Evolution... good, bad or ugly?

freako104

freako104

Well-Known Member
RD_151 remember that yes evolution has holes in it but so does creationism and any other theories that maybe about. no theory is ever truyl proven as you said. i admit i believe in evolution because there is evidence of it but as you said its not proven. but neither is creationism.
 
R

RD_151

New Member
Indeed, creationism is probably unproveable. I never argued in favor of it. In fact, I ALWAYS stated it had far more holes than Evolution. I only questioned certain aspects of evolution. It only hit me just now, ok, an hour or so ago, that if you reject one, you ALMOST have to accept the other. Maybe i'm wrong about that, but it makes a lot more sense to me if this is the case. I can see then why it is viewed as "proven" by so many. Indeed, if you don't have creation, you must have evolution (ok, maybe not exactly, but more than likely) therefore it makes sense why so many feel that it is indeed a proven theory. I didn't really think this part through originally, thats why I started the new thread.

Its probably IMPOSSIBLE, or almost so for scientist not to believe in evolution, or some derivative of it, given that science almost universally MUST reject the other, because it must reject a "creator." I didn't think of it this way until now really.
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
I didn't want to get involved in this thread until I had time to think. Now that I have the time, it's too long to wory about & I'm confused. ;)
 
freako104

freako104

Well-Known Member
sorry about that RD_151. no if you reject something you dont have to believe the opposite just that there are two major theories people go by. believe what you will is what i say. however its harder to reject one without being affiliated with the other.
 
R

RD_151

New Member
freako104 said:
no if you reject something you dont have to believe the opposite just that there are two major theories people go by.
Click to expand...

In general, yes, this is true, but I was wondering if this is kind of a special case. I can't really think of a plausible alternative to the two, and frankly, I haven't heard one from anyone else yet (ok, the dream state idea maybe). I understand if it's not one, it doesn't HAVE to be the other, but in this instance, I think it may very well be the case. Of course, there can be option three, but I'm not aware of an option three that makes sense to any of us YET. That is why I started to think of it this way. I remember simple logic, I realize that logically, this isn't a valid arguement. However, it isn't necessarily wrong either.

You have to make some assumptions to come up with a logically valid way that this could be the case I guess.

Ok, either the universe, life, etc etc was created, or it wasn't. It must be one or the other. This is a yes or no question, this is true, or its false. Ok, now if it wasn't created, how did it come into existence? Some form of evolution or another almost certaintly has to be the answer. I guess my assumption was that if it wasn't created, it MUST have evolved (because currently no other option is really even conceivable, I think we all argeed that the dream state hypothesis was more of a religious (faith based) and creator based idea) . Therefore, if you reject one, you accept the other. Maybe there is an alternative to EVERY form of evolution (in the sense of the universe, and life evolved absent a creator), but I can't even begin to imagine what it might be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top