Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Cookie Monster

Creationism vs Darwinism

84 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Cookie Monster

When I watch many people debating Creationism vs Darwinism I am often disappointed at the quality of debate from the creationists.

I`m highly intelligent with two degrees to my name, one of which was in a technical subject heavily based on physics. Yet when I question and criticise the nature of reality I arrive at a creator. While I dont think Darwin got his theory of evolution exact for reasons I will go into in a minute, I dont see why its even incompatible with Creationism to be honest.

Darwins Theory of Evolution: Darwin has looked at fossils, reasoned that all life is related, and from that concluded survival of the fittest selects some species for extinction while allowing others to prosper. The obvious problem with Darwin`s Theory of Evolution is it makes two assumptions:

1. Environments are Static: Darwin missed how environments are constantly changing so there is no constant set of environment conditions to be the fittest in. Therefore, instead of specialising to be the fittest a species needs to retain enough adaptability to cope with the ever changing environment. Species which are too specialised for an environment (which is survival of the fittest) go extinct when that environment then changes. An example being the Neanderthals. They were the fittest in ice age Europe, then when the environment got warmer they went extinct because they couldn't adapt.

2. Linear Causation: Darwin seems to be a little ABC when it comes to his understanding of causation. Yes, liner causation exists where causes precede effects, but it seems this is the only type of causation he knew about. There are others in physics. I will pick just one (as I will go on about it later) and that is interdependent causation. That is the existence of one thing is dependent on another existing at the same time. Such that both are the cause of each other with neither existing if one disappears. Both cause each other at the same point in time regardless of how far apart they are. An example is non-locality in quantum mechanics.

Interdependent Causation: The assumption found underpinning atheism is that God must have created the world using linear causation instead of interdependent causation. In fact, as the vast majority of people engaging in the debate arent knowledgable about what interdependent causation is, they dont even know it exists. Step one in my creationism is that God created the universe using interdependent causation and it does not oppose the balance of being the fit for an environment but not so much as to lose adaptability for when the environment changes.

Creationism and Darwinism Together

The King James version of the Bible has many translation errors from Hebrew versions. One of them leads to the phrase that in the beginning was God, and then God created the universe. The Hebrew bible doesnt say that. It says God and the universe came into existence together via interdependent causation. And here it is:

If we ask ourselves what is nothingness? Then we would realise its the absence of everything. As a thing needs to be made from something to exist, its impossible for nothingness to exist. This is because if it was made from something it would no longer be nothingness. So we can reason that nothingness is an impossible state. It has never existed and never will.

If we think about it some more we can also reason that at the bare minimum one thing must always exist. If we think about that some more then we realise that not only must the one thing be made from something, it must also exist at a location and a point in time. This is because things cannot exist unless they are made from something, have somewhere to exist, and a point in time to exist at.

So we have one thing existing at the bare minimum (which I will call God going forward) and that interdependently requires the existence of space, time, and matter (which I will call the universe going forward).. Furthermore the only way for God to exist at a location is if that is relative to everywhere else where it isn't. And the only way for God to existent at a point in time is if there is also a before and after that point in time. And continued existence of God amounts to separate present points in time occurring one after the other which is the flow of time in one direction. That in case anyone has missed it is General Relativity.

Next we have to ask ourselves what needs to interdependently exist with space (location and everywhere else), time (past, present, future, and the flow of time), and matter, to allow their own existence. To prop up their existence then they need to tie things up nicely. So the universe gets popped out backwards in time, across the present, and forwards in time, to support the existence of matter in space throughout time. Science currently has two concepts for this - the Big Bang and the Big Crunch.

Populating the universe with matter backwards in time is Darwin`s Theory of Evolution in reverse. It is the universe coming into existence because God exists, and then the universe interdependently supporting its own existence in the past. If we look at that process backwards we have a Big Bang, matter emerging, matter organising itself, life emerging, then the interplay of being the fittest vs being adaptable leading to us.

How Old is the Universe?

The current model of how old the universe is actually correct if we count the time elapsed from the Big Bang to the present day. But we can view it another way with there being an `interdependence event` occurring at some point in the past. We can say it happened 6000 years ago to match the Bible although I dont know how to ascertain when an interdependence event occurred. I will need to think about that further. And if the universe came into existence 6000 years ago to support the existence of God, then at the same time it backwards populated history back to the Big Bang. So in effect, both times are correct together.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
11 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

If we ask ourselves what is nothingness? Then we would realise its the absence of everything. As a thing needs to be made from something to exist, its impossible for nothingness to exist. This is because if it was made from something it would no longer be nothingness. So we can reason that nothingness is an impossible state. It has never existed and never will.

Physics tell us the universe came about from the fast expansion of a super dense singularity which was probably a previous universe. There is no theory in physics that says it came from nothing. 

As for evolution. It's a mutation created by environmental stresses and takes the path of least resistance. It's also proven. 

Our arms evolved because we took to the trees to escape the big kitties who want to eat us. Our hips and legs evolved when the climate changed, the trees disappeared and we had to run from those kitties. Our spines never caught up and are still made for walking on all fours (hence all the bad backs).

A prime case of evolution going wrong is sickle cell anemia. It was a mutation that was meant to and prevents malaria infections yet kills a person at 35-45 regardless. 

Another is Rh negative blood. It was a deletion mutation to make people resistant to certain viruses, but can't be passed in many situations so it didn't spread as it was suppose to. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

When I watch many people debating Creationism vs Darwinism I am often disappointed at the quality of debate from the creationists.

They're fighting against science with mythology.  Creationism is also incompatible with Cosmology and Geology, creationists lump it all with "Darwinism".

 

Quote

I`m highly intelligent with two degrees to my name, one of which was in a technical subject heavily based on physics. Yet when I question and criticise the nature of reality I arrive at a creator. While I dont think Darwin got his theory of evolution exact for reasons I will go into in a minute, I dont see why its even incompatible with Creationism to be honest.

By what you've written your problem is with 19th century Darwinism.

 

Quote

How Old is the Universe?

The current model of how old the universe is actually correct if we count the time elapsed from the Big Bang to the present day. But we can view it another way with there being an `interdependence event` occurring at some point in the past. We can say it happened 6000 years ago to match the Bible although I dont know how to ascertain when an interdependence event occurred. I will need to think about that further. And if the universe came into existence 6000 years ago to support the existence of God, then at the same time it backwards populated history back to the Big Bang. So in effect, both times are correct together.

If somehow 6000 years is 13+ billion years then there is something seriously wrong with your calculations.

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta

What you should do is use that high intelligence level and physics knowledge to build a time machine, so that you can go back and argue with Darwin lol. The basic idea has been refined a little over the last 160 years. Though the concept is still very simple (to non creationists).

What is "Darwinism" anyway?

Although nothing to do with (biological) evolution, the sales pitch involving a 6000yr old universe and the attempt to squeeze god in there is surely a highlight.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

While I dont think Darwin got his theory of evolution exact for reasons I will go into in a minute, I dont see why its even incompatible with Creationism to be honest.

 

That's a good point. I accept both Creationism and Darwinism as generally on the right track. I also agree the debate from previous generations is disappointing today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd

I only see two points where a "creator" could come in handy.

The first place is at the big bang, where the elementary particles obtained their charges. Those charges had to be very precise to produce the universe we see today.
There are, however, two work-arounds to avoid a creator. One is found in M-theory, and states that our universe is only one among countless. Each with their own elementary particle charges.
The second is the "it couldn't be any other way". I find that proposal too easy.

The second point is the first living, reproducible cell. The most amazing thing ever produced by nature. So advanced that it defies reason.

Other than those, I find no need for a creator at all. Everything is explained in details by (lucky) coincidence and causality.
The need for a biblical god is even less needed. The bible has next to nothing to offer to our effort to understand how we got here.

Edited by sci-nerd
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster

Have I said I dont believe in the Big Bang?

Have I said I dont believe in hyper-inflation?

I agree with both and I am arguing that they are perfectly compatible with Creationism if we widen up our understanding of causation to include interdependent causality.

On the topic of time it is impossible for a present moment in time to exist by itself. This is because to have a present moment in time requires a before and after it. A past and a future. You cannot have one without the other two because they share an interdependence. Remove one and the other two cease to exist.

When God created the universe 6000 years ago that was a present moment in time. A present cannot exist without a past and future. So these automatically came into being with the present because it cannot exist on its own without them. The past that came into existence has to support its own existence, the future that came into existence likewise. Therefore the history before the point 6000 years ago was created, and the future after that point in time also came into being.

The past (assuming physicists are right) ties up to support the existence of the present all the way back to the Big Bang. And the future does the same to the Big Crunch. There is no conflict at all between Creationism and Darwinism, the problem is people are trapped into linear causality being the only form to exist. It is their inability or lack of awareness of causation that results in them not knowing about all the forms of causality known to exist.

Finally, when they are attacking the Bible they arent even reading what is written and in the original Hebrew. It states in the very first sentence the universe was brought into existence using interdependent causation, not linear causation. The Hebrew worlds for God and created are linked by a hyphen which in Hebrew is used to designate interdependence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 hours ago, Piney said:

A prime case of evolution going wrong is sickle cell anemia. It was a mutation that was meant to and prevents malaria infections yet kills a person at 35-45 regardless. 

From an individual's point of view a bummer, but for a species, does it serve the function of protecting the individual long enough to reproduce and raise offspring  to maturation and breeding age? 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

The obvious problem with Darwin`s Theory of Evolution is it makes two assumptions:

Darwin based his work on what was known at the time.  I don't think Wegener postulated moving continents until 50 years or so after Darwin.   It does not seem like a weakness since Darwin's thinking is not dependent on a stable environment.  The rules work the same.  If the environment changes over a couple of million years, it gives species time to try new strategies for survival.  It helps for a species to have a broad gene pool to draw on for that adaptability.

If changes happen overnight or in a generation, then extinction, even mass extinctions happen.  That too is compatible with observations.

We are fortunate to see an era that can pull in other observations, DNA, biochemistry, and biophysics to add information to the scanty fossil record.

Nothing in Darwin can rule out the existence of a deity, but likewise nothing in Darwin's thoughts requires a force  outside of physics to start the process or intervene.

 

I would like to point out to you that changing environmental factors, whether that is climate or competition from another species (a coronavirus for example) is one reason a species specialized in one thing like physical combat or disease resistance may not survive other factors as well as a species that is diverse and generalized.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
20 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

When God created the universe 6000 years ago that was a present moment in time. A present cannot exist without a past and future. So these automatically came into being with the present because it cannot exist on its own without them. The past that came into existence has to support its own existence, the future that came into existence likewise. Therefore the history before the point 6000 years ago was created, and the future after that point in time also came into being.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying here.  If the universe existed before God created it, then logically God did not create it.  Or are you saying God made the universe to look older?

 

20 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

The past (assuming physicists are right) ties up to support the existence of the present all the way back to the Big Bang. And the future does the same to the Big Crunch.

The Big Bang is an event, if God made the universe 6000 years ago then it didn't happen.

 

20 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Finally, when they are attacking the Bible they arent even reading what is written and in the original Hebrew. It states in the very first sentence the universe was brought into existence using interdependent causation, not linear causation. The Hebrew worlds for God and created are linked by a hyphen which in Hebrew is used to designate interdependence.

You mean this?

https://myhebrewwords.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/1-את-et-the-most-common-word-in-the-hebrew-language/

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
27 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

From an individual's point of view a bummer, but for a species, does it serve the function of protecting the individual long enough to reproduce and raise offspring  to maturation and breeding age? 

I know.

Your average hunter-gatherer didn't live beyond 40 anyway. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
41 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Never trust a person who tells you how smart they are. They rarely live up to the hype.

It usually means that what comes next is unsupported by evidence. Hence the need to appeal from authority by telling how intelligent you are. 

I don't remember ever having met an intelligent person who started out by telling me how intelligent he/she was.

RabidMongoose (@Cookie Monster)if you really wants to use this argument you could give us your credentials so we can see if they are relevant. 

3 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

How Old is the Universe?

The current model of how old the universe is actually correct if we count the time elapsed from the Big Bang to the present day. But we can view it another way with there being an `interdependence event` occurring at some point in the past. We can say it happened 6000 years ago to match the Bible although I dont know how to ascertain when an interdependence event occurred. I will need to think about that further. And if the universe came into existence 6000 years ago to support the existence of God, then at the same time it backwards populated history back to the Big Bang. So in effect, both times are correct together.

I tried to look up "interdependence event" but nothing came up, so what is it supposed to mean ?

So we just have to accept that a number that is 2,283,333 times smaller than another number is the same. :wacko: 

I guess it makes sense to you, but to me a factor of 2,283,333 is pretty big to just handwave away.

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orphalesion

What I wanna know is why some people hold on to that ridiculous "6000 years" figure? Like...why? 

That number is not needed to believe in the Bible version of "God" nor in Jesus. It's just a stupid, mythological/folkloric number and it clearly doesn't match with reality. Just like many other, mythological parts of the Bible.

Edited by Orphalesion
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
46 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

RabidMongoose (@Cookie Monster)if you really wants to use this argument you could give us your credentials so we can see if they are relevant. 

I think I recall him saying it's electrical engineering or something.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
1 minute ago, Rlyeh said:

I think I recall him saying it's electrical engineering or something.

Then he is surely qualified in biology, cosmology and theology. Just like @Emma_Acid and me. 

I studied economics, but I found out that it wasn't for me so now I work with CNC machines. Its the obvious switch isn't it ? :P

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
3 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Then he is surely qualified in biology, cosmology and theology. Just like @Emma_Acid and me. 

I studied economics, but I found out that it wasn't for me so now I work with CNC machines. Its the obvious switch isn't it ? :P

I studied something to do with computers and my job now is done on computers, also I read this post on a computer, therefore I am pretty well placed to be an expert in this area.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

Finally, when they are attacking the Bible they arent even reading what is written and in the original Hebrew. It states in the very first sentence the universe was brought into existence using interdependent causation, not linear causation. The Hebrew worlds for God and created are linked by a hyphen which in Hebrew is used to designate interdependence.

Do you read Hebrew or Aramaic? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
8 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Then he is surely qualified in biology, cosmology and theology. Just like @Emma_Acid and me. 

I studied economics, but I found out that it wasn't for me so now I work with CNC machines. Its the obvious switch isn't it ? :P

I work with CNC's, but I'm secretly a level 97 necromancer and intergalactic ambassador for the Xenofishian Empire. Not to brag. 

I don't want to reveal my actual IQ, but... my like count is equal to my IQ. 

Just saying....

Edited by XenoFish
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I work with CNC's, but I'm secretly a level 97 necromancer and intergalactic ambassador for the Xenofishian Empire. Not to brag. 

I don't want to reveal my actual IQ, but... my like count is equal to my IQ. 

Just saying....

The only time I ever took something like an IQ test was before my conscription draw to see if I was elligibel. I didn't fail that apparently. I did however draw a high number so I didn't have to be conscipted anyway. I think @sci-nerd might have been through the same test. I wonder if he passed ? :innocent:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

The only time I ever took something like an IQ test was before my conscription draw to see if I was elligibel. I didn't fail that apparently. I did however draw a high number so I didn't have to be conscipted anyway. I think @sci-nerd might have been through the same test. I wonder if he passed ? :innocent:

I know my IQ, I just don't think it matters. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
1 minute ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

The only time I ever took something like an IQ test was before my conscription draw to see if I was elligibel. I didn't fail that apparently. I did however draw a high number so I didn't have to be conscipted anyway. I think @sci-nerd might have been through the same test. I wonder if he passed ? :innocent:

Yup. But they never told me the result. I drew a high number too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd

For any aspiring gods on this forum, this is all you need to know, to make your own universe:

ToE.thumb.png.fcadfd3e21366c7f09dc2e5fcaa89d11.png

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
micahc

Creationists invented this so called competition. Darwinism is just a theory formed through observation. Religion was invented by people who didn't even know where rain came from.

Edited by micahc
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.