Creationism vs. Evolution

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Wrong spot to discuss the idea of religion, but if you want to discuss matters of faith, then I have faith in the "Theory of Evolution" much more than I do in the content of an old book which has been translated from dead languages by scholars with an agenda.  If anything, I believe that the big bang could not have been spontaneous but must have arisen from a "first cause" or "The Presence", which started the ball rolling and went on to other things.  The very hubris that such a being could give a hoot about the human race is beyond credibility.  And after hubris, as has been seen throughout history, comes nemesis.

 

The radial Islamic suicides should, buy the very Koran they abuse, go straight to the arms of Iblis (Satan).

[heat33330 26]

 

political correctness keeps it from being called the Rule of Evolution or the Law of Evolution.

So then it's not a theory now is it? Evolution, in having the status of a theory is up for grabs. Anybody could rebuke it and provide another more correct theory. Ah, but to prevent that from happening we must make it an unbreakable LAW, or DOGMA. That is ,sadly what has been made by the gargantuan beurocracy of official science that we have today. They are upholding a theory with no real evidence supporting it.

 

 

Like certain "societies" out there?

"Certain Societies" that at one time - and in certain cases now - had people persecuted if they went against their "unbreakable laws"? "Certain Societies" that went to war on other human beings because they were different? "Certain Societies" that use(d) fear and "brainwashing" to control its "followers" and used them like weapons? "Certain Societies" that have passed their own word as "law"? "Certain Societies" that can "communicate" with a "higher power" and tell us what it wants is to do? - Yet we can't communicate with this "higher power" and we have to take their word for it! "Certain Societies" that do this and more/worse and expect us to follow them blindly, just taking their word for it without any evidence at all supporting it?

[Terring 6,473]

The legendary Miller–Urey experiment shows that, if I'm not wrong, life itself is actually evolved inorganic matter! The experiment simulated the conditions (thought at the time to be present) on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested the hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler organic precursors.

 

The result? Just watch...

So I guess that life doesn't need a creator after all. Maybe the Cosmos had been constructed by a superior intelligence (call it God or anything you like), but life on Earth hadn't.

[Cool_Z 1,547]

Sounds like some do not really know what a scientific theory is... 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Certain building blocks to life can be made from inorganic starting materials. These relatively simple organic chemicals can be formed from heat, lightning, and redox reactions. Without enzymes, these reactions are extremely slow and random. However, RNA is easier to make than DNA or most proteins and can act as a catalyst, like ribozymes.

--Ocram

[Fatherted 129]

Is it really impossible to believe that the universe is forever, along with infinite parallel worlds based off every decision or unconscious "could have gone the other way" actions? I want to believe in reincarnation as it keeps me out of the reach of any being with more power than me in every way, but in reality I can't picture myself as a fish.

 

That's beside the point, but what if it really is like Dr Who? What if there really are infinite parallels?

 

That would be awesome.

[Cool_Z 1,547]

"forever" and "infinite" are the most difficult concepts to grasp for us.

 

We can't comprehend the universe for now. Our knowledge is limited and maybe we will be extinct far before we really know what's around us.

 

I think the big bang theory is wrong, it would give the universe a center, a starting point. How do you define the center of something that's infinite ? There's something fishy here, reminds me (well I wasn't there but...) of the times when the earth was at the center of everything...

 

The big bang I think was just ONE big bang, maybe only the explosion of a huge black hole... and to my opinion this happens again and again in different portions of a universe far greater than what we call the "observable universe".

 

I think this is all a problem of observation and due to the limitations of the speed of light. It plays with the way we can look at things and hides much more.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

With my astronomy knowledge, I wouldn't say that the universe is forever, but I do know that the time scale is unimaginably large, in the scale of many billions of years.

Most astronomers think that the universe was born 12.7 billion (or I'd prefer to say milliard ) years ago. We can hardly imagine how big that time scale is, because civilazation itself is around for about 15 000 years at the most and our species is no older than 200 000 years. On the whole timescale of the universe, if we would print the entire universe in a 13 part encyclopedia of 1000 pages each, our civilazation would be the last period on page 700-something.

Now, what about the future. Well, there is an end of the universe, and if the universe doesn't rip itself apart, it will die slowly. How? Well, you see, all stars run on hydrogen, or at least at the majority of their life span. They fuse hydrogen, the lightest element in the universe, into an heavier element, helium. Now, hydrogen is abundantly present in the universe, but since the supply in the universe is limited since the universe itself is limited, the universe will run out of hydrogen and therefore new stars can't be born. The universe will die a cold death when the last white dwarf stops burning. This is called the Big Chill or Big Freeze. When will this happen? Probably thousands of billions of years, or even on a larger scale. Most probable, we humans will be long, long gone before that happens...

In fact, we are actually at the most interesting stage of the universe. In this stage, you can still see remains of the big bang and the origins of our universe, as well as other galaxies in the universe; the universe hasn't expanded too much to push them beyond the edge of the visible universe and the galaxies in our reach haven't merged yet into one due to gravity. We live in an interesting world. Enjoy it while you still can!

Best,

Maarten

[Terring 6,473]

I think the big bang theory is wrong, it would give the universe a center, a starting point. How do you define the center of something that's infinite ? There's something fishy here, reminds me (well I wasn't there but...) of the times when the earth was at the center of everything...

The universe started with the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. The Big Bang is actually a rapid expand of the baby universe and it should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. This means there is no center of the universe, no center to the expansion, it's the same everywhere. The universe is not actually expanding out from a center into space, but is expanding equally at all places as far as we can tell. This means that everywhere we look is the "center" of the universe.

What happened before the Bing Bang? Nobody knows. Even if the question sounds like "is there something souther than South Pole?", many scientists are researching it. Maybe the death of an older universe caused the Big Bang, so our universe is the offspring of another one universe. Maybe before the Big Bang was a sea of universes, each with a different set of laws dictating its physical reality. Who knows?

 

My favorite explanation, even if there is not even a tiny evidence about it, is that the universe constructed by an advance civilization using God-like technology.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

An advanced technology in the eyes of the ignorant is not different from magic or godhood.  The very limited scope of our minds keeps a lot of mythology going.  Until we get shut of religions demanding this and that of its believers, we will still be jungle bunnies.  I detest organized religions because they are nothing but a set of horse blinders.

 

Notwithstanding the big bang theory, which seems to have universal acceptance at the moment, I am a believer in the steady state.  There is no beginning, and if there is and end it will be the final state of entropy, which seems to contradict the quantum theory.

[APSMS 1,892]

It seems to me that there is a logical disjoint between the idea of evidence and conclusion. One assumes that science, based on empirical observations, is unbiased, when in fact it can easily be demonstrated that it is not. The very fact that many evolutionary proponents are virulently anti-Christian, but not necessarily anti-religion, demonstrates this.

 

Many people overlook, when choosing a syncretic view of evolution and creation, the very fact that much of Christian and Jewish theology is based on the literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. There is an overwhelming amount of support from a Biblical (read non-scientific) standpoint for a literal seven day creation. The argument of a allegorical Creation account is clearly refuted in Exodus; the Ten Commandments clearly state that the Sabbath was to be observed because God rested on the seventh day. One could argue misinterpretation by a later writer who misunderstood the Genesis account, but of course Moses wrote (traditionally) the first five books, so no misunderstanding would have occurred. This is, of course, assuming that you are willing to accept the Bible as truth (it has absolutely no relevance otherwise). Additionally, if God is an everlasting God who is not constrained by time, then the use of time periods (evening, morning, day) is purely for our benefit, since God clearly doesn't operate on the same schedule (He is always working, not merely during the day).

 

TL;DR The creation account is literal because of theological reasons, and the use elsewhere in the Bible, including the Ten Commandments and references by Jesus, understand it to be a literal event (and if you are a Christian, then you probably acknowledge the fact that Jesus never sinned, which includes not lying).

 

 

As an aside that might be more relevant to the debate, since I don't have to answer to an ultimate authority because I am the ultimate progeny of "pond scum", then why in the world do I have to submit to the modern Western notions of right and wrong. Is there a reason that the US should currently be disgusted with the recent legislation in Uganda outlawing homosexual practices? Why is racism wrong, if man really has no higher calling? Give me a good reason, besides "it's wrong" or "it doesn't further humanity" or "people have rights" etc. I'm interested to know why Hitler is evil, if he was serving his country in the expansion, and eliminating possible sources of contamination or weakness from his nation. Killing people is not a reason, since nowhere in any ultimate human codebook does it say killing is wrong. Sure, certain countries have laws against it. It might be distasteful. The Hague might proclaim genocide as an anti-human crime, but that fails to give me a reason as to why I should think that it's wrong, outside of answering to an ultimate authority. The reasoning, of course, follows especially if you are a ruler of a country where you have complete control, and thus no answering to the courts of the land (like Hitler).

[MandelSoft 2,769]

Humans are social creatures. This has to do with the history of human kind that they started out in hunting groups. By moving in groups, everyone was safer against large predators, and therefore, a good social structure is essential to keep the group as one. This very basic behaviour is something that's fundamental for our moral sense and social behaviour; it's rooted very deep in our nature. Let's go back to these days and explain some of these morals:

- Why is killing wrong? Killing makes the group smaller and makes the risk larger, so it's not beneficial.

- Why should we support the weak and elderly? They can take care of other minor tasks, like taking care of the children.

- Why is racism wrong? Because it can tear the group apart, making the smaller groups more bound to risk.

- Why does altruism exist? Because it can bond the group more.

Over time, these groups have grown into nations and morals have been "institutionalised" (mostly in religion), but the fundamental rules were always there since human kind existed. We are just dealing a bit different with them. However, some of these morals are conflicting with survival instincts, which leads to fights and even wars...

There are more behavioural aspects (positive or negative) that are rooted in our nature, like greed (saving up for a rainy day), lust (reproduction = success) and curiosity. Curiosity is also another source of religion, because we are always seeking for answers. Religion offers that and therefore I think that man created God instead of the other way around...

Best,

Maarten

[LexusInfernus 908]

TL;DR The creation account is literal because of theological reasons, and the use elsewhere in the Bible, including the Ten Commandments and references by Jesus, understand it to be a literal event (and if you are a Christian, then you probably acknowledge the fact that Jesus never sinned, which includes not lying).

 

 

As an aside that might be more relevant to the debate, since I don't have to answer to an ultimate authority because I am the ultimate progeny of "pond scum", then why in the world do I have to submit to the modern Western notions of right and wrong. Is there a reason that the US should currently be disgusted with the recent legislation in Uganda outlawing homosexual practices? Why is racism wrong, if man really has no higher calling? Give me a good reason, besides "it's wrong" or "it doesn't further humanity" or "people have rights" etc. I'm interested to know why Hitler is evil, if he was serving his country in the expansion, and eliminating possible sources of contamination or weakness from his nation. Killing people is not a reason, since nowhere in any ultimate human codebook does it say killing is wrong. Sure, certain countries have laws against it. It might be distasteful. The Hague might proclaim genocide as an anti-human crime, but that fails to give me a reason as to why I should think that it's wrong, outside of answering to an ultimate authority. The reasoning, of course, follows especially if you are a ruler of a country where you have complete control, and thus no answering to the courts of the land (like Hitler).

You realize that aside from some fundamentalist churches, mainstream Christianity has long since accepted that Genesis should not be taken as a literal account (or that the bible in general should not be taken as a literal account). Even if there are theological reasons to think that, most Christians have stopped letting faith get in the way of accepting facts. Besides, some references made here and there are really weak evidence. Jesus was a Jew so he grew up with the idea of Genesis, quite possibly believing it was to be taken literal. So then obviously he would make a reference to it accepting it as such (same goes for Moses) and then you essentially create circular logic. It must be literal because they say its literal, but they say its literal because they too think its literal. Or, those 7 days could still be taken in a non literal sense because the people that made the reference never meant them in a literal sense. 

 

 

And do you honestly think that the only thing that keeps you in line is the idea of a higher authority judging you? You would feel absolutely no empathy with someone if you were to say rape them and then slowly slit their throat? You don't get this feeling of guilt if you were to set a litter of kittens on fire? Well then, Ive got news for you, you are a sociopath. Inherently incapable of feeling empathy or remorse over the things you do. 

 

So the real reason why hurting other people is wrong is because most human beings are not sociopaths and they feel awful if they knowingly hurt someone. On top of that, most of the time hurting other people, hurting innocent people, is illogical. 

[APSMS 1,892]

Oh, no, I didn't want to get into a "morality only with religion" argument. That wasn't the point.

 

The point was why Hitler was evil, if he doesn't have to answer to a creator. Stalin, notably, is never villainized like Hitler, but strong evidence suggests that Stalin directly ordered the deaths of many times the number Hitler did, and many of these were of Stalin's motherland, patriots and military heroes even.

 

So is Hitler villainized because he lost? We'd still hate him if he won, but history probably wouldn't be so unkind. The point is more of why I should think racism is wrong, if I think that my smaller group has a better chance of survival. The notion is purely subjective, which is my primary point.

 

Additionally, it has never made it right simply because the majority agrees. I fail to see why I ought to accept something just because everyone else seems to think a certain thing is right or acceptable. If Jesus is the savior who is in fellowship with God and has access to knowledge which we do not, and Paul had access to knowledge which we do not, and if the Ten Commandments were not meant to be taken literally, then I would say that your suggestion is a good one. The circular logic only comes from a non-Christian perspective, which I pointed out is necessary for the whole thing to make sense anyways. If you aren't a Christian, than obviously my points are meaningless.

 

Additionally, if the Bible is true, and numerous points made in the Bible refer to a literal creation, then are those points invalid if the creation account isn't literal? For instance, if sin supposedly entered the world through this guy named Adam, who sinned along with his wife Eve in Eden, and it turns out that Adam isn't literal, but merely figurative, then did sin really enter via one person, esp if there are multiple humans evolving around the same time? If sin didn't enter via one person, why can one person remove sin? Also, the Mosaic Law prescribed stoning for a violation of the Sabbath, and used the Creation account as a basis for the reason (they had to ask God what to do, since He initially hadn't given a punishment for transgressing the Command). Were these people then condemned on an allegory? Also, the whole creation account, from Genesis 1-5 doesn't really read like an allegory, especially the genealogies. These would be incredibly specific to be an allegory.

 

On your final point, it would seem hurting innocent people is illogical; I guess that's why total warfare tactics was so unpopular during WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Iraqi-Kurd Conflict, the Iran-Iraq war, the Hindu-Muslim conflict in India, the Bolshevik revolution, the French Revolution (1789), the [Chinese] Cultural Revolution, etc. I could go on...People may not like it afterwards, but it ends up being very effective, and in turn, a very logical thing to do if it accomplishes your stated goals.

 

On a last point I just thought of, I fail to see, Maarten, how you answered that question in absence of the "furthering of humanity" point. Hitler was furthering the people he considered to be part of humanity (or at least, he thought that he was), yet he embodied all of the elements you cited as being formed from a desire to maintain survival of people. Additionally, if we want to be really narrow in definition, Hitler actually agreed with you on all of your points, so why is he labelled as evil, then? In situations absent from God or religion, there is, particularly among communist nations a strong tendency to shrink the group, harbor extensive racism, and despise the weak, and this is in absence of a higher authority. (Again, to restate, it is painfully clear that morality can be sought (and had) without religion. My point is that this morality is not specific, but general, and thus makes your morality no better than mine, even if there are more people on your side (also, consider if you have more people, but my guns are bigger--China and Japan, anyone?).

[MandelSoft 2,769]

Indeed, the whole question about morals is debatable and morals change, get stronger and weaker over time with cultural changes. Morals also change per person and culture. Whether these morals are right or wrong is and always shall be fuzzy. I only explained why moral exists at all if you would not assume that it came into existence by theological reasons. I'm an atheistic agnost, so I don't follow the Bible, so I use other reasons to explain these questions.

Religion may not be the origin of moral, but it does influence quite a deal of it. Even though I'm not Christian, I do keep on to quite a lot of its morals, simply because it's baked in to the local culture...

[T Wrecks 10,209]

...and, in turn, the morals of whatever culture prevails at the time and place a religion is brought into existence naturally rub off on that religion.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The current moral trend in the northern United States and Canada seems to be moving toward that of Pompeii just before the destruction.

 

For the Romans, sex was a general blessing and as long as the partner was comely and agreeable, it didn't matter with whom.  If this is decadent, then so be it.

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

The point was why Hitler was evil, if he doesn't have to answer to a creator. Stalin, notably, is never villainized like Hitler, but strong evidence suggests that Stalin directly ordered the deaths of many times the number Hitler did, and many of these were of Stalin's motherland, patriots and military heroes even.

 

So is Hitler villainized because he lost? We'd still hate him if he won, but history probably wouldn't be so unkind. The point is more of why I should think racism is wrong, if I think that my smaller group has a better chance of survival. The notion is purely subjective, which is my primary point.

The first point here is really a matter of propaganda or PR. Stalin had better PR, partly because he won the war, partly because he won the war against Hitler. And Hitler is the villain because dead people can't direct their PR and also because stood for the complete opposite of what modern liberal societies stand for. 

 

Now as for racism, its wrong because its illogical. Racists determine their opinion of a person or a group of people on superficial reasons such as skin color, religion or point of origin. You are not a racist if you think its best if a certain percentage of people must die. You are a racist when you think that percentage of people should consist only of Jews or Asians or Black people because they are Jews, Asians or Black people. 

 

 

Additionally, if the Bible is true, and numerous points made in the Bible refer to a literal creation, then are those points invalid if the creation account isn't literal? For instance, if sin supposedly entered the world through this guy named Adam, who sinned along with his wife Eve in Eden, and it turns out that Adam isn't literal, but merely figurative, then did sin really enter via one person, esp if there are multiple humans evolving around the same time? If sin didn't enter via one person, why can one person remove sin? Also, the Mosaic Law prescribed stoning for a violation of the Sabbath, and used the Creation account as a basis for the reason (they had to ask God what to do, since He initially hadn't given a punishment for transgressing the Command). Were these people then condemned on an allegory? Also, the whole creation account, from Genesis 1-5 doesn't really read like an allegory, especially the genealogies. These would be incredibly specific to be an allegory.

 

Tolkien also wrote an incredibly specific world for his Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit Universe, complete with fake languages and detailed family trees of many of the main characters. Are we therefor to assume that because of the specificity at the hand of the author, the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are actually real events? Of course not, they are fiction. Being specific proves nothing. 

 

As for the sin part, you realize that you are highlighting discrepancies between the old testament and new testament, books that by all historical accounts were written in two completely time frames. On top of that, we know for certain that the new testament has been altered and edited by an organization with the very clear objective of turning it into a workable religion. Even so, again, it is very possible to turn each of those stories in allegories and still have them work out. There is an underlying message in those stories that is important. 

 

And yes, if people got stoned to death for working on the Sabbath then they got killed over an allegory. Tragic isn't it? 

 

 

On your final point, it would seem hurting innocent people is illogical; I guess that's why total warfare tactics was so unpopular during WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Iraqi-Kurd Conflict, the Iran-Iraq war, the Hindu-Muslim conflict in India, the Bolshevik revolution, the French Revolution (1789), the [Chinese] Cultural Revolution, etc. I could go on...People may not like it afterwards, but it ends up being very effective, and in turn, a very logical thing to do if it accomplishes your stated goals.

 

Eh, no, going after civilians is at best a waste of manpower for no gain or at worst counter productive. Turns out that bombing civilians tends to make them support the regime you are attacking, and can drive them to support the resistance against you. And it should be noted that during revolutions, total war tactics are not employed. There is no indiscriminate killing of civilians, there is the killing of supporters for the opposite side. In the case of revolutions. 

 

 

On a last point I just thought of, I fail to see, Maarten, how you answered that question in absence of the "furthering of humanity" point. Hitler was furthering the people he considered to be part of humanity (or at least, he thought that he was), yet he embodied all of the elements you cited as being formed from a desire to maintain survival of people. Additionally, if we want to be really narrow in definition, Hitler actually agreed with you on all of your points, so why is he labelled as evil, then? In situations absent from God or religion, there is, particularly among communist nations a strong tendency to shrink the group, harbor extensive racism, and despise the weak, and this is in absence of a higher authority. (Again, to restate, it is painfully clear that morality can be sought (and had) without religion. My point is that this morality is not specific, but general, and thus makes your morality no better than mine, even if there are more people on your side (also, consider if you have more people, but my guns are bigger--China and Japan, anyone?).

 

That is not what happened under Communism. Yeah, the group got shrunken, mostly because Communist states tend to be authoritarian states that do not want the opposition to become strong enough to challenge the regime. That happens in every authoritarian state, regardless of the position of religion in said state. As counter example, you could look at the Netherlands. One of the most atheist countries in the world, no official state religion, a clear separation between church and state, and no death camps. Why? Because the Netherlands is an example of a functional democracy. Anyways, back to Communism, it clearly did not 'despise the weak' given that it gave everyone free health care, jobs, equal pay, equal positions for women, forcibly integrated societies, forcibly tried to break down racism, etc. The racism (especially in Russia) returned after the failure of Communism because its difficult to change peoples prejudices against other people. It can't be forcibly removed. Also, the amount of people that were actually send to Gulags or prison camps reduced significantly after Stalin's death. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"Philosophy consists of questions that may never be answered.  Religion consists of answers that can never be questioned."

-- Anonymous.

[AidanA28 17]

What really gets at me about creationism is that people try to push it as science, when it isn't. There's absolutely no scientific basis for it. I have no problem with it being taught in schools, but it belongs in a theology classroom, not a science classroom.

From a scientific basis, evolution is just a "theory", since we can't exactly go back and time and observe all of biology evolve out from single celled lifeforms. The trouble is that people too commonly confuse the scientific definition of "theory" with the general one. They think that so long as it's just a theory, it can easily be refuted. Well, matter of fact is, we can't go back in time, but over recent history we have observed evolution in action. HIV and other disease-causing pathogens are often noticed to be evolving to be resistant to drugs used to treat infections caused by them. Some bacteria have evolved to be able to biodegrade nylon. There's no denying that evolution is happening, as we have observed it firsthand. What you can choose not to believe is that all life on earth came from a common starting point, and rather that species not unlike those seen today were "designed" by some superior being. Of course, the question then arises, where'd the superior being come from? By both science and theology we have an unsolvable mystery that the universe wasn't always here, and that no matter what at some point you got something out of nothing. Science says big bang. Religion says god. One is based on extensive research and calculations by educated scientists. The other is based on what a 2000 year old book says. The claim of the religious is that that book is directly gods word. Of course, that claim is impossible to prove, and frankly, to my logical, scientific mind, it seems highly more likely that it was written by mere humans as the basis for a religion intended to unite people under a common calling and keep them in line.

Ultimately, the important thing is that we properly label religion as religion, and science as science, and never try to force one upon the other, since the fact is they simply don't mix. You can choose to try to understand things through god or through science, but you can't have it both ways. It's one or the other. No matter what, both can't be right. The trouble comes that while science is science, there are a lot of different religions out there, and you can't possibly teach them all to their fullest extent in public schools. Still, basic knowledge about the world's main religions is something everyone should have, whether they ascribe to any of them or not, simply because knowing more is better, and knowledge in this area can do a lot to help avoid cross-cultural misunderstandings. I'd say, make all high school freshman take a class in general theology, which goes and covers the basics of everything, and then offer further, more specific classes as electives for if any students wish to pursue the subject further. Because it's a real shame that we've been trying to remove all traces of religion from public schools. The trouble is, that's the easy way out. Knowledge of religion is good to have. What's important to maintain, however, is that none of the teachers or other faculty favor one religion another in their teachings. They need to keep their personal beliefs out of it and merely teach things from an entirely neutral point of view. Which isn't always easy, but it can be done.

Agreed. Meanwhile I have a problem with creationism being taught in a grade school. While if a student feels uncomfortable in a class that teaches evolution, he should present it to his instructor,  it should be withheld from classes, unless in a specific religion study class or a Sunday school or church. Again, this is only my opinion.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I honestly thought this thread had died of the obviousness of evolution.

 

Creationism should only be referenced in comparative religion classes in post-secondary programs along with Alchemy.