Creation of Earth: Darwin, God or are we just fiction anyway?

[Andreina]

Yesterday I had an amazing chat with a guy on LitChat who was of the firm opinion that only God has created Earth and that the Evolution in the Darwinistic sense has never happend. Only God was able to create us.

Being an avid biologist I found this surprising. I thought those kind of people ceased to exist at the turn of the century, but then I remembered that I in Alabama - I think, but don't spank me if I'm wrong - it is compulsory to teach the creation of Earth by the almighty God's hand.



Your take on it, please.

 

[Azwed]

This topic has been done about a hundred times but I am sure this will be interesting all over again.

 

[Never]

Those theories are not incompatible; no one is saying that evolution created the earth.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

The title to this thread alone makes my head hurt.

 

[modest mouse]

I dont think the creation of Earth and Darwin are comparable. Evolution is a specific thought/idea while the creation of Earth, physically, is somewhat explanable, but if you mean existence in general than I dont see the correlation.

That we are all fiction is obvious. One can only exist in perception, which is subjective, which cannot be shared without inherent change in that perceived reality and thus it exists in a unique state. Never to enter reality, for its a construct.

Or just go with God, its easier.

 

[phrodeau]

If God created Alabama, He has a lot of explaining to do.

 

[kotori]

It's true that they are not mutually exclusive theories. Even if the only thing 'god' did was light the match that caused the big bang.

Either way, we're pretty fucked up. I think it's more a matter of who would you rather blame, 'god' or natural selection (and what would 'god' be if not the author of 'natural')?

 

[Never]

modest mouse:
"That we are all fiction is obvious. One can only exist in perception, which is subjective, which cannot be shared without inherent change in that perceived reality and thus it exists in a unique state. Never to enter reality, for its a construct."

1. Perception is subjective.
This is obvious.

2. One can only exist in perception.
I disagree.

3. Reality is a construct.
If that were true reality would cease to exist if there were no living creatures.

 

[Narcosis]

darwin !

 

[phrodeau]

3. Reality is a construct.
If that were true reality would cease to exist if their were no living creatures.

At the subatomic level, reality is ambiguous. In the vastness of definable space, matter and energy are almost nonexistent.

 

[modest mouse]

1. Perception is subjective.
This is obvious.

2. One can only exist in perception.
I disagree.

3. Reality is a construct.
If that were true reality would cease to exist if there were no living creatures.

Hi Never.

Well, am I forced to figure out my own spontaneous blather? Guess so.

2. You can disagree but prove to me that you exist without perception. In any way other than perception.

3. You are saying that reality didnt exist before there were living creatures?

 

[Texan]

At the subatomic level, reality is ambiguous. In the vastness of definable space, matter and energy are almost nonexistent.

There is no such thing as ALMOST nonexistent. (You either are or you aren't.)

Space is, by definition, not definable.

The word ambiguous relates completely to "perception." At the subatomic level, perception is incomplete and indirect, but not ambiguous.

 

[Pyper]

Wow, this thread got really profound, really fast.

 

[Never]

modest mouse:
"2. You can disagree but prove to me that you exist without perception. In any way other than perception.

3. You are saying that reality didnt exist before there were living creatures? "

2. You want me to prove it? Are you suggesting you can prove your opinion?

3. No, but you just did.

 

[modest mouse]

There is no such thing as ALMOST nonexistent. (You either are or you aren't.)

Thats an important point. Degree is moot.

Space is, by definition, not definable.

The word ambiguous relates completely to "perception." At the subatomic level, perception is incomplete and indirect, but not ambiguous.

Perception is incomplete and indirect? That is ALWAYS the case. No exceptions.

I agree that it is not ambiguous. Its not vague or unclear, necessarily, to the perceiver.

 

[phrodeau]

There is no such thing as ALMOST nonexistent. (You either are or you aren't.)

Space is, by definition, not definable.

The word ambiguous relates completely to "perception." At the subatomic level, perception is incomplete and indirect, but not ambiguous.

Okay, smarty-hat. I thought my meaning was clear. How would you have put it?

 

[modest mouse]

2. You want me to prove it? Are you suggesting you can prove your opinion?

3. No, but you just did.

2. You would rather me prove the lack of existence than you proving existence? I am tasked with disproving your theory before I get to see it?

3. I'll take backtracking for a thousand, Alex.

 

[Guest]

Did God create God?

What was he doing before he created the universe. Lazy sod.

 

[Never]

modest mouse:
“2. You would rather me prove the lack of existence than you proving existence? I am tasked with disproving your theory before I get to see it?

3. I'll take backtracking for a thousand, Alex.”

2. I would say that proving a philosophical theory is impossible. However, you asked me to prove my theory so I’m assuming you think philosophical theories are provable and that you think you can prove yours.

3. You said reality was a construct, which means that reality would not exist if there were no living creatures.

 

[modest mouse]

2. I would say that proving a philosophical theory is impossible. However, you asked me to prove my theory so I?m assuming you think philosophical theories are provable and that you think you can prove yours.

3. You said reality was a construct, which means that reality would not exist if there were no living creatures.

2. What is your [/i]argument[/i] for existence?

3. False.

 

[medjay]

Hate to break it to everyone but we're all just figments in the imagination of an autistic boy named Eric.

 

[Never]

modest mouse:
"2. What is your argument for existence?

3. False."

So, you’re saying that reality exists independent of the creatures in it? If that’s true than reality isn’t a construct.

 

[J.B.]

You know the ending in Men In Black,

Where our whole universe is actually one insignificant marble in this bag of marbles that these alien beings use to play with? I’ve considered that as a possibility since I was like five years old. I would think things like, what if we’re all really just lice on some person’s head?

 

[modest mouse]

Reality is some amalgamation of various perceptions but doesnt exist.

The living creatures hang-up is your own. You brought that to the discussion.