Evolution or Creation?

Evolution or Creation? Which do you believe?


  • Total voters
    69

galaxus

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Posts
866
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
I don't believe in "The Great Creator" and I guess "Big Bang" is as good a hypothesis as any. But you illustrate a point I have made repeatedly - creation and evolution are only mutually exclusive to the fundamentalists on either side, and neither one will admit that the other side has some merit.

That being said, I'll take 40sFun's advice, and put my disclaimer here.

I don't believe in god, so the explanation that he created everything doesn't sit well with me; I don't necessarily believe in big bang, either, that everything in the universe originated as a single point of matter of infinite mass which exploded. It still does not explain, for me, where that original point of matter came from. Nor does it explain where the empty space into which the big bang expanded came from.

For those whom I have offended with this post: don't ask me to explain my alternate theories; I don't have any. However, the fact that I cannot explain it does not force me to adhere to any "next-best guess."

yes, this is what i've been trying to say. DC DEEP u took the words out of my mouth. i thought i was the only one that felt this way.:smile:
 

galaxus

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Posts
866
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
I believe it's a racist theory, to make white people look superior to black.Thus a justification for the colonialism. After all we evolved from monkeys, black people look like monkeys, so we came from africa, and white people evolved from them.....

i997432_WTFISTHISSHIT.jpg
 

dufus

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Posts
359
Media
0
Likes
19
Points
163
Location
The Briar Patch
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
The beauty of science is that it is always looking forward for new ideas and how to explain things in a logical way based on observable facts. When new observations contradict any facet, the theory is modified accordingly. Evolution is such a science.

The problem with creation theory is that it is a closed subject that is not based on observation. Its proponents believe that when science conflicts with their religious beliefs, then science is wrong. These people are incapable of reason because their minds are closed.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I've encountered scientists with closed minds and agendas that extend beyond objective presentation of the evidence. Everyone should realize science is a human endeavor that, like any other, is affected by human faults such as jealousy, turf wars, petty politics, cliqueishness, favoritism, gossip, miscalculation and, yes, closed mindedness. The history of science if rife with examples and I've encountered many in my career on the periphery of science.

But in spite of the human shortcomings, I have faith (yikes, there's that word!) that the scientific method, properly applied, offers a far better method of gathering and weighing evidence than simply believing something to be true.
 

dalibor

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Posts
147
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
163
Location
New York
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Well just to turn this thread to the basic subject of this forum, I wonder how evolution affected the penis size of homo sapiens. I mean, are better hung men better at mating, more desirable for females, or naturally selected for some other reason? Or the opposite? What can we infer from the animal kingdom about this?
Has the average male genitalia increased in size over the eons or decreased? And the big controversial question -- why did male genitalia in certain areas of the world and among certain peoples evolve toward the larger or smaller size? (if it did). Was it totally random, or did a larger penis give an evolutionary advantage in one place, but not in another?
I wonder if anyone has ever studied this, or if it's even possible to study it (i.e. is there enough evidence from ages past).
 

Andro Man

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Posts
171
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
No more calls, please. We have a winner.

Scientists always pretend to be objective, however....quite often they work towards something, try to rationalise whatever primitive, subjective views they have.....

So try to look behind the theory and see what the hidden agenda is, what survival of the fittest actually implies and if that's correct. Ideas are just ideas but they can really fuck up the world
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
78
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Scientists always pretend to be objective, however....quite often they work towards something, try to rationalise whatever primitive, subjective views they have.....
Lucky for us, the Fundamentalists are on guard and protecting us with their forward-looking, objective views making the world safe for all mankind.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,813
Points
333
Location
Greece
Fittest, as in most fit for purpose. It's a no brainer really. I think that you will find that the conspiracy was all with the church trying to suppress knowledge and the search for knowledge.

What is the opposite of the age of enlightenment?
 

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,736
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't believe in "The Great Creator" and I guess "Big Bang" is as good a hypothesis as any. But you illustrate a point I have made repeatedly - creation and evolution are only mutually exclusive to the fundamentalists on either side, and neither one will admit that the other side has some merit.

I don't believe in god, so the explanation that he created everything doesn't sit well with me; I don't necessarily believe in big bang, either, that everything in the universe originated as a single point of matter of infinite mass which exploded. It still does not explain, for me, where that original point of matter came from. Nor does it explain where the empty space into which the big bang expanded came from"

Being both a scientist and a Libran, I share all of your concerns DC, although I am evidently more of a believer in a higher power than you. The fact that I do not understand something, does not make me a disbelievor in the possibilities either of its existence or of its occurrence. I suggest that we employ a new word to convey the idea that Creation and evolution might both be partially or even mostly correct and I would like to call the new word Crevolution. It should embody all of the ideas we presently associate either with Creationism or with evolution!
 

D_Humper E Bogart

Experimental Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,172
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
258
Only problem being, that at most it is a personal movement, rather than scientific dogma. It'd be difficult to make scientific papers based on that sort of reasoning, although it does remind me of Larmack's ideas of evolution, which could be said to be semi-creationist.
 

basque9

LPSG Legend
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
6,059
Media
9,220
Likes
280,736
Points
618
Location
Maryland, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Only problem being, that at most it is a personal movement, rather than scientific dogma. It'd be difficult to make scientific papers based on that sort of reasoning, although it does remind me of Larmack's ideas of evolution, which could be said to be semi-creationist.

I seem to recall that Jean Baptiste Lamarck's concept of species evolving toward an ever more complex state also embraced the notion that the outcome has already been predetermined. I also share that view and yes, your observation is keen, I do tend to follow the Lamarckian path as I trek through my journey of Crevolutionary discovery.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Fittest, as in most fit for purpose. It's a no brainer really. I think that you will find that the conspiracy was all with the church trying to suppress knowledge and the search for knowledge.

What is the opposite of the age of enlightenment?
Haha, I think that it has been referred to as "The Dark Ages."
 

D_Humper E Bogart

Experimental Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,172
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
258
I seem to recall that Jean Baptiste Lamarck's concept of species evolving toward an ever more complex state also embraced the notion that the outcome has already been predetermined. I also share that view and yes, your observation is keen, I do tend to follow the Lamarckian path as I trek through my journey of Crevolutionary discovery.
Y'know it's one of those frustrations because you wouldn't be able to prove you were correct until all of us were long gone...or wrong for that matter. It's a faith thing I guess! :biggrin1:
 

playainda336

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Posts
1,991
Media
223
Likes
2,364
Points
443
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Even if you could observe some forms of microevolution taking place today, there's no way to prove what happened yesterday. We can only make guesses.
I believe in intelligent design and things adapting over time simultaneously. If that makes any sense.

Yes, things adapted over time. Does it sound feasible to me that a monkey had a human baby? No. First and foremost, we find more and more human fossils dating further and further back as the years go by. Who's to say that humans didn't coexist with the earliest of creations? We don't know. We do know that there were more animals and other species than humans the further back we date. But we don't know for sure of anything. Why? Because we weren't there.

Science also does a great job of explaining "what", "when", "where", and "how"...but has a really hard time explaining the "who" and "why". I'm glad you know that the speed of light is 3.86x10^6 k/s (that's probably wrong...I haven't been in physics in so long) and that when it hits at this perfect distance between the Earth and the Sun that plants grow. But "why" does it? "Who" put it in place. Science has no answers for that.

That being said, evolution is probably just as much a myth as God is to some. There is no hard proof for either of them. Let's leave it at that.