Creationism vs. Evolution

[patriots_1228 51]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 and...in related discussion, Creationism is wrong.quote>

 

oops...this thread is abotu creationism and evolution? 

I am christian but beleive in evolution.

weird enough for you?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[ExiL3 10]

OK let me end this debate; Creationism isn't based on science, Evolution is! BASTA!

take care,

[beebs 129]

For anyone who further wishes to civilly discuss religion and its place in todays society, check out The House of Worship in the General Off Topic forum. Otherwise, lets move back to debating Creationism vs. Evolution.

And remember the golden rule: Discuss the post, not the poster.

[BurroDiablo 222]

'We live in the Land of Freedom, but if you don't adhere to our beliefs you can just GET OUT!'... I'm sure George Washington is doing acrobatics in his grave by now...

[patriots_1228 51]

not the message I was saying. I was saying if you don't like it, you don't have to stay. Not, if you don't like it, you must leave. Btw, washington was pretty big, don't think he could do acrobatics...

but, back on topic

exil-But can you prove science is always right, no? (just playing the devils advocate here, because I beleive most of the bible, so I see things from both perspectives.

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228

Originally posted by: Hahayoudied My old and new middle school forced me to do the dumb "The Pledge of Allegiance", the reason why I don't do it because the "under the god" disturbs me. Plus "The In God We Trust" on U.S. coins bugs  me even more.  Under the U.S. constiution, the goverment isn't allow to support religion ,and I doubt the U.S. goverment is following the constiution.quote>

 

wether we claim to be secular or not, the US is built upon christian beleifs. If you don't like this, you can move to china.

I hope George Washington throws a fit in his grave when he hears what people want to do to some longstanding traditions in this country.

quote>

 

I thought the U.S. was built upon "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Liberalism. The philosophies of John Locks and Adam Smith. All the good forms of Liberalism, not that PC crap today.

[teddycole 0]

In the entire debate, we must not stress facts as the predominant proof for either side. It is in the methodology used to decipher the facts already given. when one refers to "science" (little s), a good definition is- that thought process which combines critical thinking and experimentation with constant review to evaluate the empirical world. Under this definition, subjects such as History and Anthropology make the cut of science because they are truly scientific. Science (big s) is the mere formalization of the certain subjects which have culturally been considered as viable material for logical scientific evaluation. Looking at facts such as red drift, the ages of fossils by radiometric dating, micro-evolution in bacteria and viral populations, and even general growth trends in humans in the last century, faith interprets these facts in the framework of whichever god/gods they choose. Evolution is the enemy because the acceptance of evolution as the explanation for us and the planet takes god out of yet one more area in our collective logical discourse. First the church had to give ground in the field of astronomy with Galileo, Capernicus, and the abandonment of a geo-centric solar system. The theory of gravity and it's applications to modern physics weakened the church. Then they lost the ability to cite God as the source of plague and illness as the germ theory (also a theory but not one easily disputed). Weather came next. Then archeology and history could find no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth even existed as the nearest account for him is over 100 years after his supposed crucifixion! Modern Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Geology and Biology have taken the place of Alchemy, Astrology, tarot cards and, ultimately, religion. This is the mindset from which the average creationist is coming- that of the defensive. It is a joke that the Earth is 6000 years old. It is a lie. It would be harmless but for the fact that it carries with it some terrible delusions spoon fed to children about heaven and hell. Evolution is merely the final extension of scientific inquiry into the world in which we live which receives blowback in the public square. All other science is commonly accepted as true by the religious and non-religious alike but it is evolution which takes the blunt of all aggression. LET US BE CLEAR. Evolution is a mere extension of the 500+ years of scientific inquiry. Creationism may have been our first attempt to place ourselves in the universe by logic and based on what we knew about the world then, it made sense. It makes no sense now. Thank you.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228

but, back on topic

exil-But can you prove science is always right, no?.quote>

Of course not, It's not always right, science is not a static dogma (unlike religion) with fixed and inmovable rules, science is always progressing and remaking itself, readapting prior laws  and theories when there are new conflicting evidences , that's why it's the most valid way for knowledge seen from a philosophic point of view.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: teddycole In the entire debate, we must not stress facts as the predominant proof for either side. It is in the methodology used to decipher the facts already given. when one refers to "science" (little s), a good definition is- that thought process which combines critical thinking and experimentation with constant review to evaluate the empirical world. Under this definition, subjects such as History and Anthropology make the cut of science because they are truly scientific. Science (big s) is the mere formalization of the certain subjects which have culturally been considered as viable material for logical scientific evaluation. Looking at facts such as red drift, the ages of fossils by radiometric dating, micro-evolution in bacteria and viral populations, and even general growth trends in humans in the last century, faith interprets these facts in the framework of whichever god/gods they choose. Evolution is the enemy because the acceptance of evolution as the explanation for us and the planet takes god out of yet one more area in our collective logical discourse. First the church had to give ground in the field of astronomy with Galileo, Capernicus, and the abandonment of a geo-centric solar system. The theory of gravity and it's applications to modern physics weakened the church. Then they lost the ability to cite God as the source of plague and illness as the germ theory (also a theory but not one easily disputed). Weather came next. Then archeology and history could find no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth even existed as the nearest account for him is over 100 years after his supposed crucifixion! Modern Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Geology and Biology have taken the place of Alchemy, Astrology, tarot cards and, ultimately, religion. This is the mindset from which the average creationist is coming- that of the defensive. It is a joke that the Earth is 6000 years old. It is a lie. It would be harmless but for the fact that it carries with it some terrible delusions spoon fed to children about heaven and hell. Evolution is merely the final extension of scientific inquiry into the world in which we live which receives blowback in the public square. All other science is commonly accepted as true by the religious and non-religious alike but it is evolution which takes the blunt of all aggression. LET US BE CLEAR. Evolution is a mere extension of the 500+ years of scientific inquiry. Creationism may have been our first attempt to place ourselves in the universe by logic and based on what we knew about the world then, it made sense. It makes no sense now. Thank you.

quote>

The word "theory" isn't being used in the same sense as the common definition that we use in our daily life and thats one of the false arguments that many people use to denounce environmentalism. You can't say that the germ theory is "just a theory". The term theory, like the term "science" as you claim, has two definitions. The everyday definition is usually a "hypothesis", an unsubstantiated, or poorly substantiated claim to explain something, equivelant to "speculation" or "convection".  The word theory in the scientific community means "a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment o

[BurroDiablo 222]

Teddycole - Great post. Science may not always be right, but history has shown us it's certainly been more right than religion.

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: confused04The word "theory" isn't being used in the same sense as the common definition that we use in our daily life and thats one of the false arguments that many people use to denounce environmentalism. You can't say that the germ theory is "just a theory". The term theory, like the term "science" as you claim, has two definitions. The everyday definition is usually a "hypothesis", an unsubstantiated, or poorly substantiated claim to explain something, equivelant to "speculation" or "convection".  The word theory in the scientific community means "a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation." This is not in opposition to "fact". Theory is a "model", not "conjecture". So saying the germ theory is "disputable" isn't exactly correct. Its not "just a theory". Theory can indeed in many cases be synonymous with the word "FACT", its a model. There are debatable models, like "String theory" but the Germ theory is not debatable and is considered "fact".quote>

Well put. The Theory of Evolution merely tries to explain the fact of Evolution. The same thing goes for Gravity. The Theory of Gravity has changed over time, but it certainly is an indisputable fact.

[teddycole 0]

I think you missed the point of that sentence. I was getting that germ theory is not "just a theory" but in science it's validity as a theory is just as provable-just as testable as the theory of evolution, gravity, the laws of thermodynamics(once again, at one time they were theories), etc. Germ theory is disputable if the scientific community was given enough proof that it was false. Also, logic dictates that facts construct theories and, after a period of testing and full explanation, these will go on to become laws of science. Germ theory is yet still a theory as there are significant aspects in the way infections spread in a non-controlled environment about which we still don't have a full understanding. The case is similar to evolution but still evolution is a far better chain of logical "a+b=c" arguments than the dramatically non-provable creation hypothesis. I think we basically agree about semantics but what we should all agree on is that if creationism can empirically prove that the earliest life forms on this planet were created by a deity, we will change what we think. That is, if the large burden of testing and experimentation needed to prove a hypothesis can be given by the proponents of god, we will change. We would at least hope they would show the same courtesy.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[panthersimcity4 162]

Science = The order of the universe, understanding how it works, what it is, where we are

Religion = Why there is an order to the universe, why it works, why it is, why we're here

Science helps us understand what is around us, Religion helps us understand why it's here.

I don't think that being just some empty mistake in the universe makes any sense, everything that happens has a reason for it happening, nothing can happen for no reason at all.

[teddycole 0]

Let's be honest with ourselves. By the anthropic principle, we are bound to talk about our universe as if it has a purpose. It very well may have one. But if it doesn't, that's just tough. The real question is- are you willing to have faith in something you cannot prove? I'll wager a bet that in every other aspect of your life that answer is "no". No one ever buys a stock because they have faith that it will go up. They look at charts and graphs on how it has behaved in the past and then use critical thinking to deduce a probable pattern of profit or loss. If you buy a 1984 Chevy Caprice with 200,000 miles on it and rust holes in it, you deduce that even though it would be nice if it would run with no additional help, logically it is improbable. You wouldn't buy that car on faith, hoping it would run for the next 100,000 miles and if someone told you that you would probably laugh at this. It is true that you cannot disprove creationism. God could be such a magnificent liar that the whole of archeology, paleontology, anthropology, cosmology, and many other disciplines could be simply studying the wonderful nature of god's misleadings. But if you take god's own self-proscribed character as purely good, this could not be. He must tell the truth %100 of the time. So it is because I take the idea of god so seriously that he is disproven. So instead of disproving creationism, you can put a chance value on it and from what we know about the natural universe in it's functioning and from what god says about himself in all of his "self-authored" books, this chance is very slim. It is much slimmer than belief in evolution by natural selection as the means by which we are here. Thank you

[Odainsaker 2,134]

Few evolutionists believe the evolution of mankind or even life in general is some sort of empty mistake. The cause-effect relationships in science may be dry clockwork, but they are natural progressions nonetheless. "Mistake" implies that somehow the evolution of life should not have happened, as though it were an error in what should be a Perfect Static Universe, rather than a natural result of the processes and makeup of the Universe. Science cannot make those kinds of value judgements of what should or should not be or what natural phenomena are perfect or mistakes.

The reason you are looking for is something greater than the mere clockwork cause-effect physics of science. The way you are couching "reason" suggests not the usual argument of a First Cause pushing the chain of everything into motion, but rather a purposeful "meaning" behind it all. Think of the camera photograph analogy, where science is carefully tracing back the lightrays through the camera's optics and onto the reactive film, but where religion is looking at the emotional meaning of the image in the resulting photograph.

We might point out that perhaps there was a purposeful artistic intention of the photographer that is being seen, and that photographer is the analogy for God. But what if I am not as nice with the analogy anymore, and replace the functional action of the camera with the action of rust on metal. Through science we can trace the chemical reaction of water and oxygen with the iron within the material to produce rust, but is there necessarily a purposeful or meaningful intent by some unknown artist at work driving that process that can be detected by analyzing that process of rusting? To science, the suggestion that there necessarily must be such an actor is silly, though it does note that individuals can find and create meanings and hyper-relationships in just about anything, even where none may exist. for example, look at the grease splatters on an oven hood...connect the grease dots and what shapes do you get? With religion, those self-perceived and even self-created meanings become the reality, and with hosts of individuals perceiving their own different meanings, shapes, and patterns within their own peer and cultural context, you have an endless array of interpretations and religions with only faith as the final evidence. But really, isn't it just rust and grease splatters?

But why should the Universe exist as it does with rust?  By the same token, why should God exist as he is claimed to do so?  These are questions for which you are not going to find intelligible answers, either through science or religion.

[teddycole 0]

A bit more about meaning and this takes the form of a moral rather than scientific argument. Which has more value? The life that continues forever or the life which is finite? I used to think, believing in creationism and Christianity that this was just a cosmic bus stop on the way to the "real fun". My purpose, therefore was to have such faith in Jesus thati was bound to not get off at the wrong stop and would go straight to heaven after death. I thought "I shouldn't worry about those suffering people that much. After all, if they accept Jesus, they'll go straight to heaven when the inevitably die of starvation, disease, war, etc." I sometimes wonder if the call for people of faith to be moral for god's sake is not slightly less moral than doing something good for others out of pity for their condition or human solidarity. If this all came about by a natural process, and life doesn't have any divine purpose, isn't it more meaningful for an individual life to make do something good for the world in his limited time and doesn't that expenditure of limited time say more than expending infinite time? Yes. This post may be a little off topic, but I think it helps to clarify the philosophical implications of both viewpoints. Thank you.

[teddycole 0]

We have to struggle for the truth- whether it is appealing or not. You are right about the grease analogy. This is what all religion is. It may be true that religion is another "way" to view existence but it's not an objectively true way. We have been programmed to seek meaning in nature by natural selection. If you were in a warehouse and heard a noise, one of the first things you would think about would be "what caused that?" so that you could prevent it from happening again. some people think it is god. Some people look for a tangible reason. Notice, if you will, that if something terrible happens to you as a theist, you can shirk your responsibility and call it part of god's plan. Say it was that you were diagnosed with deafness. Never mind the fact that you might have listened to loud music as a youth or failed to wear hearing protection in your job- this is god's plan for you. For the critical thinker, there is a certain amount of bad feeling that accompanies that particular realization but you are unable to justify it with a god so you seek to help others avoid it and you become more careful yourself. It really is in the way one views his life. If we are a created being, with another world one day, than this world loses a whole lot of meaning. I like this conversation a lot.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[simphonian 0]

teddycole, a few thoughts on your "going deaf" example:  I believe that all bad things that happen to us are NOT part of God's plan for our lives.  Jesus says in Scripture that those who believe in Him will suffer trials and persecution.  Okay, so one might argue that any suffering experienced because of being a Christian might be God's plan.  But on the other hand,  The Lord's Prayer states "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven"  In other words God's will(i.e.  plan for our lives) is not always done here on earth.  Why?  Because we are humans with free will.  Do you think it's God's will for some happily married Christian man to ruin his marriage because of the use of pornography?  No, if the man was truly a Christian He knew he should not use pornography but chose to do the wrong thing anyway- againt God's will.  In Heaven, God's will is always carried out to perfection and after the second coming of Jesus it will be here on earth as well, as I stated earlier in the Lord's Prayer excerpt.

To everybody else: I apologize for being so far off topic.  I know this will surprise you but I'm a Creationist.

[teddycole 0]

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world? - Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief

[miguelkuk 109]

simphonian:  I believe the Bible also says "Judge not and thou shalt not be judged", so why do christians insist on judging others all the time?

teddycole: I use that Epicurus quote all the time. I also like "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." (Richard Dawkins)  and "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." (Isaac Asimov)

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: teddycole Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?quote>

God cannot do so much that people are dependent on him, but must only help out enough to let people know he is always with us. (God is like a sandstorm, if you look to close you'll get sand in your eyes, but there are plenty of signs to know he's there....quoted from some random guy..)

If you remember, his original "vision" of humanity had no "evil". But the evils were released or whatever...similar to Pandora's Box..Therefore humanity has brought the evils upon themselves, and therefore must not be rid of them yet.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228

I am christian but beleive in evolution.

weird enough for you?quote>

Not weird at all really. Of the Christians I know IRL most accept evolution (in full). They don't seem to have reservations about it. Where I live creationism in its more literal forms had been very rare up until recently.

[miguelkuk 109]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

If you remember, his original "vision" of humanity had no "evil". But the evils were released or whatever...similar to Pandora's Box..Therefore humanity has brought the evils upon themselves, and therefore must not be rid of them yet.quote>

 

God was nevertheless responsible for making it possible for "the evils to be released" in the first place. If God intended for Man to be good, he would have made sure he could not turn evil by creating evil in the first place. This is assuming God exists, of course, which I personally think is far fetched.

If God created man with the possibility to either be good or evil, then He is responsible for that. It is all very easy for God to preach goodness and resistance to temptation, since He is perfect and therefore not prone to become evil. In other words, if God is perfect and good, He cannot by definition be tempted by evil. This makes it very easy for him to preach righteousness without first hand knowledge of what it means to be imperfect.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[ryalmighty1 1]

The one and only thing that I ponder about that science cannot explain, and that is animation of life. What creates LIFE. Not the atoms and particles and elements that make up objects or all the matter in the universe, but what ANIMATES and creates a consciousness in many living creatures? For lack of a better word, lets substitute "soul" for this phenomenon. Matter can coalesce and create a something, such as elements or cells, but what gives a conglomeration of cells a sentient existance? How can THAT be created? That is the one thing science cannot explain. Not saying I support Creationism over Evolution, or even that I support Intelligent Design, for I really don't support anything, but nowhere has a reasonable answer come from that explains where "being" comes from.

[australian2000 0]

i believe in god and creationism, however, i think that evolution had a big part to play in it. you have to remember that not everything in the bible is true, its like chinese whispers, as it gets passed on from person to person, the story changes and the bible was written no where near the time of creation, only passed down as a story. the bible in my opinion tells the story and i believe in the story or creationism, but i also understand that as the story was passed down, people have added a bit of a fairy tale story line to it.

[australian2000 0]

also can i say that i have only read 2 pages of this thread and im sorry if my post is a repeat of someone elses lol