Creationism vs. Evolution

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

JanYpe: Catholicism is part of Christendom, which is not the same as Christianity. Too way-off-topic to get into here, I would be glad to discuss it with you on a pm, or similar format. It's only lumped in by those outside the realm of theology, like the general public. And of course, The Vatican would vehemently disagree.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan catholicism isn't Christian. This may shock some, but it's absolutely true. quote>

It's not "absolutely true". You can't say that about anything involving religion. According to common classification, Catholicism is one of three branches of Christianity, the other two being Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

Of course, there are a lot of radical protestant groups out there that like to pit Catholicism as something less than Christianity, because they believe that their church has it right and thus other churches are wrong. There's lots of different types of protestantism out there, but they all seem to have in common that they rather nicely get along with each other but dislike catholicism. If you know some history, this makes a bit of sense, considering the formation of protestantism in the first place was a sort of set of "rebellions" against catholicism by people unhappy with the Vatican's way of doing things that wanted to go and do things differently.

But all three aforementioned groups have in common that they believe in Jesus as the savior/son of god, as such, they are all "Christian", at least by common definition of the word. Different religious groups sometimes like to alter that definition to exclude other groups they don't like, though, since they want to distance themselves from them.

The problem with classifying things like this is that different religious groups often look at things differently, so the religious classification depends on who you ask. A great example of this is the common "god". According to Islam, the gods of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all the same god. According to (most) Christianity, the god of Christianity and Judaism is the same, but the god of Islam is not, Jews being behind things in not embracing Jesus, and Muslims being heretic by following the "false prophet" Muhammad. And according to Judaism, none of them are the same, since their god would a) never send a messiah until the end of time, and b) would never send a prophet with instructions to disregard the Torah and instead use something else (the Koran).

So there's just no winning, since no matter what you say, someone disagrees with you. Religion is tricky that way.

[manman99 2]

i really dont like this thread its a fued that does not even deserve to be argued over, religion is totally different than science, and I am highly offended by this thread!

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Duke: That's why I digressed from the topic, I was referring to particular points in which, from a narrowly defined set of propositions concerning grace etc Catholicism differs sufficiently from the Bible to be considered as such. But as I pointed out, there will be much disagreement. And that whole discussion falls outside the topic of this forum.

Manman: While I agree that religion and science are separate, the point of the lengthy piece I am currently compiling is that the two are more intermingled than most people realize; at least concerning the origins of "Life, The Universe, and Everything" according to the world's most revered names in physics, cosmology, astronomy, mathematics, psychology, etc. I am sorry it offends you, but I was offended to see creationists accused of being warmongers, and the like. It's that kind of thinking that brought us Ted Turner's position that "Christians are the cause of drive-by shootings". And no one but me seemed the least bit offended at the anger hurled at those of us who reject a dichotomy that some of the world's foremost scientific minds also rejected. I don't think it's a feud, but rather an exercise that cut me deeply at first, but has turned into an opportunity for me to make a reasoned case for my position and present it to a forum that is obviously well educated and intelligent. It is without anger, malice, or condescension that I say, stick around, we all may yet take away something intellectually valuable from this whole discussion; I already have. Science is about following the argument wherever it leads, isn't it?

[2ch.net simplayer 180]

What I wonder is, what about Muslim version of creatinism, Greek myth version, Japanese myth version, Zoroastrian version, Hindu version and Chinese Daoist versions? For me, the Biblical version is nothing more than "just one of them".

And I doubt if anybody is militaristic enough to say "Biblical version is the truth and Muslim version is a lie"

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Coolotter88:re carbon 14; the enormous variances discovered along the way are well known, i.e. the living mollusks found to be 75,000 years old, etc. Thus, the constant switching to new techniques, like C-18, potassium-argon dating and the like. If C-14 were accurate enough, why keep changing the techniques, only to find a changed result?

quote>

Since you work in the engineering fields you probably understand the importance of using the right tool for the job.

C-14 is very useful for short timespans up to about 50k years. This makes it great for studies of archaeology and other "recent" things and not so good for studies of evolution. As I understand it C-14 is very rarely used in evolution, certainly not as much as some people seem to think .

Other isotopes have different half-lives, eg the potassium argon sytem is useful for much longer timescales. So you need to pick the right tool for the job. The scientists who use these tools are well aware of their capabilities and limitations, and know when to use which one. And more importantly, when not to use each one.

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: 2ch.net simplayer What I wonder is, what about Muslim version of creatinism, Greek myth version, Japanese myth version, Zoroastrian version, Hindu version and Chinese Daoist versions? For me, the Biblical version is nothing more than "just one of them".quote>

 

Interesting to note that almost all of those religions have one event in common:

A global flood with a man on a boat/ark/snake.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Barbarossa:I would have but one counterpoint to the flood stories; only one has a corroborating wooden ship on Mt. Ararat. Tangible, provable, much photographed, and the French still display wood taken from it. Totally enclosed by a glacier now, perhaps global warming will open it back up but the gov't of Turkey is reluctant to allow study of something that would support a Biblical story. That being said, I much appreciate your somewhat dispassionate and academic approach to this discussion and it presents a stark contrast with the emotional posts of some, no names. Thank you, I look forward to more discourse on this as time permits. As for the size of the universe, I really must admit that the ramifications pertaining to worldview are still up in the air and not yet hashed out to my own satisfaction; I would appeal to Hawking for a definite opinion of size if he were available for question and answer. Since he is not, a quick peek at Wiki gives a range of answers, ranging from 78 billion light years all the way up to infinite size. I certainly am not going to pontificate on an exact dimension if those most intimately connected with the number crunching cannot agree. I guess we'll all have to wait for a final verdict; whether or not we'll finally get one at any point then depends on your view of the afterlife! =-)

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

LOL, I was editing, you were posting, we kinda got crossed.

[vershner 11]

I originally asked the question about universe size. The reason being is that if you accept the current measured value of the speed of light, and you accept estimations as to the distances of other galaxies, then clearly you must accept that the universe is much older than 6000 years.

As for the discussion about the Ark. I don't think that anyone is denying that there was a flood. There is good scientific evidence to suggest there have been several very large floods in human history, and of course, these events were recorded by the people of the time and included in their traditions. It's also perfectly possible that a guy named Noah built a big ship and saved his family and numerous animals. What is not possible though is that he included every animal in existence.

Even if a ship were found on Ararat, it would not have any bearing on the theory of evolution.

Why do you creationists hold the Bible to be a literal truth? I don't understand that at all. The Bible was written by men. Whether or not it was the word of God originally is irrelevant, it was still written down by men. Since then it has been copied and recopied, translated, retranslated, interpreted, and language itself has changed. Nowadays there are hundreds of different versions of the Bible, which one is right?

Are you seriously suggesting that these men fully understood the word of God enough to write it down perfectly? And since then the Bible has remained completely unchanged?

[SimRabbit 48]

Can't believe some god's sons claim they have envolved from chimps.... pitty

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Barbarossa: Hawking is not an atheist, and is indeed angered by this assertion. He doesn't believe in a personal God, but here is an exerpt from the piece I am working on:

[in A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking has stated, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief." When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." ... "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"(p. 174)  Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.]- I am quoting Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer ,Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia.

Vershner: The accuracy of The King James has been checked and rechecked, and has been shown to be 99.5% accurate to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls bear this out, containing some texts far older than any previously known. The only differences were small and did not affect the meaning in any way. The supposition that it has lost anything in translation has been shown to be false every time it's tested. 

[greenlemon44 2]

Well I'm very much opposed to Creationism and Intelligent Design. I think it is an insult to my intelligence and to many educated intellects who choose to believe in it. I mean there are these Young Earth Creationists who think that the Earth is only a mere 6,000 years old! Yeah, maybe in SimCity 4 but not in reality! According to Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, 6,000 years ago was the Agricultural Age. The fact is Evolution by Natural Selection has piles of evidence to support it. The annoying thing I find as a scientist is that many schools in America ban the teaching of it in biology class and those who are opposed to it conjure up ridulous "proofs" refuting it and supporting ID or creation. Thankfully, I live in an enlightened country where science has freedom to be taught properly. Well, that's just many opinion on the whole thing.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Greenlemon: Polls have shown that 46% percent of those with PhDs attend church on a regular basis, and although there is no breakdown available for belief of origins, not everybody with high intelligence/education is insulted by creationism.

[vershner 11]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Vershner: The accuracy of The King James has been checked and rechecked, and has been shown to be 99.5% accurate to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls bear this out, containing some texts far older than any previously known. The only differences were small and did not affect the meaning in any way. The supposition that it has lost anything in translation has been shown to be false every time it's tested. 

quote>

There are so many problems with this statement I hardly know where to start!

Firstly, and most importantly, 99.5% that you claim is not 100%, and it can only be considered absolute truth if it is absolutely accurate.

Also, where do you get 99.5% from anyway? Ancient Hebrew is not perfectly understood. There are words and symbols in the Masoretic Text that are unknown, so any precise estimation of accurate translation is pointless.

Secondly, the Greek documents show evidence of editing, and they don't perfectly match the Hebrew documents. The King James Bible was not translated from them anyway.

Thirdly, the Masoretic Text that the King James was translated from dates from the 9th century. The original texts are far older than that and you have no way of establishing the accuracy of the Masoretic Text. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls only date from around Jesus's time so they are not original either. To be original the document would have to date from at least 722BC. There are no original documents that have been discovered.

So, at the very best case, the King James Bible is a translated copy, of a copy, and given the time frames involved and the materials available it is likely that there were many more copies further back.

It is very probable that the original stories were an oral tradition rather than a textual one, and given that Genesis is probably the oldest, it's the most likely to have been an oral tradition originally. How accurate do you think the passing on of an unwritten story would be?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Vershner: This site deals with this way-off-topic thread far more in depth than I'm inclined to here:

http://www.christianity.co.nz/bible-3.htm

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: greenlemon44 Well I'm very much opposed to Creationism and Intelligent Design. I think it is an insult to my intelligence and to many educated intellects who choose to believe in it. I mean there are these Young Earth Creationists who think that the Earth is only a mere 6,000 years old! Yeah, maybe in SimCity 4 but not in reality! According to Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, 6,000 years ago was the Agricultural Age. The fact is Evolution by Natural Selection has piles of evidence to support it. The annoying thing I find as a scientist is that many schools in America ban the teaching of it in biology class and those who are opposed to it conjure up ridulous "proofs" refuting it and supporting ID or creation. Thankfully, I live in an enlightened country where science has freedom to be taught properly. Well, that's just many opinion on the whole thing.quote>

Well, here's a little challenge.  Before the lunar landing, NASA put those massive eighteen foot legs on the lunar lander because they believed the moon to be billions of years old.  The theory of the young earth creationists, as you call them, was that the moon was only about 6000 years old, and that there would only be a couple or so inches of lunar dust instead of the dozen or so feet that NASA predicted.  And when it got there on the moon, there were only a couple or so inches of dust.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan Greenlemon: Polls have shown that 46% percent of those with PhDs attend church on a regular basis, and although there is no breakdown available for belief of origins, not everybody with high intelligence/education is insulted by creationism.quote>

Please quote your sources when you site statistics such as this. As I mentioned earlier it is important to check the original sources for verification.

Not everyone who attends church is a creationist. Your statement seems to imply that they are simply by proximity of the statements. In fact a very large number are likely to be theistic evolutionists.

 

You might be interested in this article in Nature (and its predecessors): Larson, E.J., Witham, L., Leading scientists still reject God, Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998)

In this study the researchers repeated in 1996-1998 two studies by James H. Leuba originally conducted in 1914 and 1933 to survey belief in God among US scientists and "greater scientists" (see article for definitions)

Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists

                                                                             

Belief in personal God   1914¹     1933²   1998

Personal belief                  27.7        15          7.0  

Personal disbelief              52.7        68        72.2 

Doubt or agnosticism        20.9        17        20.8  

References to the prior studies:

¹Leuba, J. H. The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological and Statistical Study (Sherman, French & Co., Boston, 1916).

²Leuba, J. H. Harper's Magazine 169, 291-300 (1934).

Larson, E. J. & Witham, L. Nature 386, 435-436 (1997).

The statistics for the surveyed scientists in general are also in the article.

Although its not exactly the same question as you were asking (how many believe in creationism), it does give some indication of the possible upper limits. For example you probably would expect only those who expressed belief in a personal god to be possibly be creationists (although they may not all be). Even with this upper limit the numbers are much lower than for the general US population (I'm sure you could find those numbers in the census statistics).

[CapitolAnarchy 5]

Originally posted by: Pixelrage Right, because everything came from thin air with no interjection of something intelligent.quote>

 

Right, because its more believable a far more complex being, like "God" came from thin air.

[CapitolAnarchy 5]

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewl CapitolAnarchy: Did you wikipedia that? Because that was freaking long. But that, that is what erks me. Now the kind of evolution that Sam has presented for the most part I don't have a problem with. Except maybe no eye becoming an eye, like he said, he'll never convince me that it is possible. But that crap you posted Capitol is what I have big problems with. Because you can say that all those things happened, but where did the sun come from? And why? You can never answer that and so your definiton make look all nifty and scientific and maybe even plausable, but there is as much evidence to that theory as there to a "invisible man in the sky." So what's your point? That your theory is better, more plausable, not faith induced? Because its none of those things...quote>

 

No, I believe my theory is better because its grounded. It comes from available evidence, rather than mere human amazement and hindsight reasoning.

If the universe didn't turn out the way it did, we would not be here to discuss it. We focus on how astonishing it is we exist, the same way a lottery winner is astonished that he won, despite a 100% chance that somebody would win. 

If we weren't here, or no sentient life existed at all in the universe, something would be around, even if it were just a hodge-podge of atoms in empty space, just as "lucky" to exist as we are.

Here's an example, think of our existence as a coin;
H= Heads
T= Tails
HTHTTHTTTHTHHHTHTTTHTHTHTHTTTHTTHTHHTTTHHHTTHTTHTHHHHHTHTHTHTHTT

Now what is the probability you will flip this exact sequence on your very first attempt?

It's 100%. Why? The coin was flipped and then the results were written down, just like our existence. Theres a huge difference in something randomly happening once and then the same thing randomly happening a second time. It doesn't make the first more unlikely, just because it can't be duplicated.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

CapitolAnarchy: By definition, God cannot come from anywhere, being eternal and infinite. Indeed, again by definition, a Creator of thin air. You don't have to agree with the idea of existence, but keeping a definition of terms in mind won't affect that viewpoint.

edit: Please people, let's keep this civil and respectful, despite the subject matter's tendency to ignite hard feelings( no names, myself included). I could reference Calvin to those of us out here who are believers; his admonishment was to get along. And we all know what a firebrand Calvin could be! If he could do it, we all can. I would hate this forum to be locked for descending into bitter emotional posts. It will eventually be settled for us all, regardless of your side of Pascal's Wager....

[CapitolAnarchy 5]

Originally posted by: manticorefan Maybe this point is covered in another post, there were so many to wade through I decided to chance it. Here goes.... To believe that living creatures can arise from non-living matter takes more faith than any religion; it is ridiculous to defend. Also, if one finds a watch on the beach, do you say, "hey, look what the ocean made in millions of years by accident"? The math involved in evolution has been calculated recently at 10 to the 87th power against, JUST TO GET TO A SINGLE CELL. That is the equivalent of 1 particle of matter in all of the known universe. If I cooked you a 7 course meal, and told you there was no cook, you would know I was lying... My point is, design requires a designer. Those of you with programming experience know this; all the wishful thinking in the world will not spontaneously spawn a written program. Not to mention, the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. A car will eventually rust away into nothing, but no amount of time, or lightning, will make a pile of rust spawn an automobile. Put away the mental gymnastics, gentlemen;  use your intellectual capacities honestly! You're running in circles to argue the impossible. Even Darwin basically recanted Evo before his death, he admitted that it was the human eye that kept him awake nights and it made evo " absurd in the highest degree"

quote>

 

Please see my above response.

As for Charles Darwin, he is simply a contributor to  evolution, he is/was by no means an absolute authority on evolutionary theory. Keep the absolutes for theology. Science is not meant to be a flawless explaination to everything, but rather a grouping of current  human knowledge subject to change with the grounded advancements made in information and technology .

[CapitolAnarchy 5]

Originally posted by: vershner Have any of you considered that fact that, by Christian standards, claiming that the Bible is infallible is a blasphemy?

Think about it, the Bible was written down by men. Whether or not it was the word of God is irrelevant. The fact remains that it was written down by men. Ordinary human men who are as fallible as you or I. Is anyone suggesting that these men were capable of fully understanding and documenting the will of God?

Suggesting that any man or group of men could produce something perfect is a blasphemy. Only God is supposed to be able to produce something perfect. Therefore the Bible is not perfect, and does not need to be taken literally.quote>

 

If you question the Bible's credibility, you bring the Judeo-Christian God himself into question. If one admits man fabricated parts of the Bible, it is reasonable for that person to admit man could have fabricated God himself.

It is also possible to blame God, assuming he does exist and the Bible has been corrupted by men, for allowing misinformation to flourish and mislead billions into following concocted moral codes and unknowingly sinning in the process. 

Questioning the Bible, even in part, makes you an agnostic by default.

[CapitolAnarchy 5]

Originally posted by: manticorefan CapitolAnarchy: By definition, God cannot come from anywhere, being eternal and infinite. Indeed, again by definition, a Creator of thin air. You don't have to agree with the idea of existence, but keeping a definition of terms in mind won't affect that viewpoint.

edit: Please people, let's keep this civil and respectful, despite the subject matter's tendency to ignite hard feelings( no names, myself included). I could reference Calvin to those of us out here who are believers; his admonishment was to get along. And we all know what a firebrand Calvin could be! If he could do it, we all can. I would hate this forum to be locked for descending into bitter emotional posts. It will eventually be settled for us all, regardless of your side of Pascal's Wager....

quote>

 

But believers haven't explained why they feel it possible for GOD, a being said to have limitless power, to have existed eternally backward in time and yet not a simple organism, like atomic matter.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

CapitolAnarchy: Because all of us regardless of religious belief or lack thereof, generally understand that matter must have a starting point. In the course of my researching this topic, I have not come across any opinion by any scientist that matter itself is eternal in nature. Even the highest end of theoretical physics does not seem to question whether or not atomic particles have existed "before time". I may be wrong, and I am quite sure there are those here who will definitely correct me if so! LOL

[Thyme 0]

@maticoreman: you did sound a bit like a sulking child earlier, glad to see you aren't . I have to disagree with your signature, though (it's a little presumptuous); I'm quite happy as a second generation non-believer and non-seeker .

What I don't understand about Intelligent Design (and there are many things I don't) is: what use is it? If it is science, shouldn't it have applications? If we consider for one sec that the general scientific community threw out the theory of the mechanism of evolution, and adopted that of intelligent design (if we can call a community scientific if it were to do that just because), then what would happen? What science could be done around intelligent design? How can it be built upon, other than by saying "and he made this, and this, too, and obviously this as it's so cool..."? How can it be applied, as the only thing it says about biological mechanisms is "just because they do"?

Isn't it true, in the end, that even if scientists called  the truth intelligent design  (taking into  account that  they'd have to call it absolute truth in order to keep themselves from slipping back into evolutionism), they would still have to apply the theory of evolution in their science, because that is a theory based on observations and predictions can be based on it? After all, science is more than the act of writing school text books. It goes on and forward all the time, and it needs building blocks to function. It seems to me that the idea of intelligent design isn't a very useful one outside the writing of school textbooks. All those fields of science besides biology, that were mentioned by someone smarter than me earlier in this thread, that utilise the theory of evolution, what would happen to them if they tried to apply intelligent design?

It seems to me like a lot of science could just be cancelled - we could just sit down and state "well, it was all designed, probably even created at the same timepoint, and that's just how it is. There's nothing more to learn."

So I'd like to throw the ball to the intelligent design-believers' corner. If you could just stop trying to disprove evolution and old earth for a while and explain what applications the idea of intelligent design has? Make a case for it, so to speak. Without any sarcasm, I'm really interested in hearing about it.