Evolution versus Creationism

[Flying Pig]

It comes down to wheher or not you think that the horrors of war are worth the horrors of peace

 

[Veritass]

So, why does God ignore human suffering? Well, why do YOU ignore human suffering? At those times and places when you can actually do something about human suffering, I mean.

Well, I believe that God allows for human suffering because this is necessary for a greater good. Therefore, when I see the homeless guy on the corner, I "play God" and make sure that I do not relieve his suffering, because I know this is for a greater good.

[/TONGUE_IN_CHEEK]

 

[Lone Wolf]

Why do some anti-war activists oppose war? Because of the possible repercussions. And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't consider anti-war activists evil. I don't. Anti-war activists are not evil, they're just misguided.

Now answer me this: why do we have laws--and jails for people who break said laws? Primarily to scare selfish people away from breaking the law. Therefore: why do many potential lawbreakers obey the law? Because of the possible repercussions.

There ya have it, Wolfey. The same argument supports two opposite positions (Good and Evil) perfectly.

So, war is bad because of the repercussions, jail are good because of possible repercussions in case we disband them? What on earth does that has to do with the current conversation?

Or did you mean that the arguments of the hawks and the doves are the same because they both draw attention to repercussions of remaining in peace/declaring war?

 

[Flying Pig]

He says that one can not convince the other, because both of them hold a different peice of evidence as their main point.

 

[Perfection]

Horrors of peace?

 

[Ghpstage]

Horrors of peace?

Arms industy job losses, the US government being bored, you know that kinda stuff .

 

[Flying Pig]

I was thinking more of dictators, ethnic oppression, slavery... just the minor things which soldiers have to clear up

 

[Ayatollah So]

Evolution does not deny the existence of a god. It only suggests that god is a whole lot subtler and more creative than man can imagine.

You know, it's kind of funny that many theists (and atheists) see evolution as a denial of a creator, while in the modern world, all the coolest engineers design things using evolutionary algorithms. I'm an atheist BTW.

Of course, if you interpret your holy books in certain ways - ways that on my (admittedly very limited) reading are actually discouraged in the texts themselves - then evolution could be a problem for you. Or, if you base your belief on the idea that "only direct intervention by a god could have created these critters", then your thunder has been stolen. Tough noogies, then.

 

[peter grimes]

...many theists (and atheists) see evolution as a denial of a creator...

I can only speak for myself here, but as an atheist I don't claim that evolution denies the existence of a creator. For me the kicker is that the more we (homo scientificus) learn about the natural world, the less evidence we find of a divine creator. Evolution doesn't have anything to say about the existence (or not) of god: but it has volumes to say about how all the organisms that ever lived came to be.

 

[Flying Pig]

All that it can do is disprove (unless you do some serious arguing on the part of the Bible) that the Bibilical account of creation is wrong, and so the Bible is not the true word of God, supposing that he exists, and so we have no reason to belive the rest.

 

[tycoonist]

No. He just appears to be, from our limited viewpoint. As the old "immovable object vs unstoppable force" reductio ad absurdum goes, there's no such thing as an omnipotent God.

The problem there is that the descriptions of God as perfect and all-powerful were written by people. Nothing personal.

then why call him God?

we define God as being omnipotent, perfect and omni-benevolent. if you do not want to talk about this God, do not use a capital g.

 

[BasketCase]

Actually, people use the word "God" in a whole lot of different ways. Most gods in our various pantheons were NOT omnipotent and were NOT perfect. The Greek gods make excellent examples. They were vain, selfish, frequently jealous, and occasionally got scammed by mortals.

And almost all of them only had power over a few things. Aphrodite only had power over Love, Ares and Athena only had power over War, Apollo did music and archery, Hades ruled the dead. Yet they were still called Gods--and they still are by everybody alive today, even by people who don't actually believe in them.

So, off the cuff, I'd say you were using the G-word wrong. As I already said--usually it's the people, not the gods, that are the problem.

 

[tycoonist]

they are not called Gods but gods. there is a difference, BC.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

If you don't believe in evolution, that means you can't believe in genetics, biology, medicine, or astronomy. And, depending on whether or not you're a YEC, archaeology.

EDIT: Explanation:

Genetics: Based on variations which add up to new species. Sounds familiar...

Biology: Based on evolution/genetics.

Medicine: Viruses and bacteria become resistant and spread based on the law of natural selection.

Astronomy: The universe, as we have seen, has evolved, starting at the Big Bang, leading to nebulae, stars, then the next generation of nebulae and stars until the heavier elements were created, then to planets, and then to life. This life evolved. Plus, most creationists are YECs.

Archaeology: If God planted fossils and radiocarbon is false, history before about 1000 goes out the window.

 

[BasketCase]

So, war is bad because of the repercussions, jail are good because of possible repercussions in case we disband them? What on earth does that has to do with the current conversation?

Well, people were looking for a reason why a God might ignore human suffering, weren't they?

Ask yourselves why YOU ignore human suffering, and you've got some possible answers. Note the boldface bit--we can't actually know what God's real reason is, unless He appears before us in a clap of thunder and tells us, but we can guess. If we lowly humans can come up with good reasons to ignore suffering (and we do, with much frequency), a God certainly can.

My use of pro-war and anti-war activists was just an example to demonstrate the above--I can't believe how much confusion that caused. My bringing up of Iraq War #2 was an example. Anti-war activists are one example of how human beings have a good reason (in their minds, anyway) for ignoring human suffering.

 

[BasketCase]

they are not called Gods but gods. there is a difference, BC.

Only in the capitalization.

"god" means the same as "God" means the same as "gOd".

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Nobody likes my analysis?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I can only speak for myself here, but as an atheist I don't claim that evolution denies the existence of a creator. For me the kicker is that the more we (homo scientificus) learn about the natural world, the less evidence we find of a divine creator. Evolution doesn't have anything to say about the existence (or not) of god: but it has volumes to say about how all the organisms that ever lived came to be.

But there is strong evidence for a creation point and imaginative physicists have reached "around their head to touch their ear" to think up ways that such a thing could happen. But I haven't seen much in the way of a convincing "non divine creator" either.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But there is strong evidence for a creation point and imaginative physicists have reached "around their head to touch their ear" to think up ways that such a thing could happen. But I haven't seen much in the way of a convincing "non divine creator" either.

Scientists still don't know many things about gravity. Still, I fall down

Seriously, if there is no evidence for a divine creator, and there is no evidence for a non-divine creator, would the logical conclusion to take not be: "I don't know"? Or more elaborate: "I will not make positive claims on creation when there is zero evidence to support it" Which in essence is the position an agnostic atheist would take.

 

[warpus]

How about: "I don't know, but the big bang and cosmic inflation are somewhat satisfying explanations of how we got here and are the only scientific models we have right now that have predictive power don't contradict observations"

Then again, that has nothing to do with evolution..