We can't observe evolution over a long period of time because until much more relatively recently we have been able to properly document it.
To discount it entirely isn't really all that big brain.
Until something can be proven, we only have different theories. We cannot prove or disprove drastic evolution over that period of time.
In fact, even from a creationist point of view, the above statement that you responded to is silly.
If it's so fantastical to believe that "single celled organisms poofed into existence one day and evolved", why is it suddenly okay to believe that we were poofed into existence as whole humans?
I enjoy different theories and opinions, but I needed to touch on this point because we have a very large religious userbase.
Science is very interesting, and instead of "trusting the science", we should trust the scientific method. And the scientific method has not been employed long enough in civilization to properly observe and document any speciation anyway.
So TL;DR is: we just don't know. I don't want people to fall into the same pitfalls from the opposing sides of the argument. Evolution and creation also does not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.
On a quick tangent on pitfalls: When society agrees on something that we have been unable to properly observe, we run into issues where we don't want to accept that we were wrong.
The big bang theory as one notable example doesn't make a ton of sense on its face. It wasn't the only theory, and there were better theories that made more sense, such as Plasma Cosmology.
But instead of properly exploring and asking these questions, and challenging it, society was made to accept one theory as the end all, and schools rarely if ever teach of these other theories, because no one wants to admit that people were wrong.
And yet we recently had an event that seriously detracted from the big bang theory. When we are (inevitably) wrong about the fundamental theory of universal creation, we will have missed decades of valuable research focus. Most research became complacent due to commonly accepted science that we could literally not observe.
They also fearmonger about the end of the universe, something that also can never be observed.
So, ultimately the point is this:
When civilization cannot directly observe something, the solution is not to just accept one side or the other, but to continue to teach young minds to question those theories for hundreds or thousands or millions of generations to come.
That goes for evolution vs creation, Big Bang vs Plasma Cosmology, etc.
When discussion dies on a subject, the truth will die with it until resurrected by something entirely unrelated like a new space telescope.
If it's so fantastical to believe that "single celled organisms poofed into existence one day and evolved", why is it suddenly okay to believe that we were poofed into existence as whole humans?
I dont want to be a victim of a strawman here. So I'll try and clear up my position a little bit more. I'm a Creationist. I believe there was a Mind (God) behind the creation of the Universe and the appearance of Man. How (or by what mechanism) God brought everything into existence we don't know yet (I do think it fascinating that all the major founders of Modern Science were all Bible believing Christians who simply thought that "doing Science" was merely "thinking God's thought after Him"). So maybe at some point in the future we will discover the technology God used to bring material Reality into existence.
But I think we can say with some level of certainty that the process was guided. IOW, it was not a random, unguided, and purely natural process. Theistic Evolution is an option on the table, but even that theory has its issues. The main issue, IMO, is Information. We need information in order to create things and design new species. Information always comes from Minds. Always.
SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) has spent millions looking for a simple message from outer space. And a "simple" message is all they need to conclude it must've originated from an intelligent mind. Well, we have the informational equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica stored on a practically invisible, biological hard drive called DNA. But somehow DNA doesn't need a Mind to explain it's origin and continued existence? DNA (literally a codebook for all of Life) can come into existence all on it's own with no explanation other than randomness and chaos (which aren't explanations). Meh. This, to me, stretches Scientific credulity.
Even Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan (two staunch Evolutionists) have to admit to Alien seeding (the involvement of Minds) to explain the inordinate amount of complexity we find in the origin of Carbon based life forms.
Here's a quick syllogism to consider:
1) Codes only arise from Minds
2) DNA is a code (even Bill Gates admits this seeing he's trying to hack it)
3) Therefore, DNA came from a Mind
Overall, here are the choices on the table. There are no others:
Enjoy, he gets quite irate in his speeches as he really contends with the way the evolutionist cheat in the experimentation and he really shows it and he exposes it.
You'll love him, he's easily one of the best scientists this world has at the moment.
Yes the chances of life evolving from rocks is similar to the chances of a print shop exploding and creating a dictionary. And that would be just one life form. Mind boggling to think about
Well, this is a confusing statement, because Math isn't Logic either. Consider the very definition of "Code."
A Code is a system of signals or symbols for communication. Not the same as Math. And Codes never form by purely natural, unguided processes. They come only from Minds.
Codes don't arise from minds, they are discovered.
Yes, they always come from Minds. And they're discovered by Minds.
A logic course in college is literally a math credit, but I digress.
Simply put, Math quantifies while Logic clarifies. Math provides accurate numericle results, but little intuitive understanding of cause and effect. Logic provides a greater understanding of cause and effect, but usually only first order estimates of quantitative results.
Taking the definition of code it's easy to see that code functions on logic (and sometimes pure math which requires logic to understand).
Math is also a system of symbols for communication. Any math problem can be rewritten in plain English.
In fact, our system of math symbols is merely a description of the inherent truth and accuracy of math. There is no symbol for pi in the universe, we created the symbol. Pi has always existed.
Math is the code, logic is the key. Our interpretation of both is what we discuss and write on paper, but they already existed. We discovered a way to describe them.
An idea exists before you use a code to communicate or obscure it.
It's not a strawman, or even a debate. I wasn't even directly challenging the statements made, except to say that just because you believe in one doesn't mean you can't also be on board with the other.
We don't know the true origin, and we do not need to believe that what we believe to be true is mutually exclusive with what the other side believes to be true.
One side believes in evolution. One side believes in creation. But creation can lead to evolution nonetheless, so even if we did evolve from single celled organisms and our civilization somehow lived long enough to prove it, it doesn't also discount or remove an omnipotent influence of creation -- or vice versa.
I angered a few people, but that's fine. I'm not going to pretend to care about feelings, but I do care about the pursuit of knowledge and we simply can't prove anything from thousands, tens of thousands, millions, billions of years ago or from now.
So my only point is: No matter what side of belief anyone falls on, you should be able to understand that one does not necessarily negate the other.
We do have evidence just short of proof in notable evolution IIRC in regards to our brains and bodily structures, though evolving to a new species is only a hypothetical belief system in the same way that the big bang theory is.
With no way to directly observe it, there is no way to use the scientific method to prove it, and therefore there is no reason to blindly trust the science.
Oh, and lastly as a side note: Shame on the people who had to politicize religion or science. That's a critical divide right there that should never have existed.
In all fairness to the positions on the table, they are mutually exclusive. They both can’t be true. Definitions are important here.
If we define Darwinian Evolution as a mindless, unguided, entirely natural process, then it stands in direct opposition to any creation story that posits a Mind, and both theories cannot both be true. One must be false.
We can't observe evolution over a long period of time because until much more relatively recently we have been able to properly document it.
To discount it entirely isn't really all that big brain.
Until something can be proven, we only have different theories. We cannot prove or disprove drastic evolution over that period of time.
In fact, even from a creationist point of view, the above statement that you responded to is silly.
If it's so fantastical to believe that "single celled organisms poofed into existence one day and evolved", why is it suddenly okay to believe that we were poofed into existence as whole humans?
I enjoy different theories and opinions, but I needed to touch on this point because we have a very large religious userbase.
Science is very interesting, and instead of "trusting the science", we should trust the scientific method. And the scientific method has not been employed long enough in civilization to properly observe and document any speciation anyway.
So TL;DR is: we just don't know. I don't want people to fall into the same pitfalls from the opposing sides of the argument. Evolution and creation also does not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.
On a quick tangent on pitfalls: When society agrees on something that we have been unable to properly observe, we run into issues where we don't want to accept that we were wrong.
The big bang theory as one notable example doesn't make a ton of sense on its face. It wasn't the only theory, and there were better theories that made more sense, such as Plasma Cosmology.
But instead of properly exploring and asking these questions, and challenging it, society was made to accept one theory as the end all, and schools rarely if ever teach of these other theories, because no one wants to admit that people were wrong.
And yet we recently had an event that seriously detracted from the big bang theory. When we are (inevitably) wrong about the fundamental theory of universal creation, we will have missed decades of valuable research focus. Most research became complacent due to commonly accepted science that we could literally not observe.
They also fearmonger about the end of the universe, something that also can never be observed.
So, ultimately the point is this:
When civilization cannot directly observe something, the solution is not to just accept one side or the other, but to continue to teach young minds to question those theories for hundreds or thousands or millions of generations to come.
That goes for evolution vs creation, Big Bang vs Plasma Cosmology, etc.
When discussion dies on a subject, the truth will die with it until resurrected by something entirely unrelated like a new space telescope.
I dont want to be a victim of a strawman here. So I'll try and clear up my position a little bit more. I'm a Creationist. I believe there was a Mind (God) behind the creation of the Universe and the appearance of Man. How (or by what mechanism) God brought everything into existence we don't know yet (I do think it fascinating that all the major founders of Modern Science were all Bible believing Christians who simply thought that "doing Science" was merely "thinking God's thought after Him"). So maybe at some point in the future we will discover the technology God used to bring material Reality into existence.
But I think we can say with some level of certainty that the process was guided. IOW, it was not a random, unguided, and purely natural process. Theistic Evolution is an option on the table, but even that theory has its issues. The main issue, IMO, is Information. We need information in order to create things and design new species. Information always comes from Minds. Always.
SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) has spent millions looking for a simple message from outer space. And a "simple" message is all they need to conclude it must've originated from an intelligent mind. Well, we have the informational equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica stored on a practically invisible, biological hard drive called DNA. But somehow DNA doesn't need a Mind to explain it's origin and continued existence? DNA (literally a codebook for all of Life) can come into existence all on it's own with no explanation other than randomness and chaos (which aren't explanations). Meh. This, to me, stretches Scientific credulity.
Even Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan (two staunch Evolutionists) have to admit to Alien seeding (the involvement of Minds) to explain the inordinate amount of complexity we find in the origin of Carbon based life forms.
Here's a quick syllogism to consider:
1) Codes only arise from Minds
2) DNA is a code (even Bill Gates admits this seeing he's trying to hack it)
3) Therefore, DNA came from a Mind
Overall, here are the choices on the table. There are no others:
Nothing created everything
Something created everything
My money is on #2
The probability of single cell forming through an unguided process is unbelievably small, beyond the point of probability into impossible.
I watch the work of Dr James Tour on YouTube, he is I'd say the leading champion of OoL research and really explains it in simplified layman terms.
He also exposes the false science the evolutionists use to propagandise the public and education system.
I highly recommend his channel and lectures
https://m.youtube.com/c/DrJamesTour
Thank you for this!
Enjoy, he gets quite irate in his speeches as he really contends with the way the evolutionist cheat in the experimentation and he really shows it and he exposes it.
You'll love him, he's easily one of the best scientists this world has at the moment.
Yes the chances of life evolving from rocks is similar to the chances of a print shop exploding and creating a dictionary. And that would be just one life form. Mind boggling to think about
Codes are math, logic.
Codes don't arise from minds, they are discovered.
Therefore, a mind discovered a code.
That code has always existed in the math.
Well, this is a confusing statement, because Math isn't Logic either. Consider the very definition of "Code."
A Code is a system of signals or symbols for communication. Not the same as Math. And Codes never form by purely natural, unguided processes. They come only from Minds.
Yes, they always come from Minds. And they're discovered by Minds.
A logic course in college is literally a math credit, but I digress.
Simply put, Math quantifies while Logic clarifies. Math provides accurate numericle results, but little intuitive understanding of cause and effect. Logic provides a greater understanding of cause and effect, but usually only first order estimates of quantitative results.
Taking the definition of code it's easy to see that code functions on logic (and sometimes pure math which requires logic to understand).
Math is also a system of symbols for communication. Any math problem can be rewritten in plain English.
In fact, our system of math symbols is merely a description of the inherent truth and accuracy of math. There is no symbol for pi in the universe, we created the symbol. Pi has always existed.
Math is the code, logic is the key. Our interpretation of both is what we discuss and write on paper, but they already existed. We discovered a way to describe them.
An idea exists before you use a code to communicate or obscure it.
It's not a strawman, or even a debate. I wasn't even directly challenging the statements made, except to say that just because you believe in one doesn't mean you can't also be on board with the other.
We don't know the true origin, and we do not need to believe that what we believe to be true is mutually exclusive with what the other side believes to be true.
One side believes in evolution. One side believes in creation. But creation can lead to evolution nonetheless, so even if we did evolve from single celled organisms and our civilization somehow lived long enough to prove it, it doesn't also discount or remove an omnipotent influence of creation -- or vice versa.
I angered a few people, but that's fine. I'm not going to pretend to care about feelings, but I do care about the pursuit of knowledge and we simply can't prove anything from thousands, tens of thousands, millions, billions of years ago or from now.
So my only point is: No matter what side of belief anyone falls on, you should be able to understand that one does not necessarily negate the other.
We do have evidence just short of proof in notable evolution IIRC in regards to our brains and bodily structures, though evolving to a new species is only a hypothetical belief system in the same way that the big bang theory is.
With no way to directly observe it, there is no way to use the scientific method to prove it, and therefore there is no reason to blindly trust the science.
Oh, and lastly as a side note: Shame on the people who had to politicize religion or science. That's a critical divide right there that should never have existed.
Good discussion.
In all fairness to the positions on the table, they are mutually exclusive. They both can’t be true. Definitions are important here.
If we define Darwinian Evolution as a mindless, unguided, entirely natural process, then it stands in direct opposition to any creation story that posits a Mind, and both theories cannot both be true. One must be false.
Theistic Creation = Mind Involved
Darwinian Evolution = Mind not involved.
Fantastic comment here ☝🏻👏🏻
Especially: