Both Evolution and Creationism are correct

[Being1]

The common thread is creativity. Creativity is a creative process. And by its very nature, its evolutionary.

[bernee51]

The common thread is creativity. Creativity is a creative process. And by its very nature, its evolutionary.

Creativity is a creative process is bound for someone's sig.

[Sender]

The common thread is creativity. Creativity is a creative process. And by its very nature, its evolutionary.

Creativity is a creative process is bound for someone's sig.

I llike the one that poster said the other day. Something like ...the absence of evidence does not mean there is no evidence, that in itself is evidence, or something like that. That should be a sig.

[BeHereNow]

harrison: Both Evolution and Creationism are correct
Different perspectives of exactly the same thing
The common thread is creativity.
Creativity is a creative process.
And by its very nature, its evolutionary.

Let’s see.
In earthly creation, there is a creative process, as God imagines what he will make.
In earthly evolution, there is a no creative process, as there is no deliberate, purpose is at work. Or is evolution deliberate? Does it strive for a goal, seek to attain, imagine what might be? Does evolution have a consciousness?

Creationism teaches that there is no evolution, as there are no changes in the order of things, since God has ordained all, at the moment of creation.
Evolution teaches that the process is evolutionary, as forms are continually, randomly, changing, sometimes short lived, sometimes surviving and persisting.

I’m trying to find the thread here, and it misses me. Can you help?

I had thought that you might mean that in the world of art, the creativity process is evolutionary, but creation of the world is not an art form I am familiar with, so I wouldn’t think the rules of art would apply.
Creation in a non-artistic sense is rote, repetitive, unimaginative, and, frankly, not creative. A machine can create a car, but the creativity comes from the people who designed the car and the machine. A machine can create in an unimaginative manner, and there is no evolution. They say it is the same with slave labor. The slave has no stake in the finished product, so no desire to improve his work. The same product is ground out, year after year, generation after generation.
Creating but not changing, not evolving.
So even if we can apply this type of meaning for creation of the world, it does not necessarily follow that there is an evolutionary process at work simply because there is creation.

[Being1]

In earthly creation, there is a creative process, as God imagines what he will make.
In earthly evolution, there is a no creative process, as there is no deliberate, purpose is at work. Or is evolution deliberate? Does it strive for a goal, seek to attain, imagine what might be? Does evolution have a consciousness?

I’m trying to find the thread here, and it misses me. Can you help?

I suppose that I am asking for you to view it a different way. Not in the way of what creatioism says, and not in the way of what evolution theory says, but rather to view the situation as it is in your own experience.

For example, I imagine that you had breakfast this morming (or a meal sometime).

How did you do that?

Is it not true that within you was an urge (desire, need, want..) and within that an idea about what you felt like eating? And then you went about preparing the meal using the knowlegde gained from your experience in living. The outcome was the manifestation of that desire as a reality.

You couldn't do that as a baby, because you had no idea about the variety of foods and how to prepare them. Neither did you have the skills in using your body. It is only from your experience of living that you can now do that.

This is what I am calling creativity, or the creative process. You brought something in to being. It didn't exist before (only as a potential), and it was you as the creative force that made it happen. Only because it was in your experience (and therefore knowledge within you) could you do it. And do it any time you want, over and over. This explains the rote repetitive realm of creation, yet it is still creative.

Creativity is usally seen to mean imaginative and new. This is the evolutionary aspect of creativity. Today you may have eaten cornflakes for breakfast, and yesterday it may have been fried cheese! Both options (and more) were available to you because of your knowledge gained from experience.

Tommorrow you may mix the two together, grind them into a paste, and you have created something new. However, that new creation is only a reworking of what you already know. And all of this is only possible because you are a creative being.

Creativity is an intelligent creative force, and it is not only, or primarily, a human attribute. In the first place it is just and only that - an intelligent creative force, which is God. It creates just as we know it to create through ourselves, by using knowledge gained from experience to create new and better idea. And that is evolutionary.

[USIncognito]

The common thread is creativity. Creativity is a creative process. And by its very nature, its evolutionary.

Truism is the week nominee!

You're on to something though I see some mainly semantic issues with regard to the title and the premise you're proposing.

Taking the thread title out of context from your post - yep, there's nothing in the theory of evolution that discounts there being a creator that either started, guided blindly or directed the progress of evolution, be it through changing the environment or individually manipulating the content of DNA. Now, that's not scientific, but since evolutionary theory is scientific, and cannot address the supernatural, it really can't address whether God or aliens designed the primordial sparks of life on Earth, or guided how the evolutionary process played out.

The ceveat I have is that you're close to conflating a naturalistic system of using what it has to work with (see homology in vertebrate limbs) with a truly creative process that one must surmise would give birds arms and wings, or would give Blind Cave Fish an infrared projecting organ rather than just make them blind.

I have a bad back thanks to my bipedal stature. I sometimes choke on my own phlegmn since my larynx and esophogus are co-located. If a Creator or Designer were intelligent, I'd expecd he/she/it would have fixed this during Beta testing.

Again, it might be semantics, but evolution (or a Creator/Designer) does seem to be a master at adaption but I don't see this entity being very creative with regard to innovation.

Creationism teaches that there is no evolution, as there are no changes in the order of things, since God has ordained all, at the moment of creation.

This is still more semantics, but I only use a capital C for YECs, and actually YECism, for some, teaches hyper-evolution where, say, all deer "kind" from Dik Dik to Moose develops from a single pair 4000 years ago. Their warped "kind" only hyper-evolution is as rediculous as those YECs who espouse fixity of kinds, but there are many out there.

Theistic Evolutionists who, after all, are small C creationists, don't teach that there is no evolution either. They, for the most part, accept neo-Darwinism, but add a little God to the soup.

[Darth Vodka]

The common thread is creativity. Creativity is a creative process. And by its very nature, its evolutionary.

Creationism is Evolution rewritten to have a purpose

of course it's similar, it's a dodgy facsimilie