Creationism vs. Evolution

[fukuda 351]

I just don't get how you can get order form a huge explosion ( aka the big bang). If you blow up a pile of bricks you don't get a house... the scientists are going against their own principles!quote>

The universe right now is way less ordered than it was at the beginning (luckily for us). You can get order as long as the final result is energetically favourable (Thermodynamics 101)

Also when you see layers of rock in a mountian, those had to be laid down very quickly and can't be 1. whatever years old or erosion would have wipped all that out.quote>

Earth is not static at all, neither is life. Just because something happens in a way different timescale than the one humans live in does not make it non-existent or impossible to notice, we can measure how mountains raise and go down centimeter per centimeter.

Think about a human cell and how it all works togther, it has millions of parts to it and hardly any of them are living! That goes against science. quote>

What?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Consider the big bang.  Total chaos, but with lots of energy.  So everytning heads towards entropy, and on the way, collisions and interactions make the material universe as we know it.  Recent astronomical obserations say the whole works is still flying apart, but you have to account for local eddies that produce star eggs and other neat phenomena.

Big Bang → Energetic Chaos → Lots of turbulence → globs and aggregates → matter as we know it → lots of unknown things to have fun with.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: B33Rm47

I just don't get how you can get order form a huge explosion ( aka the big bang).

If you blow up a pile of bricks you don't get a house... the scientists are going against their own principles!

Also when you see layers of rock in a mountian, those had to be laid down very quickly and can't be 1. whatever years old or erosion would have wipped all that out.

Alot of creation makes alot more sense than science once you really think about it!

Think about a human cell and how it all works togther, it has millions of parts to it and hardly any of them are living! That goes against science. quote>

Creation doesnt make sense anymore the moment after you ask who made the creator. 

As for the rest of your post. Seriously, this is why I call creationists willfully ignorant. I mean seriously, take a simple basic course in biology and geography and all your supposedly impossible things would be explained in a logical and much more plausible way then saying there was some magical sky fairy who build the whole thing in 6 days. 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I think my hypothesis is better than B33Rm47's. I believe that God is the source of infinite energy that created this universe. He then performed the miracle of life on this planet alone. The day intelligent life on other planets is found is the day I start believing in other omnipotent gods.

[B33Rm47 1]

I think my hypothesis is better than B33Rm47's. I believe that God is the source of infinite energy that created this universe. He then performed the miracle of life on this planet alone. The day intelligent life on other planets is found is the day I start believing in other omnipotent gods.

I do belive that God is the one and only creator and was always here as well, I see creation in the same ways as you do and you seem to have a good grip on Christianity.

And to be honest -Lexus- I'm a little offended, you can belive what you want and I can belive in what I want, but how do you explain the big bang, that still doesn't make sense to me and science still doen't explain how a week was first invented. 7 days isn't explained by science, science explains one day, one month and a year. So where did we get the week? how does science explain a week? Just because it's a lucky number? There just seems to be way too many holes in science and thank you, I have taken Academic Geography and Biology but I'm still not convinvinced...

[B33Rm47 1]

By mountians i meant like this ...

Also the living cells have non living components, alot of it isn't non-living, sorry bad wording...

I'm going to stick to Christianity and creation thank you very much, science doesn't make as much sense to me..

[fukuda 351]

and science still doen't explain how a week was first invented. 7 days isn't explained by science, science explains one day, one month and a year. So where did we get the week? how does science explain a week? Just because it's a lucky number?quote>

Back in the day we didn't use the 12 month system, we used the lunar calendar system (in some languages like japanese a month is still called a moon). Each lunar cycle lasts approximatively 28 days and has 4 phases(full moon, waxing, new moon and waning), each phase lasts 28/4 days which means.. yes each phase is 7 days long and this astronomical landmark was used to easily identify weeks and months just at a glance of the sky. This is the most accepted hypothesis around.

Also the living cells have non living components, alot of it isn't non-living, sorry bad wording... quote>

How does that go against science? Of course separate components ain't alive, it's the interacting system which is alive.

[morriswalters 16]

Lexus

If you are searching for facts use the Scientific Method, if you are looking for truth study Philosophy.  Questions like where did God come from or how did the Universe begin are unanswerable, and always will be.   You can provide no Scientific basis for denying the existence of God, just as you can define no basis for proving his existence.  Science studies fact.  It does this by a process of observation, study, and analysis.  And that's not suitable for studying an omnipresent being who is unobservable. 

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: B33Rm47

By mountians i meant like this ... quote>

I see a cliff. Not much sense of scale in the image, so I can't really tell how big it is.

This could have ended up like that from a quick event (landslide, earthquake, even a manmade blast), or it could have ended up like that gradually due to erosion (see: Grand Canyon).

But, what difference does it make? None of these explanations demand divine intervention.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Does anyone realize this thread is  almost 3 years old?

One question for you all.

Has anyones opinions or views concerning Evolution VS Creationism been changed by the views and opinions
that have been posted here?

 

[dan6526 0]

The ironic part about this is that each of these are either faith-based or theory-based.  Meaning that to prove beyond all doubt is impossible for one, and astronomical for the other.

Adaptation is something that is provable, and it makes evolution extremely plausible, but there are unanswered questions as yet about what causes "evolution" to begin with.  If you try to change a cell at random, it will most likely disrupt a function and cause it to become cancerous.  So all that wonderful radiation seeping through the magnetic poles causes cancer and if it causes evolution, then the odds would be far more than astronomical that it creates anything but cancer.

Adaptation is interesting because it shows that all species of life have "ranges."  Darwin proved that some birds will grow a variety of beaks during different climate conditions, but no observable species-evolution has occured.  Once an evolutionary jump has been observed then it shall be proven.

As for God, that is faith based.  An interesting dynamic is that God answers the questions to what we don't know, if you have a faith, but science cannot adequately pose questions about God.  That is why science tends to stand back.  God by definition is unobservable in terms of scentific method, whether or not you or I see obervable acts from God.

Though what is funny is the "versus" issue, there shouldn't be Creation vs. Evolution, because they do not overlap completely.  I can see people, and respect them, for being believers in God and believe in evolution.  I've known people that stand there.  It is always funny to see these posts.

What really gets me is that some people plant a stigma on religion classes as being less scholarly than science classes.  What is interesting is that both tend to be present at most universities.

And to answer an above post.  I don't think anyone's views changed.  Mine didn't, but that doesn't stop me from reading here.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: B33Rm47

And to be honest -Lexus- I'm a little offended, you can belive what you want and I can belive in what I want, but how do you explain the big bang, that still doesn't make sense to me and science still doen't explain how a week was first invented. 7 days isn't explained by science, science explains one day, one month and a year. So where did we get the week? how does science explain a week? Just because it's a lucky number? There just seems to be way too many holes in science and thank you, I have taken Academic Geography and Biology but I'm still not convinvinced...

quote>

See, you just proved exactly what I said. It doesnt make sense to you. In other words, you dont understand it. You dont comprehend the science behind it. So, you come up with God since thats easier to understand then quantum physics. However, God is the ultimate easy answer, and once you accept that it is God who is behind it all, it stops you from finding any real answers. Its intellectual laziness. 

And a week? Thats a human invention. Some dude back in the stone age decided that it might be useful for farming purposes to invent a calender and use weeks as a way to measure the amount of time passed. A month? Amount of time before the moon was full again. A year? The time it takes the earth to pass around the sun. How did they come up with it? Well by looking at the stars of course. 

And are you saying there are holes in science because there isnt some dude in a labcoat telling you how humanity invented the calender? Well DUH, thats not science's departments. Go look it up in some history books. 

And really, you did Geopgraphy and Biology. Then why dont you know the most basic things about earth layers, tectonic activity, etc. No offense, but you didnt go to some fundamental Christian college now did you? 

@ Morriswalters. Yeah, science cannot 'prove' God doesnt exist. Just make it highly unlikely that there is a God as described in the bible. Mainly because that God isnt as unobservable as people think, seeing how he is supposedly constantly sending us 'messages' about how much Jesus loves me. Hes supposedly constantly performing miracles. And miracles are observable. However, if you can explain the miracle with science, its no longer a miracle, making it highly unlikely God was behind it. 

But that asides, unobservable things, creatures etc have no place or basis in science. As such, one should work from the assumption these creatures/things do not exist. 

And I dont mind people believing in God. And I dont mind them trying to explain things like whats after death. I do mind them trying to explain things that are explained by science. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

I think my hypothesis is better than B33Rm47's. I believe that God is the source of infinite energy that created this universe. He then performed the miracle of life on this planet alone. The day intelligent life on other planets is found is the day I start believing in other omnipotent gods.quote>

Major sin of presumption there old boy.  If you believe in a universal God, then He can do what he pleases anywhere.  Notice how carefully he arranged the accident of life.

[astronelson 339]

Originally posted by: B33Rm47

And to be honest -Lexus- I'm a little offended, you can belive what you want and I can belive in what I want, but how do you explain the big bang, that still doesn't make sense to mequote>

"Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state, then nearly 14 billion years ago it started to inflate" as the song goes.

We're reasonably sure up to some minute fraction of a second (about 10^-43 seconds, I think) after the Big Bang. Before that we run into problems that indicate our theories are incomplete. Note this does not mean that god(s) did it, rather that our science is not sufficiently advanced yet. The main problem that arises comes from trying to unite General Relativity (very good at describing things that are very large and/or very heavy) and Quantum Mechanics (very good at describing things that are very small and/or very light). When things are very heavy and very small, they produce infinities, which aren't good results to get.

For a proper explanation, ask your local cosmologist.

If you want an explanation as to how the universe was created, you're out of luck. We can't say, scientifically, what happened before the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang is outside the universe, and science only applies to things inside the universe.

Just as a quick aside, seeing as the total mass/energy of the universe might exactly balance out the gravitational potential energy, the total energy of the universe may be zero. Hooray for the possibility the conservation of mass/energy is not violated over the total universe!

and science still doen't explain how a week was first invented. 7 days isn't explained by science, science explains one day, one month and a year. So where did we get the week? how does science explain a week? Just because it's a lucky number?quote>

I'm not sure human constructs to divide years into segments for various purposes actually comes under any field of science... well, maybe horology (the art or science of measuring time), but that's more concerned with clocks and watches. Science also doesn't explain why New Zealand isn't part of Australia. It was just decided that 7 days was a good length for a week.

In any case, not every culture uses 7 days as a week. Week lengths ranging from as few as 3 days to as many as 10 either have existed or do exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week

There just seems to be way too many holes in science and thank you, I have taken Academic Geography and Biology but I'm still not convinvinced [sic]...

quote>

Science is the (seemingly, hopefully, probably) never-ending quest to take the unexplained and try to rationalise and explain it. So far I think we've done rather well. I'd rather have a lot of (relatively) small holes, as we do now, than the one giant hole that would exist if we had never done any science at all.

[fukuda 351]

So all that wonderful radiation seeping through the magnetic poles causes cancer and if it causes evolution, then the odds would be far more than astronomical that it creates anything but cancer.quote>

Radiation? Which one, the Earth's electromagnetic field? Too bad it's by far too small to cause any effect in direct chemical bonding, some animals and plants can just barely sense it by having specialized structures in which metallic atoms are located and can transmit a signal when the spin of these atoms is modified, that's all.

Electromagnetic fields can cause changes in enzimatic and electric activity of some reactions and modify the spin of some metallic atoms, but they won't cause direct mutations, even less in the puny amounts the Earth's field operates on.

Darwin proved that some birds will grow a variety of beaks during different climate conditionsquote>

No, Darwin never stated or proved anything like that, that's Lamarckism . Birds won't grow beaks out of necessity, it just seems like that because we are looking at the end result. Most bird populations will never have the chance to suffer several positive mutations in time and will either have to flee or will disappear. Interpreting a result is sometimes a bit dangerous when you have no way to see what happened before.

but no observable species-evolution has occured.  Once an evolutionary jump has been observed then it shall be proven.quote>

Species evolution as 2 populations no longer being able to mate and produce fertile offspring? Oh but we have observed it, here's an example, and there are more I haven't posted:

London Underground Mosquito species << this one is pretty amazing

Genetic variation was quantified between surface-dwelling populations of Culex pipiens and the so-called molestus form found in the London Underground (the Underground) railway system. The molestus form is a commercially important biting nuisance and in the southern part of its range is also a disease vector. The surface and subterranean populations were genetically distinct, with no evidence of gene flow between closely adjacent populations of the different forms, whereas there was little differentiation between the different populations of each form. The substantially reduced heterozygosity in the Underground populations and the allelic composition suggest that colonization of the Underground has occurred once or very few times. Breeding experiments show compatibility between the Underground populations but not with those breeding above ground. There is evidence of greater gene flow and a mixing of molestus and pipiens traits in the south of the species range. This paper considers the processes that may allow establishment of reproductive isolation in the north of the species range but not in the south.quote>

scientific article source

---

See, you just proved exactly what I said. It doesnt make sense to you. In other words, you dont understand it. You dont comprehend the science behind it. So, you come up[...]quote>

Oh and please talk about the topic at hand, not about the people posting in here.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

-Lexus-: In your biology class did anyone say anything about genetic studies using Drysophila Varigata (fruit flies).  Their reproduction is so fast that variations can be made to appear in a reasonable life time.

God works in mysterious ways or why would He have allowed us to discover this little messenger of genetic knowledge?  Since God knows everything, He is the Scientist Ultimo Maximo.  We need to bear in mind that His goals are not ours.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

-Lexus-: In your biology class did anyone say anything about genetic studies using Drysophila Varigata (fruit flies).  Their reproduction is so fast that variations can be made to appear in a reasonable life time.

God works in mysterious ways or why would He have allowed us to discover this little messenger of genetic knowledge?  Since God knows everything, He is the Scientist Ultimo Maximo.  We need to bear in mind that His goals are not ours.

quote>

Yeah, they where mentioned. Although we barely touched on the subject of evolution on highschool. We had one class about it (so 50 minutes in total). I guess it was a bit of an issue, teaching stuff like evolution on a Christian school. Although not a very Christian one, perhaps Christian enough to leave that subject out of class as much as possible. 

But most of what I know about evolution is self taught.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

-Lexus-: In your biology class did anyone say anything about genetic studies using Drysophila Varigata (fruit flies). quote>

 Do you mean Drosophila melanogaster? (Specific epithets, melanogaster here, always go in lower case btw)

[raja_indy14 8]

Although I can understand why some people might choose to believe that there was some "thing" that caused the universe to start, what has always puzzled me is the connection between that and any of the myriad deities that humans have dreamt up over the years. It seems to me supremely illogical that such a force would be so actively engaged in the affairs of human beings to the extent that is often portrayed in our various mythologies (such as bible stories). How, for instance, does that causative entity become the one that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha or visited the plagues on Egypt ("Insects-boils-the butchery of children-such work by any other agency would be considered an example of unexcelled sadism rather than celestial justice"), why would such an entity care how little carbon sacs of thinking water held up by transient accretions of calcium, to paraphrase Pratchett, live their exceedingly brief existences?

It's never made any sense to me why a Christian would feel the need to advocate creationism having already abandoned the idea that the universe was created in six days. Why attempt to reconcile two things that seem unrelated?

(this can, of course, apply to a person of any other religion for that matter, although they seem less publicly determined in this endeavour)

Of course, I'm far too secular-minded to properly participate in discussions like this*, and I lack the specific knowledge of evolution theory to defend it as well as others here clearly can.

*That is, I often approach true believers as some sort of bizarre creature to be studied and interrogated, but not to be taken in any way seriously.

[B33Rm47 1]

And a week? Thats a human invention. Some dude back in the stone age decided that it might be useful for farming purposes to invent a calender and use weeks as a way to measure the amount of time passed. A month? Amount of time before the moon was full again. A year? The time it takes the earth to pass around the sun. How did they come up with it? Well by looking at the stars of course.

I wasn't asking about the month and years, mearly about one week, and that guy making up a week seems a lttle far fetched, fukuda's statement (even if it was thought up by scientists) seemed alot more logical than a farmer thinking up a week because it was more convienient.

And really, you did Geopgraphy and Biology. Then why dont you know the most basic things about earth layers, tectonic activity, etc. No offense, but you didnt go to some fundamental Christian college now did you?

I'm still in secondary school thank you very much, these are lessons I have learned from a very wise creationist that has been proving many scientists and their suggestions wrong for many years. There is only so much I can communicate over posts, I am merely scratching the surface, I would have to make a whole other site or program to show you how knowledgeable creation really is and how much it makes sense. You don't need extremely complicated answers to explain creation, it just makes you sound smart.

Every single person on earth knows that there is a "higher power", they just want to live for themselves and do not want to admit that there is someone in control of their lives. He is always willing to accept you, you just have to accept him.

[B33Rm47 1]

I am not arguing, just standing up for what I belive and trrust in.

[astronelson 339]

B33Rm47: There is an edit button at the end of your posts, please use this instead of posting more than once at a time. Thank you.

I would like to see these alleged disproofs of various parts of science. If it has anything to do with evolution not explaining the origin of life, that's because it doesn't. The origins of life come under abiogenesis. Relay as much as you can before you reach the character limit.

[morriswalters 16]

Both Religion and science can be seen as a response to the capriciousness of life here on earth.  Man is beset by things that, seemingly by whim, can destroy him and those things he holds dear, and science and religion attempt to make sense of that.  An attempt to draw order from chaos.  Over and over again I see people here speak of proof,  when in fact neither science nor Religion can offer it.  Darwins Theory, is just that,  a theory.  And like any good theory it appears to explain observations, and is to some degree predictive, that is appears to predict how things not yet studied should work.  But Theories should never be taken as fact.  They should always be tested whenever their is new data, because each new datum can offer new insight.  More than one Theory has had to be changed when presented with new facts.  Newtonian Physics is a perfect example.  Pointing to the motives of God and saying that is sadistic or mean shows a failure to understand the essential meaning of God.  Ascribing anything to God other than what is revealed to you is meaningless.  The best way to describe it is to think of an ant trying to come up with a reason why a man destroyed his anthill.  The gulf of understanding is too wide for the ant.  How could a man understand the purposes of a being who created the Universe, that gulf would be even wider.

[raja_indy14 8]

Originally posted by: B33Rm47

I'm still in secondary school thank you very much, these are lessons I have learned from a very wise creationist that has been proving many scientists and their suggestions wrong for many years. There is only so much I can communicate over posts, I am merely scratching the surface, I would have to make a whole other site or program to show you how knowledgeable creation really is and how much it makes sense. You don't need extremely complicated answers to explain creation, it just makes you sound smart.quote>

If you could name this person it would save you the trouble of having to try to, imperfectly, impart what they are saying. We could look it up on our own.

Originally posted by: B33Rm47

Every single person on earth knows that there is a "higher power", they just want to live for themselves and do not want to admit that there is someone in control of their lives. He is always willing to accept you, you just have to accept him.quote>

How do you know this? I certainly don't "know" it, although at times I might countenance the idea. So there's one exception already, and I'm sure we could find more!

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Over and over again I see people here speak of proof, when in fact neither science nor Religion can offer it.quote>

Just because neither can offer absolute proofs doesn't mean that both are equally valid in explaining the natural world.

Originally posted by: morriswalters

The best way to describe it is to think of an ant trying to come up with a reason why a man destroyed his anthill. The gulf of understanding is too wide for the ant. quote>

That doesn't really help, and, I think, largely misses the point. Firstly, why would the creator of the universe destroy the anthill at all? A human will destroy it because quite a few of us are periodically wantonly and unthinkingly cruel, particularly to non-humans. These are not traits that one would attribute to a perfect creator entity, although in fact humans seem to routinely do so. Secondly, and this was the main point, how does a creator of the universe, even if one could be shown to exist, somehow justify Christianity? For Christians, I would have thought faith alone was enough (why is there a need to show, normally pseudo-scientifically, that there was a creator?). For non-Christians the proven existence of a creator would hardly legitimate any particular human religion, including Christianity.

Also, if the gulf of understanding is so wide, how can anyone claim to understand it? This sort of ties in to my point, even if there is a creator, how does this somehow justify any form of human religion? They are all virtually guaranteed to have got it wrong. Yes, clearly I do fail to understand the essentially meaning of 'God', what I want to know is how so many other people can claim to understand it so well. The "gulf is too wide" argument works both ways, as far as I can tell.

I should add that I'm not really anti-religious or antitheistic, so long as they aren't harmful to others, but that I fail to understand why there is a, seeming, need to find a creator so as to vindicate a human religion.

[Cobraroll 138]

I see others have touched upon the subject here, but I feel like elaborating:

First, there is a GIANT leap between "Evolution is wrong" and "Christianity is right". Throughout human history, more than ten thousand various religions have been practised (to a varying degree), and all of them have the same likelyness of being true.

Even if we proved that the world was, in fact, created not too long ago, why should we automatically assume that it was done by the guy in the burning bush? It's exactly as likely that it was Odin, Vishnu, Zeus, Horus, Quetzalcoatl, Jupiter, Arceus or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or, more likely, neither.

Christianity is only one of many, many branches within creationism. Another suggestion based on mythology, with very little evidence to back it up in the observable world. Whereas the theory of evolution neatly fits into the other branches of science, most notably biology, but the fossil record has a close interaction with geology all the way throughout. That's what separates evolution and a non-theistic explaination of everything from the thousands of religions: Overwhelming amounts of observable evidence.

It should also be added, it's nigh on impossible that a god could have interfered with this world without leaving traces. If the world was created six thousand years ago, there should have been lots and lots of evidence to point this out. Take the ice cores, for example. They can show a layer for each year going as far back as 13 million years. If the world was created before that, there would have been one thick, homogenous layer dated to creation day. Sedimentary rocks: We can count several billion years in some of them. Don't get me started on the radiometric measurements.

All in all: I'm for evolution until something (with evidence to back it up with) shows something different. And I beliveve Christianity to be just another religion. Albeit a successful one, not at all more likely than any other.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

My hypothesis is that this era is a resting period (like a sabbath) of God (which means that he only does minor, barely noticeable things this day and age). I personally am a Roman Catholic but I have many Deist beliefs (which goes along with my scientific mind) and some henotheistic qualities. By Deist I mean that studying the universe allows us to learn more about God and by henotheistic I mean that God has more names than are listed in the Torah and Bible. Also, the bible explicitly states that there are other gods and that not all of them are false gods but some are rather bad, useless, or otherwise unworthy of worship. That means that some religions worship the same true god while others worship gods that are not deemed worthy of worship by Judaism and Christianity. I also believe that there are three main sections of the Afterlife and that those of different religions go to different parts of those sections and that atheists stop existing (which to many Christians is a fate worse than going to parts of Hell). I think that there are three types of areas of Purgatory: a cleansing punishment section, a grey and boring, neutral section, and a section similar to earth (if Hell can have cities of punishment and the pandaemonium and Heaven can have palaces etc, why can Purgatory not have any cities?).

When God gave mankind dominance over nature (plant and animal), he allowed us to put part of evolution into our own hands through selective breeding.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: B33Rm47

I'm still in secondary school thank you very much, these are lessons I have learned from a very wise creationist that has been proving many scientists and their suggestions wrong for many years. There is only so much I can communicate over posts, I am merely scratching the surface, I would have to make a whole other site or program to show you how knowledgeable creation really is and how much it makes sense. You don't need extremely complicated answers to explain creation, it just makes you sound smart.

Every single person on earth knows that there is a "higher power", they just want to live for themselves and do not want to admit that there is someone in control of their lives. He is always willing to accept you, you just have to accept him.

quote>

Hahahah, okay, first of all, a wise creationist is not a smart creationist and a wise creationist isnt automatically right about scientific subjects. In fact, a wise creationist tends to be someone with the ability to pervert logic to a degree it just melts your mind. The sheer stupidity and logical fallacies youll read in any argument made up by a creationist is just mind numbing. 

And yes, once again, you prove my point about creationists right. They dont want to find a more complicated answer. They are happy with a simple answer: God. Tell me, do you think we would have ever invented any cure other then prayer if doctors and pharmaceuticals had that kind of attitude towards diseases? It is the easy answer to think that a virus is in fact divine punishment for some transgression against god. And its also much easier to say that a good dosis of feeling sorry, praying and confession would solve that nasty headache. Until at some point you start seeing things, bleed out of your nose and then die because there is a huge tumor inside your head that is crushing your brain. Thank goodness there are people out there that wanna look smart and find actual answers on questions instead of being intellectually lazy and yell God at every question. 

And yeah, Im sure God will accept me, even after I spend my whole life denying his existence. He is after all, all loving and all forgiving no? Im sure hell forgive that transgression as well. 

@Morriswalters. Science does have proof. It cannot offer absolute facts. But it does have proof. And evolution has loads of proof and after more then a century they still havent found proof that can disprove evolution. At the other hand, you have religion, which has no proof whatsoever and likely will have no proof ever. Its called faith for a reason. 

[morriswalters 16]

raja_indy14

The first two quotes you attribute to me aren't mine.  They kicked me out of secondary school 30 years ago.

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Over and over again I see people here speak of proof, when in fact neither science nor Religion can offer it.

Just because neither can offer absolute proofs doesn't mean that both are equally valid in explaining the natural world.

                     Neither does it mean they aren't.  Validity in this case is a personal judgement.

Originally posted by: morriswalters

The best way to describe it is to think of an ant trying to come up with a reason why a man destroyed his anthill. The gulf of understanding is too wide for the ant.

That doesn't really help, and, I think, largely misses the point. Firstly, why would the creator of the universe destroy the anthill at all? A human will destroy it because quite a few of us are periodically wantonly and unthinkingly cruel, particularly to non-humans. These are not traits that one would attribute to a perfect creator entity, although in fact humans seem to routinely do so. Secondly, and this was the main point, how does a creator of the universe, even if one could be shown to exist, somehow justify Christianity? For Christians, I would have thought faith alone was enough (why is there a need to show, normally pseudo-scientifically, that there was a creator?). For non-Christians the proven existence of a creator would hardly legitimate any particular human religion, including Christianity.

Also, if the gulf of understanding is so wide, how can

anyone

claim to understand it? This sort of ties in to my point, even if there

is

a creator, how does this somehow justify any form of human religion? They are all virtually guaranteed to have got it wrong. Yes, clearly I do fail to understand the essentially meaning of 'God', what I want to know is how so many other people can claim to understand it so well. The "gulf is too wide" argument works both ways, as far as I can tell.

I should add that I'm not really anti-religious or antitheistic, so long as they aren't harmful to others, but that I fail to understand why there is a, seeming, need to find a creator so as to vindicate a human religion.

The point of the argument is not to prove anything to anyone, it is simply to point out that science, too  often,  is just another form of religion for some.  The absurdity is that of trying to fit religion into the scientific method or to use science to debunk or show the "meaningless" of religion.  For instance people point to the geological record to say that the world wasn't built in seven says, but that is inherently futile.  By definition the Creator is all powerful, he created the universe and time and it is easy to say that he simply sped up the process to make it happen in a week.  The problem is the belief that you can bring "proofs, pro or con" to a discussion of faith.  You either accept it or you don't.

 

Lexus

See this article in the Wikipedia  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Pay particular attention to the quote attributed to Einstien which says "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

For the purpose of clarification I am a athiest, however I am not evangelical, and experience has taught me that however much I might wish my beliefs to be facts that it "ain't always so".

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Lexus

See this article in the Wikipedia  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Pay particular attention to the quote attributed to Einstien which says "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

 For the purpose of clarification I am a athiest, however I am not evangelical, and experience has taught me that however much I might wish my beliefs to be facts that it "ain't always so".quote>

Well, thats the scientific method. 

But so far all the evidence suggests that evolution is very likely. So likely im inclined to believe in evolution and not in something that has no evidence at all, and is only logical through an extremely childish argument of a super power that cannot be seen, heard, or understood but somehow made all this. God makes as much sense as the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The only difference is that the last two are a joke and everyone knows that and the first is taken seriously by billions of people.  

[fukuda 351]

When God gave mankind dominance over nature (plant and animal)quote>

Dominance? How so?