Creation Vs Evolution

• plo30360

  12 Mar 05, 11:38

  For me, I think that creation and evolution are complementary in the sense that the basic forms were created and then they later evolved.
  
  And I would also like someone to answer this question:
  
  In science there is law about everything having cause and effect. That being said brings up the question what caused everything to come into being. Even if you explain based on the big bang theory, it leaves the question what caused it to happen.
  
  If we were to strip everything down in terms of cause and effect we are left with two scenarios:
  
  The first one being that someone or something(Supreme being) willed everything into existence(at least the basic forms).
  
  The second scenario is that everything came out of nothing???
• Icemoon

  12 Mar 05, 13:21

  Go do some research why scientists in the past believe in steady state theory. Do they disagree with cause and effect?
• dumbdumb!

  12 Mar 05, 13:37

  boom.
• plo30360

  12 Mar 05, 16:23

  The steady-state theory is now no longer accepted by most cosmologists, particularly after the discovery of microwave background radiation in 1965, for which steady state has no explanation.
• Icemoon

  12 Mar 05, 19:51

  plo30360 -no, i am asking why did the scientists even believe in it in the first place. Doesn't the notion of no beginning surprised them at all?
  
• F Takumi

  12 Mar 05, 20:03

  http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=94684&page=9
  
  There is no beginning and no end. The hypothesis of a supreme being will inevitably lead to the question of what comes before him.
  
  Where is stupidissmart?
• plo30360

  12 Mar 05, 21:03

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  plo30360 -no, i am asking why did the scientists even believe in it in the first place. Doesn't the notion of no beginning surprised them at all?
  

  They found the idea of a sudden beginning to the universe philosophically unsatisfactory.
• plo30360

  12 Mar 05, 21:07

  Originally posted by F Takumi:

  http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=94684&page=9
  
  There is no beginning and no end. The hypothesis of a supreme being will inevitably lead to the question of what comes before him.
  
  Where is stupidissmart?

  No begining and no end goes back to steady state theory.
  
  SIS will be here shortly, no doubt about it
• F Takumi

  12 Mar 05, 21:12

  Originally posted by plo30360:

  No begining and no end goes back to steady state theory.
  
  SIS will be here shortly, no doubt about it

  No beginning and no end does not imply steady state theory only. It just mean that we are unable to trace the beginning of everything, and at the rate the universe is expanding, there will be no end.
• stupidissmart

  13 Mar 05, 15:33

  The first one being that someone or something(Supreme being) willed everything into existence(at least the basic forms).
  
  The second scenario is that everything came out of nothing???

  if u want a satidfying answer than I need to know the psychology state of your mind and which thing appeal to u more.
  
  I guess u r a christian and u believe in a creator tat create everything. Then the question is
  
  Wat create the creator ?
  
  If I am not wrong, u will come out with the following answers
  
  a) It was not created. It popped out suddenly.
  
  then my answer for u is since u already believe in something so complex popping out of the blue, then u should believe the galaxy can popped out of nothing as well
  
  b) there was no beginning and end for the creator. It was always there
  
  then my answer for u is since u already believe in something so complex to have no begining and end, then the galaxy has no real begining and end either. It was always there
  
  c) Something so deep about god is unknown to stupid men
  
  then my answer for u is since u r satisfied with the fact tat u don't know and don't care about the reasoning, then u shouldn't really ask how the galaxy is created since u don't really care and u just ask because u want to be difficult
  
  d) something create god
  
  then I will ask wat create this something and everything repeats
  
  e) otherwise
  
  then I will answer back to u after I hear your otherwise questions.
  
  So wat is your pick ?
• Rockhound

  13 Mar 05, 15:38

  
  Creation......
  
  
  Evolution......
  
  and its still evolving...
• plo30360

  13 Mar 05, 19:38

  
  
  if u want a satidfying answer than I need to know the psychology state of your mind and which thing appeal to u more.
  

  Well, I would like both scenarios to be fully explained.
  
  

  
  I guess u r a christian and u believe in a creator tat create everything. Then the question is
  
  Wat create the creator ?
  
  If I am not wrong, u will come out with the following answers
  
  a) It was not created. It popped out suddenly.
  
  then my answer for u is since u already believe in something so complex popping out of the blue, then u should believe the galaxy can popped out of nothing as well
  

  Did you read what I said about creation and evolution being complemenatary as in creation took care of the basic forms and evolution took over from there.
  
  And anyway I don't want to be difficult, I just want to know more what do you mean by no begining no end. Apart from steady state theory and FTakumi's comments about the begining being untraceable by cause and effect, do you have a different or similar explaination?
  
• F Takumi

  13 Mar 05, 19:46

  Originally posted by plo30360:

  Did you read what I said about creation and evolution being complemenatary as in creation took care of the basic forms and evolution took over from there.
  
  And anyway I don't want to be difficult, I just want to know more what do you mean by no begining no end. Apart from steady state theory and FTakumi's comments about the begining being untraceable by cause and effect, do you have a different or similar explaination?
  

  Let's put aside the Christian factor first.
  
  Almost every race and culture believes in creation, ie some supreme being created the universe. The most popular among Chinese is "Pan Gu Kai Tian Di". As I have said before, the weakness in believing in a creator is the question of what comes before him.
  
  In scientific theory, the current belief is in the Big Bang Theory. However, there is no means to determine what happened before the Big Bang.
  
  I'd say discussing about this topic is like talking about whether chicken or egg come first.
• plo30360

  13 Mar 05, 20:12

  Originally posted by F Takumi:
  
  Let's put aside the Christian factor first.
  
  Almost every race and culture believes in creation, ie some supreme being created the universe. The most popular among Chinese is "Pan Gu Kai Tian Di". As I have said before, the weakness in believing in a creator is the question of what comes before him.
  

  I put aside the christian factor the moment I created this topic hence I mentioned "Supreme Being" since a lot of religions share this concept.
  
  Of, course all these religions would point out that the creator is the ultimate cause, nothing can come before him, but I'm don't want to primarly discuss that aspect.
  
  

  
  In scientific theory, the current belief is in the Big Bang Theory. However, there is no means to determine what happened before the Big Bang.
  

  In other words we have to wait for science to catch up. So, one day we'll eventually know?
  
  

  
  I'd say discussing about this topic is like talking about whether chicken or egg come first
  

  Recently,contemporary evolutionary theory favors the egg.
  Given Mendel's theory of inheritance, the transition to chickenhood can
  only take place between an egg-layer and its egg.
  
  But anyway, are you comapring this "no begining no end concept" with the chicken and egg analogy?
• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  13 Mar 05, 20:13

  We know surprisingly little about the true nature of the universe to make any big claims about it.
  
  Though if you follow through with conventional astrophysics, the expanding universe does have an end. Eventually, antrophy will win over, the stars will burn out or collaspe into singularities, the singularities will eventually combine and consume all the matter in the universe, that is, our universe will eventually become nothing more then a singularity. Eventually, even singularities decay on a quantum level and in the end, there will be nothing left, that's as far as our physics can take us, as of now, in very long term predictions. But so far, what we do observe does indicate that our universe has an end.
  
  But I know I have little to lose anyway.
• F Takumi

  13 Mar 05, 20:23

  Originally posted by plo30360:

  I put aside the christian factor the moment I created this topic hence I mentioned "Supreme Being" since a lot of religions share this concept.
  
  Of, course all these religions would point out that the creator is the ultimate cause, nothing can come before him, but I'm don't want to primarly discuss that aspect.
  
  In other words we have to wait for science to catch up. So, one day we'll eventually know?
  
  Recently,contemporary evolutionary theory favors the egg.
  Given Mendel's theory of inheritance, the transition to chickenhood can
  only take place between an egg-layer and its egg.
  
  But anyway, are you comapring this "no begining no end concept" with the chicken and egg analogy?

  The point about putting aside the Christian factor is meant for stupidissmart I have no good impression of Christians but I do try to maintain some objectiveness during discussions.
  
  In the story of "Pan Gu Kai Tian Di", it's mentioned that the universe was in a mess until Pan Gu was born out of it, and he split the heavens and earth with his might. So the Chinese version is not so much about a creator.
  
  There is no way for scientists to determine what is before the Big Bang. It's like asking you what does the New York World Trade Centre looked like before 911 if you've never seen it before.
  
  I'm still not very converse with how organisms evolved from microbial asexual life forms to the complex creatures that are roaming the world now.
  
  My analogy of "chicken and egg" with "no beginning and no end" only serves to emphasise the fact that things are never certain.
• F Takumi

  13 Mar 05, 20:28

  Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

  We know surprisingly little about the true nature of the universe to make any big claims about it.
  
  Though if you follow through with conventional astrophysics, the expanding universe does have an end. Eventually, antrophy will win over, the stars will burn out or collaspe into singularities, the singularities will eventually combine and consume all the matter in the universe, that is, our universe will eventually become nothing more then a singularity. Eventually, even singularities decay on a quantum level and in the end, there will be nothing left, that's as far as our physics can take us, as of now, in very long term predictions. But so far, what we do observe does indicate that our universe has an end.
  
  But I know I have little to lose anyway.

  According to scientific journals, the latest findings show that our universe is currently on a neverending expansion.
  
  You can refer to Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/ if interested.
• stupidissmart

  13 Mar 05, 21:57

  Did you read what I said about creation and evolution being complemenatary as in creation took care of the basic forms and evolution took over from there.

  creation dictates tat all the lifeform we see now is the result of creation, tat is the wolf is created, the rat is created and men is created. In evolution, it meant tat a single cell appears due to nature conditions and it evolves to wolves, men and rat. So it is very different
  
  

  And anyway I don't want to be difficult, I just want to know more what do you mean by no begining no end. Apart from steady state theory and FTakumi's comments about the begining being untraceable by cause and effect, do you have a different or similar explaination?

  I believe in the big bang, i.e it has a beginning. However the other result on the creator etc is to remind people tat when playing with such question on wat create wat etc, no one has a truly satisfying answer even from a religion context.
  
  

  Of, course all these religions would point out that the creator is the ultimate cause, nothing can come before him, but I'm don't want to primarly discuss that aspect.

  actually tis goes back to the point A tat if u believe nothing comes before the creator, then why don't u just believe the galaxy have no precedence as well. Galaxy is simpler and more likely to appear than a complex being with thoughts and emotion isn't it ?
  
  

  In other words we have to wait for science to catch up. So, one day we'll eventually know?

  if u ask me, somewhere down the line it will come to the conclusion tat something appears out of nothing. Maybe the answer is already out but u just find it hard to believe
  
  

  Though if you follow through with conventional astrophysics, the expanding universe does have an end. Eventually, antrophy will win over, the stars will burn out or collaspe into singularities, the singularities will eventually combine and consume all the matter in the universe, that is, our universe will eventually become nothing more then a singularity. Eventually, even singularities decay on a quantum level and in the end, there will be nothing left, that's as far as our physics can take us, as of now, in very long term predictions. But so far, what we do observe does indicate that our universe has an end.

  trust me, u will never see tat day. Might as well try to make everyday of your life happy instead of worrying on things tat far off
  
  

  The point about putting aside the Christian factor is meant for stupidissmart I have no good impression of Christians but I do try to maintain some objectiveness during discussions.

  well, the point is to tell people tat there is no answer tat will please everyone, not even answer from religions. It is good to establish tis fact first before any discussion should continue.
  
  
• plo30360

  13 Mar 05, 23:51

  
  creation dictates tat all the lifeform we see now is the result of creation, tat is the wolf is created, the rat is created and men is created. In evolution, it meant tat a single cell appears due to nature conditions and it evolves to wolves, men and rat. So it is very different
  

  Hmm..maybe should not have used the term creation. The thing is, from a religious view point, I'm making an assumption that, the ultimate cause(Supreme Being), created the basic forms and then evolution took over.
  
  Anyway from a non-religious point of view:
  
  

  
  if u ask me, somewhere down the line it will come to the conclusion tat something appears out of nothing. Maybe the answer is already out but u just find it hard to believe
  

  Cause and effect is not possibe, if it hits a nothing(null). For, example, if we were to take the chicken and egg analogy, the chicken and the egg both can be either a cause or a effect, but you need at least one of them. This is why having nothing as a cause does not satisfy people.
  
  

  
  trust me, u will never see tat day. Might as well try to make everyday of your life happy instead of worrying on things tat far off
  

  I agree, but being human we are curious to know. I guess human curiosity is something that will never have an end.
  
  
• stupidissmart

  14 Mar 05, 09:01

  Hmm..maybe should not have used the term creation. The thing is, from a religious view point, I'm making an assumption that, the ultimate cause(Supreme Being), created the basic forms and then evolution took over.
  
  Anyway from a non-religious point of view:

  well, IMO there is no such thing as an ultimate being. Life form started by nature.
  
  

  Cause and effect is not possibe, if it hits a nothing(null). For, example, if we were to take the chicken and egg analogy, the chicken and the egg both can be either a cause or a effect, but you need at least one of them. This is why having nothing as a cause does not satisfy people.

  then hwo does the supreme being appear ? wat is the "cause and effect" on the supreme being ? If tat is the case then surely something has to be the one creating tis supreme being isn't it ?
  
  

  I agree, but being human we are curious to know. I guess human curiosity is something that will never have an end.

  tat line actually is trying to tell people not to worry about stars being extinguish and universe coming to an end since tat is probably few ... I don't know billions of billions of billions of years away
• plo30360

  14 Mar 05, 15:51

  
  well, IMO there is no such thing as an ultimate being. Life form started by nature
  

  
  then hwo does the supreme being appear ? wat is the "cause and effect" on the supreme being ? If tat is the case then surely something has to be the one creating tis supreme being isn't it ?
  

  With regards to these two quotes, actually, I was hoping you would elborate on your 'things starting from nothing'.
  
  That's why I seperated my religious assumptiom from my non religious one.
  My religious one being, the one about the ultimate cause giving the start for evolution.
  
  My non-religious one being if there is no supreme being, are we to accept the "Big Bang" and its untraceable cause or find an alternative explaination?
• stupidissmart

  14 Mar 05, 16:22

  My religious one being, the one about the ultimate cause giving the start for evolution.

  I need to find out more about your religious assumption. Wat cause this "ultimate cause" ?
  
  

  My non-religious one being if there is no supreme being, are we to accept the "Big Bang" and its untraceable cause or find an alternative explaination?

  wat answer do u think will be appropriate ? If someone give an answer saying the big bang, u will ask wat cause the big bang. (someone say it was caused by some 9 dimensional object) When we found an answer on wat cause the big bang, then u will ask wat cause tis "cause" again and there will really be no limit to these answering. Lets say u ask the cause and effect for infinity times and infinity causes were given. Wat do u think will be the answer at the end of it all ? A supreme being is the least likely answer at the end since it too has to be caused as well. My bet is, it has to be something created out of nothing.
• Icemoon

  14 Mar 05, 17:41

  Originally posted by stupidissmart:

  A supreme being is the least likely answer at the end since it too has to be caused as well. My bet is, it has to be something created out of nothing.

  A supreme being in our context, by definition, is uncaused. Don't play around with words.
  
  This supreme being exists outside our "bubble", if you imagine the whole universe and all matter to be in this bubble. It is meaningless to ask what caused this supreme being since we cannot "think" outside this bubble.
  
  Your creation out of nothing is harder to accept since you assume this "bubble" can exist by itself.
  
  Anyway, in trying to compare which is more plausible (God or nothing), you made an unfair assumption - that God is at the same level as this nothing. You see, everything in your argument involves (can only involve) things in this "bubble". The theist's First Cause is outside this "bubble". Can you compare the two like two apples?
  
  In the eyes of science, the two views are indistinguisable. There is a Big Bang.
• F Takumi

  14 Mar 05, 20:11

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  A supreme being in our context, by definition, is uncaused. Don't play around with words.
  
  This supreme being exists outside our "bubble", if you imagine the whole universe and all matter to be in this bubble. It is meaningless to ask what caused this supreme being since we cannot "think" outside this bubble.
  
  Your creation out of nothing is harder to accept since you assume this "bubble" can exist by itself.
  
  Anyway, in trying to compare which is more plausible (God or nothing), you made an unfair assumption - that God is at the same level as this nothing. You see, everything in your argument involves (can only involve) things in this "bubble". The theist's First Cause is outside this "bubble". Can you compare the two like two apples?
  
  In the eyes of science, the two views are indistinguisable. There is a Big Bang.

  I accept your statement that the theist believes that the supreme being is uncaused and ever-present.
  
  However, in this discussion on creation vs evolution, we have said that religious beliefs shall be put aside.
  
  As atheists, the question on the cause of the supreme being is inevitable. If you could not believe that life could come into being naturally, what makes you believe that the supreme being could just come into existence without any assistance?
  
  To us, any supreme being in any religion is at the same level of the nothingness that we talk about.
  
  Like stupidissmart has said, if you could believe a supreme being existed without questioning its origin, there is no reason why you should reject the notion that life existed by chance.
  
  It's never a question of whether we are comparing apple to apple, in the first place, your perception of the apple and our perception are fundamentally different.
• Icemoon

  14 Mar 05, 21:27

  However, in this discussion on creation vs evolution, we have said that religious beliefs shall be put aside.
  
  This is not religious belief. It is a philosophical belief.
  
  If you could not believe that life could come into being naturally, what makes you believe that the supreme being could just come into existence without any assistance?
  
  Unfair analogy or comparison. Life is matter. Supreme being is not. We cannot discuss them in the same light.
  
  To us, any supreme being in any religion is at the same level of the nothingness that we talk about.
  
  That is why this discussion or argument will go nowhere.
  
  It's never a question of whether we are comparing apple to apple, in the first place, your perception of the apple and our perception are fundamentally different.
  
  That is why no amount of logical reasoning and argument can convince the atheist. The fundamental premise is different.
  
  Btw, I heard Anthony Flew just believed in God .. dunno true or not. Anyone can verify?
  
  PS: If one truly wants to bring down the opponent, then I think only the 'proof by contradiction' or absurdity method can work. You can't win by stating your view is better, that nothing is more logical than God.