad nauseam.

"It's just a theory"
"You don't understand what theories are in science."
"Where are all the missing links?"
"There are no missing links, but here's a list of transitional forms."
"Designs require a Creator!"
"Typical teleological argument! Complexity does not infer design!"
"Irreducible complexity!"
"Google 'exaptation' and 'semiotic scaffolding'"

How often is anyone ever swayed to change his view?

a reply to: theantediluvian

I think most of these debates are for the 3rd parties reading them and not so much to sway someone's opinion one way or the other. Usually the people doing the arguing are the ones firmly entrenched in their opinion. But the people reading and not speaking up may be the ones on the fence that you are trying to reach. That being said, I'm sure there are also people who have switched sides after a lengthy evolution/creation debate.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
How often is anyone ever swayed to change his view?

Probably as often as they go out of their way to actually google 'exaptation' and 'semiotic scaffolding'

It's a freaking forum floating around in digital space. It's a name. I could call the religious forums the home to uptight prudes who don't listen to other viewpoints, same for the opposing parties.

i support this suggestion. creationism threads ought to go into philosophy and metaphysics because thats where gods belong.

for those complaining, we arent silencing you, just requesting that your soapbox be moved to a more appropriate market.

I understand you are referring to "God" in relation to Creationism...but we were all created by something. Sure, "God" is typically a magical, omnipotent being that controls everything. But you could also call the aliens that may have seeded the Earth..."God". You could call the big bang, an asteroid bearing life or any other "creator", "God".

How about instead of Creationism or Evolution you just change it to "Creation".

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

No good. Creation would imply intelligence behind said creation. Pitchforks....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

How about we just call it "Theories" ?

We already have a Science and Technology forum to discuss scientific theories. That is unless you are trying to conflate the layman's definition of theory with the scientific one.

I believe you are looking to keep the holy holy in this case

Scientific or otherwise, theories pop up in all places. A husband may have a theory as to where his two condoms went while he was out the night before. Religion.

All theories

a reply to: nullafides

So you are going with the layman definition of theory here? That is too broad of a definition and could apply to anything. After all conspiracy theories are "theories" too. So what COULDN'T you discuss in a forum called "Theories" (where theory is defined as the layman definition of theory)? At least if you keep it with the scientific definition, there is a very specific type of theory you could discuss (scientific ones), with the layman version any idea could be discussed there.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Evolution ISN'T creation. Evolution is the change of life over time.

Besides Yeahkeepwatchingme brought up a good point, Creation implies intelligence. Origins would be a better word than Creation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Evolution ISN'T creation. Evolution is the change of life over time.

Besides Yeahkeepwatchingme brought up a good point, Creation implies intelligence. Origins would be a better word than Creation.

I would be good with "Origins" but regardless, before life can change over time, it has to be created. I'm not implying that it had to be an intelligence doing so by choice...more likely than anything would be an accident. You know...kind of the "Your chocolate is in my peanut butter...no, your peanut butter is on my chocolate".

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Here's the problem though. Allowing for JUST origins in the forum also indirectly implies that Evolution also deals with origins since that is a topic that is heavily discussed here. It gives credence to the Creationist fallacy that evolution discusses the origins of life. "After all why would you discuss evolution in an origins forum?" They might ask. It's a weak argument, but one that could easily be sidestepped if you just titled the forum appropriately.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nullafides

So you are going with the layman definition of theory here? That is too broad of a definition and could apply to anything. After all conspiracy theories are "theories" too. So what COULDN'T you discuss in a forum called "Theories" (where theory is defined as the layman definition of theory)? At least if you keep it with the scientific definition, there is a very specific type of theory you could discuss (scientific ones), with the layman version any idea could be discussed there.

You seem to be genuinely interested in arguing today. Please feel free to go ahead, but without my participation.