- Registrado
- 8 de Mar, 2023
That's good advice and I wasn't doing it to confuse things, more to keep it simple for me.I don't see a need to go to analogy when I was talking in real terms. It is better to attempt to refute those. Analogies should be kept for explanation. The moment you switch to an analogy to counter-argument I feel it's because a counter-argument to what was actually said is being avoided
Maybe there's something lost in translation where our concepts or understanding of what the definition of creationism and evolution is, are different. I don't doubt my understanding is off a little, as I see creationism as God started the process of putting life on Earth, and evolution is the force that drives life to continue to survive.And less. Again, it's the teleological fallacy to suggest that evolution has a purpose or direction. A resource rich environment can lead to larger and more sophisticated organisms. A less resource rich environment can lead to smaller and simpler ones. I'm not saying it's impossible for an entity to arise via evolutionary process that to us would appear magical / divine. But I am saying that it doesn't make Creationism compatible with Evolution because Creationism as normally termed, supposes the creator to be the INITIAL state.
You are proposing something in which like Von Daniken or Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 some entity(ies) might have engineered life on Earth and that's fine to propose. My argument is that it is not Creationism by any popular definition. It's perhaps Intelligent Design, but not Creationism.
You're always pleasant so it's all good.No, not at all. I'm afraid I still don't agree with you but the debate is friendly so far as I'm concerned - it's all good.
I'm all for debate and crazy ideas, this been the conspiracy thread and all, but this is a largely, and I don't mean to sound rude, but dumb statement. We have billions of years worth of evidence to say that life gets 'better' and more complex, and no evidence of evolution hitting a cieiling and stopping.While that is true, it doesn't mean that it's going to continue that way.
Even the fish that left water to find more resources on land ended up splitting, with most of them returning to the sea; Whales, dolphins etc.
Saying that after billions of years, evolution may not continue, based on no evidence that that has ever happened, as a way of saying a God-like create will be created is not a serious counter-point. Especially if one believes in the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligent life. Which, maths, chance and probability say that it's almost guaranteed, doubly so if one believes in the origins of life on Earth coming from asteroids.