PDA

View Full Version : Evolution or Creation


DarthSion399
07-21-2009, 05:01 PM
I was wondering what peoples oppinios were on the Theory of Evolution.

After reaserching the topic for several hours, I can say I'm a Creationist.

Trench
07-21-2009, 05:11 PM
As in created by God .vs evolved from a jellyfish?

Creation all the way.

Darth Avlectus
07-21-2009, 05:13 PM
There was several other threads here in Kavar's on this subject before, and the Senate. Similarly related, anyways.

I'd say while it's a good theory and there might be scientific evidence to back up claims of evolution, it still doesn't cover everything.
You also have folks who say that because creationism cannot be proven it is therefore false, and those who say likewise the opposite about disproving it. Faithful will take it on faith; Those not faithful won't.

I'm nondenominational. So I'll say while evolution might have its truths, it had to be created in the first place. :carms:

jrrtoken
07-21-2009, 06:09 PM
Evolution, because creationists rarely provide ample, structured proof to support their claims.

Astor
07-21-2009, 06:15 PM
In the past I was ardently for evolution, but i've mellowed a little bit since. I don't support creationism in any way, but i'm not as likely to jump down a Creationist's throat as I once was.

So, Evolution, I guess, but i'm not going to get bent of out shape because others disagree with it. ;)

Master Shake
07-21-2009, 06:18 PM
Creation.

TriggerGod
07-21-2009, 06:19 PM
Evolution, because we couldn't have possibly popped into existence from a rib of God.

And evolutions main arguments that had me sold on the theory is the similarity between monkey and human DNA. 99% match, IIRC. That practically proved that we were once apes who threw poo at each other. Eventually, the apes that we see in the zoo will see new apes in a zoo, while we move on to the next stage of evolution.

And since we've already had several topic about this, why don't we spice this one up? What do you think the next step in our evolution is? (if you believe in evolution)

Nedak
07-21-2009, 06:26 PM
Evolution.

Also I'm fairly knowledgeable of the bible but I am far from a Christian.

Evolution, because we couldn't have possibly popped into existence from a rib of God.

Man was created from clay and woman was created by the rib of man, according to the Bible.

CommanderQ
07-21-2009, 06:41 PM
I am Creationist, Christian more specifically. I know a few things on Evolution, even if I don't agree with it, it's wise to know other's beliefs so that if you get into a debate concerning things like Evolution Vs. Creation, you at least know what you're debating against.

I'm still very Creationist, though:)

mur'phon
07-21-2009, 06:57 PM
Evolution (and abiogenesis since people love to lump it with evolution). Simply because despite spending way to much time looking for evidence for creationism, I didn't find any.

it still doesn't cover everything.

Like what?

and those who say likewise the opposite about disproving it.

*is very interested in learning how to prove a negative*

So I'll say while evolution might have its truths, it had to be created in the first place.

Evolution doesen't give a damn about creation, see abiogenesis for that, so no need to worry about the creation bit.

Ping
07-21-2009, 07:02 PM
Evolution, because creationists rarely provide ample, structured proof to support their claims
QFT. I feel exactly that way. Microevolution has also been proven, so that just strengthens my opnions on evolution.

Nedak
07-21-2009, 07:03 PM
Evolution doesen't give a damn about creation, see abiogenesis for that, so no need to worry about the creation bit.

Exactly.

And same can be said for creation, as a creator had to be created from another creator with that logic.

DarthSion399
07-21-2009, 07:22 PM
Here's some sites I liked while reaserching this...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html


Sorry I didn't post these in my first post.


Thanks for the responses.

Darth_Yuthura
07-21-2009, 07:26 PM
Is this meant to be a real topic? I don't wish to offend anyone's beliefs, but this is not the kind of subject that really is open to debate.

Considering that there are an infinite number of possible explanations for the origins of the universe if you were to answer it with the Creationist Theory, how can you trust any one to be more reliable than the others? The Native American beliefs of the Universe are just as valid as the Christian beliefs, yet they greatly conflict with one another. Therefore they can't both be right. Why does the Christian automatically beat out all the others?

There is however one and only one explanation if you were to use the Scientific method. There are often many theories that conflict with one another, but that is attributed to the lack of evidence(due to being destroyed with time) As more proof and evidence are evaluated; answers are only a matter of debate. The issue is finding the right combination of evidence that fits the appropriate theory, or adjusting the theory to fit what is known.

I would support the scientific theory solely because it actually explains how the universe came to be without holding to outdated mores when new knowledge is presented. That and it only yields ONE solution based on available evidence.

urluckyday
07-21-2009, 07:30 PM
I am actually a firm believer that it was a combination of both creation and evolution...I believe that something had to put the stuff there (un-evolved organisms created by God) and then they evolved from there...

That's just what I believe...I don't usually try to argue my position against anything because it's another one of those fruitless arguments that will go nowhere.

Q
07-21-2009, 07:31 PM
Both.

Bah, lucky beat me to it. :p

EnderWiggin
07-21-2009, 07:40 PM
Evolution. But I'm still a Christian - I believe in a deistic style of evolution.
God used evolution as a tool in order to create the universe.

_EW_

Darth_Yuthura
07-21-2009, 07:40 PM
It CAN'T be both.

One theory is that the Earth was the center of the universe and that it was only 10,000 years old.

One theory of the Sun was that it underwent a form of compression that generated its heat, and that it could only be active for a matter of say... 10,000 years. But samples of uranium have shown that the Earth was at least a few billion years old, so that theory went bust. It also proved that the Earth... or at least that sample of uranium was much older than the bible ever mentioned.

The only other explanation was that the sample existed somewhere else and wasn't on Earth when it was created. That brings up the next logical question... how did it come to be if it weren't created along with Earth 3.4 billion years ago? (That was the age of the rock by the way, not the planet) Since there were no better explanations other than that is was created at the same time Earth was, it is scientifically accurate to say the bible underestimated the age of the planet by about 40 million fold.

Q
07-21-2009, 07:47 PM
It could very well be both if the fundamentalist dogma is dispensed with.

jrrtoken
07-21-2009, 07:57 PM
It CAN'T be both.Yes, it can. The creation myth in Genesis has to be thrown out the window, but other than that, the concept of evolution can rest perfectly with the belief of a deistic God. In fact, I'd probably say that all of the complexities of evolution could only be attributed to the omnipotent/scient design of a god, orchestrated without any divine intervention. That sort of God would most certainly trump the Abrahamic concept of God, as any supposed "supreme being" that needs to directly intervene with life every few millennia is most certainly not as supreme as he claims to be.

Darth_Yuthura
07-21-2009, 08:00 PM
It could very well be both if the fundamentalist dogma is dispensed with.

With all due respect, it is religion that plants itself as a maxim by which all other conflicting beliefs are wrong. The very basis for religion is that it is a construct where as science depends upon evidence and proof.

I would be more willing to accept religion if the bible were updated to take into account that the Earth actually is billions of years old, there never was a great flood, and all the other events that clearly couldn't have happened. I would not take that as the truth, but I would be more accepting of religion if it weren't so fixed on maintaining a version of history that they know isn't true.

There never was a great flood... there are places on the Earth that haven't been flooded in a million years. The whole Adam and Eve origins don't make any sense at any level. When you have ONE god who can make anything happen, then the whole basis for everything becomes meaningless. You can use god to answer any question and it would essentially qualify as possible or an explanation.

urluckyday
07-21-2009, 08:15 PM
^Pope John Paul II has actually stated that not all aspects of evolutionary theory are incompatible nor incorrect in relation to Catholicism (usually the more strict Christian wing)...

"...new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis."
~Pope John Paul II

(I'm not Catholic and usually don't conform to it's ideas...I'm Methodist...but a Pope saying something like that is revolutionary and important)

Q
07-21-2009, 08:19 PM
@D_Y: You're talking about dogmatic religion based on the Bible, whereas I am not.

And you're generalizing.

Arcesious
07-21-2009, 08:59 PM
Evolution. It's logical.

mimartin
07-21-2009, 09:14 PM
Even as a Christian I can not deny the undeniable evidence, so I believe in evolution despite my ability to suspend my desire for evidence in other cases.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

Should you desire more information on this subject, may I suggest this? (http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO7IT81h200&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q76jw0ZB9hA&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H0RXDrfyZc&feature=channel_page

Nedak
07-21-2009, 09:17 PM
Potholer is my hero.

JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan
07-21-2009, 09:43 PM
personally, i dont really care either way.

"yoda."

Darth_Yuthura
07-21-2009, 09:49 PM
I get it if people are just looking for a way to fill in the holes. But they want the holes. They want to live in the holes. They go nuts when someone else pours dirt in their holes. Climb out of your holes people! ~ Hugh Laurie

I have nothing against people who believe in something greater than themselves, but I don't think that people should hold to something that doesn't hold water. I'm for keeping the moral principles within a religion... those are good attributes. But you are not disrespecting god by dismissing all the faith-related subjects in favor of something more solid.

EnderWiggin
07-21-2009, 10:32 PM
It CAN'T be both.


Bull****. See Mimartin's post.

_EW_

Darth_Yuthura
07-21-2009, 11:32 PM
Bull****. See Mimartin's post.

_EW_

Already did and rejected it.

If there is a higher power out there, it would be something beyond our comprehension.


Science: Clearly it has proven to explain everything, so long as you find enough evidence to support the theory.

Religion: Constructs that depend upon faith, which relies heavily upon a LACK of proof. It goes against the very nature of science. Galileo is a prime example of the evil of religion against the efforts of contrary minds.

Nedak
07-21-2009, 11:41 PM
Already did and rejected it.

If there is a higher power out there, it would be something beyond our comprehension.

That is merely opinion.

Darth_Yuthura
07-21-2009, 11:44 PM
That is merely opinion.

Okay what isn't opinion is the convenient nature of constructs often relying upon circular arguments. Once that happens, then it loses all credibility. If you introduce an all-powerful being able to do anything, you essentially can explain everything without any real proof.

Jae Onasi
07-21-2009, 11:50 PM
I'm a theistic evolutionist/progressive creationist--I believe God created each species using evolution as a tool.

as any supposed "supreme being" that needs to directly intervene with life every few millennia is most certainly not as supreme as he claims to be.What if he didn't 'have' to intervene, but simply chose to because he happened to be interested in having a relationship with people?

Nedak
07-21-2009, 11:54 PM
Okay what isn't opinion is the convenient nature of constructs often relying upon circular arguments. Once that happens, then it loses all credibility. If you introduce an all-powerful being able to do anything, you essentially can explain everything without any real proof.

Yes, but you can't say others opinions are incorrect (based on a deity) when you yourself are stating an opinion that has absolutely no facts to back it up. How do you know it would be something we can't comprehend? How do they? We don't, thus making neither you or them incorrect.

Darth_Yuthura
07-22-2009, 12:03 AM
Yes, but you can't say others opinions are incorrect (based on a deity) when you yourself are stating an opinion that has absolutely no facts to back it up. How do you know it would be something we can't comprehend?

Have you ever looked through a telescope and turned it towards the Ring Nebula found in the constellation Orion? In the center is what appears to be nothing, but is in reality a super-intense star that emits ultraviolet radiation. We can't see UV rays, so that would explain why we see what appears to be nothing.

Here's your proof... the bible itself says that we can't see god because he is beyond our comprehension. I've heard that from the mouths of priests talking about how no one sees god because he's beyond our comprehension... One spoke of it like 'blindspots' in our lives. If God is beyond our comprehension, then why do we make him out to be an old man with a white beard?

However, unlike a planetary nebula, there is nothing to assume that god exists that science can't explain. The only thing that religion serves is to fill in the holes that we can't explain, but science will forever serve to close that gap so that we can fill in the holes with real proof... and dispel with what we originally thought was there.

Samuel Dravis
07-22-2009, 12:28 AM
I'm confused by the supposed question, "evolution vs. creationism." The ideas don't cover the same subject, so I don't see any possible dichotomy. Even with naturalism vs. creationism, I don't see any possible resolution to the discussion, so it's all just meaningless to me; or rather, I don't see that any sort of fruitful discussion is possible, since both account for the same exact things (i.e., there's only a definitional distinction here, not an evidential one).

One decides such "questions" mainly upon the sort of upbringing one has, apparently, although you can usually use the science bit a lot more effectively with other subjects as well. I'm not a philosophical pragmatist, but I choose the science bit; I don't quite understand those that choose otherwise. At any rate, I don't consider those who believe in literal creationism to understand what evolutionary theory entails, or what it is supposed to explain.

urluckyday
07-22-2009, 12:30 AM
If there is a higher power out there, it would be something beyond our comprehension.

So just because it's something humans can somewhat understand...it can't be a higher power?

Nedak
07-22-2009, 12:37 AM
Here's your proof... the bible itself says that we can't see god because he is beyond our comprehension. I've heard that from the mouths of priests talking about how no one sees god because he's beyond our comprehension... One spoke of it like 'blindspots' in our lives. If God is beyond our comprehension, then why do we make him out to be an old man with a white beard?
Some Christians think of him that way because that's their interpretation of god, if they COULD see him.

But that has nothing to do with anything and you answered your statement.

"If there is a higher power out there, it would be something beyond our comprehension."

Your own answer: God, because accord to Christians god is beyond our comprehension.

However, unlike a planetary nebula, there is nothing to assume that god exists that science can't explain. The only thing that religion serves is to fill in the holes that we can't explain, but science will forever serve to close that gap so that we can fill in the holes with real proof... and dispel with what we originally thought was there.

I never disagreed with you here. I'm an Agnostic who sways more towards Atheism than any sort of mono-theistic religion.

But my point was that you can't say that it "CAN'T BE BOTH" as it is hypocritical.

Master Shake
07-22-2009, 01:04 AM
A lot of people hear Creationism and interpret it as God snapping his fingers and poof, everything came to exist.

I believe God was the original scientist. Rather than it just coming to be, he created everything just as a human scientist tests his hypothesis, by trial and error. God could have caused the Big Bang and then created everything else accordingly, then things evolved into what they are today.

So in essence I believe in creationism, but not as others do.

DarthSion399
07-22-2009, 01:58 AM
In my opinnion just like we invent and build things which to our understanding is completely possible, animals and insects in some way do the same but to us their inventions don't seem like much although we know for them it is likely a great acheivment. In this context why couldn't God, being all powerful, do the same by creating the Universe and all life in it which would be completely possible to him, but seem completely impossible to us since we're only Human, which would be the same thought insects and animals would think while looking at what we accomplish, but to us these inventions are simple, just like the creation of the universe would be for God.

Sabretooth
07-22-2009, 02:18 AM
I am a Will Wright's SPORE­­®ist myself, I believe that all species were created and evolved by a number of different entities for their own amusement and challenge, and the plane we exist in is essentially a simulation, comparable to the Internet. They also think we are really cute when we discuss topics like religion and philosophy like this.

Alternately, I am known to subscribe to classic evolution.

Trench
07-22-2009, 03:04 AM
In my opinnion just like we invent and build things which to our understanding is completely possible, animals and insects in some way do the same but to us their inventions don't seem like much although we know for them it is likely a great acheivment. In this context why couldn't God, being all powerful, do the same by creating the Universe and all life in it which would be completely possible to him, but seem completely impossible to us since we're only Human, which would be the same thought insects and animals would think while looking at what we accomplish, but to us these inventions are simple, just like the creation of the universe would be for God.

I like that perspective. I'll go with that.

Master Shake
07-22-2009, 03:58 AM
In my opinnion just like we invent and build things which to our understanding is completely possible, animals and insects in some way do the same but to us their inventions don't seem like much although we know for them it is likely a great acheivment. In this context why couldn't God, being all powerful, do the same by creating the Universe and all life in it which would be completely possible to him, but seem completely impossible to us since we're only Human, which would be the same thought insects and animals would think while looking at what we accomplish, but to us these inventions are simple, just like the creation of the universe would be for God.
I wouldn't say it was simple, after all it did take SIX whole days!

Bimmerman
07-22-2009, 04:11 AM
Personally, I'm all for evolution. I'm not religious by any means, but I also have no problem with people beliving what they want to. I have done considerable research into microevolution back in school, and yes, it does exist and is proven to exist. Macroevolution (us from apes) has yet to be scientifically proven, and is simply a theory and hypothesis at this point, albeit with strong evidence for it.

The issue I have with ardent believers of both is that there is no room for compromise. Evolution had to start somewhere. Something had to kick it off. As many in this thread have said, they view that kick as coming from God, and letting evolution do its work to create life...evolution as a tool for creation. I could honestly believe that.

The current scientific hypothesis (generalized) is that back in primordial ooze days, atmospheric electrical activity charged the ooze to create proteins and amino acids, which combined together to make stuff, then compounds, then cells, then life, then...raptor jesus. The ooze/soup to amino acids and proteins has been proven in the laboratory, so it is conceivable. However....much past that has not yet happened.

Honestly though, while I believe evolution is the correct method for us being here, it doesn't really matter in my daily life; I don't ponder from whence I came. I do not understand though, why, in the face of considerable evidence, hardcore religious people cannot accept that evolution does exist and simply explain it as God's method for creation? Many religious people do that, why can't the nutjobs? Just because the Bible says so? There are many passages in the Bible that aren't taken seriously any more, like stoning a wife for adultery, allowing a father to sell his daughters into slavery, yet people believe the world came into being in six days? Does not compute.

The Pope(and Catholicism) view evolution in that way. No other first world country in the world has the same massive debate over this that the US does. Let me ask a question to the Americans here: Why do you care so much which is correct? Why do you care so much about something the rest of the world views as correct in theory if not in totality? Like the Chewbacca defense, it does not make sense!

Master Shake
07-22-2009, 05:00 AM
Let me ask a question to the Americans here: Why do you care so much which is correct? Why do you care so much about something the rest of the world views as correct in theory if not in totality? Like the Chewbacca defense, it does not make sense!
You don't need to be American to discuss something that doesn't make sense.

jrrtoken
07-22-2009, 08:21 AM
What if he didn't 'have' to intervene, but simply chose to because he happened to be interested in having a relationship with people?Well, if that is true, then God is a sadistic mad scientist, and we are his lab rats. :p

Darth_Yuthura
07-22-2009, 09:44 AM
Creation: The Earth is only 10,000 years old. It took seven days for the planet to be formed. Women were created by extracting a rib of the first human male. God created humans in his own image.

Evolution: The Earth is billions of years old. Humans were the product of millions of years of evolution. We share characteristics from our ancestors the further back in history you go. There is very little that makes us different from other animals. The only difference is that we have become sentient beings. Biologically our origins can be mapped.

I won't reject alternate theories that people may have, but the evolution theory works works without god. Present something that can prove god exists, and I'll listen.

Sabretooth
07-22-2009, 10:04 AM
Christian Creation: The Earth is only 10,000 years old. It took seven days for the planet to be formed. Women were created by extracting a rib of the first human male. God created humans in his own image

Fixed.

Darth_Yuthura
07-22-2009, 10:10 AM
Fine, the Christian version of creation. Happy?

Arcesious
07-22-2009, 10:12 AM
(us from apes) has yet to be scientifically proven, and is simply a theory and hypothesis at this point, albeit with strong evidence for it.


Shwa? (translation: huh?)

Yet to be proven? Why isn't it proven?

And 'simply a theory'? Sounds like the all to common argument of 'It's only a theory', if I'm not mistaking your post's intentions. Gravity is a theory too, you know...

Q
07-22-2009, 10:20 AM
Um, because a definitive "missing link" has yet to be found? :giveup:
Fixed.
Thank you.
Fine, the Christian version of creation. Happy?
I told you that you were generalizing. You should also put the words "dogmatic" and "literalist" in front of the word "Christian" in order to accurately match your very narrow definition of creationism.

mimartin
07-22-2009, 10:29 AM
Bull****. See mimartin's post.

_EW_

Already did and rejected it.
Which part are you rejecting? The part where I wrote I believe in Evolution or the part where I wrote I am a Christian? So which one are you accusing me of lying about?

Other than my stating facts about my actual belief system, I only added 4 video that a friend had shown me awhile back.

Just so you know. There was nothing there for you to reject. I stated my belief system and that system is only for me to reject or accept. I was not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking as I am a strong advocate of people making up their own mind. I also know my conclusion is illogical, but that is the very definition of the word faith.

Web Rider
07-22-2009, 10:42 AM
Since evolution's main focus is how live evolved once it existed, and the theory does not intently deal with how life came into existence, I would like to just make sure that we're not confusing evolution into a sciency creation myth.

To that end I think life could have been kick-started by a higher power or by random chance. I do think that from that point on, it evolved into what it is now.

DarthSion399
07-22-2009, 11:03 AM
When it comes to evolution Christians usally except micro evolution, because there is proof that over time a species will have minor changes but will stay the same species, but with Macro evolution a species to species jump hasn't been proven.

In the Christian Church there is two excepted beliefs on the age of the Earth, The Old Earth theory is that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that God let his creation sit for a while before moving on to the next things he created, then The Old Earth Theory beleves in the literal 6 day creation and I like to think that God created the Earth to look older then it is.

Jedi_Man
07-22-2009, 11:03 AM
I am a christian all the way, but you probably get that from previous threads with discussions about morals and the like.
But, I'm wondering what evidence there is for Evolution. The new missing link, the Lemur thing, was found nowhere near the rock layer required for it to be our missing link. The missing links tooth, somewhere in the south west, was a pigs tooth. I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm sorry about the vagueness of the info. I haven't seen the articles in a while, and couldn't possibly find them in my messy house. BUt the point I'm making is that a lot of the so called evidence seems to be fairy tales to try and satisfy the Evolutionists need for having no superior form of life hovering over them and commanding them.

Web Rider
07-22-2009, 11:18 AM
I am a christian all the way, but you probably get that from previous threads with discussions about morals and the like.
But, I'm wondering what evidence there is for Evolution. The new missing link, the Lemur thing, was found nowhere near the rock layer required for it to be our missing link. The missing links tooth, somewhere in the south west, was a pigs tooth. I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm sorry about the vagueness of the info. I haven't seen the articles in a while, and couldn't possibly find them in my messy house. BUt the point I'm making is that a lot of the so called evidence seems to be fairy tales to try and satisfy the Evolutionists need for having no superior form of life hovering over them and commanding them.

I realize this may sound condescending, but have you tried, ya know, looking it up? Researching the evidence? Heck if you can't do that the Wiki's pretty good presuming nobody's hacked it today.

So, not to be rude, but go look it up plz.

Bimmerman
07-22-2009, 11:53 AM
You don't need to be American to discuss something that doesn't make sense.

No, you don't, you are correct. However, as the rest of the world does not have this ardent debate between evolution and christian creation, and only American fundamentalist Christians do, I think the wording of my question stands. The rest of the world accepts evolution, and has for decades. The US does not, and still argues about putting religious-themed information (ie intelligent design, or creationism with a new title) in science textbooks...that doesn't fly anywhere else in the first world. Teach creationism in a history of religion, theology, or bible class, but not in a proper science class, as...well...creationism/ID are beliefs, not science.

Hence my question.

Shwa? (translation: huh?)

Yet to be proven? Why isn't it proven?

And 'simply a theory'? Sounds like the all to common argument of 'It's only a theory', if I'm not mistaking your post's intentions. Gravity is a theory too, you know...

I know. Please, if you have evidence of genuine macro evolution, please show it. However, all we have now are theories of from whence we came, not exact hard evidence showing it. We have bits and pieces of the evidence, which is more than enough for most rational people, but without an entirely complete fossil record, or remains, or w/e, there will always be doubters.

Theory doesn't mean fact. Gravity exists, we all know this, but we don't know why it exists, or how it functions...we just have equations that give accurate explanations and predictions of behavior, and a theory (as in idea, hypothesis, something testable) for why and how it works.

Same for evolution. We have evidence it has happened, both fossil, genetic, biological, etc etc, but we are missing the mechanism for how it happened, and the in-between stages.

No theory is beyond scrutiny, and the theory of evolution (which is markedly different from what Darwin originally proposed), is no different. However, when you try to hold creationism (note my distinction between that and religion) and " 'Intelligent' Design" to the same level of scientific scrutiny, people call foul, complain, ignore you, or simply attack you for holding both to the same standard. This works fine in a theology class, religion study, or bible study class....but if both methods are to be taught alongside each other (which they absolutely should not be, unless we want to be even more of an international laughingstock), both must be held to the same level of scrutiny. That has not happened.

Please remember: I'm not being hostile to religion in general, nor to creationism. I only wonder why a) American Fundamentalists care so much (as nobody else does), and b) why a belief system has any place in a science classroom.

Drunkside
07-22-2009, 11:54 AM
Evolution... Put to start by a "higher force" of some kind. Dunno really, but if there is one thing i know about this its that if there is a god or several of them, they definetely are not the christian/jewish/muslim/hindi/whatever religions there are gods, but something completely else.

Religions are mainly born out of a few reasons:
1) Need to understand the world around.
2) A group of people being oppressed by some others.
3) A charismatic leader who is somehow sick, mostly mental diseases (everybody has to understand the fact that for instance Jesus was schizophrenic).
4) IGNORANCE (moses saw bushes on fire cause at that time people took some kind of a hallusinogene after dinner. Some scientist actually tried the stuff and boom, flaming bushes were there)

Dont believe me if you dont want. I have read that hallusinogene thing somewhere but cant remember where, and the jesus being a schizo is just my opinion after seeing many schizophrenics who believe they are gods.

Doomie
07-22-2009, 12:06 PM
I have done considerable research into microevolution back in school, and yes, it does exist and is proven to exist. Macroevolution (us from apes) has yet to be scientifically proven, and is simply a theory and hypothesis at this point, albeit with strong evidence for it.


I'll let you in on a little secret here; they're the same thing! biologists make no distinction between micro- and macro-evolution, it's an arbitrary distinction made by creation 'scientists'. Little changes over time build up to a big change in a long time. So the proving of 'micro-evolution' also proves 'macro-evolution'.

Yes, it is simply a theory, but that's just the way modern science works. No matter how much proof there is in favour, scientists will always account for the possiblity that one day a better theory comes along, so they will keep referring to it as a theory. But that doesn't imply a lack of proof or that it cannot be used to explain things.

I prefer the theory of evolution to the theory of creation as a means of explaining how we got here. As for how it all started, I guess things could have been created, but I prefer to say I just don't know, and I don't think anyone does (yet).

Trench
07-22-2009, 12:26 PM
When it comes to evolution Christians usally except micro evolution, because there is proof that over time a species will have minor changes but will stay the same species, but with Macro evolution a species to species jump hasn't been proven.

In the Christian Church there is two excepted beliefs on the age of the Earth, The Old Earth theory is that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that God let his creation sit for a while before moving on to the next things he created, then The Old Earth Theory beleves in the literal 6 day creation and I like to think that God created the Earth to look older then it is.

Do I know you?:p
That is exactly what I was thinking. When God created Adam he didn't create a sperm or an egg to be grown into a man, he created a fully grown man probably somewhere in his thirties.
When he created the earth, he did the same thing to the ball of rock we are sitting on now.
The same goes for the beasts of the earth, the fish and whales of the sea, and the foul of the air. He created adults so that they could reproduce quickly and fill the earth.

Lord of Hunger
07-22-2009, 12:50 PM
Intelligent Design because while Microevolution has been proven and I will never dispute it until given sufficient evidence, Macroevolution is incomplete, and logic dictates that for every affect there must be a cause.

I am half Catholic, half Buddhist, and I do not believe that God simply zapped the world into being in six days and somehow needed to take a break on the seventh. However, I do believe that evolution has direction and DNA is an intelligent language, so these two things can only point to a Mind that to a certain extent regulates the path of evolution.

For example, there is a Stargate episode where the main characters encounter a planet where the populace of the planet has disappeared. They quickly discover that this is the result of a race of flying insects whose venom converts the DNA of others into their own, thus gradually converting people into at least ten of those insects. Microevolution is supposed to result in the species with the greatest survival rates living on. Technically these flying insects have a better survival rate than humanity, yet it is humanity, a bunch of fragile apes, that have lived on. If you have watched any shows about the origins of humanity, you notice that our statistical chances of survival were very low yet somehow we end up coming on top. I think that we have a trait not necessarily related to survival that the Mind responsible for the creation of our universe favors and thus It chose to preserve us.

I also believe that this Mind or God does not necessarily have to be a being abstract from its creation, but is more likely to be fully integrated with it.

Darth_Yuthura
07-22-2009, 01:09 PM
Which part are you rejecting? The part where I wrote I believe in Evolution or the part where I wrote I am a Christian? So which one are you accusing me of lying about?

You misunderstand. I rejected the subject behind the content of the videos; it had nothing to do with your beliefs.

I guess that I got ahead of myself and didn't address what I had issues with.

I have a textbook that a friend gave me (In the Beginning: Compelling evidence of Creation and the Great Flood) and the author explains the elements of the bible using scientific evidence to justify the creation theory. He doesn't exactly say everything about the bible is true, but he keeps elements of the bible from being dismissed by explaining how they happened. The author discussed the uranium sample being billions of years old, how the great flood could have flooded the world with the water that exists today, and a number of other details that makes the creationist theory 'not impossible.'

I went through the logic and Walter Brown (author) offered very limited evidence and failed to address what would have made his theories impossible. He says that all the water from the great flood simply infiltrated into deep cavities within the Earth, which explains where all the water would have had to come from to cover the planet. He only took a limited selection of evidence and called something a theory without addressing EVERYTHING in regards to the subject. If you don't account for evidence that contradicts your theory, then you can't say you have a working theory if another does take that evidence into account.

mimartin
07-22-2009, 01:26 PM
:migraine: Why would anyone post evidence or information either way in this thread as what has already been posted has just been ignored? Then the same tired excuses are used to question evolutions that have already been answered by ignored information.

You misunderstand. I rejected the subject behind the content of the videos; it had nothing to do with your beliefs. Wrong. The video has everything to do with my understanding that evolution is a fact. My experiences and knowledge are used to make up my belief system, so the videos have everything to do with my beliefs.

Trench
07-22-2009, 01:30 PM
Is it just me, or has this thread just turned into a big futile argument? The Creationists aren't listening to the evolutionists, the evolutionists aren't listening to the Creationists.
The evolutionists aren't even listening to the evolutionists.:giveup:

Darth_Yuthura
07-22-2009, 01:38 PM
I don't want to sound arrogant, although that's what I always do, but religion usually acts in the opposite way that science does. Where science is used to find a conclusion after collecting and evaluation of correlations, religion is more like taking what exists and piecing it together in order to achieve the specified outcome.

Look at the Iraq war and how much real evidence the Bush administration had that could have confirmed that Iraq couldn't have developed WMD. Yet they took what little evidence was there and they used it to reach their desired outcome... which was to invade Iraq.

Arcesious
07-22-2009, 01:49 PM
I know. Please, if you have evidence of genuine macro evolution, please show it. However, all we have now are theories of from whence we came, not exact hard evidence showing it. We have bits and pieces of the evidence, which is more than enough for most rational people, but without an entirely complete fossil record, or remains, or w/e, there will always be doubters.


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

The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species."

Insects and bacteria - macroevolution happens very, very often among these. There are numerous brand new species of insects and bacteria every year.

And what do you mean 'genuine'? If an observed change, whether big or small, meets the definition of macro-evolution, there isn't any variable for how 'genuine' it is, because a small change is just as 'genuine' as a big change.

We've only explored about 5% of the earth's oceans, so it is certain that there's a lot more to earth's history waiting to be discovered deep in the oceans, as well as the least explored areas of land.


Theory doesn't mean fact. Gravity exists, we all know this, but we don't know why it exists, or how it functions...we just have equations that give accurate explanations and predictions of behavior, and a theory (as in idea, hypothesis, something testable) for why and how it works.

Theories are made based on evidence. Theory and hypothesis are two totally different things, because a hypothesis is a guess with lots of potential holes.
I'll admit, there's bound to be holes in the biological historical record that is based on the evolution. If conflicting or new data shows up, the theory will be revised or added onto.


but we are missing the mechanism for how it happened, and the in-between stages.


A change in genus, family, and higher - I'm not sure if that has been directly observed, considering that the theory of evolution has only been around for so long. But you don't need to directly observe changes of such a level to collect data and evidence of them, thanks to transitional fossils and DNA analysis.

Heck, if there was no macro-evolution, where would we keep getting all these new species from?

Also, it should be noted that the difference between macro and micro evolution is very small. They both work the same way. They're essentially the same thing. Biologists just seperate them in order to be able to make the small distinction between a change in a species and a change to a new species.

No theory is beyond scrutiny, and the theory of evolution (which is markedly different from what Darwin originally proposed), is no different..

I totally agree.

Trench
07-22-2009, 01:53 PM
People here do remember that Darwin rejected evolution and returned to Christianity and Creationism near the end of his life don't you? Even he knew that the theory was di'kutla.

Arcesious
07-22-2009, 02:08 PM
People here do remember that Darwin rejected evolution and returned to Christianity and Creationism near the end of his life don't you? Even he knew that the theory was di'kutla.

You're being sarcastic, right? Do you know how many people have made fake rumors about people rejecting their ideologies on their deathbeds in order to try to discredit the person dying? Answer: A lot. I'm sorry to inform you, but the deathbed recanting story is fake.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

Pho3nix
07-22-2009, 02:16 PM
When God created Adam he didn't create a sperm or an egg to be grown into a man, he created a fully grown man probably somewhere in his thirties.
When he created the earth, he did the same thing to the ball of rock we are sitting on now.
The same goes for the beasts of the earth, the fish and whales of the sea, and the foul of the air. He created adults so that they could reproduce quickly and fill the earth.
I think you should return to this thread/topic after a couple of years when you're a little older and, hopefully, have stopped regurgitating your parents views. :)

Trench
07-22-2009, 02:19 PM
I think you should return to this thread/topic after a couple of years when you're a little older and, hopefully, have stopped regurgitating your parents views. :)

I have done my own research on the subject. I don't "regurgitate" anyone's views.

DarthSion399
07-22-2009, 02:19 PM
He's not much younger then me and I can say after research I'm a Christian by choice not because I've been raised to be one.

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-22-2009, 02:26 PM
if those sites you linked earlier as examples of your research give an accurate picture of the types of sources you're basing your opinion on, your research skills are sorely lacking.

DarthSion399
07-22-2009, 02:35 PM
I've also read some books against it, I've just learned about it in science class and read pro evolution sources and it didn't seem to measure up to the scientific method, I've read from several other sites that confirm what those sites say and give other peices of evidence, I've heard of scientists who said the evidence was lacking and read a quote by Darwin saying that the evidence was lacking.

Totenkopf
07-22-2009, 02:41 PM
As some have noted correctly, science is basically just a tool, of God or nature is still anyone's guess. That monkeys and men are close in genetic makeup doesn't prove we came from them but that rather we're made from much of the same stuff. Still, if in the end scientists genuinely discover the "missing link", so what? It won't prove where we come from, just how we've changed over the course of time. If you accept that the God of Creationaism is omnipotent, then none of the usual objections matter b/c God did it. If you don't, well....Sam summed it up pretty well.

Putting the God of Christianity aside, how do members of other religions here view their own "creation myths"?

Darth_Yuthura
07-22-2009, 02:41 PM
I've been burned because I treated the bible as the [i]christian[i/] religion, but I will continue using it for this purpose. I've gone to a few bible study sessions with some friends and was able to contribute some very insightful details by relating what we've read to psychology. The bible and the seven deadly sins are not just a bunch of crap, as I've seen some very interesting ideals it introduced hundreds of years before modern psychology became an official field.

You can relate the bible to certain concepts in science, but the historical validity, such as creation, isn't important to the purpose of the Bible.

DarthSion399
07-22-2009, 02:46 PM
I've seen some very interesting ideals it introduced hundreds of years before modern psychology became an official field.


I've noticed stuff like that too.

Darth_Yuthura
07-22-2009, 02:52 PM
It won't prove where we come from, just how we've changed over the course of time. If you accept that the God of Creationaism is omnipotent, then none of the usual objections matter b/c God did it.

Maybe. If you say there is a being that can do anything, then you can virtually use god to patch up all the holes that exist in our knowledge of the universe. If something doesn't make sense... like where did the first cell originate, you could say god created that life.

If something conflicts with the bible or reality, then just say god COULD have done it. Therefore you open-end every single question or unknown by saying that God had the power to do anything. But what if there is no proof that God actually exists? Why not just say it's the Force? That sounds more likely to me than an all-powerful being working to advance our interests.

I would say that God isn't a being, but an idea. He was created by humans in order to inspire cooperation, give hope, and for a moral code. Beyond that, I see no reason to assume he actually exists. There are so many versions of god that you can't exactly claim that one is more valid than another's god. Before you can even argue with creation vs. evolution, you must first prove which of the many versions of creation is correct.

mimartin
07-22-2009, 03:03 PM
Moderator Friendly Reminder Time:

5. Repeatedly posting the same thing: This refers specifically to repeating the same point over and over in a way that becomes irritating, without an attempt to clarify a point or to contribute to the conversation. This should not be construed to mean that you are required to answer someone else's questions. If it's the same argument and doesn't contribute to the discussion, the post may be edited or deleted, and the poster may receive an infraction.

Anyone not familiar with the rules for Kavar, please give them a look (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2271494&postcount=1).

Also this is not a chat room; LucasForums provides Visitor Messages, Social Groups, Private Messages and Blogs for less restrictive forms of chit-chat.

Jedi_Man
07-22-2009, 03:17 PM
When I said what evidence is there, I was wondering what evidence there is that hasn't been disproven. Because, With the Wiki's i'll get a biased report half the time. All of the evidence I can think of has been debunked, but clung to still for ages afterward.

Doomie
07-22-2009, 04:41 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_evolution
Insects and bacteria - macroevolution happens very, very often among these. There are numerous brand new species of insects and bacteria every year.


Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale.

Well, I stand (somewhat) corrected. Macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, but at least I was right about micro-evolution and macroevolution essentially being the same process.

mimartin
07-22-2009, 05:37 PM
I went looking to find where evolution has been debunked by the creationist. I have to admit, I was wrong. With stupendous intellect and superior deduction creationist have been able to totally debunk the science of evolution without even bothering to use the constraints provided by the scientific method. We all know how bias the scientific method is. No, with only a simple banana, a former teen star and complete and utter genius they have totally debunked science. Heck, I’m starting to believe the earth is flat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I

Trench
07-22-2009, 05:46 PM
That guy is smart. I like his reasoning.
Creation: 1.
Evolution: 0.:xp:

jrrtoken
07-22-2009, 06:00 PM
That guy is smart. I like his reasoning.
Creation: 1.
Evolution: 0.Seriously??? If we go by the logic that everything is "premade" for humans, then why aren't cows nicely packaged and ground up for meat distribution, and why aren't mountains already carved into nice blocks for building with?

Astor
07-22-2009, 06:02 PM
That guy is smart. I like his reasoning.
Creation: 1.
Evolution: 0.

:migraine:

This is the problem with Evolution vs. Creation discussions - all anyone is interested in is scoring points for their sides. It's ridiculous and doesn't do anything to further the discussion.

Nice vid, Mim - that guy really is a genius. :p

Trench
07-22-2009, 06:04 PM
Seriously??? If we go by the logic that everything is "premade" for humans, then why aren't cows nicely packaged and ground up for meat distribution, and why aren't mountains already carved into nice blocks for building with?

Read Genesis.
All of creation was originally meant to be vegetarians. That includes all animals.
And Adam and Eve didn't live in a house, hut or even a tent. They lived outside.

Darth_Yuthura
07-22-2009, 06:08 PM
Okay there is something that vexes me about those who say it's both. Some are christian and openly admit they accept evolution because evidence shows the evolution process. How can they and still gravitate towards creation?

I on the other hand take to evolution and dismiss creation completely. Does that make me biased, disrespectful, and narrow-minded? Perhaps, but maybe I just see too many contradictions between the two that they can't both be right. I do happen to see one answer that would explain all the discrepancies, but it would trample upon other people's beliefs and essentially dismiss religion out of hand.

I want to bring up an example where science overtakes science in a debate. Those who've been taught of seafloor spreading often are told that the cause of plate movement is attributed to the mid Atlantic Ridge. A rift of magma pushing two plates away from one another... that's wrong.

More recent studies have shown there is not enough force to PUSH the Oceanic plates away from one another, but if the rift were a result of two plates being pulled away from one another; that would make much more sense. It is not compression, but tension that causes the mid Atlantic ridge. It is the mass of two oceanic plates being pulled in opposite directions and magma creates new plate matter as they move apart.

This newer theory had replaced the older one about the rift being what pushes the plates away because it offered a more plausible explanation based on the evidence that was available. It is not in our best interests to continue believing in the older theory when another one makes more sense. The newer theory might be wrong, but anyone contesting it must explain why the plates have deformed as though under tension and not under pressure.

---

I don't wish to insult someone for believing a god, but I just cannot comprehend how people who've accepted evolution could still believe in creation. I could believe someone who brings up something very peculiar that isn't explained by evolution, such as a fossil that doesn't conform to any organisms that existed at the time period it was found. Sentience is even something that I could believe went beyond evolution.

Some who believe in creation admit that genesis is wrong, humans evolved from primates, and that they don't take what's in the bible as creation. My question to those who believe in creationism: If you do believe in evolution and would not take the details of the bible as fact, then what are you going by?

I have to agree with Bimmerman in that a belief does not belong in a classroom or laboratory.

Trench
07-22-2009, 06:16 PM
I am a Christian. I believe in Creation. I dismiss evolution completely. That is that.
To say you are a Creationist who believes in evolution is hypocrisy. Either its Creation or its evolution. Claiming both is disregarding Genesis, and in the process disregarding the word of God.
The same goes for a Christian who disregards Genesis by choosing evolution.

mimartin
07-22-2009, 06:16 PM
Speaking only for myself, I don't believe in creation and stated so in my opening post. I accept the undeniable evidence of evolution.



I'd also suggest some of you read my earlier warning and quit spamming the thread without adding to the discussion. It is not helping your post count as one of the moderators will be cleaning up this thread before long, but it could add to someone’s infraction count should the staff feel the spamming warrants such action.

Darth_Yuthura
07-22-2009, 06:19 PM
We all know how bias the scientific method is. No, with only a simple banana, a former teen star and complete and utter genius they have totally debunked science. Heck, I’m starting to believe the earth is flat.

You do know that NATURAL bananas are quite different from that of which he showed on the video. Those that are wild are called green cooking bananas with hard seeds embedded within them. Those of the desert type are asexually propagated by humans... so the miracle of the banana happens to be a human achievement.

Don't worry about fearing the world will be flat again. When little details like this come up, it puts things back into their proper perspective. It's just a matter of not being sold by half truths. Seek it all before changing your mind.

I am a Christian. I believe in Creation. I dismiss evolution completely. That is that.

Alright, then there is nothing I can say that would change your opinion. I don't actively go out and tell people that their beliefs are flawed/wrong/mistaken unless they put them where they don't belong in the first place.

I happen to go to church... would people find that surprising? I rather value the lessons that the ministers offer to me and many others who attend. I'm not so biased about religion that I would close myself off to it. We all could do much better for ourselves and others if we attended church every once in a while.

But there are aspects of it that I would rather do without. I like hearing of people overcoming their problems through shear effort, dedication, holding to a set of values, and everything that make humans different from the other animals on the planet. I DO NOT like hearing of the bible stories where god ultimately steps in and makes everything right. Those frustrate me because... we're not god.

Totenkopf
07-22-2009, 06:53 PM
I don't wish to insult someone for believing a god, but I just cannot comprehend how people who've accepted evolution could still believe in creation. I could believe someone who brings up something very peculiar that isn't explained by evolution, such as a fossil that doesn't conform to any organisms that existed at the time period it was found. Sentience is even something that I could believe went beyond evolution.

Some who believe in creation admit that genesis is wrong, humans evolved from primates, and that they don't take what's in the bible as creation. My question to those who believe in creationism: If you do believe in evolution and would not take the details of the bible as fact, then what are you going by?

I have to agree with Bimmerman in that a belief does not belong in a classroom or laboratory.

No offense, DY, but as was pointed out you tend to conflate Creationism w/ creation. It is possible to believe that everything we see around us has been created by something b/c no one has figured out yet where everything really does come from. As to science and belief in the classroom, agreed, The whole man came from monkeys and amoebae should be shelved until the evidence is conclusive and irrefutable. Present that side of evolution as a possibility (strong or otherwise), not an irrefutable fact. I'm not against theories put forth as theories which are constantly being tested for veracity (afterall, many of the claims of religions are often untestable/unrepeatable and therefore don't belong in a science class). And as far as that goes, get the whole pseudo-science of "anthropogenic global warming as fact" out of the science classroom. It's political rhetoric, which like relgion doesn't belong in the science classroom. :carms:

Ping
07-22-2009, 07:05 PM
I am a Christian. I believe in Creation. I dismiss evolution completely. That is that.


So? I'm Christian, too, and I'm a firm believer in evolution.

Master Shake
07-22-2009, 07:13 PM
Read Genesis.
All of creation was originally meant to be vegetarians. That includes all animals.
And Adam and Eve didn't live in a house, hut or even a tent. They lived outside.
In a garden, as a matter of fact.

Darth Avlectus
07-22-2009, 07:16 PM
Like what?

Whence self-awareness came from and came about. What the environmental conditions are, required to evolve a being into conscious self awareness.

*is very interested in learning how to prove a negative*

One side says Can't prove it = false; unknown.
Otherside says can't completely disprove it =/= false; is unknown.

I was merely implying both sides remained unconvinced of the others' argument is all. :xp:

Evolution doesen't give a damn about creation, see abiogenesis for that, so no need to worry about the creation bit.

Well maybe not, but others seem to have it in their head that it isn't necessarily the other way around for creationism (stating that evolution is a tool for creation or creationism), despite what the books say.

Darth_Yuthura
07-22-2009, 07:21 PM
No offense, DY, but as was pointed out you tend to conflate Creationism w/ creation.

The whole man came from monkeys and amoebae should be shelved until the evidence is conclusive and irrefutable. Present that side of evolution as a possibility (strong or otherwise), not an irrefutable fact.

And as far as that goes, get the whole pseudo-science of "anthropogenic global warming as fact" out of the science classroom. It's political rhetoric, which like relgion doesn't belong in the science classroom. :carms:

Creation=the action of bringing something into existence
Creationism=belief the universe and organisms originated by acts of divine creation rather than natural processes like evolution

Literal definitions, but they suffice. Everything upon this planet, within the galaxy are creations. The issue is that 'creationism' goes against the idea that things just happened naturally.

If people believe in evolution, then they shouldn't believe in 'creationism.' They may be able to believe in god, but they shouldn't assume that everything originated from that god's actions.

And no, evolution should not be shelved because it has so far been the best answer to how we came to exist. It shouldn't be declared 'fact' as it still remains a theory, but there is enough evidence that it can be treated as such. Unless there is another theory that makes more sense, it is the most reasonable answer for our existence.

If God happened to create the first organisms that lead to our evolution, then he is responsible for us being here, but we are not his creations. Creationism assumes he created man and then woman and that we wouldn't have existed if weren't for him.

Darth InSidious
07-22-2009, 07:25 PM
I didn't bother to read most of these posts; suffice to say that the whole argument, if it can be called that, is a category error on both sides and supremely fatuous. Perhaps next we can debate the preferred area of the world for clay pigeons to migrate to.

Arcesious
07-22-2009, 07:27 PM
The whole man came from monkeys and amoebae should be shelved until the evidence is conclusive and irrefutable.

Sure... and future children fresh out of highschool biology class won't know enough about the theorized history of human evolution to make a reasonable conclusion about it. So much for the few students eager to learn about the scientific explanation for their origins...

I say teach the controversy, without leaving out any important details.

Darth InSidious
07-22-2009, 07:36 PM
Sure... and future children fresh out of highschool biology class won't know enough about the theorized history of human evolution to make a reasonable conclusion about it.
They don't now. Even assuming the adequacy (ha) of the US education system, pretty much everything you're taught as fact now, Arc, will turn out to be rubbish once you reach university; and those things which don't will turn out to be much less cut-and-dried.

Lord of Hunger
07-22-2009, 08:31 PM
I am a Christian. I believe in Creation. I dismiss evolution completely. That is that.
To say you are a Creationist who believes in evolution is hypocrisy. Either its Creation or its evolution. Claiming both is disregarding Genesis, and in the process disregarding the word of God.
The same goes for a Christian who disregards Genesis by choosing evolution.
That assumes you hold the Bible to be the direct word of God and not the writings of man attempting to capture the words of God accurately but not necessarily succeeding. In any event, Genesis is old Testament and as Christian I hold that while the Old Testament holds important teachings to learn the actions of Christ in the Gospel overthrew the older Jewish order and thus destroyed the validity of the Old Testament as the source of information on God's will.

Jae Onasi
07-22-2009, 08:35 PM
Genesis isn't a science book, and never was meant to be. The Hebrew is fluid in its meaning of 'day', for instance--it can mean a literal 24 hour day or it can mean an unspecified long period of time, sort of like when we say "back in my grandfather's day....". That is why I don't find creationism and evolutionism to be at odds with each other.

Darth_Yuthura
07-22-2009, 09:10 PM
That assumes you hold the Bible to be the direct word of God and not the writings of man attempting to capture the words of God accurately but not necessarily succeeding.

I've been burned for mistaking two words with very similar pronunciations, but very different meanings; so I won't make that mistake here.

Evolution or Creation. That's the title. It MUST be one or the other because creationism (That is what I assume is meant by the title. Not a creation, but that Earth was a creation of God) directly opposes anything that might be explained naturally.

I'm not trying to keep hammering the same point again and again, but clearly there are some who think you can have matter and anti-matter sharing the same space. That you can accept something and another that conflicts with it. That evolution and creation(ism) could both be right. If one is so, then the other has to be false.

If for the sake of argument that I KNEW beyond a doubt that God truly existed, I would stop believing in evolution right there. Quite simply I could believe a being that can do anything could create the world exactly as it is. I could believe he could create a sample of uranium with the right number of radioactive isotopes to make it look like it's a billion years old if he wanted. He could create a Grand Canyon from scratch. He reasonably can do anything that would explain why the world is as it exists and dismiss all the evidence that they ever went through a process of nature.

It just so happens though that so many elements of nature can be explained without ever having needed God to make them so. If you can explain something as a natural process, why would you see reason to bring god into the equation at all? If God wanted to hide his efforts in the world around us by adding evidence of evolution among his creation, he did a very good job at that.

Do not mistake what I'm adding here as an insult against religion. If a person believes in evolution, then that means they don't believe God created the Earth or man as the bible makes it seem. That DOESN'T make it that God didn't have a part in it, nor that he doesn't exist. It just means it was more likely he acted longer ago than the bible states and humans are not of his creation, but that they evolved from something that he was responsible for. That is NOT creationism.

EnderWiggin
07-22-2009, 10:12 PM
I am a Christian. I believe in Creation. I dismiss evolution completely. That is that.
I don't think that people are trying to claim that they're Creationists who believe in evolution, since they're diametrically opposed. However, I can claim that I'm a Christian who believes (as I said) in evolution as a tool.

Genesis isn't a science book, and never was meant to be. The Hebrew is fluid in its meaning of 'day', for instance--it can mean a literal 24 hour day or it can mean an unspecified long period of time, sort of like when we say "back in my grandfather's day....". That is why I don't find creationism and evolutionism to be at odds with each other.

I agree.

_EW_

Nedak
07-22-2009, 10:31 PM
That guy is smart. I like his reasoning.
Creation: 1.
Evolution: 0.:xp:



I pray to god (no pun intended) that's a sarcastic post.

EDIT:

Here is a fun video with that video in it.

ztejNZIZdsU

Darth_Yuthura
07-22-2009, 10:50 PM
That guy is smart. I like his reasoning.
Creation: 0.
Evolution: 1.:xp:

Well don't thank god; thank the process of evolution.

Mind you that the purpose of fruit is so that animals would take one and spread the seeds. The banana example actually goes to the credit of a species adapting to best spread its seeds and improve its ability to produce offspring. Of course I am referring to the 'tab' and peel aspects of a banana, not the inedible and loaded with seeds aspect. Humans can take credit for that.

Okay, I just saw the video in the last post. I greatly appreciate these kind of debates... if you would call it such.

Totenkopf
07-22-2009, 11:38 PM
@DY/Arc--when people speak of Creationism it's mostly in terms of "God created the world 5-10K years ago and weathered it to fool all the atheists and whatnot". You 2 should read more closely rather than resort to knee jerk positions. I did not say take the theory of evolution out of science class. I said Evolution Theory as Fact should not be pushed, w/regard to where man came from. It can still be taught as the best current scientific theory available. Frankly, it's fatuous to claim that evolution and creation (not Creationism as we've already covered, afterall OEC doesn't really fly in the face of evolution like the YEC that gets anti-creationists all hot and bothered) are inherently incompatible. Noone was around when all this glorious stuff came into being and thus is in no position to make an emphatic and rational claim to its origins. And frankly, it's rather silly to get that worked up over something no one has the answer to anyway. Until we find the "missing link/s" that shows man came from amoeba via monkeys, I'm content to consider it (evolution) a possibility. Afterall, give man a billion + years from today and we might come up with nifty junk too. ;)


As to science and belief in the classroom, agreed, The whole man came from monkeys and amoebae should be shelved until the evidence is conclusive and irrefutable. Present that side of evolution as a possibility (strong or otherwise), not an irrefutable fact. I'm not against theories put forth as theories which are constantly being tested for veracity (afterall, many of the claims of religions are often untestable/unrepeatable and therefore don't belong in a science class).

Darth_Yuthura
07-23-2009, 12:23 AM
@DY/Arc--when people speak of Creationism it's mostly in terms of "God created the world 5-10K years ago and weathered it to fool all the atheists and whatnot"

Okay, why did God do this? What reason would he want to fool atheists?

You 2 should read more closely rather than resort to knee jerk positions. I did not say take the theory of evolution out of science class. I said Evolution Theory as Fact should not be pushed, w/regard to where man came from.

Well you speak of creation(ism) - Whatever term you want to plug in this time) as though it is also a theory that can stand beside evolution; it's not.

Frankly, it's fatuous to claim that evolution and creation (not Creationism as we've already covered, afterall OEC doesn't really fly in the face of evolution like the YEC that gets anti-creationists all hot and bothered) are inherently incompatible

Define 'Creation' and then define 'Creationism' and explain how your term fits and the other does not. I know exactly what I said. If you're going to make a fuss because I put forth something that hurts your side of the matter... please don't. I'm not going to change my argument simply to fit your sense of logic.

No one was around when all this glorious stuff came into being and thus is in no position to make an emphatic and rational claim to its origins. And frankly, it's rather silly to get that worked up over something no one has the answer to anyway.

No, but you can evaluate evidence and come to a logical conclusion as to what happened. The problem is that evidence often gets destroyed or lost with time. That makes it more difficult to answer such questions as to where we came from, but history has shown that the more we evaluate available evidence and the more we find, the more reliable our final answer will be. And quite frankly, it's horrid to see people willingly refuse to acknowledge evidence when it is presented in favor of something that is purely mythical.

If God wanted such evidence from being discovered by humans, he would have done so... or did he make a mistake? A perfect circular argument, I must say so myself.

Until we find the "missing link/s" that shows man came from amoeba via monkeys, I'm content to consider it (evolution) a possibility. Afterall, give man a billion + years from today and we might come up with nifty junk too. ;)

I would properly say that evolution is still only a theory, but it is a theory that is supported by much much more evidence than anything an alternate theory has yielded. Unless that changes, I would not have anything riddled with as many holes as Creation(ism) daring to be called a theory.

Web Rider
07-23-2009, 01:29 AM
Read Genesis.
All of creation was originally meant to be vegetarians. That includes all animals.

You only have oh, 90% of Christians disagreeing with you on that point. And before you know "well how many Christians do you know?" A lot. I was one of like 10 Atheists in my conservative christian town. Also in before: "they're wrong." When the majority of a religion disagrees with what a single member says, the religion is not wrong.

Totenkopf
07-23-2009, 01:57 AM
Okay, why did God do this? What reason would he want to fool atheists?

You so clueless you don't recognize a little levity? :rolleyes:


Well you speak of creation(ism) - Whatever term you want to plug in this time) as though it is also a theory that can stand beside evolution; it's not.

Frankly, I make no claims of anything. The point is you mix up creationism (the fundamentalist biblical version) with the concept of a creator. That's all that's been pointed out to you from the beginning. If a God/god exists, who are you to define the method by which they would make or develop anything.
I don't state that God created the universe, merely consider that it's a possibility. Given that we don't know where all the matter and energy in the universe comes from in the first place it would be extremely arrogant to think we can eliminate any possibilities that science can't disprove (For instance, we know that Superman is a modern human creation and therefore science knows---and can disprove--he created the universe....if anyone were willing to assert such a notion).


I know exactly what I said. If you're going to make a fuss because I put forth something that hurts your side of the matter... please don't. I'm not going to change my argument simply to fit your sense of logic.

:lol: No offense, but that sounds extremely pretentious.



No, but we can evaluate evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion of what happened. If evidence is destroyed or lost, then it becomes more difficult and the number of possible answers could rival the number of theories that exist. The more we evaluate the evidence, the more reliable our final answer would be. And quite frankly, it's rather sad to see people willingly refuse to acknowledge evidence when it is presented in favor of something that is purely mythical.

I'm afraid you have a reading comprehension problem if you're continuing to assert that I am anti-evolution. I've already stated that that is one method for explaining the diversty of how life around us has developed. Evolution, however, doesn't explain where everything came from though. That's still key. And the big weakness in your argument.


If God wanted to hide the evidence, he would have... or did he make a mistake? A solid circular argument, I must say so myself.

Good thing you're the one making it then, huh? :D


I would properly say that evolution is still only a theory, but it is a theory that is supported by much much more evidence than anything an alternate theory has yielded. Unless that changes, I would not have anything riddled with as many holes as Creation(ism) daring to be called a theory.

And as I don't hold to the "theory of Creationism", we don't seem to have a real problem. As long as you recognize that Evolution theory is a WIP, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. :raise:

Arcesious
07-23-2009, 02:11 AM
Evolution, however, doesn't explain where everything came from though. That's still key. And the big weakness in your argument.


I thought someone already mentioned abiogenesis in this thread, somewhere... The theory of evolution does not try to explain the initial origin(s) of life. The origin of life is left in the realm of the ideas posed by abiogenesis.

Totenkopf
07-23-2009, 02:19 AM
Frankly, that's my point. Evolution as a theory dosen't remove the possibility of a creator from the equation. Even abiogenesis doesn't answer where all the life and matter/energy in the universe comes from. It too is a process that attempts to explain how living things came into being from inanimate matter, but fails to say where all the stuff came from in the first place. We may never (very likely in our lifetimes) have the answer to that question.

Web Rider
07-23-2009, 03:26 AM
Frankly, that's my point. Evolution as a theory dosen't remove the possibility of a creator from the equation.
It does not. People who say it does do not understand it. Which is why Evolution vs Creation arguments boil down to nonsense. Because we end up arguing apples and oranges.

Even abiogenesis doesn't answer where all the life and matter/energy in the universe comes from. It too is a process that attempts to explain how living things came into being from inanimate matter, but fails to say where all the stuff came from in the first place.
Which, like evolution, isn't it's point. Abiogenesis states in a nutshell, that life has the ability to simply "poof" into existence. It assumes that it just forms out of existing matter. It doesn't attempt to explain the origin of matter simply because that's not what it's supposed to do.

Astor
07-23-2009, 03:32 AM
And quite frankly, it's horrid to see people willingly refuse to acknowledge evidence when it is presented in favor of something that is purely mythical.

It's called 'faith' for a reason. Why should it bother you if people choose to believe something different?

Nedak
07-23-2009, 03:46 AM
It's called 'faith' for a reason. Why should it bother you if people choose to believe something different?

It doesn't bother me unless it hurts another person.

Which is what organized religion does.

Trench
07-23-2009, 03:57 AM
It doesn't bother me unless it hurts another person.

Which is what organized religion does.

Your placing all "religious' groups within the bunch of psychotic extremists.
We are not all like that, and anyone who is has a warped sense of perception and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with a real Christian.

Web Rider
07-23-2009, 04:32 AM
Your placing all "religious' groups within the bunch of psychotic extremists.
We are not all like that, and anyone who is has a warped sense of perception and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with a real Christian.

One does not need to be psychotic or an extremist to harm others. Harm does not only come in the form of physical violence. Take for example, Catholics on aid missions in Africa. As much as they want to stop the spread of AIDS, many are forbidden by their religion from giving out condoms. A simple and effective way to generally stop the spread of AIDS during intercourse.

These are generous, kind and overall, loving people, who are on the whole, blinded by their religion and not realizing the harm they're doing.

Totenkopf
07-23-2009, 04:39 AM
I thought someone already mentioned abiogenesis in this thread, somewhere... The theory of evolution does not try to explain the initial origin(s) of life. The origin of life is left in the realm of the ideas posed by abiogenesis.



Abiogenesis states in a nutshell, that life has the ability to simply "poof" into existence. It assumes that it just forms out of existing matter. It doesn't attempt to explain the origin of matter simply because that's not what it's supposed to do.


Which was essentially my point to Arc. Both theories only relate to the rise of living matter. In the end we're only left with two likely possibilities: matter and energy have always existed or God/gods.

Darth_Yuthura
07-23-2009, 07:43 AM
You so clueless you don't recognize a little levity? :rolleyes:

I asked a serious question: why? From what I've gathered, saying he 'weathered the Earth' is nothing more than a cheap way of explaining away all the evidence of its true age without any logic whatsoever as to why god did it.


And as I don't hold to the "theory of Creationism", we don't seem to have a real problem. As long as you recognize that Evolution theory is a WIP, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. :raise:

If you believe that god created the Earth and humans 10,000 years ago, then yes you do. You see this is why religion is so difficult; there's so much disarray that you can't determine if the other side knows what you're talking about, or if even they understand their own logic.

As I explained before, CREATIONISM relates to the origins of the universe or humans as being the result of divine creation RATHER THAN by natural processes. That is why you cannot have Creationism AND Evolution both exist simultaneously, because one directly counters the other. Get it right!

If in the event you simply are saying that 'Creation' as you call it is a possibility, I would rather say it's 'not an impossibility.' No matter how small it may be, it is not impossible that God exists. I admit that. Happy?

The problem with this argument is that some people are taking a lack of proof as cause to say 'disproven' and a WIP theory as grounds for not dispensing with something that is becoming increasingly unlikely. The more we know about the universe, the less likely it is that a supernatural being is responsible for everything.

Frankly, I make no claims of anything. The point is you mix up creationism (the fundamentalist biblical version) with the concept of a creator. That's all that's been pointed out to you from the beginning. If a God/god exists, who are you to define the method by which they would make or develop anything.
I don't state that God created the universe, merely consider that it's a possibility.

The whole God 'weathering the Earth to hide its age' is nothing beyond a circular argument. God can do anything so it doesn't matter that we can come to an alternate and natural conclusion that doesn't involve him at all.

Is it a possibility that he did create the universe? Yes, but given the lack of proof that he exists and the ever-growing wealth of knowledge that show that the Earth and humans came about naturally... it is becoming an increasingly unlikely outcome.

Given that we don't know where all the matter and energy in the universe comes from in the first place it would be extremely arrogant to think we can eliminate any possibilities that science can't disprove (For instance, we know that Superman is a modern human creation and therefore science knows---and can disprove--he created the universe....if anyone were willing to assert such a notion).

It'd be easier; Superman's origins are explained.

Then that brings up the next logical question: how did God come to exist? Now on top of figuring out where all the matter and energy originated, you now have to answer where God came from as well.

I'm afraid you have a reading comprehension problem if you're continuing to assert that I am anti-evolution. I've already stated that that is one method for explaining the diversty of how life around us has developed. Evolution, however, doesn't explain where everything came from though. That's still key. And the big weakness in your argument.

No, but you keep supporting an argument that's full of holes. And guess what, your argument has that very same weakness as evolution and is sorely lacking proof of any kind. If you're going to judge evolution so harshly, it's very hypocritical of you to not to judge your own argument by the same standards.

The idea that someone snapped their fingers and *poof* created humans and the Earth doesn't answer our origins, nor is it a theory. In order for that to work, you must first present something that proves it's possible. And according to the law of conservation of matter and energy, that cannot be done. No, we don't know where it all originally came from, but that is not the point of this thread.

Q
07-23-2009, 08:06 AM
I'm seeing a pattern, here. People keep telling you that their idea of Creation doesn't fit into the dogmatic, literal interpretation of the Bible, and yet, you keep ignoring them and continue to spam the same extremely narrow-minded and completely incorrect assumption over and over. :roleyess:
I say teach the controversy
You say that? Really?

Are you sure that you're not merely repeating it, because I find it hauntingly familiar. I swear that I've seen those exact three words somewhere around here... :snear:

Totenkopf
07-23-2009, 11:55 AM
@DY--I see no real point in continuing this discussion w/you b/c it's obvious that your inability to be able to disagree with others w/o taking it personally is clearly getting in the way. You demonstrated in various threads, including this one, that you don't bother to read carefully what you're responding to and proceed to set up a bunch of strawmen that, frankly, it doesn't matter whether you knock 'em down or not. Shadowboxing is about all it amounts to in the end. If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest you go back and read carefully and rethink your arguments. Otherwise, continue with the diatribes and scratch your head wondering wtf nobody "gets" you. Till then....

Quist
07-23-2009, 12:08 PM
Your placing all "religious' groups within the bunch of psychotic extremists.
We are not all like that, and anyone who is has a warped sense of perception and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with a real Christian.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

~ Mohandas Gandhi

Darth InSidious
07-23-2009, 12:39 PM
"It is the vague modern who is not at all certain what is right who is most certain that Dante was wrong. The serious opponent of the Latin Church in history, even in the act of showing that it produced great infamies, must know that it produced great saints. It is the hard-headed stockbroker, who knows no history and believes no religion, who is, nevertheless, perfectly convinced that all these priests are knaves." - G. K. Chesterton, Heretics, Concluding Remarks, 1905.

Darth_Yuthura
07-23-2009, 12:57 PM
@DY--I see no real point in continuing this discussion w/you b/c it's obvious that your inability to be able to disagree with others w/o taking it personally is clearly getting in the way.

Oh please, this is an online forum! People aren't going to change what they believe based on what they read off of a thread from people they've never met. I knew from the start that no one was going to sway their opinion about this subject, one way or another. If you or anyone else changed what we believed based on what I or anyone else presented, then it must not have been a highly-valued belief.

Shadowboxing is about all it amounts to in the end.

Very perceptive. That's about all that an online argument ever amounts to. I actually kept myself open to this topic, even though I didn't agree with it because I wanted to understand WHY others came to a different conclusion, but I just don't have the... faith to understand the other side in this case.

I actually asked you to clarify what I was getting wrong about creationism, but you did not give me a proper answer. You condemned me for something that went beyond the scope of the topic presented.

If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest you go back and read carefully and rethink your arguments. Otherwise, continue with the diatribes and scratch your head wondering wtf nobody "gets" you. Till then....

For the sake of it... I did that. I went back and evaluated what has already been stated.

I admit that I did not properly distinguish 'Creation' from 'Creationism' the first time I used either term. I have since the subject was brought up. I have since used Creationism in its proper context... despite what may be claimed. I can't address Totenkopf's issues because he has sought not to clarify what he wants... other than changing my argument to fit his sense of logic.

[/QUOTE]"It MUST be one or the other because creationism directly opposes anything that might be explained naturally."[/QUOTE] This is correct.

"Frankly, it's fatuous to claim that evolution and creation (not Creationism as we've already covered, afterall OEC doesn't really fly in the face of evolution like the YEC that gets anti-creationists all hot and bothered) are inherently incompatible." ~ This is also correct, but only because the term AND the outcome were altered.

And I am getting frustrated with the whole/creationism always being altered to another term that no one has bothered to properly define. I know the term I use, so don't proclaim I don't again.

mimartin
07-23-2009, 01:12 PM
People aren't going to change what they believe based on what they read off of a thread from people they've never met. . Darth_Yuthura – Why not use something like ~ Most people aren’t going to change what they believe based on what they read…” It paints you less in a corner and it gives people less opportunity to prove you wrong, because guess what? I’ve changed my mind based on what I read in this very forum. ET Warrior and Achilles proved me wrong and then got me to reexamine the facts and I change my perspective.

Q
07-23-2009, 01:26 PM
And I am getting frustrated with the whole/creationism always being altered to another term that no one has bothered to properly define. I know the term I use, so don't proclaim I don't again.
I'm sorry, but could you please state the law that dictates that my beliefs or anyone else's must conform to your strict definition? :dozey:

I must have missed it somewhere.

Darth_Yuthura
07-23-2009, 01:28 PM
Why not use something like ~ Most people aren’t going to change what they believe based on what they read…”

Thank-you... 'avoid using absolute statements whenever possible.'

I just wanted to emphasize that I don't expect for something like one's implicit beliefs to easily change under conditions like these. At best, maybe get people thinking; but I did not seek, nor expect to convince many to see things my way if they do not already do.

All I can do is give my input and try not to be hostile, otherwise I shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

I'm sorry, but could you please state the law that dictates that my beliefs or anyone else's must conform to your strict definition?

I'm not. Someone assumes I don't know what I'm talking about, but when I try to understand his perception of logic, he doesn't help much by saying I don't know wtf I'm talking about. Maybe he could instead explain why he thinks I'm wrong. I already know that he does, so saying the same thing again doesn't exactly clarify it any more than the first time.

I do recognize that he sought to not have evolution coined as fact and for 'creation' to be regarded as possible. I admitted that already. Now as for what I sought... which theory is backed by the most evidence. I've been burned for having 'flaws' in my debates, and now I want to address the flaws I see with the 'creation' theory.

Totenkopf
07-23-2009, 01:55 PM
Nobody's has said (at least not me) you should change your opinion or ideas b/c of something you've read online. Another example of a wtf statement on your part. Part of your problem is that you're ascribing beliefs to me that I haven't claimed. I've merely pointed out the difference and your error in language in assessing the subject, as well as pointing out your arrogant presumption on the subject about what is and what isn't possible. Also, you're equally wrong about the "scope issue". The OP asked what peoples' opinions about Tof E was and then proceeded to state he was a creationist. That leaves a lot of room for the discussion to to bounce around. You knee-jerked assumed I was a "creationist" of the fundamentalist type and proceeded to go on one of your rants.

I suspect your presumption about what is proper and not has deepened your confusion. All the more so since I clearly indicated to you that I don't hold myself bound to YEC. I further stipulated that I had no problem with the Theory of Evolution being taught in class......so long as it was made clear that it was a theory. I further said that Creationism had no place in the science classroom. So, I'm naturally baffled by your vehement disagreement and attempt to shoehorn me into something I'm not. If you are confused by the term creationism (which you apparently still seem to think amounts to "poof"), google it. YEC is incompatible with what we understand about evolution, OEC sidesteps that problem by incorporating it into its paradigm. You have failed (don't feel too bad, so has science in general) to prove that a concept of divine creation is inherently impossible, even incompatible, with T of E. You merely assert, by fiat apparently, that it's impossible. In a nutshell you offer the false dichotomy: God or evolution. Seems to me that if God does exist, then by definition such an entity could in fact use evolution as a tool for devloping His/It's creations. Like you, I don't know where it all comes from. Unlike you, apprently, I can admit it.

Arcesious
07-23-2009, 02:18 PM
Frankly, that's my point. Evolution as a theory dosen't remove the possibility of a creator from the equation. Even abiogenesis doesn't answer where all the life and matter/energy in the universe comes from. It too is a process that attempts to explain how living things came into being from inanimate matter, but fails to say where all the stuff came from in the first place. We may never (very likely in our lifetimes) have the answer to that question.

I suppose that, ultimately, it doesn't. But the thing is that the equation is already complete and functioning, and doesn't need anything else added into it for it to work. Abiogenesis is pure chemical reactions forming organic molecules. I'll say this next set of sentences hypothetically, since abiogenesis is just a bunch of ideas not irrefutably confirmed. Basically you have the basic compounds for life, starting out in one or several different hypothesized ideal environments suggested as possible starting points for abiogenesis. As anyone would well know, chemistry includes chain reactions among various elements and environmental stimuli. So you start out with the base elements of this planet's lifeforms - carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, etc, etc; as well as the conditions of pre-life Earth.

Considering this, these elements and compounds undergo chain reactions, and you get the first organic molecules. Eventually, if these molecules came into contact with each other, more chain reactiosn would occur. The hardest part in this is for the molecules to form in the first cells. I don't know much about that. But before evolution can begin, these cells have to become complex enough from chemical reactions in order to undergo the simplist possible processes of evolution. Again, not much is known at this point, and it's all hypothetical. But the matter of the fact is that it is possible for this to happen. This experiment is the most well known example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

There's also the Strecker synthesis and Butlerov's reaction to note.

Edit: My understanding of the formation of the first cells was incorrect/incomplete, considering this: http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/on_the_origin_of_cells.html

Which was essentially my point to Arc. Both theories only relate to the rise of living matter. In the end we're only left with two likely possibilities: matter and energy have always existed or God/gods.

Yes, but who knows? In the future, there may be a third or more possibilities besides these two. The problem is that a diety is a non-quantifiable equation, but we can quantify matter and energy and put them into equations that make sense and can consistently be tested and observed.

Edit: Still, I agree that the idea of a diety being part of the equation should be considered, for the sake or argument. However, not much will be gained by doing so, because the diety(s) that may or may not exist cannot be scientifically observed.

I will not say that it's impossible for a diety to be part of the equations here, but I am saying that it seems like a waste of time to put them into the equations because it won't contribute anything research-wise. All it would do is over-complicate everything. It's like trying to fix something that doesn't need to be fixed.



You say that? Really?

Are you sure that you're not merely repeating it, because I find it hauntingly familiar. I swear that I've seen those exact three words somewhere around here... :snear:

Yes, I'm repeating it. I can understand what you mean here though. I'm not meaning to plagerize whomever first said it. But I suppose I may unintentionally have done so. The phrase 'teach the controversy' just seemed to fit well to say what I wanted to say in my post. Ironically, after looking it up, I've found that the phrase actually originated as the name of a Discovery Institute campaign to promote intelligent design and discredit evolution.

The controversy I meant to refer to was weather or not to teach about the theorized evolution of humans in the classroom.

I'll have to try to be more careful with what phrases I use, lest I encounter an irony like this again.

"It is the vague modern who is not at all certain what is right who is most certain that Dante was wrong. The serious opponent of the Latin Church in history, even in the act of showing that it produced great infamies, must know that it produced great saints. It is the hard-headed stockbroker, who knows no history and believes no religion, who is, nevertheless, perfectly convinced that all these priests are knaves." - G. K. Chesterton, Heretics, Concluding Remarks, 1905.

Yes, I agree that people have done great things because of their religious beleifs. Which is why I haven't debated religion itself in this thread. I don't want to accidentally generalize and commit the logical fallacy of 'guilty by association'.

Totenkopf
07-23-2009, 02:31 PM
Yes, but who knows? In the future, there may be a third or more possibilities besides these two. The problem is that a diety is a non-quantifiable equation, but we can quantify matter and energy and put them into equations that make sense and can consistently be tested and observed.
Yes, I'm repeating it. I can understand what you mean here though. I'm not meaning to plagerize whomever first said it. But I suppose I may unintentionally have done so. The phrase 'teach the controversy' just seemed to fit well to say what I wanted to say in my post. Ironically, after looking it up, I've found that the phrase actually originated as the name of a Discovery Institute campaign to promote intelligent design and discredit evolution.
The controversy I meant to refer to was weather or not to teach about the theorized evolution of humans in the classroom.
I'll have to try to more careful with what phrases I use, lest I encounter an irony like this again.

Well, I suspect that everything will ultimatley boil down to either of those 2 in the end. As to the "teach the controversy" bit, I wasn't saying don't teach the "controversy", I said don't teach it as fact. It's a fine theory as things go, and may ultimately prove to be a fact....just not quite yet.

Darth_Yuthura
07-23-2009, 02:44 PM
You merely assert, by fiat apparently, that it's impossible. In a nutshell you offer the false dichotomy: God or evolution. Seems to me that if God does exist, then by definition such an entity could in fact use evolution as a tool for devloping His/It's creations.

In regards to that last statement... that's not creationism. No, I'm not going even further in that direction. In that being stated, I would not have ranted about you being for creationism because that assumes that evolution took place. When you started injecting about god starting evolution on its course, then humans are not his creations. They are merely secondary products of evolution... of which we do not know where it all began.

Another example of a wtf statement on your part. Part of your problem is that you're ascribing beliefs to me that I haven't claimed. I've merely pointed out the difference and your error in language in assessing the subject, as well as pointing out your arrogant presumption on the subject about what is and what isn't possible.

Well I defined creationism and made it clear that it either is that or evolution. You said I was mistaken... I wasn't. I did not say that evolution means there is no god; I said that with evolution disproves creationism.

-If evolution began naturally (or because of god doesn't matter) so long as it is assumed we evolved over millions of years.

-It's only when people assume God created Earth 10,000 years ago... evolution did not take place and it that is creationism.

I think you didn't articulate what was saying, assuming I got something wrong, that you stepped in and made 'corrections,' not knowing that it disrupted the point I was trying to make.

Evolution vs. Creationism = Only one can be correct
Evolution being the result of a creation of god ≠ Creationism

Does this clarify things?

You have failed (don't feel too bad, so has science in general) to prove that a concept of divine creation is inherently impossible, even incompatible, with T of E. You merely assert, by fiat apparently, that it's impossible.

Well it's not as though religion has done any better and has in fact slowed down our search for the truth in the past. No, science can't disprove divine creation; but it also can't disprove that I'm a god in human form who took corporeal form to communicate with humans.

Sounds ridiculous, as intended, but that could be just as difficult to disprove as a religion that millions believe in. So a lack of evidence is not really grounds for anything beyond the scale of one's imagination.

Jae Onasi
07-23-2009, 04:21 PM
Keep it civil, folks. There's no need to make personal attacks or snarky statements, and the staff has noticed an increase in both in this thread. This is one subject that can get really heated, and I would urge all of you to take the time to make your responses as respectful as possible so that your points are communicated without the distraction of flaming of trolling. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Here's the issue: There are different philosophies of creation, just like there are different philosophies within evolution, so you can't put this into either 'young-earth creationism', which I think Darth_Yuthura is thinking here, or 'strict' evolution.
There is strict non-deistic macroevolution, non-deistic microevolution, theistic evolution, progressive creationism (similar to theistic evolution but without transitional species, since there are no fossil records of transitional species), literal six-day old-earth creationism, and literal six-day new-earth creationism, and permutations of all those in between, and this isn't even addressing creation philosophies from other religions.

All of these will always be theories. Why? We can't go back in time to see how it really happened to prove which theory is correct. Anyone who says any of these theories is 'fact' would be incorrect.

Bimmerman
07-23-2009, 04:46 PM
Here's the issue: There are different philosophies of creation, just like there are different philosophies within evolution, so you can't put this into either 'young-earth creationism', which I think Darth_Yuthura is thinking here, or 'strict' evolution.
There is strict non-deistic macroevolution, non-deistic microevolution, theistic evolution, progressive creationism (similar to theistic evolution but without transitional species, since there are no fossil records of transitional species), literal six-day old-earth creationism, and literal six-day new-earth creationism, and permutations of all those in between, and this isn't even addressing creation philosophies from other religions.

All of these will always be theories. Why? We can't go back in time to see how it really happened to prove which theory is correct. Anyone who says any of these theories is 'fact' would be incorrect.

Very well said. There are many different interpretations, viewpoints, and opinions on all sides of this debate. What I don't understand is how some people aren't capable of realizing there is a difference between believing in creationism of some kind and being a Christian (for the record, not that it should matter to this debate but yet somehow it does, I'm....going to let you come to your own conclusions on what I hold to be true). Christianity is hardly the only religion that has a creation myth or story. Hell, they're hardly the only group! Native Americans have a creation story, Christianity has one, the Mayans and Aztecs have/had one, Hindus have one, and though I haven't heard one, I'm sure the eastern religions do. The only difference though, is that the other creation myths aren't foisted on society as literal truth like the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim one is. Just because most people believe it doesn't make it right...and that applies to science as well as matters of faith.

Since there are many interpretations and theories behind Evolution, and literally thousands of creation myths, who is to say which is right among any of them? Is some arrogant blowhard like Richard Dawkins more correct than someone like James Dobson since he worships at the altar of Science instead of the altar of Jesus? Um...no. Neither, honestly, are credible, and are really just a waste of space, text, and air. That may have been a bit harsh, but the extremes on both sides could learn a lot from one another, and would do well to tone down their obscenely self-serving and hypocritical rhetoric.

"It is the vague modern who is not at all certain what is right who is most certain that Dante was wrong. The serious opponent of the Latin Church in history, even in the act of showing that it produced great infamies, must know that it produced great saints. It is the hard-headed stockbroker, who knows no history and believes no religion, who is, nevertheless, perfectly convinced that all these priests are knaves." - G. K. Chesterton, Heretics, Concluding Remarks, 1905.

Very good quote. I find too many people nowadays have no grounding in history, which seriously weakens any argument they try to make. Understanding history reveals insight into why things are the way they are, what happened back when, the formative moments behind X, and how especially mythology, religions, language, science, and math (among others, naturally) have changed and shifted and morphed through the decades. It really troubles me how few people have any notion of history.


As for evolution vs creationism, as I've said previously, I have no problem with people believing what they want. I may not agree, but that's my and your right. What I don't agree with is 'teaching the controversy' side by side in a science classroom. From a scientific standpoint, there is no controversy, so myths and religion should be taught in their respective classroom. Also, if one truly is to teach creation, it should compromise all the different myths from different cultures fairly and neutrally, not just the Christian/Jewish/Muslim one.

Darth_Yuthura
07-23-2009, 04:51 PM
literal six-day old-earth creationism, and literal six-day new-earth creationism, and permutations of all those in between, and this isn't even addressing creation philosophies from other religions.

All of these will always be theories.

Sorry, but those are not theories. What you speak of have never gone beyond hypothesis. The Theory of evolution is such because there is evidence to support it. That evidence doesn't prove it to be fact, but it shows there's more to it than just a guess.

As for virtually all the religious creation scenarios, none can go beyond 'hypothesis' without evidence. And there often is a substancial amount of counter evidence that maybe doesn't exactly disprove anything, but certainly doesn't support the supernatural.

Darth Avlectus
07-23-2009, 10:21 PM
It does not. People who say it does do not understand it. Which is why Evolution vs Creation arguments boil down to nonsense. Because we end up arguing apples and oranges.

This is very true. Probably is reason for why people are finding crosses between the two instead of opposition as previously accepted by both sides.

Which, like evolution, isn't it's point. Abiogenesis states in a nutshell, that life has the ability to simply "poof" into existence. It assumes that it just forms out of existing matter. It doesn't attempt to explain the origin of matter simply because that's not what it's supposed to do.
It takes for granted what is happening has always happened, and always will.
This is an opening door (one of probably several I don't know of yet) for the philosophy of existentialism. Existentialism to the best I can tell is the belief that what is happening has always happened and will always happen. Just simply is, no why or how. Which is fine until under sway of this theory, one begins to preach questioning, objectivity, and skepticism.

What I find ironic, is that many (young) investigative and questioning minds subscribe to it. At least I notice this in universities and community colleges. This is the one thing they won't question and just accept like a postulate. Then again, I keep hearing that scientific minds ask how but are unconcerned with why.


One does not need to be psychotic or an extremist to harm others.

Actually, isn't there some kind of saying that the only thing needed for evil men to succeed, is for good men men to do nothing?

For those who do not believe in good and evil replace:
evil men with men of folly
good men with men of merit
etc.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

~ Mohandas Gandhi

Actually, that is a good point. Part of what makes christianity so unbelieveable is the unbelievability of it when people claim to it in the home and yet willfully tosses aside the virtues of it in the way they live outside home or church. I realize not everyone is perfect, though. Still imperfection is not an excuse to not strive.

Sorry, but those are not theories. What you speak of have never gone beyond hypothesis. The Theory of evolution is such because there is evidence to support it. That evidence doesn't prove it to be fact, but it shows there's more to it than just a guess.

As for virtually all the religious creation scenarios, none can go beyond 'hypothesis' without evidence. And there often is a substancial amount of counter evidence that maybe doesn't exactly disprove anything, but certainly doesn't support the supernatural.

So then, what, DY? Are you insinuating it is absolutely false or at least of lesser credibility? (You wouldn't say this in opposition to merely point this out.)

Totenkopf
07-23-2009, 11:48 PM
In regards to that last statement... that's not creationism. No, I'm not going even further in that direction. In that being stated, I would not have ranted about you being for creationism because that assumes that evolution took place. When you started injecting about god starting evolution on its course, then humans are not his creations. They are merely secondary products of evolution... of which we do not know where it all began.

Hmm...I think the emboldened section below is where your wires are getting crossed.


I don't wish to insult someone for believing a god, but I just cannot comprehend how people who've accepted evolution could still believe in creation. I could believe someone who brings up something very peculiar that isn't explained by evolution, such as a fossil that doesn't conform to any organisms that existed at the time period it was found. Sentience is even something that I could believe went beyond evolution.




Well I defined creationism and made it clear that it either is that or evolution. You said I was mistaken... I wasn't. I did not say that evolution means there is no god; I said that with evolution disproves creationism.
-If evolution began naturally (or because of god doesn't matter) so long as it is assumed we evolved over millions of years.
-It's only when people assume God created Earth 10,000 years ago... evolution did not take place and it that is creationism.
I think you didn't articulate what was saying, assuming I got something wrong, that you stepped in and made 'corrections,' not knowing that it disrupted the point I was trying to make.
Evolution vs. Creationism = Only one can be correct
Evolution being the result of a creation of god ≠ Creationism
Does this clarify things?


You reference both creation and Creationism throughout and reject both. I granted early on that "Creationism" was incompatible with what we know and believe about T of E. Also stated that I didn't hold to Creationism. It is your apparent unintentional conflation of the two concepts that has led us to this point. I said you were mistaken in your absolute assertion that T of E was in effect indisputable fact and that there were effectively no alternatives. I never said, as you contend, that Creationism (ie YEC) was compatible with T of E.

Also, at the risk of upsetting you here, you're incorrect in asserting that if God did set evolution into play that man would not be a creation of his. If God did use evolution to unfold life as we know it, then all things natural are his creation.


Well it's not as though religion has done any better and has in fact slowed down our search for the truth in the past. No, science can't disprove divine creation; but it also can't disprove that I'm a god in human form who took corporeal form to communicate with humans.
Sounds ridiculous, as intended, but that could be just as difficult to disprove as a religion that millions believe in. So a lack of evidence is not really grounds for anything beyond the scale of one's imagination.

Not sure what your point here is as I wasn't defending religion.:raise:

Darth_Yuthura
07-24-2009, 01:41 AM
Also, at the risk of upsetting you here, you're incorrect in asserting that if God did set evolution into play that man would not be a creation of his. If God did use evolution to unfold life as we know it, then all things natural are his creation.

No.

It would be like giving your grandfather credit for what your father/mother did in raising you. The grandfather could take credit for raising their son/daughter properly, but anything the son/daughter did on their own goes to their actions. You cannot say that God created humans if he actually didn't. You can proclaim that through evolution, creation(s) of god culminated to what are now humans. If he didn't create humans if evolution was the cause for our existence.


Not sure what your point here is as I wasn't defending religion.

Right, then what were you doing? It wasn't limited solely to declaring evolution wasn't fact; I can say that much.

The church and science are highly biassed towards one another; that I would agree on. The difference between the two is that science is an intellectual process where as religion is fictional/historical and not bound by any rules or regulations. You can't mix the two, so it's best not to even try.

It is your apparent unintentional conflation of the two concepts that has led us to this point. I said you were mistaken in your absolute assertion that T of E was in effect indisputable fact and that there were effectively no alternatives.


No that isn't so, but I see no point in debating *this* now. You're going to say I hadn't the vaguest idea what I meant. I'm going to keep saying you assumed something and altered exactly what I intended to what you wanted instead.

Totenkopf
07-24-2009, 03:32 AM
It would be like giving your grandfather credit for what your father/mother did in raising you. The grandfather could take credit for raising their son/daughter properly, but anything the son/daughter did on their own goes to their actions. You cannot say that God created humans if he actually didn't. You can proclaim that through evolution, creation(s) of god culminated to what are now humans. If he didn't create humans if evolution was the cause for our existence.

Nice try, but wrong. More akin to me creating automated machinery to mass produce robots and then turning on a switch. I created the robots as well as the machinery.



Right, then what were you doing? It wasn't limited solely to declaring evolution wasn't fact; I can say that much.

Sticking a pin in your pretensions, perhaps. :xp: You were pontificating about what is/is not possible. You clearly don't have sufficient authority to rule anything out as you're merely human like the rest of us. As you acknowledged to mimartin, perhaps steering clear of absolute statements will cause you less headaches.



The church and science are highly biassed towards one another; that I would agree on. The difference between the two is that science is an intellectual process where as religion is fictional/historical and not bound by any rules or regulations. You can't mix the two, so it's best not to even try.

Relevancy?


No that isn't so, but I see no point in debating *this* now. You're going to say I hadn't the vaguest idea what I meant. I'm going to keep saying you assumed something and altered exactly what I intended to what you wanted instead.

Unfortunately for you it is the case and has been illustrated w/your own words. But perhaps we can just drop this and agree to disagree about where each of us think the other erred. Consider your own words before bothering to address this particular point again. Lest we engage in a "circular argument" of our own. ;)

Darth_Yuthura
07-24-2009, 09:36 AM
Nice try, but wrong. More akin to me creating automated machinery to mass produce robots and then turning on a switch. I created the robots as well as the machinery.

I don't see the metaphor. The universe isn't the same from one moment to the next. It is very dynamic and not a self-perpetuated and predictable machine producing exactly what you want, as you are suggesting. If I decided to go out and commit mass murder just to prove my point, I control my own actions... not god. That being so, I and everyone else fall outside the realm of what God is responsible for.

If God's responsibility ended with human actions...

If an animal changed its behavior because of human activity, then you should take that into account as to how our actions... assuming God wanted us to be more than drones... will affect the rest of nature as god didn't intend. That goes to show that we have free will and that humans can and do impact the galaxy in a way that god did not intend.

Unless god stepped in to facilitate the process of evolution, I really don't see how humans could be considered his creation. I still believe they are a creation of nature, as god didn't create us as he did in the bible. I can't explain the origins of life or the universe, but I hope we eventually find the answers to those questions.


Sticking a pin in your pretensions, perhaps. :xp: You were pontificating about what is/is not possible. You clearly don't have sufficient authority to rule anything out as you're merely human like the rest of us. As you acknowledged to mimartin, perhaps steering clear of absolute statements will cause you less headaches.

Go back and REREAD what I said. I used that absolute statement properly. I said Evolution and Creationism cannot both be right because one directly defeats the other. I did not (in fact I left open the possibility that God was involved) say that the acceptance of evolution meant that god didn't exist.

Would you say this is inaccurate?

Darth Avlectus
07-24-2009, 12:19 PM
Sure, the theories do defeat one another, largely. I wouldn't say absolutely, though. I think most people who accept evolution as a tool for creationism are of the mind that creation fills in the blanks of evolutionary theory. Least that's what I got from people who can make sense out of both.

I'm just stating generally what I see. However, don't anyone let me speak for you: if you have it different, certainly say something.

It's largely a "Chicken or Egg;Which came first?" argument for what was the beginning if there was one (Existentialists don't believe there ever was). Creating beings that will evolve? Well, I'd say evolution is an extension of creation in that case, no? I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my brain around how the 2 are absolutely exclusive of each another...

Jae Onasi
07-24-2009, 12:57 PM
I just don't see them as incompatible--the Bible says in the beginning God created light (Big Bang), along the way God created the sun, moon, earth (other stars, planets, etc., not inconsistent with our knowledge of cosmology), separated the land from the sea (development of our planet), made vegetation, animals, fish, and other living things (but doesn't describe HOW it's done--evolution could easily fit in here), and then made humans (not inconsistent with evolution--we're one of the latest to be made in the food chain).

What parts specifically are incompatible, keeping in mind that Genesis is not a science book, but rather an account of how God's developed His relationship with humans?

The Catholic church, which has the largest number of Christians in the world, has acknowledged evolution is not incompatible and has even apologized for its treatment of Galileo. If you're seeing evolution as incompatible with YEC, I'll agree with you on that, but otherwise I'm missing the incompatibilities you're describing.

Darth_Yuthura
07-24-2009, 02:59 PM
It's largely a "Chicken or Egg;Which came first?" argument for what was the beginning if there was one (Existentialists don't believe there ever was). Creating beings that will evolve? Well, I'd say evolution is an extension of creation in that case, no? I guess I'm just having a hard time wrapping my brain around how the 2 are absolutely exclusive of each another...

Well if you really want a logical answer to that, it was the egg. Of course it wasn't literally as such, because proto-organisms lacked many of the qualities of organisms we know today. It was a very gradual transition which likely yielded things that couldn't reproduce, but that they formed from primordial reactions of chemicals and eventually there came a point when single celled organisms could sustain themselves and reproduce on their own... in theory. Not fact.

Sure, the theories do defeat one another, largely. I wouldn't say absolutely, though. I think most people who accept evolution as a tool for creationism are of the mind that creation fills in the blanks of evolutionary theory. Least that's what I got from people who can make sense out of both.

I can understand people using religion to fill the holes of what they don't know, but what you use to fill those holes shouldn't be treated the same as theories such as evolution. You can say there's a god if that's what you want to believe, but people should recognize that what you use to fill those holes may not be the same from one person to the next. You can show fossils and geographic records as evidence which others can't dispute. They can dispute the theories about how they came to be, but can't deny that the fossils exist.

Ping
07-24-2009, 03:38 PM
I just don't see them as incompatible--the Bible says in the beginning God created light (Big Bang), along the way God created the sun, moon, earth (other stars, planets, etc., not inconsistent with our knowledge of cosmology), separated the land from the sea (development of our planet), made vegetation, animals, fish, and other living things (but doesn't describe HOW it's done--evolution could easily fit in here), and then made humans (not inconsistent with evolution--we're one of the latest to be made in the food chain).

What parts specifically are incompatible, keeping in mind that Genesis is not a science book, but rather an account of how God's developed His relationship with humans?

The Catholic church, which has the largest number of Christians in the world, has acknowledged evolution is not incompatible and has even apologized for its treatment of Galileo. If you're seeing evolution as incompatible with YEC, I'll agree with you on that, but otherwise I'm missing the incompatibilities you're describing.

Those are my feelings on evolution/creation. I mean, I believe in evolution, but creationism had to come in somewhere, otherwise it probably wouldn't be written down as such.

Darth_Yuthura
07-24-2009, 04:36 PM
Those are my feelings on evolution/creation. I mean, I believe in evolution, but creationism had to come in somewhere, otherwise it probably wouldn't be written down as such.

'Creationism' is not properly used here. It is a belief, not an act. That belief revolves around the universe having been created by act of divine creation (I know it sounds identical, but it's not) rather than through nature or evolution. What you probably mean is that evolution took place following an act taken by God started it all in motion.

What you speak of is not creationism. Is it that you believe in god, but that his divine creations were our genetic ancestors and not humans?

Samuel Dravis
07-24-2009, 04:49 PM
The term creationism is not limited in its use to those who believe that God created humans "ready-made." Broadly it denotes anyone who believes that the universe was the creative act of a God, regardless of any particular mode of creation. Anyone who believes this, theistic evolutionists included, are creationists, although they are not necessarily "young earth creationists."

Jae Onasi
07-24-2009, 04:53 PM
'Creationism' is not properly used here. It is a belief, not an act. That belief revolves around the universe having been created by act of divine creation (I know it sounds identical, but it's not) rather than through nature or evolution. What you probably mean is that evolution took place following an act taken by God started it all in motion.

What you speak of is not creationism. Is it that you believe in god, but that his divine creations were our genetic ancestors and not humans?You're thinking deistic evolution here--God set the clock in motion and let it go. Progressive creationism theorizes that God created each species separately in a guided process, albeit over a long period of time and in a pattern that we see in the fossil record. The distinction is subtle.

Darth_Yuthura
07-24-2009, 05:01 PM
The term creationism is not limited in its use to those who believe that God created humans "ready-made." Broadly it denotes anyone who believes that the universe was the creative act of a God, regardless of any particular mode of creation. Anyone who believes this, theistic evolutionists included, are creationists, although they are not necessarily "young earth creationists."

If that's so, then what's the point of this thread? You might as well have just called it "Does god exist or not?" If he did, then it really doesn't matter... an omnipotent being could just as easily have created the universe as it was 10 billion years ago, or as it is now. The 'young earth creationism' is just as plausible as any other hypothesis that he initiated the big bang.

You're thinking deistic evolution here--God set the clock in motion and let it go. Progressive creationism theorizes that God created each species separately in a guided process, albeit over a long period of time and in a pattern that we see in the fossil record. The distinction is subtle.

That doesn't make sense. If he just wanted to create humans in his own form, then why did he create so much else on top of it all? It wouldn't have made much difference to us if the billions of other stars in the universe never existed. He'd just have to throw in a few bits of heavier elements from now-dead stars into the solar system for the same results.

It's obvious where I stand in this, but I really dislike how evidence can be dismissed or integrated as desired with virtually any hypothesis. Evolution... god projected it would amount to humans. Young earth... God had the means to make the world look much older than it actually is. 'Let there be light'... could be the big bang. Any indiscrepancies in the bible is explained by humans misinterpreting god's words.

I am biased towards religion, yes; but it's because these are simple answers that have no proof. All of which depend upon whether God is omnipotent or if there is a natural explanation for it all. Just because we don't know the answers yet doesn't exactly mean we should assume it's supernatural until the scientific method disproves it. Something that is unknown should be regarded as unknown until proven otherwise. Science should be setting out to find out what remains unknown; not having to disprove something like religion as well. Although POSSIBLE, the supernatural is as yet only a human-generated concept.

Jae Onasi
07-24-2009, 05:02 PM
The point of this thread from the OP's point of view was to discuss who believed what and why. ;)

Samuel Dravis
07-24-2009, 05:12 PM
If that's so, then what's the point of this thread? You might as well have just called it "Does god exist or not?" If he did, then it really doesn't matter... an omnipotent being could just as easily have created the universe as it was 10 billion years ago, or as it is now. The 'young earth creationism' is just as plausible as any other hypothesis that he initiated the big bang.If by, "just as plausible" you mean, "have no differentiable physical evidence for either idea" then yes, that's quite true. You'll remember that neither idea is scientific theory but religious mythology. But the debate in theological circles seems to be whether one idea or another is compatible in with God's nature, and there is room for discussion there.

An example of an argument on this is just that creating everything ex nihilo five minutes ago, even people's memories, is incompatible with the idea that God cannot deceive. Additionally, the idea that God created people with the capacity for reasoning implies that he would not purposefully steer our reasoning wrongly by presenting a situation in which we could not possibly utilize it, etc. So you see, some ideas are not quite so plausible as others.

Darth_Yuthura
07-24-2009, 05:31 PM
So you see, some ideas are not quite so plausible as others.

Correction: It is within God's means, assuming he's omnipotent, to reasonably assume he either used creationism or evolution to produce humans.

Web Rider
07-24-2009, 05:58 PM
An example of an argument on this is just that creating everything ex nihilo five minutes ago, even people's memories, is incompatible with the idea that God cannot deceive. Additionally, the idea that God created people with the capacity for reasoning implies that he would not purposefully steer our reasoning wrongly by presenting a situation in which we could not possibly utilize it, etc. So you see, some ideas are not quite so plausible as others.

If God cannot deceive, then he is not God. If God simply chooses not to deceive, then we have no assurance that he will never deceive. And if He did, He's God, so it really doesn't matter because He probably did it well enough so that we'd all buy it.

A lower probability does not make it safe to assume the situation did not happen. Just because I have a 1 in a billion chance to be struck by a meteor, does not mean that it can't happen.

Q
07-24-2009, 06:14 PM
He can deceive, alright.

He wasn't being honest with Abraham when he told him to sacrifice Isaac to him.

Samuel Dravis
07-24-2009, 06:27 PM
If God cannot deceive, then he is not God. If God simply chooses not to deceive, then we have no assurance that he will never deceive. And if He did, He's God, so it really doesn't matter because He probably did it well enough so that we'd all buy it.There may exist some conception of God such that he can lie in that way. Typically, however, I think of God's abilities as rather Catholic in character, hence my examples. Given that it'd be a fallacy to swap ideas of God mid-argument, it's possible to argue a point one way or another for a particular concept of God.

A lower probability does not make it safe to assume the situation did not happen. Just because I have a 1 in a billion chance to be struck by a meteor, does not mean that it can't happen.Indeed. Which is why more formal arguments generally depend on logical necessity; e.g., God could not lie, etc., could not act evilly, could not "decide on" moral law. Such arguments are possible only because the issue is conceptual and not empirical. As I said to Darth Yuthura, it's a discussion on religious mythology, not empirical facts.

Correction: It is within God's means, assuming he's omnipotent, to reasonably assume he either used creationism or evolution to produce humans.I thought I had just explained that, under some concepts of God, the two options as you have given them do not exist.

Darth_Yuthura
07-24-2009, 07:24 PM
If by, "just as plausible" you mean, "have no differentiable physical evidence for either idea" then yes, that's quite true.

Huh?

There is physical evidence to show that evolution not only is very possible in its own right, but can be explained by the forces of nature alone. As for the origins of matter and energy... still working on that. In fact the majority of evidence I've seen that go into such theories make just as much sense with or without god thrown into the mix. If the existence of god doesn't seem to impact the theory, then why even replace 'unknown' with 'act of god' I'm more comfortable knowing something has yet to be determined than to assume that everything we can't *yet* explain has to be supernatural.


I thought I had just explained that, under some concepts of God, the two options as you have given them do not exist.

So is god NOT omnipotent? The only way it would not be within his means is if there is something he can't do. If there's something he can't do, he's not omnipotent.

I'm not trying to clash swords again... I just don't understand why you're making such a big deal out of this.

Samuel Dravis
07-24-2009, 07:33 PM
I was referring to the ideas present in the post of yours that I was replying to: creationism in the sense of the-world-was-made-five-minutes-ago and theistic evolution. Obviously there is no way to distinguish between them using physical evidence, but I don't consider that a problem for the reasons I gave.

So is god NOT omnipotent? The only way it would not be within his means is if there is something he can't do. If there's something he can't do, he's not omnipotent.

I'm not trying to clash swords again... I just don't understand why you're making such a big deal out of this.I merely pointed out that you seem to be using a quite definite concept of God as if it were the only possible one, which it simply isn't. A great deal of people believe in a God who created evolution to produce people (again, a Catholic view). It's not necessarily an either-or question. You'll notice this point is not related to whether God is omnipotent or not.

As for whether God can do something nonsensical: well, my favorite quote on that is this one from C.S. Lewis: "Nonsense is nonsense, even if we speak it of God." It is not that God "cannot do" anything nonsensical (as if he were being prevented from doing something); it's that there is literally no action that is described by nonsense, and so there is nothing for him to do. So, for example, saying that "God can't do evil things" imposes no limitations on his omnipotence.

Darth_Yuthura
07-24-2009, 08:54 PM
I was referring to the ideas present in the post of yours that I was replying to: creationism in the sense of the-world-was-made-five-minutes-ago and theistic evolution. Obviously there is no way to distinguish between them using physical evidence, but I don't consider that a problem for the reasons I gave.

:argh: Yes, god could just as easily have created humans on the Moon. It wouldn't explain how humans could live in a vacuum, bombarded by radiation, where you burn up or freeze in sunlight and shadow. We obviously couldn't have originated there naturally, but God could have done it. Humans originating from the Moon would be next to impossible in nature, which would make creationism a fairly reasonable explanation for such an occurrence.

No, we actually originated from Earth, where everything that we needed to live and evolve can be explained as a natural occurrence. Nothing absolutely defies logic if we collected ALL the evidence towards any mystery.

Here's an example of what I mean.

Exotic terrain: there are fossil remains of tropical organisms that have been found in Idaho... in a temperate zone. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever, so how did they get there? Does that mean we should assume the only way for the impossible to happen is that God created them in Idaho? OR Assume that the organisms lived near the equator when they lived and the fossil remains had been moved to where they are today.

It turned out that those organisms had lived on a continental plate near the equator and that the drift theory lead them to conclude that it was carried north to where it is now. This used to be a very perplexing mystery, but with the introduction of the tectonic theory, it is quite clear how tropical fossils could exist in a temperate zone.

-------

What is my point here?

Everything about the earth and galaxy can be understood, so long as you find the evidence you need to make a reasonable conclusion. There are no mysteries in nature that are unsolvable. If there were, it would give credit to the creationist theory. But since it seems that everything in nature can be explanated... providing you find the evidence... what is to make people think that we can't discover the answer to our origins in nature? If we can, then would it be fair to say that god may never have existed after all?

Samuel Dravis
07-24-2009, 09:10 PM
.....

Everything about the earth and galaxy can be understood, so long as you find the evidence you need to make a reasonable conclusion. There are no mysteries in nature that are unsolvable. If there were, it would give credit to the creationist theory. But since it seems that everything in nature can be explanated... providing you find the evidence... what is to make people think that we can't discover the answer to our origins in nature? If we can, then it means that god really may not have actually existed beyond an idea created by humans.I explicitly told you that we were discussing religious mythology in my second reply to you in this thread. I'm not sure why you insist on taking this mythology as if it was scientific theory, but I think that doing so is misguided. Muddling distinctions is a sure route to confusion in this matter.

Darth_Yuthura
07-24-2009, 09:30 PM
Who's 'we'? The thread aims to ask people what they believe and why. I think that I bring up a valid point when it comes to the credibility of alternate theories.

The existence of God is essentially a circular argument whereas evolution has physical backing. There are different theories of evolution, but the physical evidence exists that show organisms that have changed and adapted, taking on traits from their ancestor species.

God as of yet exists only as an idea. The evidence that he exists is easy; we're surrounded by it. Proof that ties all that evidence to the making of the universe happening because of him... now that's hard.

My reason for believing in evolution has been made quite clear, so I won't say it again.

Samuel Dravis
07-24-2009, 09:41 PM
I suppose one can believe whatever one wants to. But that doesn't mean that it's justifiable to conflate two very different systems like religion's mythological explanations with scientific explanations. It just means one has decided to do so.

It doesn't seem as if there was much left to discuss on the subject, then...

Jae Onasi
07-24-2009, 09:46 PM
We've now established that Darth_Yuthura and Samuel Dravis are apparently talking about two different things. On we go with the thread.

@Darth_Yuthura--when you have the science to disprove God created the entire universe (note that the laws of science/physics break down at the point the Big Bang actually happens, so science _can't_ prove that), please let me know. I'll view that finding with great interest.

Darth_Yuthura
07-24-2009, 10:06 PM
@Darth_Yuthura--when you have the science to disprove God created the entire universe (note that the laws of science/physics break down at the point the Big Bang actually happens, so science _can't_ prove that), please let me know. I'll view that finding with great interest.

Yes, the laws of physics change, but we can evaluate how they change already. We've barely brushed the surface so to speak, but we are trying to simulate the origins of the universe.

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

'God' Particles:

http://feww.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/god-particle/

http://today.brown.edu/articles/2008/09/hadron-collider

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/09/10/2008-09-10_were_still_here_largest_particle_collide.html

All of these are in regards to the massive particle accelerator in Switzerland that has been yielding some interesting results. Note that these sites are not going to provide much more than what news sources say, but it goes to show that the big bang isn't something science can't answer. You used the ever-frustrating 'impossible' in your statement, so just be aware of it. As in "science can't prove that."

----------

Now I have a counter request: when you have the proof to show me that God was responsible for the big bang, I'd be interested in that. Whether God exists still remains unknown.

Q
07-24-2009, 10:14 PM
Trying to prove or disprove God's existence is a fool's errand.

Are you done hijacking this thread yet?

Darth_Yuthura
07-24-2009, 11:26 PM
*Steps aside and gestures others to resume*

It never was my expectation to sway anyone's beliefs in all this, as I hadn't a stake in any of it one way or another.

Q
07-24-2009, 11:29 PM
You could've fooled me.

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-24-2009, 11:30 PM
i am with yuo 110% darth yuthura

Jae Onasi
07-24-2009, 11:37 PM
Let's not turn this into a theism/atheism debate--we have a few threads for that discussion already. Thanks.

Totenkopf
07-25-2009, 04:02 AM
I don't see the metaphor. The universe isn't the same from one moment to the next. It is very dynamic and not a self-perpetuated and predictable machine producing exactly what you want, as you are suggesting. If I decided to go out and commit mass murder just to prove my point, I control my own actions... not god. That being so, I and everyone else fall outside the realm of what God is responsible for.

If God's responsibility ended with human actions...

If an animal changed its behavior because of human activity, then you should take that into account as to how our actions... assuming God wanted us to be more than drones... will affect the rest of nature as god didn't intend. That goes to show that we have free will and that humans can and do impact the galaxy in a way that god did not intend.

Unless god stepped in to facilitate the process of evolution, I really don't see how humans could be considered his creation. I still believe they are a creation of nature, as god didn't create us as he did in the bible. I can't explain the origins of life or the universe, but I hope we eventually find the answers to those questions.

You are misunderstanding. I'm not saying God is responsible for our actions nor suggesting that the world is merely static. You claimed:

You cannot say that God created humans if he actually didn't. You can proclaim that through evolution, creation(s) of god culminated to what are now humans. If he didn't create humans if evolution was the cause for our existence.

which does not address the point you were trying to counter:

Also, at the risk of upsetting you here, you're incorrect in asserting that if God did set evolution into play that man would not be a creation of his. If God did use evolution to unfold life as we know it, then all things natural are his creation.

Your statement only serves to areaffirm your unwavering dedication to the idea that God/gods have no place in the universe, beyond perhaps fairy tales.;) While I appreciate that you are likely an atheist, you're failing to address the point. First, the above statement is a conditional. IF God created the universe and all life via evolution, he is responsible for the creation of mankind. Even using my example of robots, my contention was that you'd be responsible for the creation of the robots, not their subsequent actions (or at least not directly), which your counterargument about grandparents seemed to suggest. You also are incapable of determining whether God/gods/aliens/etc..created mankind. That much should be elemental to you. None of us were there when the universe was created. Since we can not irrefutably say whether God created (via evolution or other mechanisms) mankind, then possibilities are open. I think you're getting more caught up in what you see as probabilities....ie no scientific proof of God's existence suggests no hand in mankind's creation, hence T of E only probable explanation for man's existence. The problem is that you are saying that God and evolution are totally incompatible re the creation of mankind (NOT that God might not exist), but are incapable of proving your "ex cathedra" statement.


Go back and REREAD what I said. I used that absolute statement properly. I said Evolution and Creationism cannot both be right because one directly defeats the other. I did not (in fact I left open the possibility that God was involved) say that the acceptance of evolution meant that god didn't exist.

Would you say this is inaccurate?

Close, but no cookie. You aren't merely asserting that YEC is incompatible with evolution, but that the concept of a creator is incompatible with the idea of evolution. Essentially....God may in fact exist, but he was an "innocent bystander" as things unfolded. In that sense, this discussion can really only get bogged down in yet another atheism vs theism fight. Suffice it to say that you are only really willing to consider one possibility, despite a lack of definitive solid proof and I'm open to the possibilies that there may be a god/God and there might not be that accounts for all the glory of the universe. No offense, but if you don't get it, you probably never will.

Darth_Yuthura
07-29-2009, 09:29 AM
Trying to prove or disprove God's existence is a fool's errand.

Definition:Circular argument: Any discussion in which one argues the conclusion as a premise; a discussion that makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument.

Given that believers in God assume that he exists unconditionally, I don't have the means to convince them otherwise. I can't explain the origins of the universe, but neither can those who support Creation prove that God exists. If I saw proof that God exists, then I would endorse the Creation(ism) as the most likely theory. But God has to be proven to exist before that theory has some ground to stand upon.

"Tick paralysis is usually accompanied by a tick." ~Robert Sean Leonard

One of the reasons why I am so intensely against creation or the existence of god is because there is no proof that links our existence to a supernatural being. What if it were just a supernatural power?

If someone in a court room were pleading insanity with a theory that isn't accepted by the scientific community, then the defense would have to prove the theory before it could be used as evidence. Otherwise it's just an excuse that makes it more difficult for those who actually have the symptoms to defend themselves.

Samuel Dravis
07-29-2009, 10:34 AM
If you're interested, DY, I offer a rather different way of looking at things in the Senate here (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2656579#post2656579). As such, religion is more like a primitive reaction (along the lines of laughing, etc) and not an opinion that people come to because the evidence in favor of it is overwhelming.

Q
07-29-2009, 11:48 AM
Definition:Circular argument: Any discussion in which one argues the conclusion as a premise; a discussion that makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument.

You still don't get it, do you? :¬:

Pot; kettle; black.

Darth_Yuthura
07-29-2009, 12:36 PM
You still don't get it, do you?

Pot; kettle; black.



And no, I don't believe God are stupid. Those that create self-fulfilling arguments either are mixed up or making an assumption that has yet to be proven. What if I don't believe in God? Maybe instead of using god to satisfy your side of the argument, use your side of the argument to prove that god exists.

JediAthos
07-29-2009, 01:18 PM
And no, I don't believe God are stupid. Those that create self-fulfilling arguments either are mixed up or making an assumption that has yet to be proven. What if I don't believe in God? Maybe instead of using god to satisfy your side of the argument, use your side of the argument to prove that god exists.

Wait...wasn't that a different thread? Oh right...it got closed.

mimartin
07-29-2009, 01:33 PM
Let's not turn this into a theism/atheism debate--we have a few threads for that discussion already. Thanks.

:rolleyes:

Maybe some of you are color blind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness). Just in case I will repeat.

Let's not turn this into a theism/atheism debate--we have a few threads for that discussion already. Thanks

May I also suggest looking over the rules again (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=175866). Please play particular attention to rules 4 and 5.



4. Personal attacks: We realize many of the topics in Kavar's are controversial or sensitive. However, you need to keep your posts as polite as possible. Attacking other posters, either directly or through veiled insinuation and sarcasm, is not allowed on this forum. If you're feeling the need to make sarcastic comments or attacks on someone, you need to calm down or simply agree to disagree with that person. Posts that are racist, homophobic, sexist, or that directly or indirectly attack someone's character are ad hominem attacks and are not allowed. Veiled insinuations, sarcastic comments, or other impoliteness are also unacceptable, and the poster may well receive sanctions for this behavior.

5. Repeatedly posting the same thing: This refers specifically to repeating the same point over and over in a way that becomes irritating, without an attempt to clarify a point or to contribute to the conversation. This should not be construed to mean that you are required to answer someone else's questions. If it's the same argument and doesn't contribute to the discussion, the post may be edited or deleted, and the poster may receive an infraction.

You may also want to check out #6.

Q
07-29-2009, 02:08 PM
What if I don't believe in God? Maybe instead of using god to satisfy your side of the argument, use your side of the argument to prove that god exists.
As I've said before: I couldn't care less whether or you believe in God or not. I am under no obligation to prove anything to you because, unlike you, I am not trying to dictate what others should believe.

Darth_Yuthura
07-29-2009, 04:12 PM
With all the commotion, I seemed to neglect something that I really should have asked at the beginning of this debate. I can't possibly judge whether or not something exists without a clearer understanding of the belief itself.

Since I do not understand it, I must ask for someone to please define God.

What part of this did you not understand? Let's not turn this into a theism/atheism debate--we have a few threads for that discussion already. Thanks.