|
creationism vs evolution (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Haha yeah, they wouldn't. Unless they were a total prankster... in which case I am having a hard time seeing why people believe anything matters. :p |
|
|
| Energy_3 |
| quote: | | when i say imperfect i mean organisms that are not perfectly suited for their environment. |
All things within the confinements of the universe or, in this case earth, you could argue are made in its image, and not particularly any image either - just what it becomes. (not referring to the gospel here either) I guess i could word it like this - each notion perfect and imperfect are merely ideas postulated by humans to help us understand the differences that exist, which im sure you know anyways. I think that we should simply see it as it is - ultimately things evolve in accordance to their own kind, subject to their environment, thus, they are as they will, by forces beyond their control, and forces encapsulated within the species own dynamics.
| quote: | | you think a creator or intelligent designer would not oversee these facts. |
It's not to deny the fact of evolution or creation, but that both coexist in a give or take manner again subject to the willfull intentions of that particular organism.
interesting conversation".:tongue3 |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Energy_3
All things within the confinements of the universe or, in this case earth, you could argue are made in its image, and not particularly any image either - just what it becomes. (not referring to the gospel here either) I guess i could word it like this - each notion perfect and imperfect are merely ideas postulated by humans to help us understand the differences that exist, which im sure you know anyways. I think that we should simply see it as it is - ultimately things evolve in accordance to their own kind, subject to their environment, thus, they are as they will, by forces beyond their control, and forces encapsulated within the species own dynamics.
It's not to deny the fact of evolution or creation, but that both coexist in a give or take manner again subject to the willfull intentions of that particular organism.
interesting conversation".:tongue3 |
I think your thinking to deeply about it. When i say whales are a faulty design, i do not mean that they are faulty by natures standards. If you figure a land mammal ungullate (similar to a carnivorous hog/deer) would have decendents to live in the water (common whales) the design seems somewhat ridiculous from a creationist point of view (and by creationist i mean the creature simply created on the spot). Why would the design of a whale be used instead of a fish if the species were not capable of evolution.
here is the proposed model for evolution of a whale based on molecular evidence as well.
the direct lineage is probably not 100% obviously as lineages change from time to time but i believe there is molecular evidence to support the clade. |
|
|
| Energy_3 |
| quote: | | When i say whales are a faulty design, i do not mean that they are faulty by natures standards. If you figure a land mammal ungullate (similar to a carnivorous hog/deer) would have decendents to live in the water (common whales) the design seems somewhat ridiculous from a creationist point of view (and by creationist i mean the creature simply created on the spot). Why would the design of a whale be used instead of a fish if the species were not capable of evolution. |
But what standards are they faulty by? Man kinds point of view or evolutionary?
I agree, but you are here (above) speaking directly about the proposition of what evolution actually is, that it is subjected to change of course due to the various conditions that would bring about change. Perhaps I was looking at it to deeply but i'm simply making the point that things generally run the true course of their nature through direct and indirect contact with external/internal stimuli. I still find it hard to understand the direct link between evolution and imperfectionism and perfection.
From an outsiders point of view being us humans its easily done to discern ourselves with the relativism of what ought to be or not i guess. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
the fact that a whale has to surface in order to breath oxygen from the air (it has lungs not gills like a fish)
This is an imperfection from a creation point of view, but from evolution it makes perfect sense due to the organism secondary evolution into the water (mammals initially evolved from water creatures)
kind of a ridiculous argument to use perfection and imperfection but just something to ponder i guess. Evolution is progression of an organism (wether its an improvement or not is subjective). Essentially its direction is guided by environmental factors (food habitat predators and competition). The best suited organisms survive. |
|
|
| Energy_3 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
the fact that a whale has to surface in order to breath oxygen from the air (it has lungs not gills like a fish) |
Indeed yeah i agree with you on this.
| quote: | | This is an imperfection from a creation point of view, but from evolution it makes perfect sense due to the organism secondary evolution into the water (mammals initially evolved from water creatures) |
and, yes from a 'creation' man made point of view, this is entirely the case - and from an 'evolutionary' point of view it would make perfect sense, as this is or would be, its true evolutionary path so to speak.
| quote: | | kind of a ridiculous argument to use perfection and imperfection but just something to ponder i guess. Evolution is progression of an organism (wether its an improvement or not is subjective). Essentially its direction is guided by environmental factors (food habitat predators and competition). The best suited organisms survive. |
When speaking generally its fine to make use of such notions i think, but, as like most things when we have in depth discussion, its impossible to break down every context to explain in precise manner due to another persons interpretation - but thats how we move forward and evolve ourselves i guess.
Thank God for Darwinism lol "the best suited organism survives". |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| lol you don't need to thank god for that. you should thank him for not being a prankster :p |
|
|
| Energy_3 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
lol you don't need to thank god for that. you should thank him for not being a prankster :p |
yes indeed,
I think God is the prankster". :tongue2 Oops did i say that". |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
I prefer the Gnostic view of Christian creationism.
God created a female angelic deity who went forth and spawned a whole slew of minor deities of which they formed the earth.
Also everything is inherently evil, Jesus was sort of an to his followers, he was also immortal and the crucifixion was not him dying for our sins but a release from his human body so he could go back to heaven (which apparently no one is actually allowed into) and get away from the jerk asses around him. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
sure teach religion in school.. thats fine.. but don't call it science. science has factual evidence to back it up.
You can still have faith and accept evolution. Religious texts do not need to be taken literally.
"they put the baby dinosaurs on board not the big ones DUH!" lol
id like to see noah fit even the extant species today on his ship. that would be 1.5 million * 2 = 3.0 million.
keep in mind that the total number of species to ever have existed is hypothesised to be more then 99 times that. |
|
|
| yukii |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
|
I was gonna post that yesterday
until i closed the tab bc i got annoyed |
|
|
|
|
