Another Theory on Lavos (evolution vs creationism?)

[DeweyisOverrated]

I voted evolution.  Lavos was really just a catalyst to the whole thing.  The reptites/apes would have evolved more slowly and differently without him, but they still would have evolved.  They did so before he landed.

[Hadriel]

It's actually an excuse used by Christian scientists when they go to church.

"Oh, I believe that God let nature handle itself after its creation."

My father uses it as a copout all of the time.

Your dad's a scientist?

And actually, a lot of Christians believe in theistic evolution; there aren't as many young-earth creationists out there anymore.  Usually, they're smart enough to recognize that beyond evolution, what they're practicing is faith and not science.  In those cases, it's a bit unfair to diss them as morons, because they consciously choose to believe as they do instead of having been brainwashed somehow.

[SolidSnake_8608]

It basicall out lines evolution when you gain Serge's body back, but it still doesn't explain how humans got there before Lavos.

[Hadriel]

Before Lavos, it isn't really that relevant.

[evirus]

evo vote





why must it be one or the other. i mean is it unthinkable to suggest that some higher power "poked and prodded" the primordial ooze from time to time trying to guide it in a direction from time to time but for the most part left it in the sand box and watched from his lawn chair?

[Kazuki]

That's an interesting point...though I believe if there's any intervening from a, "higher power," it's considered Creationism. As Evolutionism is based completely on complete independent evolution.

[evirus]

That's an interesting point...though I believe if there's any intervening from a, "higher power," it's considered Creationism. As Evolutionism is based completely on complete independent evolution.

well the theory of evolution(as in scientific theroy, being tested to the point of ruleing out chance as a cause for the expearments resualts) is pretty much only about the transfer of genes that favor the species ability to survive and reproduce,there by resualting in the change of the species over time. im not sure if evolutionism is the belief that evolution is the defining history of human existance minus god or beleavers choice if god pushed the process along

[Radical_Dreamer]

That's an interesting point...though I believe if there's any intervening from a, "higher power," it's considered Creationism. As Evolutionism is based completely on complete independent evolution.

well the theory of evolution(as in scientific theroy, being tested to the point of ruleing out chance as a cause for the expearments resualts) is pretty much only about the transfer of genes that favor the species ability to survive and reproduce,there by resualting in the change of the species over time. im not sure if evolutionism is the belief that evolution is the defining history of human existance minus god or beleavers choice if god pushed the process along

There's no such thing as "evolutionism." Sorry. But the belief that the universe or life was created by a divinity that no longer interferes is refered to as "Deisim", and you're in good company if you are a deist: The founding fathers of the United States were all diests.

[Burning Zeppelin]

That's an interesting point...though I believe if there's any intervening from a, "higher power," it's considered Creationism. As Evolutionism is based completely on complete independent evolution.

well the theory of evolution(as in scientific theroy, being tested to the point of ruleing out chance as a cause for the expearments resualts) is pretty much only about the transfer of genes that favor the species ability to survive and reproduce,there by resualting in the change of the species over time. im not sure if evolutionism is the belief that evolution is the defining history of human existance minus god or beleavers choice if god pushed the process along

There's no such thing as "evolutionism." Sorry. But the belief that the universe or life was created by a divinity that no longer interferes is refered to as "Deisim", and you're in good company if you are a deist: The founding fathers of the United States were all diests.

Flying Spaghetti Monsterists are all deists. But if you believe in God as the Creator, then shouldnt he (he used as no gender, but not it, because it doesnt sound very good, or she because for some reason she implies gender more than he) be sustainer as well, for why would you create the universe but just leave it alone. Experiment? Than i say, god...actually, i just forgot what i wanted to say

[Lord J Esq]

But if you believe in God as the Creator, then shouldnt he ... be sustainer as well, for why would you create the universe but just leave it alone. Experiment?

There are any number of interesting replies to that question from the deistic community, one of the most interesting of which I think is the idea that the entire lifespan of the universe is itself a part of the creation act. The idea is that the physical consistency of the universe is a part of the creation, and the cosmological evolution of the universe would merely be another aspect of that consistency. You use the phrase "leave it alone," but the dimensions of space and time are a poor rubric for ascertaining the intentions of an extra-universal creator who would not be bound by them.

That's just one possible interpretation. There are as many deistic models of the universe as there are theistic ones.

[Burning Zeppelin]

in other words...
i am 13yrs old you know!
Wait, so your saying that the creator is indirectly affecting the universe, but not actually wanting to, and that the creator is part of the universe?

Pantheism (Greek: pan = all and Theos = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence and/or the universe (the sum total of all that is was and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of 'God'.

[SolidSnake_8608]

It doesn't say in the Bible that God created bacteria so that things could evolve, so the theory that God made us evolve can't be true, the Lord created life in his likeness, not some monkey or alien(damn that Tom Cruise and his Scientology).

[AuraTwilight]

I highly doubt the Bible should be taken literally. Whether it's true or not isn't relevent. It's just metaphors for God's highly complex actions because the puny mortals of like... 2000 years ago couldn't comprehend the might of his power, so he dumbed it down to the seven days crap.

[V_Translanka]

I don't think they could comprehend the might of His power...so they just made stuff up.

[Zaperking]

The Bible is alot of blasphamy to itself. Like you can't poo... Or you can't shave.. etc. Like heaps of priests shave and poo >.>
Personally, I don't listen to the bible much. I like some of the storys, but I don't like the commandments or stuff. Of course, though, I have my own morals like to listen to my parents. Even if it wasn't a commandment, I'd still do it.

I believe in God though, but not really the Bible, or the new testement.