Creationism vs. Evolution

[Boggy1 45]

CrushedCar: I'm not going to repeat what everyone above me has said, because A. they are likely far more knowledgeable on the subjects in question, and b. I don't want to repeat it all. Hopefully you can see from the above evidence that some of your preconceptions were in fact misconceptions. This, I think, is a major problem when it comes to dealing with this debate. Both sides are usually too firmly stuck up in their own beliefs and viewpoints to properly listen to or research the opposing viewpoint.

What I will do however, is point you to a: video:

This is an episode of the Cosmos series, a much hailed scientific show broadcasted in the early 1980s. It really gives a fantastic insight into the Universe, through all forms of teachings, including history, biology, physics, and chemistry. It's presented by Carl Sagan, who was a brilliant scientist and also a brilliant presenter; he makes things far easier to understand, and his great enthusiasm is obvious.

Some say that the world is too beautiful and perfect for it to have ever been created by chance. But the Cosmos series hopefully will smash those ideas, as it really makes you see the wonder for the Universe in all its natural glory. It has moved me to tears quite a few times. I'd highly recommend anyone to watch it (most of the episodes are on Google Video), and although it is slightly dated by now, and if you can get past the rather cheesy music and graphics, it still provides a real wealth of understanding and information, for any age.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Evolutionist? There is no such thing as evolutionism, therefore there are no evolutionists.quote>

From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion·ist

Pronunciation: -sh(-)nst

Function: noun

: a student of or adherent to a theory of evolutionquote>

And btw, said dictionary also recognizes the word "evolutionism" though it doesn't seem to have a definition for it.quote>

 

I stated my opinion on the "evolutionism" term. The reasons dictionaries define evolutionist is:

1. In the 19th century, "evolutionism" was used to refer to the belief organisms must improve themselves, and/or the the application of evolutionary mechanisms to the social condition (i.e. social Darwinism)

2. The term "evolutionism" and "evolutionist" has been revived in the 21st centuy by some Creationists and the people at the Discovery Institute to attempt to foster the notion that Evolution is an "-ism" (or a belief, a dogma). It is now used by some people to refer to Evolution, and therefore has entered the English language.

Dictionaries define words in a certain language. Since Evolutionism and Evolutionist has entered the English language, due to its use by certain people, dictionaries define it. It is as simple as that.

[psander5 195]

Thanks for the link to that video Boggy. I enjoyed it immensely!

[Blazerhawk 162]

Okay I'm only going to respond to a few of the replies as I am short on time.

First, to come to mind was why I would rather be proven wrong at death. In relation to this matter it is this. If I were to accept creationism my whole life and were wrong then nothing happens. My body would decay and I would have ceased to exist. If on the other hand, creationism is right, and I had chosen to reject it and all that goes along with it then...

Second, I'll admit I probably don't have a clue as to what evolution teaches. I haven't had any desire to read some 250-page scientific book full of words that I would have to look up. I haven't read most of the stuff supporting creation either. I'm still in high school. I'll stop trying to disprove what I don't know.

Third, even if creationism is not a theory, it is at least an idea. By not even mentioning it, these classes are doing their students a disservice. The US runs on opposing ideas (if you don't believe me just look at Congress and the Presidency). Would it not be beneficial to note the other ideas?

Finally, I will say this. Since, I seem to be the only posting here that believes in creation, I am going to ask you why I should believe evolution. What evidence is there against creation? I don't want statistics supporting evolution, I want reasons I should not believe in creation.

[De Ja Vu 117]

We had this discussion at biology today 3 cheers for Charles Darwin

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: crushedcar I am going to ask you why I should believe evolution. What evidence is there against creation? I don't want statistics supporting evolution, I want reasons I should not believe in creation.quote>

Problem is, there's a false dichotomy there. One can easily believe in both creation and evolution. For instance, to say that god created the universe and set the events in motion that lead to the origin and evolution of life, or even to say that god created the first prokaryotic cells which evolved into everything we know today.

It just requires that one take the bible metaphorically rather than literally - which many Christians are unwilling to do, although many more would say it was never meant to be taken literally, that it's the moral of the story and the general message that's important, not the details.

As to why you should not believe in creation... well, I can't give any reasons for that since there isn't really a reason why you shouldn't. You're entitled to your opinion.

I don't because I find the idea of there being some sort of divine supernatural power to be ridiculous, and would point out that one can say that a god might explain where the universe came from but it only then begs the question, "where did that god come from?" It solves nothing, it only substitutes one problem for another. There's no logic to it. Thus, I am an atheist and reject the idea. I also do not like the idea that my fate is somehow controlled by a higher power that I must surrender to. I far prefer to make my own way in life and make my own decisions about what's right and wrong than have those choices made for me. Hence, I base my philosophy on the idea that there is no higher power, and that people need to take the initiative to work for things themselves rather than praying for them. I take responsibility for my own actions, admit to my own mistakes, and take pride in my own successes. I don't blame anyone, divine or not, for my faults, nor do I thank anyone for my achievements.

[Boggy1 45]

crushedcar:

First, to come to mind was why I would rather be proven wrong at death. In relation to this matter it is this. If I were to accept creationism my whole life and were wrong then nothing happens. My body would decay and I would have ceased to exist. If on the other hand, creationism is right, and I had chosen to reject it and all that goes along with it then...quote>

The fear of death is one of the most fundamental fears that the human race has. It's instinctual. It's the fear of the absolute ultimate unknown. But, is believing in evolution really believing in no life after death whatsoever? Plenty of people, scientists too, believe in at least some sort of life after death. I hope that there is something after death. There are multitudes of religions on this planet, and most believe in something after death; be it Buddhism and reincarnation, or the Islamic heaven. These seem to me each as valid as anything else. Whatever you do you may face with the wrong decision. That's something I've accepted.

Second, I'll admit I probably don't have a clue as to what evolution teaches. I haven't had any desire to read some 250-page scientific book full of words that I would have to look up. I haven't read most of the stuff supporting creation either. I'm still in high school. I'll stop trying to disprove what I don't know. quote>

You have no clue what evolution teaches? This surprises me being that you advertise yourself as 17. I'm not sure how science lessons work over in the USA, but surely you've at least come across the fundamental teachings and theories of evolution at least once?

Third, even if creationism is not a theory, it is at least an idea. By not even mentioning it, these classes are doing their students a disservice. quote>

Again, I don't know exactly how the USA works. Over here in the UK, evolution is taught as a fact in science. Creationism (along with many other things) is taught in Religious Education Classes, which you have to take by law from the ages of 11 - 16. Creationism is an idea, your right. And it shouldn't be ignored. But it shouldn't be in science. Because it is not science. You wouldn't teach the History of Europe in a Mathematics class.

Finally, I will say this. Since, I seem to be the only posting here that believes in creation, I am going to ask you why I should believe evolution. What evidence is there against creation? I don't want statistics supporting evolution, I want reasons I should not believe in creation.quote>

You are correct, there is no evidence against creationism. There probably never will be. But there is also no evidence, no scientific empirical evidence, for it. I'd be far more inclined to believe something that does have evidence, that has a LOT of research and debate and discussion and experimentation behind it. You can believe in creationism, of course you can. The reasons that you shouldn't believe in it? Well, from a scientific point of view, because it has no evidence for it. It is akin to believing that the Universe is in fact being carried ontop of four giant elephants, atop of a giant tortoise, which is swimming through the multiverse. There is no evidence against it, and there probably never will be. But what is more logical?

I have a lovely little thing that I use, called Occam's Razor. It states "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.". What is more simple? That a diety created all life on Earth, that we are somehow special in this Universe. That we have been mislead all of these generations, with false fossil records, and confused readings. That there might be a vast conspiracy of science against Christians and other religions. Or, that we evolved over the past few billion years, naturally, that we are absolutely tiny in this Universe, and that there is no artificial intervention used. The latter, if you read some of the evolution evidence, is the simplest. And the most logical. The former does not seem to make sense in according to what we know.

Granted, we do not know everything, far far from it. Darwin's theory of a Tree of Life has come under huge criticism, and is now regarded as an innacurate picture of the world. Yet it was one of the core parts of the Theory of Evolution. That seems to be the beauty of science; it can change and fluctuate with new evidence. I'm sure that as we gain more knowledge, the Theory of Evolution will change. Maybe in a number of centuries it will be almost totally different to what we believe now. It isn't constant. It isn't stable. Religious dogma, on the other hand, seems to be quite the opposite.

psander: Thank you! It is a really great series. I highly recommend you watch the rest of it; it can really alter your perception of our place in the Universe.

One video that I think everyone should see if Pale Blue Dot. This is also narrated by Carl Sagan. When you first see it, it can really change how you view the world.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

You have no clue what evolution teaches? This surprises me being that you advertise yourself as 17. I'm not sure how science lessons work over in the USA, but surely you've at least come across the fundamental teachings and theories of evolution at least once?quote>

Originally posted by: crushedcar

I admit that there are schools that teach only creation (I attended one), but such are usually associated with a church and such a cirruculum is expected or desired by the parents.quote>

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Blazerhawk 162]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Problem is, there's a false dichotomy there. One can easily believe in both creation and evolution. For instance, to say that god created the universe and set the events in motion that lead to the origin and evolution of life, or even to say that god created the first prokaryotic cells which evolved into everything we know today.

It just requires that one take the bible metaphorically rather than literally - which many Christians are unwilling to do, although many more would say it was never meant to be taken literally, that it's the moral of the story and the general message that's important, not the details.quote>

The idea of creationary evolution to me seems like a weak attempt to compromise by accepting both. Let me ask this here. What purpose would it serve for a god capable of creating the universe to employ evolution for life? Would it not bring that god more glory to have created everything?

Also you are correct that most faithful Christians take the Bible literally. I add the faithful because I doubt that we would be having this debate if the reported percentage of Christians was actually the true percentage in the US. Studies have reported numbers of something like 60-80% Christian. 

Originally posted by: Duke87

As to why you should not believe in creation... well, I can't give any reasons for that since there isn't really a reason why you shouldn't. You're entitled to your opinion.

I don't because I find the idea of there being some sort of divine supernatural power to be ridiculous, and would point out that one can say that a god might explain where the universe came from but it only then begs the question, "where did that god come from?" It solves nothing, it only substitutes one problem for another. There's no logic to it. Thus, I am an atheist and reject the idea. I also do not like the idea that my fate is somehow controlled by a higher power that I must surrender to. I far prefer to make my own way in life and make my own decisions about what's right and wrong than have those choices made for me. Hence, I base my philosophy on the idea that there is no higher power, and that people need to take the initiative to work for things themselves rather than praying for them. I take responsibility for my own actions, admit to my own mistakes, and take pride in my own successes. I don't blame anyone, divine or not, for my faults, nor do I thank anyone for my achievements.quote>

I agree that you are entitled to your own opinion. However, I would suggest reading The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. He was an aetheist who went out to prove that Christ was not who the Bible says he is. Strobel was so overwhelmed with what he found that he actually became a Christian. It might answer some of your questions.

Originally posted by: Boggy1

The fear of death is one of the most fundamental fears that the human race has. It's instinctual. It's the fear of the absolute ultimate unknown. But, is believing in evolution really believing in no life after death whatsoever? Plenty of people, scientists too, believe in at least some sort of life after death. I hope that there is something after death. There are multitudes of religions on this planet, and most believe in something after death; be it Buddhism and reincarnation, or the Islamic heaven. These seem to me each as valid as anything else. Whatever you do you may face with the wrong decision. That's something I've accepted.quote>

I'll admit that what you said about relignon is true.  I'm not sure how you can have an afterlife and still accept evolution, though (the idea seems.

Originally posted by: Boggy1

You have no clue what evolution teaches? This surprises me being that you advertise yourself as 17. I'm not sure how science lessons work over in the USA, but surely you've at least come across the fundamental teachings and theories of evolution at least once?quote>

Fuduka had it partially right. Although the other part was dismissed as I hated biology (it bored me). Thus, most of the biological ideas of evolution went in my head and came out on the test and that was it. That BTW was how I treated biology in general.

Originally posted by: Boggy1

Again, I don't know exactly how the USA works. Over here in the UK, evolution is taught as a fact in science. Creationism (along with many other things) is taught in Religious Education Classes, which you have to take by law from the ages of 11 - 16. Creationism is an idea, your right. And it shouldn't be ignored. But it shouldn't be in science. Because it is not science. You wouldn't teach the History of Europe in a Mathematics class. quote>

Here we don't have the luxuries of such classes because they might offend someone. And if someone gets offende they sue. Thus, over here you would have to find the best match which would probably be science.

Originally posted by: Boggy1

You are correct, there is no evidence against creationism. There probably never will be. But there is also no evidence, no scientific empirical evidence, for it. I'd be far more inclined to believe something that does have evidence, that has a LOT of research and debate and discussion and experimentation behind it. You can believe in creationism, of course you can. The reasons that you shouldn't believe in it? Well, from a scientific point of view, because it has no evidence for it. It is akin to believing that the Universe is in fact being carried ontop of four giant elephants, atop of a giant tortoise, which is swimming through the multiverse. There is no evidence against it, and there probably never will be. But what is more logical?

I have a lovely little thing that I use, called Occam's Razor. It states "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.". What is more simple? That a diety created all life on Earth, that we are somehow special in this Universe. That we have been mislead all of these generations, with false fossil records, and confused readings. That there might be a vast conspiracy of science against Christians and other religions. Or, that we evolved over the past few billion years, naturally, that we are absolutely tiny in this Universe, and that there is no artificial intervention used. The latter, if you read some of the evolution evidence, is the simplest. And the most logical. The former does not seem to make sense in according to what we know.

Granted, we do not know everything, far far from it. Darwin's theory of a Tree of Life has come under huge criticism, and is now regarded as an innacurate picture of the world. Yet it was one of the core parts of the Theory of Evolution. That seems to be the beauty of science; it can change and fluctuate with new evidence. I'm sure that as we gain more knowledge, the Theory of Evolution will change. Maybe in a number of centuries it will be almost totally different to what we believe now. It isn't constant. It isn't stable. Religious dogma, on the other hand, seems to be quite the opposite. quote>

This is where I disagree. Evolution has thousands of variables. Creation (strict creation) does not have any (that involve the actual idea of creation).

Originally posted by:Barbarosa

I think you have given yourself good advice, and I am not trying to be smarmy.  Far too many people are quick to deny evolution, yet they have never read anything about it.  Of course, it applies in the opposite direction, as well (the difference being that many focus on a particular religious creation myth and are ignorant of - or do not favor -  other ones)quote>

Thank you.

Originally posted by:Barbarosa

Creationism is simply not testable.  It is not even realistic.  It is impossible for it to fit into any sort of scientific criteria, save anthropology and psychology (and you wouldn't like how it is treated there).  As a result, it does not belong in a science course.quote>

See where I commented to Boggy1. It should be mentioned. As far as anthropology and psychology, well it probably already happens in there.

Originally posted by:Barbarosa

You are not the only creationist in the thread, so don't worry about that.    Perhaps the others simply stopped posting, either from frustration or lack of interest.quote>

I know. But that doesn't help the one-vs.-the-world feeling.

This a little humor I found in making this post: Click-drag over this emoticon . How about that for evolution? j/k.

[fukuda 351]

The idea of creationary evolution to me seems like a weak attempt to compromise by accepting both. Let me ask this here. What purpose would it serve for a god capable of creating the universe to employ evolution for life? Would it not bring that god more glory to have created everything?quote>

Not especially, evolution is a more or less automatic adaptive process. It could free him the work to change all the living beings when they need to adapt to different environments.

Thus, over here you would have to find the best match which would probably be science.quote>

Philosophy sounds like a better match for me ._.

This is where I disagree. Evolution has thousands of variables. Creation (strict creation) does not have any (that involve the actual idea of creation).quote>

I agree with crushedcar here, creation is by far the simplest one. It's not the most rational though.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: crushedcar

The idea of creationary evolution to me seems like a weak attempt to compromise by accepting both. Let me ask this here. What purpose would it serve for a god capable of creating the universe to employ evolution for life? Would it not bring that god more glory to have created everything?quote>

You're trying to apply logic to god here. Remember, god is transcendent and thus immune to all logic.

The line "the lord works in mysterious ways" is thrown around by Christians a lot, no?

Also you are correct that most faithful Christians take the Bible literally. I add the faithful because I doubt that we would be having this debate if the reported percentage of Christians was actually the true percentage in the US. Studies have reported numbers of something like 60-80% Christian. quote>

Okay, I think we may be bumping into the definition of "Christian" debate here again. Which we have a thread for.

The figures that report the US as 60-80% Christian count Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, and Eastern Orthodox all as "Christian". Many Protestants claim that only Protestants are "Christian" (see other thread).

And, well, taking the bible literally is a mostly protestant idea. Some protestant churches are literalist, others are not. But the Catholic church is most certainly not.

So, your statement that "most faithful Christians take the bible literally" is rather loaded, due to that word "faithful". There are many varying ideas as to what constitutes a "faithful Christian". You're implying that Christians who do not take the bible literally are not faithful. Well, there are a lot of Christians who do not take the bible literally who would likely take objection to that statement. I'd try and avoid throwing terms like "faithful Christian" or "good Christian" around. Very easy to offend people with them.

Here we don't have the luxuries of such classes because they might offend someone. And if someone gets offende they sue. Thus, over here you would have to find the best match which would probably be science.quote>

Except it's not "the best match". It's not a match at all since the subject simply is not science, no matter how you twist it. The fact of the matter simply is, the kind of class it belongs to simply does not exist in public schools in this country. And there's a reason for that. Schools are supposed to teach objective facts. Religion is anything but. It's entirely subjective by nature and in teaching it you're teaching only opinions. Hence, we leave it to the religious institutions to handle. Makes perfect sense.

This is where I disagree. Evolution has thousands of variables. Creation (strict creation) does not have any (that involve the actual idea of creation).quote>

No, but does have the matter of god. Hence, it still fails Occam's Razor since it's dealing with the supernatural rather than the natural. It's assuming that something whose existence we have no evidence of did something we had no evidence happened. Evolution, on the other hand, has plenty of evidence in its favor. So while it may be more complicated in nature, it nevertheless is more likely since what we know seems to point to it rather than it being just a total shot in the dark of blind faith.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Duke87

You're trying to apply logic to god here. Remember, god is transcendent and thus immune to all logic. quote>

That is a logical fallacy, Duke. I recommend Dr Gordon Clark, who wrote and taught extensively on logic and its relationship to the nature of God. It may open your eyes.

God is not immune to logic, but rather the author of it. There is nothing illogical about God, nor belief. To claim there is just repeats one of the biggest lies in modern philosophy, one that has been thoroughly punctured.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: crushedcar

First, to come to mind was why I would rather be proven wrong at death. In relation to this matter it is this. If I were to accept creationism my whole life and were wrong then nothing happens. My body would decay and I would have ceased to exist. If on the other hand, creationism is right, and I had chosen to reject it and all that goes along with it then...quote>

Ah, the classic Pascal's Wager. I understand why now.

Second, I'll admit I probably don't have a clue as to what evolution teaches. I haven't had any desire to read some 250-page scientific book full of words that I would have to look up. I haven't read most of the stuff supporting creation either. I'm still in high school. I'll stop trying to disprove what I don't know.quote>

Agreed, since it is usually not a good idea to try to disprove something you don't know how to disprove. Or something like that .

Third, even if creationism is not a theory, it is at least an idea. By not even mentioning it, these classes are doing their students a disservice. The US runs on opposing ideas (if you don't believe me just look at Congress and the Presidency). Would it not be beneficial to note the other ideas?quote>

I don't believe that non-science belongs in science classes, but I do believe that a theory should not be passed along as a fact. I am a proponent of teaching the evidence for Evolution as a fact, and teaching the Theory of Evolution itself as a theory. Makes sense to me.

Finally, I will say this. Since, I seem to be the only posting here that believes in creation, I am going to ask you why I should believe evolution. What evidence is there against creation? I don't want statistics supporting evolution, I want reasons I should not believe in creation.quote>

 

Why should you believe Evolution? Firstly, the evidence in favor of Evolution, and the near-complete absence of evidence against. Secondly, the guideline of Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is usually the best). Thirdly, we should not only judge a theory on whether the evidence points to it, but also whether there is any at all. There is none at all for Creation.

The idea of creationary evolution to me seems like a weak attempt to compromise by accepting both. Let me ask this here. What purpose would it serve for a god capable of creating the universe to employ evolution for life? Would it not bring that god more glory to have created everything?quote>

I agree that Theistic Evolution is inconsistent with the Christian god. However, a deistic god would be consistent with Evolution, if that god created the first lifeform.

In response to your questions, if there is a god, then no one would know its behavior, inclinations, personality, or powers. Also, a god may not want to bring maximum glory to itself. That cannot be proven or disproven, but it does poke holes in those two questions.

Also fukuda pointed out that:

Not especially, evolution is a more or less automatic adaptive process. It could free him the work to change all the living beings when they need to adapt to different environments.quote>

Wonderfully put. If I were a god, I would have designed some process so the lifeforms can self-adapt.

However, I would suggest reading The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. He was an aetheist who went out to prove that Christ was not who the Bible says he is. Strobel was so overwhelmed with what he found that he actually became a Christian. It might answer some of your questions.quote>

First of all, as I understand it, Jesus was the name of the person, and Christ is simply a title which means "the annoited one" in Greek.

Also, there is little evidence either way to prove or disprove that Jesus was not who the Bible says he was, apart from the writings of his followers, which could have been easily fabricated, exaggerated, or censored.

I'll admit that what you said about relignon is true.  I'm not sure how you can have an afterlife and still accept evolution, though (the idea seems.quote>

Evolution does not cover anything to do with death, apart from bodies dying, which is an indisputable fact (bodies die). So, the afterlife and Evolution are not inconsistent with each other.

God is not immune to logic, but rather the author of it. quote>

Perhaps, but which came first, logic or god? Your answer determines your belief on that front.

There is nothing illogical about God, nor belief. quote>

There is nothing illogical about belief as long as it is logical. I think that belief in the Christian god is illogical, since there is no evidence for it, and a lot of evidence against.

To claim there is just repeats one of the biggest lies in modern philosophy, one that has been thoroughly punctured. quote>

Lies in modern philosophy? How do you define modern philosophy? Also, it is not a lie if you believe in that philosophy, but only if you believe in a contrary philosophy.

[fukuda 351]

Lies in modern philosophy? How do you define modern philosophy? Also, it is not a lie if you believe in that philosophy, but only if you believe in a contrary philosophy.quote>

Well, for pretty obvious reasons, modern philosophy abandoned religion as a source of knowledge

[Blazerhawk 162]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I am a proponent of teaching the evidence for Evolution as a fact, and teaching the Theory of Evolution itself as a theory. Makes sense to me.quote>

That would definitely help.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Why should you believe Evolution? Firstly, the evidence in favor of Evolution, and the near-complete absence of evidence against. Secondly, the guideline of Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is usually the best). Thirdly, we should not only judge a theory on whether the evidence points to it, but also whether there is any at all. There is none at all for Creation.quote>

There may not be evidence for Creation itself, but there is evidence for a literal interpretation of the Bible. A literal interpretation of the Bible would support Creation.

As I have already stated, I find Creation much simpler than Evolution. It has the hitch of a supernatural God, but beyond that it is much simpler.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I agree that Theistic Evolution is inconsistent with the Christian god. However, a deistic god would be consistent with Evolution, if that god created the first lifeform.

In response to your questions, if there is a god, then no one would know its behavior, inclinations, personality, or powers. Also, a god may not want to bring maximum glory to itself. That cannot be proven or disproven, but it does poke holes in those two questions.quote>

Yes, but this is another case of literal vs. metaphoric interpretation.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Also fukuda pointed out that:

Not especially, evolution is a more or less automatic adaptive process. It could free him the work to change all the living beings when they need to adapt to different environments.quote>

Wonderfully put. If I were a god, I would have designed some process so the lifeforms can self-adapt.quote>

Creation does not say that he didn't put something like that in place. It simply says that it is not how life came about.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

However, I would suggest reading The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. He was an aetheist who went out to prove that Christ was not who the Bible says he is. Strobel was so overwhelmed with what he found that he actually became a Christian. It might answer some of your questions.quote>

First of all, as I understand it, Jesus was the name of the person, and Christ is simply a title which means "the annoited one" in Greek.

Also, there is little evidence either way to prove or disprove that Jesus was not who the Bible says he was, apart from the writings of his followers, which could have been easily fabricated, exaggerated, or censored.quote>

OK, two things. 1) That quote is from my post not fuduka's. 2) I was assuming that everyone would understand that  I meant Jesus Christ. Any other discussion on that topic would be off topic.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I'll admit that what you said about relignon is true.  I'm not sure how you can have an afterlife and still accept evolution, though (the idea seems.quote>

Evolution does not cover anything to do with death, apart from bodies dying, which is an indisputable fact (bodies die). So, the afterlife and Evolution are not inconsistent with each other.quote>

Yes, but how would one attach an afterlife to evolution?

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

There is nothing illogical about God, nor belief. quote>

There is nothing illogical about belief as long as it is logical. I think that belief in the Christian god is illogical, since there is no evidence for it, and a lot of evidence against.quote>

Again there may not be direct evidence for God, but there is indirect evidence.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

To claim there is just repeats one of the biggest lies in modern philosophy, one that has been thoroughly punctured. quote>

Lies in modern philosophy? How do you define modern philosophy? Also, it is not a lie if you believe in that philosophy, but only if you believe in a contrary philosophy.quote>

True. Philosophy is hard to define, but I would say like fuduka has that modern philosophy has pretty much said that no knowledge can come of religion.

[_Atticus 10]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

There is nothing illogical about God, nor belief. quote>

There is nothing illogical about belief as long as it is logical. I think that belief in the Christian god is illogical, since there is no evidence for it, and a lot of evidence against.

quote>

Actually, I beg to differ.

In my opinion, life alone is enough evidence to prove that God exists.

Also, could you please list some scientific evidence that God does not exist?

-Pingangster

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

That is a logical fallacy, Duke.

God is not immune to logic, but rather the author of it. quote>

That is, however, an opinion, not a fact. Hence the problem. Common logic falls apart when you start looking at transcendent beings. How, after all, can god be transcendent if he is still subject to the laws of logic?

Consider that for god to be transcendent of all, he must be transcendent of all logic... meaning that he both exists and does not exist, he is both good and evil, he is both alive and dead, he both makes sense and does not make sense etc. If he is not all of these paradoxes, he is not all powerful or truly transcendent, now is he?

You run into so many infinite loops and dead ends trying to apply logic to it it ain't even funny. A Christian would say, "well, it's beyond our comprehension. We just can't know it." A person such as myself would look at it and immediately realize that the only logical, rational conclusion is that it's all a bunch of bull jive.

There is nothing illogical about God, nor belief. quote>

Not about belief in and of itself, no. But belief in something which has no basis in anything concrete or observable? That's on some pretty shaky ground, rationally speaking.

To claim there is just repeats one of the biggest lies in modern philosophy, one that has been thoroughly punctured.quote>

Just because someone's opinion differs from yours does not make it a "lie".

And if it has been oh so thoroughly punctured, would you care to share some of those puncturings?

Originally posted by: pingangster

In my opinion, life alone is enough evidence to prove that God exists.quote>

Che? The existence of life does not prove anything about a god or supernatural being. God would certainly be one possible explanation for it, but it's far from the only one. Nothing is proven so long as there are alternative possible explanations. It is most certainly not "proof". One could claim that it's "evidence", but it's circumstantial evidence at best. It's not scientifically valid evidence, that's for sure...

Also, could you please list some scientific evidence that God does not exist?quote>

Could you please list some scientific evidence that he does?

Listen to what you're saying here. You're claiming that just because it cannot be proven false, therefore it must be true.

This is another one of those famous logical fallacies and it even has a Latin name to go with it: Ad Ignorantiam.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Duke87 If he is not all of these paradoxes, he is not all powerful or truly transcendent, now is he?quote>

All powerful doesn't mean you have to be paradoxical.  You have the power to be paradoxical, but it doesn't require that you be paradoxical.  The fact that you have the power doesn't mean you have to use it.

[Blazerhawk 162]

I think one thing that to keep in mind here is, if God is all powerful then He would defy description. Why? Man cannot grasp the meaning of God because we cannot comprehend the concept of infinity. We can understand the meaning of infinity but to quantify it is impossible. All-powerful could be substitued for infinitely powerful. Therefore, we are trying to describe an object that is infinitely powerful with finite words. Logic would dictate that such would be impossible.

Think of the concept of a graph of the function y=x. You can define aspects of it, slope, intercepts, points on the line etc. but you cannot assign a maximum value to it because there will always be one more. You, therefore, cannot assign an area to either side of the graph since you have a side of infinity. Infinity times anything equals infinity. Thus, it is impossible to quantify area for one side of an infinite graph without setting some bounds. However, these do not terminate the graph they simply make it possible to quantify area. That area however is only part of the total.

This where man runs into problems with the concept of God. We set bounds to define Him by and yet He will always exceed those bounds by an infinite amount. Voltaire put it this way, "God created man in His image, and man returned the favor." To debate what God is and isn't is not only off topic (in this context) but also one of the most pointless things because we could only cover an infinitely small part of His character.

So to say God is paradoxial or all powerful are just ways of saying that God defies description.

---

Also, just a bit of physics that can be applied to this debate. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with entropy or disorder. One of the things that makes no sense to me about evolution is that the whole theory seems to suggest that in biology reactions tend to go from disorder to order. Be it the idea of cells combining to work on a single task for a colony, cells using RNA to construct more complex DNA, or even cells moving from asexual reproduction to sexual reprodution. I only ask this because this seems a bit of a paradox to say that in biology order builds up while in physics order breaks down.

[_Atticus 10]

As to your second point, in logic, the burden of proof is on the party that says something is.  If I say there is no cake on the table, but you say there is, then the onus is upon you to prove a cake is there.  So long as you cannot prove that cake is there, there is no cake.  I am not able to prove it isn't there, except to say "Look, it isn't there".quote>

That's all very fine and dandy. I just asked Patricius Maximus to list the "lots of evidence" he claimed there is that God does not exist. That is all.

To help put this in perspective for you... you say God in your reply.  Well, prove that there aren't other gods.  Who says there isn't a Zeus, or Loki, or Vishnu?  If you accept that they must therefore exist, because you can't say they don't, then a whole new dialogue has to open.quote>

Could you please list some scientific evidence that a deity does not exist. Better?

Note the use of the indefinite article "a".

Could you please list some scientific evidence that he does?quote>

No, I cannot.

Listen to what you're saying here. You're claiming that just because it cannot be proven false, therefore it must be true.

This is another one of those famous logical fallacies and it even has a Latin name to go with it: Ad Ignorantiam.quote>

You are misinterpreting my words. I merely asked Patricius Maximus to list some of the "evidence" he claims there is that God does not exist. I claimed nothing.

-Pingangster

[fukuda 351]

I think one thing that to keep in mind here is, if God is all powerful then He would defy description. Why? Man cannot grasp the meaning of God because we cannot comprehend the concept of infinity. We can understand the meaning of infinity but to quantify it is impossible. All-powerful could be substitued for infinitely powerful. Therefore, we are trying to describe an object that is infinitely powerful with finite words. Logic would dictate that such would be impossible.

quote>

There's just one problem... Infinity is a concept as you said, and as any mathematical concept, infinity only exists in our mind. There is nothing infinite in this universe, be it mass, energy, surface... The map is not the terrain.

Think of the concept of a graph of the function y=x. You can define aspects of it, slope, intercepts, points on the line etc. but you cannot assign a maximum value to it because there will always be one more. You, therefore, cannot assign an area to either side of the graph since you have a side of infinity. Infinity times anything equals infinity. Thus, it is impossible to quantify area for one side of an infinite graph without setting some bounds. However, these do not terminate the graph they simply make it possible to quantify area. That area however is only part of the total.

quote>

Concepts are used by the mind to interpret reality. Concepts are not reality. There are no infinites, mathematical spheres, circles, infinite lines, you cannot infinitely divide energy or distance. The graph of a statistical distribution is not the population.

Also, just a bit of physics that can be applied to this debate. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with entropy or disorder. One of the things that makes no sense to me about evolution is that the whole theory seems to suggest that in biology reactions tend to go from disorder to order. Be it the idea of cells combining to work on a single task for a colony, cells using RNA to construct more complex DNA, or even cells moving from asexual reproduction to sexual reprodution. I only ask this because this seems a bit of a paradox to say that in biology order builds up while in physics order breaks down. quote>

Cells cause a lot of enthropy. They spend more than the half of the nutrients to maintain their own order and temperature (Autopoesis and Isostasia). They can only keep constructing using lots of energy (and losing lost of it too). The fallacy in the "enthropy" argument is that enthropy will lead to disorder and equilibrium in an isolated system.

Abandoned buildings tend to run down and collapse, but if you spend lots of energy to maintain the building it will remain completely functional.

I'm not commenting on sophism as it's compeletely useless

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I am a proponent of teaching the evidence for Evolution as a fact, and teaching the Theory of Evolution itself as a theory. Makes sense to me.quote>

That would definitely help.quote>

Then I'm glad we can agree on something.

There may not be evidence for Creation itself, but there is evidence for a literal interpretation of the Bible. A literal interpretation of the Bible would support Creation.quote>

It is not logical to state, in effect, that if one or some parts of a text are literally correct, then the whole text is literally correct.

An example of this would be Star Trek. Star Trek says there were computers in the 21st century. Star Trek also says there were two world wars on Earth in the early 20th century. Those statements are literally correct. So is all of Star Trek literally correct? No. The same thing can be said about the Bible -- because some parts are facts does not mean all of it is.

As I have already stated, I find Creation much simpler than Evolution. It has the hitch of a supernatural God, but beyond that it is much simpler.quote>

Leaving out the supernatural god would make it simpler than Evolution, but the existence of a supernatural creator-deity is the core of Creationism. All factors taken into account, Evolution is simpler.

I agree that Theistic Evolution is inconsistent with the Christian god. However, a deistic god would be consistent with Evolution, if that god created the first lifeform.

In response to your questions, if there is a god, then no one would know its behavior, inclinations, personality, or powers. Also, a god may not want to bring maximum glory to itself. That cannot be proven or disproven, but it does poke holes in those two questions.quote>

Yes, but this is another case of literal vs. metaphoric interpretation.quote>

Precisely. When I say the Christian god, I mean the God as described in the Christian bible, in case there is any confusion.

Creation does not say that he didn't put something like that in place. It simply says that it is not how life came about.quote>

Well, the Book of Genesis says that the present global ecosystem came about via supernatural creation. It does not rule out Evolution occuring in the future, but we have evidence of it in the past.

Yes, but how would one attach an afterlife to evolution?quote>

Not necessary, because an afterlife doesn't need to be attached to a theory to make it valid. Does Evolution have to be attached to the law of gravity? No.

True. Philosophy is hard to define, but I would say like fuduka has that modern philosophy has pretty much said that no knowledge can come of religion. quote>

Well, for pretty obvious reasons, modern philosophy abandoned religion as a source of knowledge quote>

The point I was trying to make is that there is no single thing that can be defined as "modern philosophy". There are many philosophies coexisting in the modern era.

You run into so many infinite loops and dead ends trying to apply logic to it it ain't even funny. A Christian would say, "well, it's beyond our comprehension. We just can't know it." A person such as myself would look at it and immediately realize that the only logical, rational conclusion is that it's all a bunch of bull jive. quote>

I agree with you. I could never make any sense out of the Christian religion or the existence of a god, either.

I think one thing that to keep in mind here is, if God is all powerful then He would defy description. Why? Man cannot grasp the meaning of God because we cannot comprehend the concept of infinity. We can understand the meaning of infinity but to quantify it is impossible. All-powerful could be substitued for infinitely powerful. Therefore, we are trying to describe an object that is infinitely powerful with finite words. Logic would dictate that such would be impossible. quote>

Then logic would dictate that we stop trying to understand god, and go with an agnostic viewpoint, if the above statements are correct.

Also, just a bit of physics that can be applied to this debate. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with entropy or disorder. One of the things that makes no sense to me about evolution is that the whole theory seems to suggest that in biology reactions tend to go from disorder to order. Be it the idea of cells combining to work on a single task for a colony, cells using RNA to construct more complex DNA, or even cells moving from asexual reproduction to sexual reprodution. I only ask this because this seems a bit of a paradox to say that in biology order builds up while in physics order breaks down. quote>

A cell or a planet is not an isolated system. The Universe probably is. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to isolated systems. Therefore, your statement is not valid.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: crushedcar

...

Also, just a bit of physics that can be applied to this debate. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with entropy or disorder. One of the things that makes no sense to me about evolution is that the whole theory seems to suggest that in biology reactions tend to go from disorder to order. Be it the idea of cells combining to work on a single task for a colony, cells using RNA to construct more complex DNA, or even cells moving from asexual reproduction to sexual reprodution. I only ask this because this seems a bit of a paradox to say that in biology order builds up while in physics order breaks down.quote>

Let me guess, you had about as much interest in chemistry and physics classes as you did in biology, right?

The second law is not the only law in chemistry. When looking at chemical reactions and whether they can or can't proceed under certain conditions you need to look at several things. There are two drivers to chemical reactions: Enthalpy and Entropy. Generally, reactions that are exothermic (release heat, or the heat content of the products is lower than that of the reactants) tends toward spontaneity (ie they proceed without requiring an outside force to make them go). Reactions that result in an increase in entropy also tend towards spontaneity. I assume this last part is what you are referring to, however it does not forbid these reactions to occur. Read on as this is not the end of the story.

But what happens if a reaction would result in an increase in enthalpy or a decrease in entropy? Does that mean it can't proceed spontaneously? Well that depends on whether the change in entropy is offset by the change in enthalpy or vice versa. If for example a decrease in entropy is offset by a decrease in enthalpy (reaction is exothermic), then the reaction will be spontaneous at low temperatures (ie can proceed without needing an outside force to drive it). Likewise if a reaction would result in an increase in enthalpy (ie is endothermic) but this is offset by an increase in entropy, then the reaction can proceed at high temperatures.

So from the above you can see that some chemical reactions can occur even if they would result in a decrease in entropy (provided that increase is offset by a decrease in enthalpy), ie if a reaction is exothermic enough and at a suitable temperature, it can proceed (is spontaneous) even if the products have lower entropy than the reactants.

But there's more. Spontaneous reactions release Free Energy (). This Free Energy can be used to do work. Non-spontaneous reactions absorb free energy.   You can probably see where this is going. The free energy released by a spontaneous reaction can be used to drive a non-spontaneous reaction (ie cause it to occur). This coupling of spontaneous to non-spontaneous reactions causes many otherwise non-spontaneous reactions to occur. These kinds of reaction couplings are very common in living things. Biological reactions are ultimately coupled to the fusion reaction in the sun.

So what's going on here? Although some reactions in living things do result in a decrease in entropy, those reactions are not occuring in violation of the laws of physics because they are either offset by a favourable change in enthalpy, or are driven by the free energy obtained from another chemical reaction. Basically although living things involve some reactions that decrease entropy locally, overall in the environment this is offset by a larger increase in entropy. That is, you can decrease entropy locally as long as you increase entropy somewhere else. Idiomatically its robbing Peter to pay Paul.  This is what living systems do.

Originally posted by: crushedcar

Infinity times anything equals infinity.

quote>

Actually I think infinity times zero probably equals zero (for most values of zero)

Originally posted by: crushedcar

Originally posted by: Duke87

Problem is, there's a false dichotomy there. One can easily believe in both creation and evolution. For instance, to say that god created the universe and set the events in motion that lead to the origin and evolution of life, or even to say that god created the first prokaryotic cells which evolved into everything we know today.

It just requires that one take the bible metaphorically rather than literally - which many Christians are unwilling to do, although many more would say it was never meant to be taken literally, that it's the moral of the story and the general message that's important, not the details.quote>

The idea of creationary evolution to me seems like a weak attempt to compromise by accepting both. Let me ask this here. What purpose would it serve for a god capable of creating the universe to employ evolution for life? Would it not bring that god more glory to have created everything?

Also you are correct that most faithful Christians take the Bible literally.

... quote>

Where I'm from most Christians are of the theistic evolution types. Literal creationism is very rare. From my experience of the theistic evolution people I've known, it would not be truthful to say that they are less Christian than the literal creationists. They just have a different interpretation of the Bible and there's no real evidence as far as I can tell that their interpretation is any less valid than anyone else's. There is however evidence that their view matches the scientific evidence more closely (ie that the earth is much older than 6000-10 000 years).

Originally posted by: crushedcar

What purpose would it serve for a god capable of creating the universe to employ evolution for life? Would it not bring that god more glory to have created everything?

... quote>

Why would it? I'm not a god so I don't really know what a god would find more glorifying or even that a god would find glory necessary (but this seems to be a requirement in most definitions of gods, but I think that's probably a human thing more than a god thing).

However, I do play SimCity, Sims and Creatures. In playing those games it does not appeal to me to control every little thing. What I like is to set something in motion, leave it to run its course, and then find out where it ended up. I like my sims to surprise me and see what they will do. Sometimes I'll nudge them in a particular direction to make things a bit more entertaining but overall I like them to decide the direction things will go in. With Creatures I would often leave it running unattended for days at a time just to see what course evolution would take and what I'd end up with. For me in those games the evolution is the interesting part. Why should a god not have a similar interest?

Originally posted by: crushedcar

I think one thing that to keep in mind here is, if God is all powerful then He would defy description. Why? Man cannot grasp the meaning of God because we cannot comprehend the concept of infinity. We can understand the meaning of infinity but to quantify it is impossible. All-powerful could be substitued for infinitely powerful. Therefore, we are trying to describe an object that is infinitely powerful with finite words. Logic would dictate that such would be impossible.

...

This where man runs into problems with the concept of God. We set bounds to define Him by and yet He will always exceed those bounds by an infinite amount. Voltaire put it this way, "God created man in His image, and man returned the favor." To debate what God is and isn't is not only off topic (in this context) but also one of the most pointless things because we could only cover an infinitely small part of His character.

quote>

If God is so unknowable then how could any human claim to have the correct interpretation including whether or not a god exists and what to do about it? Patricius Maximus mentioned Pascal's Wager earlier, so this is my version of Pascal's Wager applied to the existence of gods:

By common definition that gods are mysterious and largely unkowable, no-one can know anything about gods with any accuracy so an infinite number of gods are possible with no possibility of accurate knowledge of the nature or existence of any of them. However if gods consider the belief in other rival gods (real or unreal) as offensive to them then since I can't know which god exists, if I choose to believe in a god I have a virtually certain chance of angering any one or more real gods that may exist up to the maximum total of an infinite number of possible gods. Therefore the choice of least risk is to not believe in any of them.

I agree with you though, it is off-topic. We do have a thread for it around here somewhere: The Existence of God (if the link doesn't work its https://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=25&threadid=93916)

Originally posted by: pingangster

Actually, I beg to differ.

In my opinion, life alone is enough evidence to prove that God exists.

quote>

How? What aspects of life prove that God exists? (by which I assume you mean that God created life)

[fukuda 351]

The point I was trying to make is that there is no single thing that can be defined as "modern philosophy". There are many philosophies coexisting in the modern era.quote>

Not really... Bear in mind that I only accept the scholastic definition of philosophy, not the vulgar one. After the total failure of Analitic Philosophy and the fall of the ideologic movements, philosophy is in a weak point now. But alike science and medicine, there is only one philosophy.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: crushedcar

Infinity times anything equals infinity.

quote>

Actually I think infinity times zero probably equals zero (for most values of zero) quote>

Hmm... no. Infinity times zero is undefined. It's one of those inconclusive forms that you need to use De L'Hôpital's rule for if it comes up in a limit...

0/0

0∞

1^∞

0⁰

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Not really... Bear in mind that I only accept the scholastic definition of philosophy, not the vulgar one. After the total failure of Analitic Philosophy and the fall of the ideologic movements, philosophy is in a weak point now. But alike science and medicine, there is only one philosophy. quote>

Ah, now the definition of philosophy is being brought up. For the purpose of this discussion, I'll use the dictionary definition (from Wiktionary):

philosophy (countable and uncountable; plural philosophies) (uncountable) An academic discipline that is often divided into five major branches: logic; metaphysics; epistemology; ethics; and aesthetics. (countable) A comprehensive system of belief. (countable) A view or outlook regarding fundamental principles underlying some domain. a philosophy of government a philosophy of education (countable) A general principle (usually moral). quote>

Using any of these definitions in this context (which excludes number 1), there is definently more than one philosophy existing now.

I would like to see the definition you use.

Infinity times anything equals infinity.quote>

Actually I think infinity times zero probably equals zero (for most values of zero) quote>

Hmm... no. Infinity times zero is undefined. It's one of those inconclusive forms that you need to use De L'Hôpital's rule for if it comes up in a limit...

0/0

0∞

1^∞

0⁰quote>

Thanks for clearing that up, and giving some of us a mathematics lesson.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Not really... Bear in mind that I only accept the scholastic definition of philosophy, not the vulgar one. After the total failure of Analitic Philosophy and the fall of the ideologic movements, philosophy is in a weak point now. But alike science and medicine, there is only one philosophy. quote>

Ah, now the definition of philosophy is being brought up. For the purpose of this discussion, I'll use the dictionary definition (from Wiktionary):

philosophy (countable and uncountable; plural philosophies) (uncountable) An academic discipline that is often divided into five major branches: logic; metaphysics; epistemology; ethics; and aesthetics. (countable) A comprehensive system of belief. (countable) A view or outlook regarding fundamental principles underlying some domain. a philosophy of government a philosophy of education (countable) A general principle (usually moral). quote>

Using any of these definitions in this context (which excludes number 1), there is definently more than one philosophy existing now.

I would like to see the definition you use.quote>

This context, talking about science and religion, evolution and creation, excludes all except  #1

Remember how you discussed about "evolutionism" in the previous page? It's the same here, your dictionary may report several definitions, but only one is valid when talking about logic and knowledge.

[Blazerhawk 162]

I'm again not going to quote for sake of length. the number is the reply paragraph(s) in the person's post

fuduka-you make some good points about my arguement of an infinite God.

1) True, but if God created the universe then he can exist outside of it, too.

2) That is true. I did not intend anything other than if anything is infinite it can't ever be fully understood.

3) I was asking about the seeming trend of going from a disordered state (unicelluar) to an ordered state (multicellular). I'm going to stop pursuing that point, though.

Patricius Maximus-Points 1,4,6,7,8 I will not comment on as I either agree with them(1-4), think the area to be off-topic(6,7) or was not part of that conversation (.

2) The only difference is that the Bible does not have in it anywhere a disclaimer stating, the people, events, and places depicted in this work are fictional. The Bible presents itself as a nonfiction work.

3) I see why it fails Occam's Razor. I don't see how a supernatural creator makes it more complex than evolution.

5) Yesterday is the past. Creationists have 6000-10000 years beyond that. Any evolutionary changes in that time are also in the past. You stated in such a way that would require the creation to be in the present.

9) Let me put it this way. Science is constantly growing and changing so that no one will ever understand all of it their lifetime. I wanted the interpretation to be that we cannot confine God or science to only what we understand about them.

10) That slipped my mind when I posted that. I am withdrawing the question.

sam-

1) One, as I said, the isolated system thing slipped my mind at the time when I posted that. Also, that first comment was slightly offensive. Its okay, I know it wasn't intended to be.

2) Answered by Duke 87

3) I have not met many theistic evolutionists in my life. Unfortunately where I'm from most evolutionists have the idea that creation is totally false, or at least that's what they make it sound like. I also admit that starts stepping into the definition of Christian issue.

4) Yes, I understand not wanting to control every little thing. But what I'm talking about could be illustrated, thus. In SimCity you lay down or "create" roads, transit, services, etc. The city could be a microcosm of the universe. God put the starting ecosystem in place, and then gave control to man (Genesis 1:29-30). Man makes decisions and interprets what he sees. That is what develops. Zoning density could represent the amount of faith one puts in God. Evolution is one of the "cities" that developed from a "low-density."  

5) So in reality my belief in God and creation would be the reverse of Pascal's Wager.

This I thought further discussion.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

As to your second point, in logic, the burden of proof is on the party that says something is.  If I say there is no cake on the table, but you say there is, then the onus is upon you to prove a cake is there.  So long as you cannot prove that cake is there, there is no cake.  I am not able to prove it isn't there, except to say "Look, it isn't there".

To help put this in perspective for you... you say God in your reply.  Well, prove that there aren't other gods.  Who says there isn't a Zeus, or Loki, or Vishnu?  If you accept that they must therefore exist, because you can't say they don't, then a whole new dialogue has to open.

Barbarossa

quote>

 

I have to say that one hole I can see in this logic is that it means that one who says there isn't can never be proven worng because that person can use semantics or other methods to insure that he is right. If, to contiue Barbarosa's example, the person who says there is cake on the table proves that he is right, all the person who claims there wasn't has to do is move the cake to be correct.

I believe that there is an equal responsibility on both sides to prove their points with the understanding that the debate cannot by changed by moving the subject matter. I would like to see the top scientists of each side debate the ideas of creation and evolution in a style similar to a trial. That would at least lead to education about both sides.