ChatterBank3 mins ago
Is It Possible That Creationism And Evolution Both Happened?
68 Answers
At presnt it seems you are either in one camp or the other and pour scorn if it doesn't agree with your own thinking. If you are in the creation camp the usual question is who created the creator. If you believe in evolution its difficult to come across crossed species and no plausible solution is given how man crossed the species barrier.
Wouldn't a better solution to believe there was initially a creator (god or otherwise) and within each species evolution took place to provide the variety we now see. The creator's creator could possibly be explained by negative time principles of which we know so little about as we only work in positive time.
Wouldn't a better solution to believe there was initially a creator (god or otherwise) and within each species evolution took place to provide the variety we now see. The creator's creator could possibly be explained by negative time principles of which we know so little about as we only work in positive time.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pdq1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The possibility that there was some kind of 'creator' has to be accepted by even the most ardent of atheists (such as me).
However it's still a might jump to then go on to say that the 'creator' must therefore be an eternal moral arbiter for whatever goes on in his/her/it's creation. A scientist could create life in a test tube but then simply walk away from the experiment (or, through death, cease to exist); it doesn't make that scientist an eternal moral arbiter over the life inside that test tube.
However it's still a might jump to then go on to say that the 'creator' must therefore be an eternal moral arbiter for whatever goes on in his/her/it's creation. A scientist could create life in a test tube but then simply walk away from the experiment (or, through death, cease to exist); it doesn't make that scientist an eternal moral arbiter over the life inside that test tube.
Many people of religion now concede that life has evolved. However, they still insist that God started the ball rolling – and meet a mighty stumbling block when it comes to the origins of man, who of course, was made in God’s image and was always just as we see him today - so has never evolved. Difficult to square that one.
As long as you use evolution as the method for change after first life started and was able to swallow the creationist claim, then both could happen. But hopefully only the minority feels the need to accept an initial act of creation by a deity first. It just feels like an easy answer that explains little and thus is rather unsatisfying and expected to be proven unnecessary in the near future.
You can't rule out the idea of a creator, no. But when I thought about this recently the idea of a moral creator seems to me to run into trouble because of (a) the massive amount of time between life and the Universe beginning and us; and (b) the fact that there was very clearly so much suffering and pain in that time. Both of these appear to go very strongly against a creator who is both moral and favours us - i.e. how can He be moral when he allows His creation to suffer so, and how could we really be His ultimate aim since he took so long to get to us, and even then waited apparently another few hundred thousand years to make Himself known.
A moral creator just does not fit in, in my opinion, with the Old Universe. Having taken that step, why bother having a creator at all? If there was one it does not matter, and so you may as well not have one at all.
A moral creator just does not fit in, in my opinion, with the Old Universe. Having taken that step, why bother having a creator at all? If there was one it does not matter, and so you may as well not have one at all.
No, it would not be a better solution to arrive at some sort of compromise. Questions of this nature are important, and it is important that we find the truth.
If you know anything at all about evolution you will know that it does not predict or claim that there were "crossed species" - By this, I assume you mean transitional fossils of such things as a crocoduck or simliar - This is a constant refrain from creationists, and serves to illustrate just how poor their scientific knowledge is.
And the comment you make about how man crossed the species barrier exhibits the same level of ignorance about what evolution actually is.
Your comment about the creators creator being explained by negative time principles is just meaningless babble unless you wish to qualify it further.
The real problem with a god is that such a being must be infinitely more complex that what he has created - and you then have to explain how such a complex being was created.
If you want a fig-leaf by which to defend gods role in the creation story, I suppose their is a space for some sort of creator entity that sloughs off universes - but that is about it.
If you know anything at all about evolution you will know that it does not predict or claim that there were "crossed species" - By this, I assume you mean transitional fossils of such things as a crocoduck or simliar - This is a constant refrain from creationists, and serves to illustrate just how poor their scientific knowledge is.
And the comment you make about how man crossed the species barrier exhibits the same level of ignorance about what evolution actually is.
Your comment about the creators creator being explained by negative time principles is just meaningless babble unless you wish to qualify it further.
The real problem with a god is that such a being must be infinitely more complex that what he has created - and you then have to explain how such a complex being was created.
If you want a fig-leaf by which to defend gods role in the creation story, I suppose their is a space for some sort of creator entity that sloughs off universes - but that is about it.
Lazygun you obviously have no knowledge of contemporary physics when it comes to negative time. Never heard of parallel universes of which there is no proof but a great deal of conjecture?
http://
Before the use of quantum physics scientists did not believe some of the findings. We have to progress.
http://
Before the use of quantum physics scientists did not believe some of the findings. We have to progress.
@pdq. I asked you to expound upon how negative time explains god, otherwise your argument is meaningless babble. You have still failed to do so.
I understand the concept of negative time, as I do parallel universes - but both are conjecture only at the moment, so can hardly be used to "explain" anything. In our universe the arrow of time moves relentlessly forward..
I understand the concept of negative time, as I do parallel universes - but both are conjecture only at the moment, so can hardly be used to "explain" anything. In our universe the arrow of time moves relentlessly forward..
pdq1.... answer is no ! How can the Christian story of the worlds creation be true, as well as Evolution ?
Christians believe that the earth is about 6000 to 60,000 years old but the Grand Canyon dates back 400 millions years. How can these two things possible be reconciled ?
"Negative Time Principles" Is this a departure from English as we know it ?
Did you think about your question before you posted ?
Christians believe that the earth is about 6000 to 60,000 years old but the Grand Canyon dates back 400 millions years. How can these two things possible be reconciled ?
"Negative Time Principles" Is this a departure from English as we know it ?
Did you think about your question before you posted ?
So the main argument against creation is a creator couldn't exist within our universe as we live in a 4 dimensional sphere with time always proceding in a positive direction.
If it were proved that there existing other universes than our own these laws may not hold. To this day no proof has been found but only conjecture. Many physicists prefer not to enter this arena for fear of being branded religious nutters and losing their funding. However with the use of string theory and quantum mechanics this area is taken up by some. This article expounds our theories on this matter and will surely get more acceptance in future.
http://
There are many articles on this topic.
If it were proved that there existing other universes than our own these laws may not hold. To this day no proof has been found but only conjecture. Many physicists prefer not to enter this arena for fear of being branded religious nutters and losing their funding. However with the use of string theory and quantum mechanics this area is taken up by some. This article expounds our theories on this matter and will surely get more acceptance in future.
http://
There are many articles on this topic.
It is laughable to hear because we have no proof of multiple universes they cannot possible exist. Only last year we couldn't accept the existance of the Higgs Bosun because no proof had been found. We now know differently!
The existance of a multiple universes is no different than the search for the Higgs Bosun.. it depends on how much effort we want to put into it. Even if they were located doesn't mean the existance of a god but it does give it more credence.
The existance of a multiple universes is no different than the search for the Higgs Bosun.. it depends on how much effort we want to put into it. Even if they were located doesn't mean the existance of a god but it does give it more credence.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.