TED Conversations

James Zediana

This conversation is closed.

Where did we come from?

I started several debates in TED and results are evolution can't be proven. SHORT OF CREATION and EVOLUTION is there another option?

I believe this is a fundamental question to be answered.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Oct 9 2012: If your conclusion is that evolution can't be proven they you were not paying attention. Evolution has been conclusively proven. I think it is not proper to start another thread while the other two are still open and, by all appearances, you have not given any proper thought to the answers provided.

    Also, you can't conclude from such a low number of answers that evolution can't be proven. If you were interested you would know that there's many resources where you could figure this out. TED is not the place for learning everything there is to know about anything (in two weeks, right?). You were visited mostly by people with not enough expertise to first notice where your problems are, then guide you through figuring that out. Curiously, you left the other threads as soon as some expertise in the field and in the way you have been mislead started showing up. The first one you left as soon as I showed that one part of your conclusions were drawn from the misuse of data. The other as soon as I started asking specifics about your look at evolution. How conclusively can you say that evolution can't be proven if you did not even try? If all you've got is answers in a TED forum where most of the knowledgeable people might already be tired of endless discussions with creationists who just won't listen? Why do creationist start these discussions if they will not pay any attention? Why should we bother answering if you appear not to care?

    (My time is limited, so if you answer, I might not be able to answer back but until a couple days later. But I do not know if I am still sufficiently interested after the two other interactions we had.)
    • Oct 9 2012: Entropy,

      The typical mistake the evolutionists make is that because they can observe an evolutionary process in nature means that there is no God, no spirit, no soul, nothing .. nothing more than this one time lonesome existence out in the middle of the Milky Way ... meaningless and empty. Without reason or purpose.
      Because we can cleverly observe patterns of form and color in nature that change through the course of time, how does this make one jump to the conclusion that there is no more than this physical reality that we can see and feel. ..?

      Attention needs to be paid to things of spiritual nature. Mankind is not merely evolving as a physical being but also as a spiritual being. Just observe the changes that have evolved in your own spiritual being. Look into your own soul and compare the way you were as a child to the way you are now. What changes do you see. The spiritual reality is quite real and it's secrets lie within you. As an individual, you have evolved spiritually. Just as the human race has evolved spiritually. This is the real essence of humankinds evolution. Not the purely physical aspect of our being. If evolution is ever going to be taken seriously it must also encompass exactly this idea. Our own spiritual evolution.
      • thumb
        Oct 9 2012: Daniel,

        Your accusations against evolutionists simply thinking there is no God because they observe an evolutionary process in nature, then dismiss the God, are not valid.

        The problem is neither theory...creation or evolution...is COMPATABLE with each other, depending on how each side DEFINES their own beliefs.

        If there is a God and that God has a Master Plan (Determinism?), then nothing that we as Human Beings "do" makes a difference. We are all characters is a "God Novel" written by the God, with no ability to change who we are. If I am a "good person" or a seriel killer, it is not my choice...God decided it when he wrote the plan. If we have no free will, then even praying to a God to help us face our daily trials and tribulations won't help. The God has already determined what each of us will do, how we will act, and whether we will be moral or immoral. And part of the God's Master Plan would also include the evolutionary process that led to Human Beings. If it didn't, the God placed all the "evidence" for evolution...the things we discovered...there just to confuse us. It would be like saying the Earth is only 6,000 years old (and so are we), but God placed all those dinosaur bones out there just so He could amuse himself as he watched us get confused about them.

        Evolution allows for "free will". Most religious teachings do not, in the sense that the teachings place demands on the Human Being to act in a strict way the God demands, or face punishment for it if we don't.

        The incompatabilities between the two theories are what raises the questions and objections about them from the "other side".

        But the most obvious problem is that if someone can say, "There had to be a Creator", then someone else can also say, "Well then, there had to be something that created the Creator, too. Who created the Creator?"
        • Oct 10 2012: Rick,

          I don't know where you get this idea of a "master plan" from. I have surely never mentioned it.

          I don't know where you get this idea of a "6000 year old earth". I haven't mentioned that either.

          I find neither idea compatible with my perspective at all.

          Although you might be reading them into my words somehow, I'll assure you that they are not at all included in my way of seeing things.

          Should an "evolutionist" be open minded enough to include a creator god, then good for him! ... But I don't think you could collect enough of them to start a football team....
        • thumb
          Oct 15 2012: Rick very asstute line of thought. The problem with it is we do not think like God. A being who lives outside time and is infinite can not be understood by the finite. Try perspective and look at your reply again.
      • Oct 9 2012: I didn't say anything about gods.
      • thumb
        Oct 15 2012: @ James

        Try perspective and look again? OK.

        If I am incapable, as a finite Human Being, of thinking like and understanding the god, then so are all of my fellow Human Beings, including an appointed leader of a church. So if he/she can't think like and understand the god, why should I believe anything the other Human Being tells me to believe about the god?

        From a rational and logical perspective, you just shot down your own arguement. The "Human Being" church shouldn't be telling anybody what or what not to believe. They can't be any more right or wrong about it than I can.
    • thumb
      Oct 15 2012: Not my conclusion, consensus by the majority of those discussing.
      • Oct 24 2012: A conclusion based on not paying attention again. That was not the consensus. Even if it were, consensus does not matter. Science is not a democracy. Evidence wins. But you avoided having the conversation. Not very conducive to figuring anything out. I hope that will not be your approach to education. Otherwise poor students.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.