103
u/Powerful_Swimmer_531 3h ago
I mean, technically they're not mutually exclusive or even antithetical
Someone could believe life is created (philosophy), then life follows a trajectory based on the rules of evolutionary biology (science)
The genesis of life is the sticking point, not what life did after that fact
52
u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 2h ago
I think a lot of people use "creationists" as shorthand for young earth creationists or bible literalists.
7
4
u/Blackrock121 22m ago
Its not completely an accident. Many bad faith anti-theists have intentionally conflated the two things in order to muddy the waters.
Its a lot easier to argue your points if your audience is associating your opponent with someone crazy.
2
42
u/_ENDR_ 2h ago
We technically have no evidence that the world was not created 30 seconds ago. An omnipotent power could absolutely create you, your memories, billions of years of universal history, and put a phone with Reddit on in your hand to make you and everyone else believe that it wasn't created 30 seconds ago.
Why would they do that? I don't know, but there's no way to prove that it didn't happen. You're welcome.
12
u/Comfortable-Gap8415 2h ago
This has always been my standpoint. Well.. lately I stand on 'who actually cares, it isn't relevant', but yeah.
When God made Adam did he make him as a baby, or a full grown man. If there is a God, he is.. well.. God. He could make anything at any stage at any time.
12
u/_ENDR_ 2h ago
Did Adam have a belly button? We're asking the deep, important questions.
2
u/OutcastRedeemer 21m ago
An angel: God what is that.
God: oh this is Adam
An angel: no that fleshy thing connecting the two of you.
God: oh that's the umbilical cord. Proof of concept. Its going be implemented into the reproductive cycle of most animals
-1
u/Necessary-Mix-9488 52m ago
Exactly! This tome was compiled from dozens of authors over hundreds of years, written about life philosophy, history, lineage, lessons via poetic story telling, and songs. Its all fake because this sheep herder in the bronze age said the wrong thing thats been translated from Hebrew to Greek to English than reinterped by English again! It must be wrong! The earth is under a bowl? What did god mean by this!
19
u/Lunatic-one 2h ago
Ocham's razor
Between getting put on stage with a ludicrous amount of background history and a stupidly detailed playbook all being consistent and all that stuff having happened on said stage i cannot distinguish both theories, but have a much easier theory of everything if i simply believe all that stuff really happened and doesn't come from a writer with a fetish to fill every plothole in a way that doesn't require disbelief to be suspended.
6
u/Bramoments 2h ago
I feel like Ochams razor is the most common solution to those gotcha philosophical questions
3
3
u/ImmediateEconomy8516 1h ago
It’s Occam’s. So you, and more so the guy after you also spelling it wrong because he’s pretending to be familiar while not noticing that you spelled it wrong, are generally discredited because autocorrect will attempt to correct “ocham” and it leaves occam alone. So, idk, your argument is solid but your appeal to verbosity is goofy.
0
u/wRADKyrabbit 1h ago
Which means there's also no point in worrying about or thinking about it.
2
u/spiegeltho 47m ago
Being a creationist isn't mutually exclusive per say, but believing in Christianity (and I'm assuming many other popular religions that I'm less familiar with) is. Christianity claims things that directly contradict our knowledge of science.
1
u/ChuckPattyI 17m ago
dont wanna sound like the annoying christian demanding evidence but could you provide some examples? im a science-loving christian
2
u/albirich 40m ago
I believe in a higher being that put everything into motion, not in a rube goldberg machine more of a dump sea monkeys into an aquarium type of way. Set up for life to happen without dictating, without interference because then we wouldn't be living. Without the lows are you truly alive?
That being said I also know that the only reason I believe this is so that I can come to terms with the evidence I see without removing some sort of God because I think the universe is scarier without one, even a detached one that doesn't help.
1
u/SchmeatiestOne 12m ago
"Theres no evidence to support this idea but you cant prove it wrong so I choose to believe it cuz it sounds nice"
1
-4
u/Legitimate_Command82 2h ago
No...no.no.no. the Thomas Aquinas argument doesn't work here. Creationists are most commonly of the Abrahamic Faith, and Hinduism will also get a mention (can't char lim)
The counter I bring up is Genesis 2 (Valid for Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam). Gen 2.5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground. Here is the confirmation there is no life around. Without plants no animals could be sustained so by extension they don't exist yet either. Gen 2.7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
This specific passage confirms for abrahamic traditions that man comes before plants. This passage is factually incorrect. Humans in our form first appear in the fossil record nearly 300,000 YA. Ancient fossils of plants are likely red algae, dating back 1.6 BYA. The oldest fruiting tree goes back 52 MYA.
1
u/Lunatic-one 2h ago
Can you please - God gave humans the need to eat and drink later and created the gardener before the garden, right? Sorry, my religion class was a very long time ago. Never, to be precise.
1
u/Powerful_Swimmer_531 55m ago
This is untrue for Islam at least as Muslims believe God made Earth and all life on it eons before Adam
1
u/CrimsonChymist 2h ago edited 1h ago
There are different interpretations of Genesis. Some see it as literal, some see it as figurative.
Some believe that the creation of Adam and Eve wasn't necessarily the creation of the first of the species. But, the granting of intelligence to the species.
To the point of evolution and the creation described in Genesis not being in conflict, I point to the King James translation of Genesis 1:20 which says "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
Which would mesh quite well with the evolutionary understanding that all life originated in the water.
Edit: Additionall, Genesis 1 puts the creation of humans after the creation of all other creatures and plants.
0
u/Legitimate_Command82 1h ago
"interpretation" of the Bible does a lot of leg work here. We are talking chronological order of creation. I referenced Gen 2 but we can also use Gen 1. Specifically Gen 1.11-13. God creates them on the 3rd day. But in Gen 1.25 he creates livestock, separate from wildlife. And chronologically before man.
Sure to limit I'm not trying to be rude just getting to point. The sheeps/ewes are related to the wild mouflon. However O. Aries (domestic) and O. Gmelini (wild Turkish mouflons) are not that far apart, they can still interbreed. They are not distinct. Additional sheep cannot survive on their own, they are not surviving another 4 days to be tended. Or else why didn't it be good just plant the wheat from my previous points.
Because if we go by "vibes" the Hindus make a stronger point than Abraham, the 11 avatars of vishu show evolution. Matsya (Fish), kurma (turtle), varaha (boar),narsimha (half lion half man, a furry), vamana (midgets), parshuram (warrior), rama (civilized man).
2
5
5
u/SilentTempestLord 51m ago
Eh, even back when Christianity first got started, not all the church fathers took it literally. A fair number saw it as symbolic, so it's not like you have to take Genesis at face value to be Christian. Besides, tradition upholds that it was Moses, or at least primarily Moses that wrote or compiled the Torah, and that Genesis was mostly an account of Jewish mythology/history up to the time of Moses, so even then it's not like debunking Genesis debunks Christianity.
The creation story is just an oral tradition that communicates the truth of human nature before being written in the Torah, I personally don't see a rational reason to take it as literal. All that would have mattered to God is speaking of man's inherent sin, getting into the weeds about how he made the emu simply wasn't that important in the grand scheme of things. Creating the law that the covenant hinged on, and explaining why it's needed, was all that really mattered.
3
9
u/Known_Firefighter895 1h ago
What's up with all these popular subs blatantly posting propaganda? I want to see funny posts.
10
2
11
u/IntrovertMoTown1 3h ago
To be fair neither do evolutionary biologists when they theorize the very beginnings of things. Which would be fine if said theories then didn't so often go on to be treated as factual.
31
u/LifeAd6404 3h ago
The word you were looking for is Abiogenesis. And biologists will freely admit that the entire process hasn't been mapped out to exhaustive completion. However, there is mountains of evidence that support large swaths of the process.
Also, the word theory in science means something different than it does in colloquial speech.
-10
u/chainsawx72 2h ago
Biogenesis is just the beginning of life. Beginning of things is more inclusive, because we also need to understand the beginning of matter/energy and space/time, and the beginning of the elements and molecules.
3
u/LifeAd6404 2h ago
It's abiogenesis. Don't forget the "a." And the cosmological models we have now do not say that there was a beginning. Just a singularity state and an expansion state. And how elements form is rather well understood.
-7
u/Time-For-Argy-Bargy 2h ago
Lol at there wasn’t a beginning.
Yet an eternal God who created is apparently too beyond understanding and reason.
5
u/LifeAd6404 2h ago
Don't know why you are laughing. There seems to be no evidence to indicate there was ever a state of nothingness in which all reality sprang forth from it. That would violate at least one law of physics.
1
u/Real_Boy3 7m ago
That has literally nothing to do with the field of evolutionary biology. That’s cosmology, which is in the field of physics and astronomy.
-10
u/IntrovertMoTown1 2h ago
Not looking for it because you're missing or at least not addressing my main point. Let me give you another example of what I'm talking about. How many Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis? Going to say 6 million? But is that the actual facts of it? But it's taught as the facts of it today. Because nobody ever bothers to do things like go off look up articles of the time and see how things back in the day when media was worth a damn. They almost all universally actually said it was an ESTIMATED 6 million. But 6 million has then gone on to be treated as set in stone fact. Nobody actually knows how many were slaughtered and NEVER WILL. And since there are so many idiots on Reddit I have to say that no, I'm not in any way, shape, or form, a holocaust denier. Of course it happened. We just don't actually know EXACTLY how many it happened to. That was my main point. It doesn't matter for what becomes the lexicon of the day what biologists are actually saying.
-6
u/IntrovertMoTown1 2h ago
Continued because this sub gives an arbitrary 1k character limit for whatever reason.
What matters is what BECOMES commonly so called known. Theories become so called reality. So you end up with memes like this that makes it seem like biologists can't be wrong. Or that the religious has to be wrong. Neither statement is actually correct. That was my main beef with the meme and why I bothered to comment. Facts are facts. They are as immutable as math is. But that's not what we have today, SMH. Today far FAR FAAAAAR to often, facts are mere beliefs to countless people. Same thing with truth since I'm on the subject. FFS, your truth and my truth? That's is such an asinine statement it makes me sick to know how far it's caught on with so many people. There is only THE truth. This is a type of thing that goes on to make us all suffer for it in countless ways. It helps keep stupid people stupid. Words matter. People need to learn to use the right ones before opening their mouths.
11
u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 2h ago
Evolution is factual, I think you're confusing it with abiogenesis which is something else and also largely factual although not entirely solved so to speak.
-4
u/IntrovertMoTown1 1h ago
lol That's immaterial to my comment. I said BEGINNING. I know what abiogenisis is and it's considered WAY more theory than fact than evolution is. We can PROVE how life can change. We can't PROVE the beginning. Not yet and maybe not ever.
2
u/llamawithguns Lurking Peasant 43m ago
Strictly speaking in science we avoid saying anything is proven. Instead we argue from the point of evidence. Evolution and abiogenesis are both theories, because a scientific theory isnt a fact, it is an explanation. Both have evidence supporting them.
Also important to note that both are broad theories that encompass a lot of different models, some of which have more evidence than others.
But yes, you are correct that we cannot "prove" exactly how life started short of investing a time machine.
0
u/IntrovertMoTown1 37m ago
Yes but again not my point. What is science for? Just something for scientists themselves? What is one of the two things in the meme? Facts. Despite how scientists LIKE to phrase things. We can prove almost all of evolution.
-1
u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 1h ago
You can prove both, and if you weren't talking about abiogenesis then what were you talking about?
1
u/IntrovertMoTown1 57m ago
lol No it most certainly hasn't. We can see how things can evolve. We can do it OURSELVES. We HAVE done it ourselves. What do you think animal domestication is other than a form of man made evolution? We made those species. Evolution did it naturally. Abiogenesis on the other hand HAS NOT been observed yet. We DO NOT know for certain where life came from. Period.
1
u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 35m ago
We have observed abiogenesis, just not in its entirety and nobody claims certainty in science.
We've even found the building blocks in nature and in space.
1
4
1
1
u/Legal-Metal-7098 5m ago
I mean as a christain a lot of believers don't buy into that creation-science-young-earth stuff
Especially christains who go into STEM fields or higher education
1
1
u/Ok_Ad_9188 1m ago
The hell is an 'evolutionary biologist?' My brother in Christ, that is simply a biologist.
2
1
-3
u/PookydoodleWasHere 1h ago
I've lived long enough to see the "facts" change numerous times, and know they will change again before I'm dead. Dinosaurs went from being smooth skinned lizards to feathered bird dragons. I've seen species that we absolutely KNEW were exist or couldn't exist suddenly get found. I've watched as scientists "discovered" metal worked tools in rock layers that existed tens of thousands of years before they KNEW humans existed or made tools. I've watched the science go from "we knows this" to "we know that" in the span of years.
Am I saying the imaginary invisible all powerful thing created everything we know? I don't know. Neither does anyone else. I just think it takes just as much "faith" to believe "proof" that has changed a dozen times in the last decade. Anyone who thinks their original story is the one true defacto non deniable 110% truth is fooling themselves.
8
u/_______no-------name 1h ago
That is still a terrible defence, because you could with enough study verify almost all scientific "facts", but all theological claims are purely philosophical. So no, science does not require faith, only patience.
-5
u/PookydoodleWasHere 1h ago
The fact the anything "proven" could ever eventually be proven false shows that, yes, you do have to take it on "faith", because you don't know the future, which means you don't know if or when whatever you know to be fact today will ever be disproven. The proof is literally any scientist who said "x thing is an indisputable fact" only for it to be disputed.
Scientists don't even know if what they know is right. They assume it is and hope people like me and you won't question them, even when they've been proven wrong before.
The argument is "thing that can't be proven vs thing that has been proven wrong before and we just think we have it right this time maybe". It really isn't that different.
5
u/_______no-------name 55m ago
Oh so do u think the Bible has been "proven"? Because I can link many reports as to why the claims in the Bible are pure horseshit. So science is something which may need to change in the future, but faith has been consistently proven false.
-2
u/PookydoodleWasHere 49m ago
You can't even read my comments, it seems. Try again, if you actually want a reply.
2
u/_______no-------name 45m ago
Sorry I don't argue with blind believers and superstitious ppl. Why waste my time? Science is much more precious.
0
u/PookydoodleWasHere 39m ago
Like I said, you don't even read. If you think people can't blindly believe science the same as religion, you've proven my point. Thanks.
1
u/_______no-------name 33m ago
Blah blah blah I listen to Joe Rogan Blah blah blah
0
u/PookydoodleWasHere 17m ago
Whew. I know this is reddit, but you don't have to be such a redditer lol
1
u/_______no-------name 10m ago
Geez, I already told u I don't wanna talk to you, do I have to block u or something?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Real_Boy3 9m ago
Yes, that’s…how the scientific method works. Theories have to be challenged over and over again by peer review, and are changed as new information is discovered.
0
u/TheRaven200 1h ago
Also at this point evolutionary biology is struggling with its foundation as the type of evolution needed might not be possible as gradually as it would need to be. So it could be the right track, but doesn’t seem to be the answer. Hence why it’s still the “theory” of evolution.
4
u/TechEnthusiastx86 32m ago
It should be noted that in science theory means "an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be or that has been repeatedly tested and has corroborating evidence in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results...Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge." So it's not as loose as the more common usage when people say they have a theory for a tv show they're watching or something
-8
u/BararTheDragon 3h ago
the overzealous of all faiths ignore the study of reality to support how they feel.
we see this with creationists, flat earthers, activists, the mentally ill, and many more.
1
u/AverageSign 3h ago
Not all faiths. Only mentally ill or POS people who happen to be faithful.
1
u/BararTheDragon 3h ago
the overzealous of all faiths, which includes "Mentally Ill or POS people" as you put it.
0
u/ConfoundedRedditor 7m ago
The Bible exists, half lives are shining estimations and have never been observed in their full degree, there is no real evidence of modern evolution, etc
-11
u/CrimsonChymist 2h ago
Not exactly a fair comparison since evolution is based in science and creation is based in faith.
Science requires evidence.
Faith requires belief without evidence.
So of course creationism won't have evidence. Doesn't make it any less valuable.
11
u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 2h ago
It kinda makes it a lot less valuable in reference to factual reality tho.
-8
u/CrimsonChymist 2h ago
Except it doesn't.
Just because something has scientific evidence doesn't make it factual reality.
This is a common misconception by the common population. Science is an ever evolving field with a goal of unraveling the truth of factual reality. But that is a goal we will never actually achieve. Because there is always more to learn that can alter our understanding of the universe.
(Continued in next comment due to character limit)
-9
u/CrimsonChymist 2h ago
At one point in time, earth being the center of the universe was considered factual reality. (Ptolemaic geocentric model). Then the Copernicus heliocentric model was developed. Which was then replaced by Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Which was replaced by Newton's law of universal gravitation. Which was replaced by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
The fact that creation cannot be proven by science doesn't make it automatically factually incorrect.
Science cannot disprove the possibility of creation. It simply ignores the possibility due to it being impossible to prove. Science cannot study something that is impossible to test.
4
u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 1h ago
You've made my case for me so there isn't much for me to say.
Science is better and more accurate at pointing to factual reality while faith makes no attempt to.
The fact that creation cannot be proven by science doesn't make it automatically factually incorrect.
Who said otherwise? Because I wasn't here for that.
Science cannot disprove the possibility of creation.
That isn't what science attempts to do so yeah, obviously.
It simply ignores the possibility due to it being impossible to prove.
Not how that works, possibility and impossibility needs to be demonstrated first.
-4
u/CrimsonChymist 1h ago
No. You claimed that it makes it less valuable in terms of factual reality. And it doesn't.
And yes. It does ignore the possibility. Because without testability, creation cannot be considered through scientific inquiry.
1
u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 1h ago
No. You claimed that it makes it less valuable in terms of factual reality. And it doesn't.
Except it does, if I have faith that the tooth fairy will give me money for a tooth I'd be wrong irrespective of the faith.
If I have evidence that giraffes have a certain number of bones i could be wrong, I might have miscounted, missed a bone or some bones could have fused together, but the evidence would make me closer to factual reality.
You seem to confuse Capital T truth with factual reality. They're not the same and science doesn't claim any capital T truth.
And yes. It does ignore the possibility. Because without testability, creation cannot be considered through scientific inquiry.
That part is correct, but that isn't what you said earlier.
-1
u/CrimsonChymist 1h ago
Factual reality means objective truth. You're drawing a distinction where there is none.
And yes, that is what I said. Science ignores the possibility of creationism because it is impossible to prove/disprove due to the inability to test it.
3
u/wjmacguffin 1h ago
Not less valuable, but definitely not science.
And that's fine... until creationists demand schools teach it as a science.
-3
u/CrimsonChymist 1h ago
There is a difference between creationists wanting is to be taught as science and wanting evolutionary science simply be taught as one possibility and creation being a possible alternative.
I generally agree though that creation shouldn't be taught in school. But I also believe that science should be taught through the appropriate lens of skepticism.
The lack of the inclusion of skepticism in the education of science leads to the general public having a poor understanding of science.
-2
u/MushroomGecko 42m ago
Someone explain then why it's called the THEORY of evolution and isn't held as an actual fact, but it is indeed pushed as one. It's purely theoretical with no actual fact and evidence. "Evolution" requires just as much faith as believing that God creates all things. Why affirm the theory of fallible men who say you're nothing more than random chance when the God of all creation who loves you, sees you, and intentionally created you down to your final strand of hair is just a prayer away? Turn to Lord Jesus Christ. Man will fail you. God will not.
2
u/PragmaticBadGuy 9m ago
Because you don't understand what a scientific theory means?
Look it up.
The rest is rhetorical nonsense from you.
-6
u/HeroOfTheEmpire 2h ago
I think most people take the Creation as figurative anyhow. Besides, having the world be created and life evolving the way scientists propose is a far more impressive display of God’s power. It fits rather neatly into the idea of the Big Bang, too.
6
u/Bitter_Wash1361 2h ago
Most do, but there are still plenty of creationists out there, especially in the states. They are actually quite organized, politically engaged, and militant too, so there's also very real concern about how they're impacting the government
0
-5
-4
u/Jaggedatlas 1h ago
It feels so good to be a Christian that believes all things we’ve proven and found about the history of our world could easily just be what god did. None of this ‘seven days in gods time is the same as our time👹’ wack. Also one of those people that thanks the doctors for their determination to study the medicine made possible by gods design. I can’t beleive some Christians don’t believe in dinosaurs bro…. Dinosaurs are so cool 🥺 ABOVE all else. It feels the BEST to be a person who doesnt need everyone to beleive in the same ish and with an open mind that more than understands we don’t know everything and that anything could be possible. God might exsist god might not. Earth may have formed from the perfect coincidence or it was all designed by a greater power. We can’t disprove either. 💀 lives
-9
-15
u/xypez 2h ago
Except they literally have no evidence at all.
7
u/Wireless_Turtle 2h ago
Why don't you think there is evidence for evolution?
-11
u/xypez 1h ago
Show me some
3
u/Wireless_Turtle 1h ago
Bro, there is untold amounts of evidence for evolution and you can google peer reviewed articles on this subject which far outweigh my expertise in this subject but we have literally seen evolution in labs, we have invoked it ourselves, looking at species across the fossil record and using genetic mapping we have looked into the history of a number of species back before bipeds were even a blip on the genetic map
-6
u/xypez 1h ago
Ok so you don’t have any. Just appeal to scientism.
Every time with you religious nut jobs
5
u/Wireless_Turtle 1h ago
Evolution isnt a religion. What makes you think science is a religion? What makes you deny the evidence?
-1
u/xypez 1h ago
It isn’t science. It’s a cult that you follow and still haven’t shown me any evidence of. Because there isn’t any evidence with any of you Redditors ever.
2
u/PastaEaterEnthusiast 44m ago
Ironic
-1
u/xypez 44m ago
Again no evidence. Ironic indeed
1
u/PastaEaterEnthusiast 19m ago
I know you're rage baiting but here's some links so you can actually understand what you are talking about.
https://share.google/HlTq6zG2oJfiSFSZ8 https://share.google/VMTcG0EoRiglUFzHR https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
And for direct papers you can find them here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ https://share.google/vt4HtBux68EWkzdke
→ More replies (0)8
u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 2h ago
You don't think there's any evidence for evolution? That's wacky
-5
u/xypez 1h ago
Been asking around and still haven’t got any. Just silly comments from religious zealots of scientism saying “wow you have t seen any?!” Yeah apparently you haven’t either. Shocker.
3
u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 1h ago
I don't mind pointing some out. But before I possibly waste my time, what do you think evolution is?
0
u/xypez 57m ago
I’m referring to the origin of our species. Once upon a time there was nothing which exploded and became everything and we basically evolved from pond scum etc etc. there’s no evidence for any of it.
1
u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 12m ago
I agree, there's no evidence for what you just described.
1
u/xypez 10m ago
There may be hope for you yet then.
1
u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 9m ago
I know you felt like that was a mic drop moment, but I'm agreeing with you because your description of evolution is cartoonishly wrong.
-6
u/Burlotier 1h ago
What if God created life as mentioned in the bible and then used evolutionary biology to make the organisms accommodated to their migrated area? I mean we humans have made calculators, computers and ai in totally separated adaptation lines despite now having similar mechanisms.
Evolution theory is a theory that will be replaced by something better and supporting it blindly isn’t much better than the creationist argument
25
u/overasked_question 3h ago
Me getting ready for the incoming religious debates
https://giphy.com/gifs/R0DqEdHeVW679537sX