Creationism vs. Evolution

[vershner 11]

Originally posted by: manticorefan Vershner: This site deals with this way-off-topic thread far more in depth than I'm inclined to here:

http://www.christianity.co.nz/bible-3.htm

quote>

It is not off-topic in the slightest!!

The creationist movement is based on the idea that the Bible is a literal and absolute truth. As I have shown in my previous post, this is not the case.

Without a perfect copy of the original Bible, the creationist argument falls apart.

Attempting to dismiss my comments as off-topic simply shows that your argument has fallen apart and you have no available response. The website to link to barely says anything about the old testament. Nothing about the Bible before the Dead Sea Scrolls at all.

[2ch.net simplayer 180]

Originally posted by: Micah

Originally posted by: 2ch.net simplayer What I wonder is, what about Muslim version of creatinism, Greek myth version, Japanese myth version, Zoroastrian version, Hindu version and Chinese Daoist versions? For me, the Biblical version is nothing more than "just one of them".quote>

 

Interesting to note that almost all of those religions have one event in common:

A global flood with a man on a boat/ark/snake.

quote>

 

???/ Where did you get this?

at least, Japanese myth and Daoist theory don't.

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: 2ch.net simplayer

Originally posted by: Micah

Originally posted by: 2ch.net simplayer What I wonder is, what about Muslim version of creatinism, Greek myth version, Japanese myth version, Zoroastrian version, Hindu version and Chinese Daoist versions? For me, the Biblical version is nothing more than "just one of them".quote>

 

Interesting to note that almost all of those religions have one event in common:

A global flood with a man on a boat/ark/snake.

quote>

 

???/ Where did you get this?

at least, Japanese myth and Daoist theory don't.quote>

 

I said "almost all".

Here are all the religions or groups of people who have stories or accounts of a great or global flood:

-Sumerian

-Babylonian (Epic of Gilgamesh)

-Akkadian (Atrahasis Epic)

-Hebrew (Noah's Ark)

-China (Shanhaijing)

-India (Matsya)

-Adaman Islands

-Indonesia (Batak)

-Greek (Ogygian Deluge, Deucalion, and Dardanus)

-Germanic (Norse mythology and Bergelmir)

-Irish (Ireland Lebor Gabala Erenn)

-Aztec (Codex Chmalpopoca)

-Inca (Viracocha)

-Maya (Popol Vuh)

-Hopi (Hopi mythology)

-Caddo (Caddo mythology)

-Menominee (Manabus)

-Mi'kmaq (Mi'kmaq mythology)

-Polynesian (Ra'iatea)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_flood

Almost all the cultures (except African cultures, I believe) of the world have the same accounts. No, I'm not saying that it means a global flood happened because all these other cultures and religions have them... In fact, all I wanted to do is to post that "note" to see what you guys thought. When it comes to this thread, I'm just a lurker but I wanted to see what everyone here thought about it.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Vershner: There are many other sites available on this subject, such as:

http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2684641/k.AE95/DB130.htm

I am trying to stay more narrowly focused to keep this discussion to a manageable size. If one approaches the Bible from a standpoint that it can't possibly be true or accurate, the rest of this discussion is pretty much a moot point.

Thyme: I spent a long time typing out a reply, only to have a glitch on the site wipe it out as I was attempting to post (3 am, pacific time) so hang on, I will get back to you.

The irony! That I would get so involved in a forum on a SC4 site that I haven't even looked in on my cities in days; my sims haven't seen me in so long they are starting to doubt my existence as well LOL it's a good thing churches don't dilapidate!

[hamsterTK 93]

Actually, some scientists think there was some sort of major flood at least within the Mediterranean area, based on things like studying sediment, etc

That doesnt mean god did it, but who knows, it could've been some sort of tsunami. Some people have even tossed around the idea that the mediterranean was actually a large lake that was breached by the ocean

I personally think these stories are not myths per se, rather they are real though overly exaggerated historical accounts that have not really been studied enough by modern scientists

[Duke87 1,070]

Well the Mediterranean has certainly grown and shrunk over the years. During the last Ice age (and other ice ages before it), the strait of Gibraltar sealed shut (due to drops in sea level), and much of the sea dried up, creating areas of land at least several hundred feet below sea level.

And prehistoric whale fossils have been found in the middle of the Sahara desert, amongst rock formations which look as though they could have once been coastal cliffs. So either sea level was considerably higher 40 million years ago or so, or the northern part of the Sahara has somehow been uplifted in elevation since then.

[Sam 163]

Thyme put forward an interesting question earlier which I was also hoping for an answer to. If creationism was the prevailing scientific theory, what would its practical applications be?

The measure of a theory is its practical applications and predictive power. In evolution we have a theory of enormous predictive power and with practical and explanatory applications that unify the biological and medical sciences.

If it were creationism in its place what would be its practical applications and predictions be in the sciences? eg new medical treatments, crop improvement etc

[vershner 11]

Originally posted by: manticorefan Vershner: There are many other sites available on this subject, such as:

http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2684641/k.AE95/DB130.htm

I am trying to stay more narrowly focused to keep this discussion to a manageable size. If one approaches the Bible from a standpoint that it can't possibly be true or accurate, the rest of this discussion is pretty much a moot point.quote>

No, what you're trying to do is pick and chose the arguments you think you can win. You are trying to keep the discussion on attacking evolution, but I am attacking creationism. What I have done is point out the fact that the entire basis of creationism is completely and utterly flawed and you have no answer to that.

The link you refer to is again irrelevant. Just a review of yet another version of the Bible, and one that doesn't even claim to be an exact translation.

The Bible can be true and accurate to an extent, but it cannot be treated as an absolute truth, there are too many contradictions and errors. The Bible even contradicts itself.

When the Bible clearly contradicts observable evidence, as is the case with Genesis, then either the Bible is wrong, or parts of it were never intended to be taken literally.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Vershner: just your opinion, as others like to tell me!

for all concerned:

On the idea that creationists would approach nature from a viewpoint that "God made it and that's all we need to know", nothing could be further from the truth. What has been lost in the modern day is how Christianity in general drove many of the greats to increase their education. How many great universities and schools of higher learning, even hospitals were founded by atheists? At least, until recently, about as many as were founded by dolphins! I would point out Harvard (founded by Cotton Mather, famously of Reformed doctrine) as an obvious example of religion driving education and the search for Truth. While there were a few on the fringe who would call it blasphemous to" seek to know the mind of God" the overwhelming majority saw the obligation of their religious convictions to be to increase their knowledge. I would point out Hawking's point about Newton from an earlier post. Lord Kelvin was looking for proof of creation and laid the groundwork for much of modern cosmology along the way. Austrian monk Gregor Mendel in no way saw religion as a barrier to knowledge, even though his work would be hijacked by those whose stated aim was to create a chasm between religion and science ( those known as "X Club").To quote Planck, both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!". The examples go on and on! Now, on to applications. I do not claim to have the knowledge to answer this question to anyone's satisfaction and it seems I pretty much stand alone out here attempting to even try to make a reasonable case at all. Sometimes the worst thing a person can do is fail to live up to other's expectations, so if I do not meet all of everyone's expectations that I be able to answer each and every question, oh well, call the Dirktator and have me banned. Not that I do not try; I have had to do something I haven't done in along time, that is to delve into my 65 volume set of Great Books of the Western World for references from Newton, Pascal, Copernicus, et al. If I were afraid of the truth, believe me those books would remain unopened. Perhaps an analogy will have to suffice, whether it helps to clear the air at all is entirely up to you. In WWII, subs ran on diesel power and used it to charge batteries used for travel below the surface. There were readings taken from these batteries every watch, every day the sub was on patrol. If, say, the first reading at the beginning of patrol were off for any reason, it would affect each and every reading until the sub reached port again, which would often be months. When the sub arrived at port and the mistake was then discovered, you could not just change the final reading. Instead, you had to backtrack all the way back to the original mistake and recalculate each and every reading from every watch on the entire patrol. Needless to say, this could take weeks to get the battery logs reconciled with actual conditions.If an irrefutable smoking gun were found of creation today (not saying it has, but then evolution's missing link hasn't been found either), how long would it take to reconcile all the available data? How many millions of research hours by how many scientists would it take, would it even be humanly possible in our lifetime? Every year or two, a new discovery is made that is said to "rewrite the whole evolutionary tree". Let me ask a question of logic: If it was "true" before, and you change it substantially in nature, then which state is true, if any of it at all? Even within science, decisions of faith must often be made; the size of the universe question is a good case in point. Is it 78 billion light years? Is it measured in gigaparsecs, is it measurable at all? Whose numbers do you accept, if any at all? This post could go on and on, but I'm hungry and need to eat now. I'm sure we can all p

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Every year or two, a new discovery is made that is said to "rewrite the whole evolutionary tree". Let me ask a question of logic: If it was "true" before, and you change it substantially in nature, then which state is true, if any of it at all? Even within science, decisions of faith must often be made; the size of the universe question is a good case in point. Is it 78 billion light years? Is it measured in gigaparsecs, is it measurable at all? Whose numbers do you accept, if any at all?

quote>

Science has a pretty good way of dealing with these issues, which makes it self correcting. When a scientists makes a discovery they publish it in the scientific literature, preferably in a peer reviewed publication. In these the editor of the journal sends the submitted paper (usually anonymously) to several experts in the field for review. These experts look at the paper for clarity, technical merit and for obvious errors in reasoning or experimental design. Often the paper is returned to the author several times for revision. The reviewers make recommendations to the journal editor on whether the paper is of sufficient quality for publication. Once the paper is published, it is then available for other scientists who read the paper and try to find flaws in its methodology and to replicate the work of the original author. They may build on the work, for example by improving the methodology with their own ideas or by applying the research to new areas or in new ways. Most of the time there is considerable back and forth with articles and responses being published as the scientists discuss the issue through the peer reviewed literature. In this way ideas are tested and refined. The process can be pretty harsh and ideas that are flawed are weeded out pretty quickly in most cases. However the process is not personal. Its the ideas that are discussed and pulled apart, not the researcher. This also means that science is a co-operative endeavour, with many people looking at the ideas presented for quality.

Scientists know how to check their sources if they are quoting something or using someone else's work as a basis. They also know how to find subsequent related works. This way they can be realistically confident that they are using the correct information, and not making a mistake or misqoting someone. If for example they cite a source incorrectly, eg Baker 1985, when it was actually Baker 1958, this is usually picked up quickly by the scientist or their team. If not, then by the reviewers.

They also know how to critically review a paper before they use it. For example to identify faulty assumptions, errors of logic or errors in experimental design. For example, I know very little about astronomy and the various planetary bodies or astrophysics. Yet I can look at the  example of  moondust given in a previous post and identify where the incorrect assumptions and errors in experimental design are likely to be. It wouldn't take too long to check those and find the answer.

So you see, science takes nothing on faith. Everything is tested and questioned. Sometimes this may cause some changes in small details, or even large details. Mostly the changes result in new enlightenment or new perspectives. None have in any way gone even close to damaging the theory of evolution, even those that may have been hyped up in the popular press as "rewriting the evolutionary tree". Its not really the tree itself that is so important, but the ideas and mechanisms behind it, and the relationships it reveals. BTW I'm not exactly sure what examples you are referring to here, or how they would be considered in any way a problem for the theory of evolution.

I also didn't understand your sub analogy or what it was referring to.

[JanYpe 17]

What has been lost in the modern day is how Christianity in general drove many of the greats to increase their education. How many great universities and schools of higher learning, even hospitals were founded by atheists? At least, until recently, about as many as were founded by dolphins!quote>

This is flawed. A drive for men to gain knowledge and to understand the world around them is sparked by the world itself, and by the innate curiosity of humans. Religion can both influence this for the better by general teachings, and for the worse by flawed interpretations and dogma. In a time where the 'civilised' world was immensely theocentric, and where religion was used as an overruling political tool, it is not surprising that great men act out of their culturally ingrained beliefs.

The fact that beliefs have widened does not mean that the only correct way to knowledge is the one motivated by Christianity. Both Christianity and atheism will always hold their own flaws. Separating personal beliefs and worldly research, and minimizing close minded attitudes, is key in order to fully understand life, the universe and everything.

[vershner 11]

manticorefan: This is not a Science v Religion debate, it's perfectly reasonable to be a scientist and still be religious. As you point out, many scientists are deeply religious, but you fail to mention - none of them are creationists!

No scientist would subscribe to a theory that is so fundamentally flawed and has been repeatedly shown to contradict factual evidence. Creationism is simply a minor cult who refuse to accept the real world, like the flat-earthers and the scientologists.

The issue that no creationist seems to have an answer to is that there is no definitive perfect copy of the Bible, so the idea that it must be taken completely literally is nonsense.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Veshner: Really? Hmmm, Ask Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, an unabashed creationist http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html: and then check into the aforementioned Lord Kelvin, Fritz Schaefer, U of Georgia Computational Quantum Chemistry, and Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA's Theoretical Space Division. I will note that Jastrow identifies himself as an agnostic but is a creationist, seeing no explanations for the origins of, um "Life, The Universe, and Everything" in science, believing the natural record has been destroyed. And to lump creationism in with scientology as a minor cult is insulting, disingenuous, and serves no purpose to the questions at hand. Again, just your opinion. And not a very well researched opinion at that.

JanYpe:"Religion can both influence this for the better by general teachings, and for the worse by flawed interpretations and dogma."

Agreed, much damage can be done by those with a flawed exegesis of theological matters. I find very often though that those in science can be very much as closed-minded as anyone in the religious community, even within this forum. And by referencing modern scientists in this as well, I believe it can be shown that the idea of science and religion not being mutually exclusive is a present day idea and not limited to a bygone era where the Vatican had complete control of western society. To write off the scientists who found the two complementary rather than mutually exclusive as having "theistic baggage" as some have done, or acting out of cultural indoctrination, is an example of closed-mindedness. Einstein said," Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." It was his belief that the two need each other to adequately explain the mysteries of the physical world, and that belief is shared by many with more "alphabet soup" after their names than I will ever have.

[fukuda 351]

manticorefan:

Einstein was religious

Descartes and Leibniz too

Maxwell and Lorenz were fundamentalists

Darwin tried to be an anglican minister

Frank Tippler (The Antropic Cosmological Principle) thinks that the universe is a huge computer directed by God to revive humans....

and so on...

But science is not what famous scientists said or believed, science is not a religion full of saints, science is progressive and provisional, science is a common and universal project, is in constant development and all scientits actively contribute to it. Full parts of what famous scientists theorized are now rejected or imprecise, and we all contributed to it, individuals have no relevance here, only the progressive team work has relevance.

[vershner 11]

Francis Collins is not a creationist, he says so in the very article you linked to!!

I quote:

"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer."

If you managed to read that article and somehow come to the conclusion that Francis Collins was a creationist then I'm not surprised that you have difficulty understanding evolution. I'm quite shocked really. Did you even read the article?

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: vershner Francis Collins is not a creationist, he says so in the very article you linked to!!

I quote:

"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer."

If you managed to read that article and somehow come to the conclusion that Francis Collins was a creationist then I'm not surprised that you have difficulty understanding evolution. I'm quite shocked really. Did you even read the article?

quote>

Nor does it come anywhere near saying that he believes life wasn't created.  In fact, it would seem to indicate that he believes that some sort of generic life form was created and all present-day life evolved from that.  That is a heck of a lot different from the evolution models that say that life came from a non-living substance.

Also, could anyone explain the thing I posted a little while ago about the cosmic dust on the moon indicating that the moon is only a few thousand years old?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Vershner: Whoa, making too many assumptions? While it's possible he would fall under the umbrella of a theistic evolutionist (not defining terms only clouds the debate), he clearly has a creationist view of origins. We can haggle over intra-species and inter-species evolution, but anyone who claims faith in Christ would then necessarily have to believe, "For by Him all things were created...all things have been created by Him and for Him." Colossians 1:16. And as for the common ancestor, note he says "we" meaning humans, not necessarily humans, apes, plants, bacteria, and the mouse under the bed. Careful when making assumptions not supported by the text; as humans do not share DNA with every single other form of life on the planet to a great degree. One can say apes share 98% of DNA with humans, but that does not in any way make apes 98% percent human. Salmonids have been found to share a great deal of DNA with plant material, does this make "Alfalfa and the trouts" an accurate pun?

Voar Tok: Nice to have support, I was feeling very much alone out here! I have not heard the moon dust question answered by anyone in the science community, and I have been waiting a long time. Will wiki it, 'cause I am curious....

Edit: It appears upon further research that this question is still very much up in the air as no one can agree on influx rates, with some on each side claiming victory and some on each side still crunching numbers. One reason I digressed on this particular point!

Fukuda: Point noted, I point to those in the community that  do because I cannot possibly be privy to all the information and research they were involved in. I am simply referencing those whose education and intellect dwarf mine, and taking "on faith" their personal conclusions and how their viewpoints mesh with those conclusions. A note on Darwin and Anglicanism that is way-off-topic; I have noticed that the Anglican church seems to have a way of disenchanting people with religion, and not being Anglican (or Episcopalian as it's known here in the US) it at once both mystifies me and troubles me.  I have heard a quote attributed to dear old Chuck but haven't been able to verify: on evolution; " At last, a religion that allows me to live like the Devil!". If it were true, then it would seem he was just trying to justify his personal lifestyle. He certainly used it to justify racism and misogyny, according to his treatment of blacks as "predominantly ape" and married men as "lower than negroes". But again, I myself am way off topic and will digress yet again.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan ...And as for the common ancestor, note he says "we" meaning humans, not necessarily humans, apes, plants, bacteria, and the mouse under the bed. Careful when making assumptions not supported by the text; as humans do not share DNA with every single other form of life on the planet to a great degree. One can say apes share 98% of DNA with humans, but that does not in any way make apes 98% percent human. Salmonids have been found to share a great deal of DNA with plant material, does this make "Alfalfa and the trouts" an accurate pun?...quote>

Actually the DNA of living things is very similar, including that of humans compared to other life. The evidence of genetic similarity strongly supports the theory of evolution (including common descent). The genetic evidence has largely confirmed the phylogenetic trees constructed from other forms of evidence. The DNA of humans compared to other species is probably a lot more similar than you may think.

If Francis Collins says common descent or common ancestor, I suspect that is what he actually means. In fact his statements further down support that conclusion. But rather than assume his views perhaps it is better to just find out what he actually means.

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Also, could anyone explain the thing I posted a little while ago about the cosmic dust on the moon indicating that the moon is only a few thousand years old? quote>

It was your post I was kind of hoping you were going to explain it

However it goes back to what I've said a few times. Always check the original sources.

[captintanqueray 0]

wow, fun thread..

so there are several theories that are included in the theory of evolution, and they're all right, but all incomplete because "thinking" people tend to be elitists and a lot of the original thinkers used to get into bar fights on a regular basis. wikipedia Punctuated Equilibrium. this idea is one of the best to explain what is happening with our DNA and phenotypes.

and no one thing killed the dinosaurs. lots of little things happened that upset balances resulting in the survival of the fit and lucky. after all, there are still dinosaurs among us.

oh, and creationism is screwing up the scientific thought potental of my little sister and her preteen colleagues. i'm all about new ideas, but these kids are being taught that evolution is a religion.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Also, could anyone explain the thing I posted a little while ago about the cosmic dust on the moon indicating that the moon is only a few thousand years old? quote>

Yes.

There were lots of things NASA's scientists thought about the moon that they were incorrect about. They thought that the moon might have an iron core, and thus a magnetic field similar to Earth's. (It does not.)

The concern for the level of dust arose because they did not know what to expect when they landed. There were some at NASA that felt that because the moon held no atmosphere, and thus no erosion, the moon could not possibly be anything but a giant field of rock with valleys filled with thousands and millions of years of impact dust. Fearful that the lander would set foot in this dangerous setting, this theory was a legitimate concern at the time. The astronauts were relieved to find the gravity of the moon and the power of the solar wind had left only a thin layer of dust on the surface.

Every single rock that was brought back from the moon was shown to be MUCH older than 6,000 years old. (Just trying to bring this around to being on-topic. )

Also, everyone reading this forum thread: Let's make sure we reply respectfully to one another, and not just go bashing everyone else's ideas, theories or arguments. Choose your words well, and try to persuade the other person to your own point of view with carefully constructed language and logical conclusion. Just a friendly reminder!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Schm0: "Also, everyone reading this forum thread: Let's make sure we reply respectfully to one another, and not just go bashing everyone else's ideas, theories or arguments. Choose your words well, and try to persuade the other person to your own point of view with carefully constructed language and logical conclusion. Just a friendly reminder!"

dang, still can't get the quote feature to behave. What in the world is up w/ that? anyways, Thank you for that, it bears repeating in this Grand-Mother-of-all-tension-producing-threads. And I say that as someone who has been castigated on that very issue. I would argue that no one here is going to persuade any one to "change sides" but the discourse is much more enjoyable without polemics.

[schm0 27]

Yikes... someone get a moderator.... or manticorefan, just edit your original post.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Sorry people, don't know what happened! Everything glitched out as I was posting, then I couldn't get back in.... My apologies, I had no idea it was causing such a ruckus, as I haven't been able to access the site in 5 hours and the error notice said the server was  "experiencing problems".  

[SpecialEddie 3]

No talk of politics or religion allowed here. If you feel the need, go to http://www.simcitycentral.net/ . They have a forum for that on their board.quote>

Haha. You're all banned! 

I'm kidding. This is why I love ST.

[fukuda 351]

Please note: While political and religious discussions are typically not allowed on the site, the Current Events forum is an exception to that rule. The Current Events forum is being treated as an experiment to see if political and religious conversations can be held on Simtropolis in a civilized and mature manner.quote>

Nah, we are not , read well the forum rules

[Micah 16]

Yes, there are two forum rules that contradict each other. I'll talk to the staff to see what we can do. Btw, the Current Event rules are correct an up-to-date.

[JakeMD 107]

I believe that god created everything, but it evolved into what it is today, that is as simple as i can put it.

[siso43 13]

evolution is a great thing, why i don't no can say, but this is one of the question in this live. And i can say the Creation is only a part of the two things. Creation is only the begin of all things ever, the live is one of this creation, and the evolution is the second part of this, then the evolution makes it, a thing begin to live. I can not really say, believe i that got excestion or not, i don't no this, but anybody creat all live in the Universes. But only i can say the to things Creation and the Evulution are only a part, and this two gives one part. And i would say all things have a begin and a finish aso anytime all things ending, how all haves began ending all in the time, but this is only my opinion aso can ever thing a own believe history.

[siso43 13]

evolution is a great thing, why i don't no can say, but this is one of the question in this live. And i can say the Creation is only a part of the two things. Creation is only the begin of all things ever, the live is one of this creation, and the evolution is the second part of this, then the evolution makes it, a thing begin to live. I can not really say, believe i that got excestion or not, i don't no this, but anybody creat all live in the Universes. But only i can say the to things Creation and the Evulution are only a part, and this two gives one part. And i would say all things have a begin and a finish aso anytime all things ending, how all haves began ending all in the time, but this is only my opinion aso can ever thing a own believe history.