Evolution vs. Creation

[Zhorken]

Actually, it would. It can be reasoned that way, even though to me it seems a little too much like a complicated method if something is all-powerful, so I don't believe it. But just the theory doesn't directly contradict the existence of a God.

what
I'm not saying a god didn't do it (though this is true)
I'm not saying that a god that didn't do it doesn't exist (though this is true)
I'm saying that if a god did it, it wouldn't be evolution

It's worded ["'follow' a scientific theory"] for convenience's sake. You people rag on the stupidest things.

but what does he even fucking mean by that? a scientific theory isn't something to have faith in and it doesn't have any practices or traditions attached at all.

 

[Jason-Kun]

I have a few questions:

1. Why is there a god in this reasoning considering there doesn't need to be one?

There doesn't. It's just me explaining how I can believe in both Evolution and Creation at once.

2. How can you 'follow' a scientific theory?

Meaning I believe the theory to be partial fact and the like?

3. How do you explain the dinosaurs, their extinction, and the things that survived by this reasoning?

God made lizards, did he not? And Dinosaur when translated means "Terrible Lizard", right? Using this logic then God would've made lizards which through breeding and genetic change "evolved" over time to become Dinosaurs. And as for other things survivng with this logic, each animal family would start with one animal and that animal would go through microevolution, basically staying the same with a few minor changes in apearance.

3.5. Oh, and, you know, all that evidence for evolution before cat and dog species and the like even existed?

See answer to question 3.

what
I'm not saying a god didn't do it (though this is true)
I'm not saying that a god that didn't do it doesn't exist (though this is true)
I'm saying that if a god did it, it wouldn't be evolution

What is this madness? If a God programmed the creature to change and evolve over time, it would be evolution still, just guided along by said God. A God guided the change wouldn't change the fact it is evolution.

 

[Alexi]

I agree with evolution. Yep.

 

[surskitty]

God made lizards, did he not? And Dinosaur when translated means "Terrible Lizard", right? Using this logic then God would've made lizards which through breeding and genetic change "evolved" over time to become Dinosaurs. And as for other things survivng with this logic, each animal family would start with one animal and that animal would go through microevolution, basically staying the same with a few minor changes in apearance.

First off, the fuck does the etymology of the word have to do with anything?

Second, are you seriously suggesting that dinosaurs evolved from lizards?


ETA: Also, 'dinosaur' is a human word. If a god exists, we probably wouldn't be using eir name for them. No, really.

 

[GameFreakerZero]

It's worded that way for convenience's sake. You people rag on the stupidest things.

See Zhorken's post. Yes it may have been nit picky but the point still stands.

I assume he meant that there were a few things made at the beginning and said cat/dog for the sake of it. He meant that God made life that eventually became something else.

Generic placeholder name. I assume he meant God made some organisms and left them there to evolve. Some of them evolved into cats, others into dogs.

I was using them as a generic placeholder name too, the fact of the matter is the farther you go "oh, but what about the stuff before this" you'll eventually get to the root of all life and at that point God is unnecessary (still) in the equation because you then go "but here's the science that shows it could've all started anyway" then you go further and further back until God is, as he usually is, just the creator of the universe.

I disagree with his thinking too, but you're just nitpicking here.

I don't see how; the wording one was a bit but the others were fairly valid questions.

There doesn't. It's just me explaining how I can believe in both Evolution and Creation at once.

... But if there doesn't need to be a god then why do you believe in him? I thought the point of a god was that it would be necessary in the creation of everything, but if it isn't needed then why believe in one?

Meaning I believe the theory to be partial fact and the like?

Why only partially?

God made lizards, did he not? And Dinosaur when translated means "Terrible Lizard", right? Using this logic then God would've made lizards which through breeding and genetic change "evolved" over time to become Dinosaurs. And as for other things survivng with this logic, each animal family would start with one animal and that animal would go through microevolution, basically staying the same with a few minor changes in apearance.

Hey, how many of these minor appearance changes do you think would build up over sixty five million years?

Oh, and if they were only tiny changes, where did birds come from?

See answer to question 3.

See my answer to ..., we could keep going back and back until we hit the creation of the universe by this.

 

[xkze]

evolution as a rule is not governed by anything that isn't natural.

this is why selective breeding (dogs, horses, cattle etc) is not evolution.

 

[Zhorken]

What is this madness? If a God programmed the creature to change and evolve over time, it would be evolution still, just guided along by said God. A God guided the change wouldn't change the fact it is evolution.

No, if it's controlled by some supernatural force, it's something else altogether. If a god made a bunch of things and then they evolved without the help of their creator, sure, you could say they evolved, but you can't take evolution and decide that where it says "(aspect x) occurred as a result of..." it's possible to substitute "a god caused (aspect x)" instead.

I guess you could argue your point for some purely linguistic (rather than scientific) value of the word "evolution", but then, really, you'd just be trying to find a way to make "evolution" fit the process you want it to fit.

 

[Jason-Kun]

... But if there doesn't need to be a god then why do you believe in him? I thought the point of a god was that it would be necessary in the creation of everything, but if it isn't needed then why believe in one?

Wait what? Now you're just confusing me.

Why only partially?

...

Hey, how many of these minor appearance changes do you think would build up over sixty five million years?

Oh, and if they were only tiny changes, where did birds come from?

Show some proof that the world is pver sixy five million years old, then I'll be able to answer the first wuestion. Although minor changes in appearance would spring up every few thousand years or so, atleast I believe so.

Birds would come from birds. One bird would be the base and evolve over time into other species of birds.

See my answer to ..., we could keep going back and back until we hit the creation of the universe by this.

If you insist on doing so.

First off, the fuck does the etymology of the word have to do with anything?

Second, are you seriously suggesting that dinosaurs evolved from lizards?

First of all, it does as it itself implies that dinosaurs evolved from lizards. Secondly, yes I am implying that dinosaurs evolved from lizards.

 

[Zhorken]

Wait what? Now you're just confusing me.

I'm pretty sure he means "Why do you believe in a god? Where did that belief come from? Nothing that, to you, needs explaining necessitates a god to explain it so "there HAS to be a god" can't be your reason unless there's something else you find unbelievable that you haven't mentioned, so what is your reason?"

also

<Zhorken> "First of all, it does as it itself implies that dinosaurs evolved from lizards." man I had trouble parsing this
<MidnightDS> what is it
<MidnightDS> evolution?
<surskitty> "First of all, it does as it itself implies that dinosaurs evolved from lizards. Secondly, yes I am implying that dinosaurs evolved from lizards." ... ...
<surskitty> how does the etymology of the word 'dinosaur' imply that dinosaurs evolved from lizards
<Zhorken> "First of all, it does[,] as it itself implies[,] [imply] that dinosaurs evolved from lizards."
<Zhorken> metaimplication
<Zhorken> and then he repeats himself
<Zhorken> that's the best I can get out of it

please explain I am honestly confused ?_?

 

[Jason-Kun]

I'm pretty sure he means "Why do you believe in a god? Where did that belief come from? Nothing that, to you, needs explaining necessitates a god to explain it so "there HAS to be a god" can't be your reason unless there's something else you find unbelievable that you haven't mentioned, so what is your reason?"

also

please explain I am honestly confused ?_?

I'm not even going to dig into the "Why do you believe in a god" topic as this isn't the appropriate place for it.

As for your section question. If Dinosauar translates into Terible Lizard, wouldn't that imply that dinosaurs evolved over time from lizards?

 

[J.T.]

Wait what? Now you're just confusing me.

If there doesn't need to be a god, why do you believe in one?

Show some proof that the world is pver sixy five million years old, then I'll be able to answer the first wuestion.

Fossils?

First of all, it does as it itself implies that dinosaurs evolved from lizards.

We use dinosaur/thunder lizard because many of them were big and lizardlike. Back when we discovered them, we didn't know a ton about them other than that, much less whether or not they evolved from lizards. Humans made the name "dinosaur" themselves; you could call some small furry thing something that makes it sound like a mouse, but the name in itself does not mean that the mouse evolved from said small furry thing.

 

[Zhorken]

I am so fucking confused.

this isn't the appropriate place for [views on WHY creation happened].

How isn't it?

As for your section question. If Dinosauar translates into Terible Lizard, wouldn't that imply that dinosaurs evolved over time from lizards?

No, it implies nothing of the sort. The fact that people named dinosaurs something has absolutely no effect on what they were. There is absolutely no way they could have evolved from modern-day lizards.

also you missed something

 

[Jason-Kun]

Fossils?

Fossils aren't a source on how long the world has bee around, even if they seem like they are/[/QUOTE]

How isn't it?

Religion has no place in a debate about the science of rather creation or evolution are true.

No, it implies nothing of the sort. The fact that people named dinosaurs something has absolutely no effect on what they were. There is absolutely no way they could have evolved from modern-day lizards.

also you missed something

It implies alot. You can not call something a lizard and say that it doesn't come from the lizard family, it makes no sense.

And I disregarded that as I didn't understand what you were trying to say. If you had given a simpler statement, maybe I would've responded

 

[xkze]

As for your section question. If Dinosauar translates into Terible Lizard, wouldn't that imply that dinosaurs evolved over time from lizards?

dude this is the worst logic ever

do you think cattails evolved from cats too?

Religion has no place in a debate about the science of rather creation or evolution are true.

uhh
creationism is pretty religious
there is no "science of [whether] creation or evolution [is] true"
if you are going with any science at all, you go against creationism as a rule

 

[Zhorken]

Religion has no place in a debate about the science of rather creation or evolution are true.

THE IDEA OF LIFE ETC'S CREATION IS NOT SCIENCE and only occurs in religion!

And I disregarded that as I didn't understand what you were trying to say. If you had given a simpler statement, maybe I would've responded

Saying that a god did it goes against any reasonable definition of the word "evolution". Believe it if you want, but don't try and contort the word to your definition just to be able to say that you "believe in evolution" or that "evolution doesn't contradict the idea of our creation".

It implies alot. You can not call something a lizard and say that it doesn't come from the lizard family, it makes no sense.

It doesn't matter what anyone calls them. Dinosaurs were what they were. They can't have evolved from modern-day lizards.

 

[Alexi]

It implies alot. You can not call something a lizard and say that it doesn't come from the lizard family, it makes no sense.

Dinosaurs, when the word was created, looked like terribly large lizards. So it made sense to call them "terrible lizards". At the time. But now we know they were more related to birds than lizards.

 

[J.T.]

Fossils aren't a source on how long the world has bee around, even if they seem like they are/

You can tell pretty conclusively how old a fossil is, and plenty of them have been proven to be way older than 65 million years old. How are they not conclusive?

It implies alot. You can not call something a lizard and say that it doesn't come from the lizard family, it makes no sense.

By this logic komodo dragons and bearded dragons must have descended from fire-breathing dragons.

Saying that something looks like a lizard doesn't automatically mean it comes from a lizard. Besides, you gotta remember this happened years ago when the human race was significantly more ignorant; we didn't know whether they were lizards or not - their skeletons looked like they were, so we figured they were.

EDIT: no Zhorken did not say that above quote, sorry.

 

[Zhorken]

please fix your quote tags J.T.; I don't want my name attached to that :(

 

[ultraviolet]

You can not call something a lizard and say that it doesn't come from the lizard family, it makes no sense.

Snapdragons and Komodo Dragons aren't in the same family. Because Snapdragons are flowers. The English language isn't the best source for logical reasoning, sorry. o.O

 

[xkze]

When I asked "do you think cattails evolved from cats too?" I was actually looking for an answer

by your logic, they should have.