Creation vs Evolution

[HotDog Fish]

Originally posted by Zarn
Let's put it this way, 6 days to God is alot of years to us.

That's assuming your all powerful, all seeing god exist on a linear timeline, if he truly is so perfect in every single way and beyond all comprention and undestanding he simply could not exist on our understanding of time as he does, remember we had to invent time with the sun and the moon and the stars

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by cgannon64
Look at what you just said from an athiest's standpoint. They would laugh. Don't make me get a list of evidence pointing to evolution...

Why would they laugh? I laugh at their "evidence" too, often they HAVE done as I said, sticky taping two animals together and calling it a missing link. Trouble for them is they can't disprove mine, or at least haven't so far.

Originally posted by MCdread
Fortunatelly there are people who like to expand their knowledge. Maybe you should do a ckeck-in to yours.

Bring on the evidence then. Point at your brother and call him the missing link. I would like to see some actual evidence.

Originally posted by Sobieski II
Actually the Big Bang Theory is what creationists are banking on, as it suggests a beginning caused by something (a God).

No, it's not (what creationists are banking on). The big bang is the theory that is often connected with evolution, ie it attempts to explain creation.

Originally posted by newfangle
A "big hole" in the big bang theory?

Two things:
1) Its a theory, just like God except there is evidence to back it up.

Is it taught as just a theory in schools? Nope, it's taught as truth (at least here). Technically, Pythagora only has a theory too.

2) There are many other theories, such as neutrinogenisis. I wouldn't be mortified if the big bang was not the moment of matter creation. There are other theories that I am perfectly happy with.

Well that's ok then. It's just that the big bang is the most commonly cited one. Also, what's the neutrinogenesis one?

bob, you actually take the bible literally? So god just went "click" eh?

Yep, why not? Makes sense. At some point, something just went "click" and I think having a god of some description is the best explanation. There are so many other things that the catholic church (for one) is now saying are only metaphorical (in the bible), and when they take them that way, it means nothing, and they're just missing the whole point. All or nothing I can understand, but going halfway isn't really helping.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Belief in god cannot repair a broken machine or cure a disease.

Sure?

So what is the point of this endless argument?
You puny humans will never know!!!

If I'm right I'll eventually know. The point is that it's the means, not the end that makes it fun

Also - what's the problem with 6 days? If you allow that there is a god, then more than likely you would allow that he could do anything. Why not create everything in 6 days?

Evolution happens, but it doesn't create new species. ie height, colour, a few environmentally specific enhancements occur, but a lizard doesn't turn into a bird, and a monkey doesn't turn into a man.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Zarn
Let's put it this way, 6 days to God is alot of years to us.

Two scenerios:

1) Some sort of ambient being flicks a light switch making us all exist. Some dillusionaries write about in a book two thousand years ago. A massive cult is formed fully entrenched in their beliefs they actually reject any scientific thought, regardless of its merrit. (Though some better religions, such as Hinduism, embrace science).


2) A series of random events (purhaps not random when viewed from the full scope of 11 dimensions) take place, initiate a series of cause and effect resulting in intelligent life.

 

[newfangle]

For Bob:

Neutrinogenesis: A balance of neutrinos and ordinary matter exist in a primordial soup. A random particle movement causes a catostrophic paradigm shift resulting in ordinary matter taking the lead.

 

[Maj]

Why would they laugh? I laugh at their "evidence" too, often they HAVE done as I said, sticky taping two animals together and calling it a missing link.

How often have reputable scientists "sticky taped" together the bones of animals and claimed them to be A link to the theory of evolution? I don't think I've ever heard of such a fraud being committed, and certainly not often. Could you please provide sources for those claims.

Trouble for them is they can't disprove mine, or at least haven't so far

There is no evidence for your belief either. The existence of a God is not within the realm of science to prove or disprove. If there is nothing to observe or measure, then there is nothing to create a scientific theory about. This does not mean there is no god. This just means there's no way of "detecting" it, hence no reason for saying anything about it.

There's a tiny, undetectable cat living in my right ear. He whispers poems that only I can hear. I can't prove he's there because no tool or sensation can detect him. You can't disprove it because you can't sense or detect him. You just have to take my word for it. So is there a talking cat in my right ear?

Two things:
1) Its a theory, just like God except there is evidence to back it up.

Is it taught as just a theory in schools? Nope, it's taught as truth (at least here).

Then it is not being taught properly. I hope no reputable scientist would consider a theory to be a truth.

What I would like to see is a creationist who is well learned in biology and the theory of evolution provide an intellectual argument against it. That is when I'll begin to take a deeper interest in the debate. Right now all I've seen in these debates has been fundamentalism and intellect vs intellect alone.

 

[omichyron]

I remember the last such thread. A bit of a flamewar, I recall....

I believe in evolution as an instrument of creation. I do not take the bible literally. Hmm. Actually now that I think about it, I don't accept the bible at all.

 

[polymath]

If you think that life can't have happened randomly, and must by necessity have been created, then could the Creationists explain why it is not necessary for God to have been created. If he is so much more powerful and complex, then doesn't this mean (by Creationist logic) that it is infinitely more necessary that something else created God.
I have never yet met a Creationist who could answer this question.
In this very thread we have heard claims that man is too complex to have evolved by chance. In that case, this is infinitely more true of God. By the Creationists' own logic, God must have had a creator, yet they deny this utterly. But logic was never a Creationist strong point.

 

[CurtSibling]

That is where faith and science diverge.

Science must have definite answers.
Faith embraces the absurd and makes it law.

These two groups will never agree.


My personal opinion....
If I believe in the easter bunny, that makes him just as important as god and creation.
Because what creationists believe in isn't any more provable.

 

[jpowers]

Originally posted by cgannon64


Actually there is a famous formula:

a*b*c*d*e*f*g*h*i*j*k*l=m

...

That is not the exact formula, but it is similar. Shows you the chances of us coming into contact with an alien race are EXTREMELY low.

Whether we come in contact with them or not doesn't change the very high probability that there are other life forms out there. If I live in Northern Finland all my life and refuse to use the television, there's a very low probability I'll ever see a Philippino, but that doesn't change the probability that they exist.

 

[Titan2018]

Simply put, evolution has the facts behind it and creationism is unprovable. Creationists put foward their "hypotheses" but provide no way to test them. Evolution on the other hand could be disproven if we were to find something out of place (a modern human in the cambrian perion sediment for example). Since we can thoretically disprove evolution but not creationism it is the best explaination (you can't prove a hypothesis, only disprove it). Besides, in order to accept literal creationism you have to reject most of science as flawed! All scietific research looking into the history of Earth supports evolution and disproves the claims of creationism. The bible's creation myth is no more valid than that of Greek Mythology and you don't believe in that do you? You can't just pick and choose what you want to believe and reject the rest if want you view to have any support or scientific credibility!

 

[jpowers]

Originally posted by Titan2018
Simply put, evolution has the facts behind it and creationism is unprovable. Creationists put foward their "hypotheses" but provide no way to test them. Evolution on the other hand could be disproven if we were to find something out of place (a modern human in the cambrian perion sediment for example). Since we can thoretically disprove evolution but not creationism it is the best explaination (you can't prove a hypothesis, only disprove it). Besides, in order to accept literal creationism you have to reject most of science as flawed! All scietific research looking into the history of Earth supports evolution and disproves the claims of creationism. The bible's creation myth is no more valid than that of Greek Mythology and you don't believe in that do you? You can't just pick and choose what you want to believe and reject the rest if want you view to have any support or scientific credibility!

Welcome to the debate, Mr. Popper! I think the unfortunate truth about your last statement is that creationists want to have influence over public policy that requires scientific credibility, but this credibility is completely unimportant to them. If someone wants to personally believe that the Earth and everything on it was regurgitated from a cosmic turtle, then bully for them, but I'm not going to let them force the school board to teach the same nonsense to my kids. Creationism is not science, should not be held to the same rigor as science, and should not be applied to public policy as science.

 

[CrazyScientist]

Originally posted by CurtSibling

Science must have definite answers.

You've been making a heck of a lot of sense in this thread up till now, but I have to take issue with this one assertion.
The entire goal of science is to formulate an hypothesis, and then try to disprove it in as many possible ways as the entire scientific community can come up with.
When a hypothesis accumulates enough evidence to back it, and resists all attempts to dissprove it for long enough, then you call it a theory (like evolution). A definite answer would be a block to continued learning. There is always more about a thing that can be known, and studied. This is what drives most of us to be scientists in the first place. Love of learning.

To those of you saying that evolution is "just" a theory, you should keep in mind that gravity, electricity, magnetism, the cellular basis of life, and many other things are also "just theories". The difference is, they don't happen to conflict with any religious dogma, so the only one's still questioning and testing them are the scientists themselves.

If you folks who claim to really doubt the theory of evolution, my recommendation to you would be to sign up for some biology courses, and become evolutionary biologists. Sharp minds and fresh perspectives are generally welcome in any scientific field. Then, when you understand the vast evidence (archaeological, ecological, and genetic evidence mind you, evidence from vastly different fields, all pointing to the same conclusion.... hmmmmm) supporting the theory you will be in a far better position to attempt to refute the evolutionary model, by testing its predictions scientifically. You will no doubt encounter some resistance, but if your data is good, and demonstrates a clear problem with the theory, then the theory will be replaced, or at least adjusted to fit with your new data. That, my friends, is science.

This may sound a bit tongue in cheek, but I am in fact very serious. If you feel strongly against a thing, don't just sit here and blather incoherent, half-baked reasons why its wrong over the internet. Get out there and hit the books. Learn as much about it as you can and try to formulate actual reasons and present them to the scientific community for review.

 

[bobgote]

Maj: The one that springs immediately to mind was one called Piltdown man. Check it out. It had everyone fooled for a while, but then they uncovered the fraud.

Originally posted by Maj
Then it is not being taught properly. I hope no reputable scientist would consider a theory to be a truth.

And I went to a catholic high school. That's what's being taught. You're right in that no reputable scientist would consider a theory to be a truth, but unfortunately, scientists don't teach our kids.

Originally posted by polymath
If he is so much more powerful and complex, then doesn't this mean (by Creationist logic) that it is infinitely more necessary that something else created God.
I have never yet met a Creationist who could answer this question.

Thing is, by accepting the idea that there is a god, you accept that there are things beyond anything we can understand. If god created time, what was before that?? It's beyond my comprehension, so I just believe.

Anyway, creation may not be able to be disproved (it may be, but i'm not sure), but evolution can, and is, and the theory is not more than that, and has no significant evidence behind it. In fact it is continually changing which shows that it is far from rock solid.

Titan: I don't know what any of your unshakable evidence is, but maybe you could provide some links. AFAIK, creation doesn't clash with science.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by newfangle


Two scenerios:

1) Some sort of ambient being flicks a light switch making us all exist. Some dillusionaries write about in a book two thousand years ago. A massive cult is formed fully entrenched in their beliefs they actually reject any scientific thought, regardless of its merrit. (Though some better religions, such as Hinduism, embrace science).


2) A series of random events (purhaps not random when viewed from the full scope of 11 dimensions) take place, initiate a series of cause and effect resulting in intelligent life.

I guess you can't combine those two...right? Maybe, just maybe, this "ambient being" began the chain of events that led to the creation of the universe and human life?

Your comment, "A massive cult is formed fully entrenched in their beliefs they actually reject any scientific thought, regardless of its merrit" is extremely narrow-minded. There are lots of Catholics I know who embrace both science and God, who combine evolution and creationism. Science and theology CAN coexist, but some people are too narrow-minded to realize that...

CG

 

[Zarn]

It's possible cgannon, but that's not what I believe.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by Zarn
It's possible cgannon, but that's not what I believe.

OK, I respect that. I'm happy you can politely disagree, most people get nasty when talking about this subject....

CG

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by cgannon64


I guess you can't combine those two...right? Maybe, just maybe, this "ambient being" began the chain of events that led to the creation of the universe and human life?

Your comment, "A massive cult is formed fully entrenched in their beliefs they actually reject any scientific thought, regardless of its merrit" is extremely narrow-minded. There are lots of Catholics I know who embrace both science and God, who combine evolution and creationism. Science and theology CAN coexist, but some people are too narrow-minded to realize that...

CG

You say maybe a lot, but thats beyond the point.....

Science and theology can coexist if people would interpret the bible contextually. Some people have a real problem with science, and it is utterly baffling.

Why did I make that comment. Well, I have gotten into many arguments concerning climate change on these forums. The very religious people dismiss me, because they will not accept the fact that humanity is in control of its own destiny. They believe that will live a predetermined course, guided by the almighty. I have gone through 12 years of religious education (catholic school), and it is worse that 40s war propaganda.

To completely rip off the Matrix, I don't like faith. I would prefer to choose the path I take, rather than being governed by a cult that induces so much hate and violence in this world (except for Brazil and Poland. I respect the Catholic church in those places). I have "grown" out of religion. I go to church about once a year now, and even that is too much. The religious formalism, and organized chanting is too much to handle. I literally feel nauxious when I sit through a mass.

You can call it disrespect or whatever, but humanity is outgrowing primitive entities such as religion (albeit very slowly). I embrace the teachings of such people as Jesus, but when screwed up people misinterpret it, or take it literally, it sets back any progress the church can make.

 

[newfangle]

Hmmm, I realize some parts of the above post make me sound relatively religious. Rest assured, I am full atheist, but I Jesus was a pretty cool (socialist) guy.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by newfangle

You say maybe a lot, but thats beyond the point.....

Science and theology can coexist if people would interpret the bible contextually. Some people have a real problem with science, and it is utterly baffling.

I agree 100%. It isn't really that hard to combine them, and I know many people who do. But I also know many people who don't...

Originally posted by newfangle

Why did I make that comment. Well, I have gotten into many arguments concerning climate change on these forums. The very religious people dismiss me, because they will not accept the fact that humanity is in control of its own destiny. They believe that will live a predetermined course, guided by the almighty. I have gone through 12 years of religious education (catholic school), and it is worse that 40s war propaganda.

If your Catholic school taught you that life is predetermined, they could be excommunicated, b/c that is nowhere near Church doctrine...

Originally posted by newfangle

To completely rip off the Matrix, I don't like faith. I would prefer to choose the path I take, rather than being governed by a cult that induces so much hate and violence in this world (except for Brazil and Poland. I respect the Catholic church in those places). I have "grown" out of religion. I go to church about once a year now, and even that is too much. The religious formalism, and organized chanting is too much to handle. I literally feel nauxious when I sit through a mass.

I guess that is how you feel. The sense of community of religion empowers some people; it sickens you. I sincerely hope you can find some sort of personal religion, maybe in your own unique way. You seem to believe in a god, and I think it would be very good if you persue your own ideas.

Originally posted by newfangle

You can call it disrespect or whatever, but humanity is outgrowing primitive entities such as religion (albeit very slowly). I embrace the teachings of such people as Jesus, but when screwed up people misinterpret it, or take it literally, it sets back any progress the church can make.

Religion can be the best and the worst thing for people, it all depends on how you interpret the Church's teachings and callings individually. Like you said, bad interpretations of religion make for very bad events (Islamic fundamentalism is one example). The right view is key.

CG

 

[Steve Winer]

Originally posted by cgannon64
Isn't there room for both? Could God have taken monkeys and given them the gift on intelligence and problem solving, thereby creating man?

That is what I believe.

CG

Excellent point, cgannon64. There the Christians and Evolutionists can have common ground. Great Idea.