Does creationism contradict evolution?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Does the idea that Man was Created as a ready product , totally negates the opposing view that slowly acquired characteristics formed him , acquiring the present form, as he attempted to conform to the demands of the environment?

The most obvious way is to reason that either one, or the other view prevails, but there is a hutch to this way of thinking about it.

For if we take the former view, then the imminent, timeless pre-supposition appears to imply a necessary view, a positive assumption, either of which (either justifies a building on the pre-existing premise - of paradoxically opposing and mutually exclusive Configurations.

For Creatonism presupposes either The Last Man’s nihilistic approach to what’s next, after the fall, where is no after, after only the absolute void, or, the opposite of having the X potential to raise up a new , but continuously progressive capability to rebuild on totally new basis, which have somehow survived in some as of yet unknown mode.

Here is where the paradox becomes glaringly a test of a hard driven mode of rebuilding, where there is no apparent hope of recovering the draft with which to use to proceed with the rebuilding, while on the other hand the faith of relying on some different way to build subsists .

This is precisely the positive faith implicit in a simulation, of a near identical mirror of representations, as that of mirroring, may, hypermirroring Man in the Image of The Most Holy, God.

Jesus did talk about Himself as the Son of Man, in His earthly apparence, and the fact that Man is his own genealogical father, eludes the series of generational development that is derivable, except the ‘missing link’
that does place that subtle, but enormous doubly edged peg into the idea that the shift to the edge towards it’s transcendent imminence, can cut through this duplicity, at the critical point.

But, in fact, it can not, for there is none, only an intransitive ever expanding set of reduced marginality, with no end in sight, nor the duration within which it can be measured.

For these reasons , the apparent contradiction inherent in the paradox, implies an impossible situation, and both views are essentially not only almost nearly resemblences, they must be identical, as a coherence of Creation with apparent evolution, reduces the later to negating the Last Man’s absolut criteria to nihil any thing other then ultra-positivism into the Faith in God.

2

Yes, creationism negates evolution.
No creator is necessary.
No beginning and no end.

Order/Chaos suffice.

When man did not know how the sun worked, or what it was, he imagined some gods or spirits. He projected himself, in the abstract, as the driving force.
Superstition does this with everything it cannot understand or what it fears.
It reduces it down to what it can comprehend, name, and then deal with.

The negative has always been where primitive minds place their hopes and justifications.
Eventually the negative was worshipped as a more reliable, more certain, divinity than the positive one.

Chaos is the part of nature man has called ‘evil’.

Chaos is the promethean force - the Devil, the Satanic…the unknowable, incomprehensible…
It is what makes choice necessary - free-will qualifying this act. Not possible…necessary.
Without it judgement, choice, awareness would be unnecessary.
Without it learning would be unnecessary - see Garden of Eden and the ‘tree of knowledge’ as the primordial sin.

3

I think there is huge evidence for both creationism and evolution.
I think both happen.
This was thought after a long time of consideration.

4

Briefly, yes and yes, but really no, on a simple premise:

Chaos in pre-evolutionary times sustained meaning, nowadays, recovery succeeds discovery, supposedly for a reason.

Everyone is searching for that reason, but reason is always ahead of the game, it simply can not be captured, because it always recovers, it covers the reason why it is running in a race, that everyone supposed to be a lost cause.

That loss, is tatamount to the loss of reason, for it to want to stay in the race, until the very end, an end not in sight, and is beginning to seem like the race is endless.

So chaos is as unconquerable as its rationale to be perpetually in a race that never ends, hence, one where there could never be winners taking all.

Chaos is after all, built into reason in a very covered way, so that there are no two ways about it: the tree of knowledge consists of the trunk-chaos, the branches, - the chaos literally branching out into of generating a more lasting source of energy source, and finally the leaves and the fruit of conversion by meta-morphosis.

There is your photo-synthesis, a perpetua mobile of energy conservation and utilization, which fluctuates from the beginning to the end, like a writhing snake, which will close circled encircled body , can stand withot feet and raise it’s head to simulate motion by it’s writhing and never shown really etymologically, that it will ever develop those feet , even is it would be a logical step in the right direction.

Salamanders, worms, are similarly endowed with this what appears to be a chaotic development , but then, butterflies , morphed from catapulted, take off , to the sky, and hummingbirds are really an insect and bird hunted.

Does even AI know for sure if man’s proto scientific discovery by the ancient atomists will congrue into a positive outcome of wether man is heading to his own destruction?

It really is an extension of realization that chaos can not merely rid nihil, from disconnecting from the ancient mandala where the snake kundalini can not suddenly sprung up at the last second , display the enormity of it’s poison spitting fangs, and tell the roach of Kafka, that hell with it, god can not represent the hood, within a world where even the Amazon forest is being decimated.

5

You can use all those words to dismiss chaos…but chaos is increasing.
It’s called linear time…
And we organism, as ordering, resist and try to order what is disordering…and so we suffer.

6

And the chaotic is winning the race, because reason and order have lost faith in their proprietary role in managing control variables involved in processing information with planning how to integrate it with sensibly applied developmental obstructions.

7

If evolution is just change, then it is a necessary part of creation, or agency-determined change. We are change agents (co-creators) in the image of the original (Creator). We cannot see every variable in the original. That does not mean they are unaccounted for by/in the original. The “linear time” began whole like a co-finished movie/novel, even though only actual/now one moment/blink/scene/page at a time. (Disclaimer: The original doesn’t blink.)

8

Now this not only takes a wrap around my brain, but needs many turns around it, into some kind of turbin, many times over, ,it being late, need a look with a fresh look early a.m.

9

There is one version where you could possibly marry the two…

In a deterministic world, where everything that happens is all that can happen, one might argue all events for all eternity were predetermined from the start. So we might say the natural world “created us” by way of how it’s laws work, it determined our eventual existence from the beginning. Then whomever or whatever created the natural world could be credited with our creation as well… all by virtue of knocking down the first domino that set the chain in motion.

This act of “creation” is then not of MAN directly… but as indirect as 15 billion years of knocked down dominos in the wake of the ACTUAL act of creation.

This dismantles the psychologically utilitarian view of the OP… where a belief or faith in our existence being of special significance to some almighty creator might give us hope for a life after death and grant meaning to our futile struggle to stave off death for us and those we love. (a truly sad state of affairs, if true)

This version of a creator did not take special care to create man… mankind was so unimportant to creation that a good 15 billion years passed before we even emerged and we did so in some middle of nowhere rock most of which is inhospitable to us, around a run of the mill sun, with no other hospitable planets. This does not indicate the creator had us primarily in mind during the creation of the universe… not even a little.

But to address the main gist of the OP, the psychological utility of faith, that too is an absolute tragic crutch. To find this life disappointing is absurde, as it’s the only one you’ve ever known… the only way to be disappointed by it, as with all things, is to have expected something different. If you are taught to find meaning and hope in the promise of an after then you’ve been done a disservice of such magnitude that I cannot even begin to describe it. Finding meaning is as breathing, it comes natural and without effort. But it exists in moments, small tiny moments. Projecting yourself into a fantasy where you sit above the clouds and watch millenia go by and ask “what is the meaning of it all?” is exactly how you were duped into forgetting to breathe! You exist on the ground in small moments and here is where you can find all meaning and purpose and hope. In the cosmic scheme your life may be as nothing, but likewise, to you the cosmic scheme is no-thing… And yet if you’ve been taught to view the world from the vantage of that fantasy, it can be very difficult to see the world as though for the first time absent those expectation so as to appreciate the opportunities it presents you.

At any rate, the answer is simple… It’s never been about how long you live, whether it’s for 20 years or all of eternity… It’s always been about HOW you live. Life is story unfolding, fraught with comedy, tragedy, drama and elation and you’re the POV character… So be someone awesome that you’d like to spend time with and get to know, choose carefully the company you keep, and tell a story worth experiencing! That way, when the movie is about to end… you won’t feel like it was a waste of your time and be glad to have had the experience.

10

Got “it”, but with a slight curve placed into it’s linearity.

There is coming a time and it’s sooner then later, that such ‘impositions’ were made, as if they were really made, as if a cut above to the expectation toward a linear time ever expunged from a conscious realization.

The unconscious hermitological reflex, kicks in every time , as a sign by which to remember what preceded the east news of what’s ahead, from the narrow slit , which was ‘invented’ to test the overriding power of the improbable from the probable, as proof of what’s to come,

Knowing this type of reasonable argument may not give justice to a linear test , between tlmeasured and timeless criteria, just ask the cat inside the box if it is still alive, and see how it answers.

We have to learn its language to know for sure, if there is really a divine plan to all this.

Are we robreky on Einstein’s gamble to dare proclaim that Gid does not play games of chance to give us the faith to courage, to piwer our will to amen quite? Yes or no, He leaves for us to decide, and if it was up to me, I could say it makes a lot of sense to let that decision to assert a positive and not a nihil of that, so that we can return to the literal view of Him, and His power to a will, rather than inversely.

11

I think MadMan P is right that “sitting above the clouds” …waiting… misses the point.

Hence the incarnation. Hence the church being the body. Hence “on earth, as it is in heaven”. Hence the great commission to build the kingdom now. Yes, reaping is later… hence, now is sowing.

To do otherwise is to bury it where it won’t grow.

We’re not talking money, or power, but meaning… loving each other despite our crap. Baby laughter. Random acts of inconspicuous kindness. Quality

12

Can anyone show us a beginning from nowhere and nothing that would require a willful creator?

Can anyone justify the idea that the cosmos began, at some nonn-spatial non-temporal point, outside space/time?

Space/Time refers to existence…so what is “outside existence” but the non-existent?

The idea of nothing is not nothinbgenss…it refers to the Indo-European cosmogony idea of Chaos.
The chaotic cannot be perceived nor conceptualized, so the mind interprets it as blackness, a void…a no-thing…where ‘thing’ refers to an abstraction of perceived patterns.
So chaos is not complexity, it is the absence of a pattern.

Since brains have their limits - their quality - minds cannot perceive patterns beneath or above tis acuity - too complex or too subtle - and these are also interpreted as a void in tis consciousness, an emptiness.
This complexity/subtlety - red or blue phase in electromagnetism - and the absence of patterns are both interpreted in the same way…so the mind confuses the two as being the same.
A psychology is threatened by what lacks any pattern ([size=85]order[/size]) and prefers to focus on what has a imperceptible, but presumed pattern.
Chaos (randiomness0 is too troubling a state for an organism - dependent on order, itself an ordering organization - to consider.
The idea that the entire cosmos is ordered, but man cannot perceive it is preferable.
I believe it was referred to as Alexandrian…the idea that all is knowable - all is in accordance to laws…that all is ordered and rational…leading to the issue of free-will.
In an absolutely ordered cosmos free-will would be unnecessary - as would judgment, choice, competition, learning etc.

Natural Laws being human perceptions of patterns underlying patterns.
They’ve come to replace Divine Laws…and the idea that the cosmos is absolutely ordered is the same as that which leads to the belief in god.

13

chaos/change/entropy can’t happen to nothing

the something chaos/change/entropy happens to has a beginning (all the science points to it despite best efforts to find counterevidence)

it is begun by something not subject to chaos/change/entropy… but contains it

unmoved mover

the Trinity

14

One cannot create something from nothing either… an unmoved mover would need something to move.
So your left with either “there was a thing, that reshaped itself into the universe” OR if you wish to retain the creator “there were two things, one of them made the other into the universe”

The simplest solution is the original thing that exists is chaos, a thing without pattern, rules, shape or constance and in it’s ever-changing randomness it happens to shape itself into something ordered, if only by chance, and becomes the universe but for a brief blink of an eye in it’s eternal existence, before returning to it’s chaotic state that will inevitably birth another ordered universe by chance.

However unlikely a shape you might immagine for chaos to take… given an eternity of rolling the dice, it is bound to happen eventually.

15

What, the hell, are you talking about.
Chaos/Order refer to energy, which is…requiring no creation.

There is no thing that happens to be chaotic/ordered…there is energy which is either patterned or not.
There is no ‘thing’ dear. There is only activity, energy, interpreted as thing.

There si no beginning or end, there is only unities. Disunities, change…energies declining or ascending…changing their patterns or losing pattern or gaining pattern.
There in no end, only cycles.
A universe is a cycle. The next one may not be one where life is possible…the one after may be one where life is possible, of a different sort…etc.

That is a contradiction…what is unmoving is non-existing…only in your mind.
Show me soemrhting unmoving.
you can only think it…speak it…write it…and it refers to nothing but an idea in your mind which is an inversion of what you perceive.

#-o

The trinity is also a subjective concept to mind/body/synthesis.
Plato took it and invented his image of the psyche.
It is rooted in the organisms triad: Mind/Body/Nervous System ([size=85]brain included[/size])

Ideal/Real/Movement.
I/Other/World

It is the human condition, projected as a universal truth.

Creation implies need/desire…this contradicts perfection…
Your one-God, of the Jews, is a self-contradicting concept is a superstition used to manipulate needy people, like you.
When you worship their god, you’ve abandon your own people’s gods…you’ve become their slave.

16

Mad Man P,

I’m just going to say that if you define “something” as the physical universe (whose beginning/edge science & logic repeatedly affirms) and “nothing” as the absence of “something” (as just defined) … there would still be nothing.

So.

Your definition of “something” is wonky - or we would not be here to discuss it.

All I have time for right now.

17

Essentialist, the discussion has devolved into the question of the phrase: subjectivism as contrary to objectivism, with the apparent evaporation of the subjective element, as responsive to the evolving object ovation of perceivable elements.

But then that process of cognition made a quick U(you) turn, and as suddenly crashed into the metaphysically strangeness of resembling, deontological paradoxes. Paradox does originate from the concept ‘ near to) or analogous with, x , where X equals an objective or subjective content.

The term ‘objective’ has a double meaning, one that is an object, a pre-possessed , commonly held structural entity, irrespective of whether it consists of a bundle of unseeable sources of emery, or various forms of rescoursing into the sensible world.

The unseen , to add to the complexity, prepossesses the element of transcending qualities, that assuredly serve as structural filters, which gradually will clear them, a process that gradually is expected to tie the source to the metadology of resourcing the transcendental object.

Such metadology has proven validated in the past, with the strongest in existence, of tying creationism and evolutionary objectivism, a continuing expected object.

All the acquired negative designations associated with the subjective criteria are rebounding to revalue are the hermetic strangeness that mysticism has come to acquire.

Scary, because it congruently runs with, beware what you wish for, but if we’re the case that bad people could undermine the method of correlating bad seed with the hood word of God, then existence would have been successfully would have been undermined, making that form of existence invalid, and then evolution toward the blue lit positivism of reality, become a terminal phase marching toward the hellish red-black end of existence that has totally been destructured toward absolute chaos.

Is this what’s going on in an eternal cycle? If so , there never could have a pronouncement of the beginning word was Good and that God is the One uttering it.

18

Which is exactly what is described in a roundabout way, by those who appear to pronounce Theistic preconceptions, as hanging from skyhooks.

And I am just hoping I did not kill my own firum by appearing to have circle navigated my own form as did Saint Ansel hundreds of years ago.

19

I did not define any of the terms… I merely pointed out a logical error in your argument.
If the premise is something is required to be chaotic, then something is required to be moved by a mover…
The implication of that premise is that to possess any characteristic at all, whether moved or chaotic, there must be something to possess it.
So in conclusion, there is at least ONE thing…

You jumped to the conclusion that two things must exist… an “unmoved mover” and the “something” moved by it to explain a universe with a beginning and end.
But you could make do with ONE thing… if that ONE thing were chaotic, it would inevitably shape itself into all possible forms… including an ordered form.
No mover or maker is required… If the thing is perpetually in motion and ever changing.

We might call that one thing “existence”… and say all things are part of this whole.

What we’re doing here is refining basic categorization in our language and thinking which might help us speak and think more clearly…
However nothing is discovered in such musings about how the world works much less devine for us the cause of the big bang… or if in fact it had one.
After all, if we reside in a chaotic existence that has momentarily taken an ordered form, an orderly cause and effect chain ought not be expected prior to the beginning of this ordered form.

20

A slight minimal exclusion occurs within that argument .
A dissolution subsumed not merely the exterior it’s of apparent logical sequencing, but an interior of dissolution functionally separates meaning for the foreward push from the simultenious backward vision.

Dissolution and dis-solution are as relevant as the more appearent difference between ‘turn’ and return.

There are two ways about it, and then no two ways; both mine for meaning while each undermines it into the supposedly unitary chaotic element.