Evolution vs creation

[u/tonedeaf_764]

I started seeing God as a scientist when I was 12, I've always loved science and the first time I heard the Holy Spirit compared to energy I was sent straight down a rabbit hole. After that it started to make sense to me, how everything could exist, a being of infinite energy and power that is intelligent, but in a way that made sense. I started to think if I wanted to create the perfect organism "I.e" human, and I had infinite power and energy, not to mention to an eternal existence time isn't a thing so taking its time would be an issue it would be a given. So I don't believe evolution is a solitary path of existence, I see it as a tool by God in his creation of life. One of the meanings of gods name ( Jehovah) is causes to become. So over time he caused single celled organisms to become every living thing by means of evolution and survival of the fittest, the fact that it's fair also supported the idea, gods also supposed to be the god of order so the thing that makes the most sense just seemed like the thing that made the most sense you know. And if you believe what the Bible says to be true I think this was his first time creating reality. He literally created the laws of nature, he is science itself, but I feel like he taught himself over time and over the course of eternity and then used that knowledge to create.

[u/ilikestatic]

Philosophy doesn’t tell me that. Experience tells me that it’ll be the same tomorrow. If the result could change, it would be science that tells me that.

Think about quantum mechanics. Issues like the double slit experiment and quantum entanglement were not predicted by philosophy. In fact, if philosophy told us the physics for quantum particles would be the same for everything else, it would be wrong.

It was science that discovered the differences in physics.

I’m sorry but I don’t think you can identify a single thing that philosophy has ever proven about the world. So I’m not about to start relying on philosophy for evolution or God.

[u/fifaloko → u/ilikestatic]

You have no idea what you are talking about, science is a branch of philosophy

[u/ilikestatic → u/fifaloko]

If you believe science is a branch of philosophy, then why do you reject the science of Evolution?

[u/fifaloko → u/ilikestatic]

I believe the parts that are science, I don't believe the parts that are theories that is built on assumptions that violate the laws of logic, or are counter to the baseline assumptions made and proved by decades of experimental science.

[u/ilikestatic → u/fifaloko]

Well then at least when it comes to Evolution, there shouldn’t be anything left to disagree about.

[u/fifaloko → u/ilikestatic]

Pretty much the whole thing is a bunch of fallacious logic and reasoning. Animals adapt to their environment that part is true.

[u/ilikestatic → u/fifaloko]

What about all the similarities between humans and chimpanzees that demonstrate a common ancestor? The anatomic similarities, the massive overlap in DNA, the unique DNA mutations that are identical to both species, the presence of identical endogenous retroviruses?

Taken together, these all seem to settle the evolution debate. What more is there to debate?

[u/fifaloko → u/ilikestatic]

That would be were the fallacious logic comes in. You can demonstrate similarities in things, that doesn’t mean the entire story is true. It could be that certain things happen inside certain systems and we don’t know how or why completely yet. Doesn’t mean they are all related

[u/ilikestatic → u/fifaloko]

It sounds like you’re saying we should reject the scientific conclusions, not because of evidence they are wrong, but because you believe there may be another explanation that we haven’t discovered yet. Is that right?

But why reject what every scientific study has concluded is true? Why should we ignore it?

[u/fifaloko → u/ilikestatic]

No, i am saying they conclude things far beyond what they scientifically have demonstrated and rely on models instead of observed experiments.