Creationism vs Evolution

[jenny_zhang]

personally, i can't understand how anyone who accepts evolution as fact but guided by the hand of god can worship, adore and call such a god good. the processes that sustain life are absolutely cruel.

Well, that's because most of the religious people who have backpedaled into saying that evolution is "God's laws" usually don't understand evolution themselves. I too cannot understand why people who hold "Christian values" dear to them would say that evolution was "guided by God's hand".

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

I know you were not arguing for a creator. I was remarking on your commentary of my post. That should be clear if you reread what I wrote.

I've stated that there is no evidence for a god, creator or ultimate creative force. I've gone one further and pointed out that there is no clear definition concerning the specific qualities of a deity, gods or fundamental universal creative force.

Sure, I could call myself an atheist, but my preference is to define myself as an agnostic. And rest assured, it's a well thought out choice. Atheists claim that deities do not exist. My view is that there is no proof either way because the definitions are simply unclear and unfixed. In other words, there is no proof for a deity, creator, or universal creative force, but there is also no absolute refutation of any of these things either. There can't be.

To be more blunt, questions regarding the existence or nonexistence of a deity, deities or an ultimate creative universal agency - along with the nature of ultimate reality - is simply unknowable by reason of our inability to verify any such experience with anything but another subjective experience.

Going one step further, would you deny the existence of the universe by virtue of the fact that you cannot prove its existence in any form of totality? It is quite likely that the ultimate nature of the universe (all that lying beyond the visible universe) will never be known by human beings, yet it makes up by far the greater portion of reality. Do we deny that it exists because we can't prove it? Do deny the concept of infinity because we can't account for the content?

I simply can't know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you. Neither can the true believers.

gristle, with all due respect, whether you identify as an atheist is besides the point. if you don't believe in god(s), that is the basic definition of being an atheist. it does not matter whether you simply "can't know whether a deity exists or not". that is another matter. either you believe in a god(s) or you don't. there is no in between and it doesn't matter if you think it could be possible that there is a god or whether it can be known or unknown.

by saying you're an atheist, you are NOT closing the possibility that a god(s) can exist. you can only do that if you're a "gnostic atheist" or "positive atheist" which neither you or i am. mind you, i may talk sometimes like a positive atheist or gnostic atheist but i'm just being poetic. i don't actually believe that there is no god(s) or that it is impossible for a god(s) to exist ever.

do i believe in god(s)? no: i'm an atheist.
do i believe in god(s)? yes: i'm a theist.


is there a god? i don't know, i might never know & it might not be possible to know. there could be but who knows?: i'm an agnostic
is there a god? yes: i'm a gnostic.
is there a god? no: i'm a gnostic.

do i adhere to a religion? no: i'm non religious.
do i adhere to a religion? yes: i'm religious


if someone asks you if you believe in god and you answer that you are an agnostic, you're answering another question. you weren't asked if there is a god.


to sum everything up in short:

are you a theist? yes or no? if you answer no, you are an atheist. (without theism)

 

[cacruden]

Well, that's because most of the religious people who have backpedaled into saying that evolution is "God's laws" usually don't understand evolution themselves. I too cannot understand why people who hold "Christian values" dear to them would say that evolution was "guided by God's hand".

Well, I cannot speak as a Christian, but you can believe in a god, and that there is an underlying "plan" in that things are constantly "evolving" from simple to more complex organisms, and it takes just as much faith that this is completely random. There are many different sects of Christian religion, some believe in the bible as written, some do not. The Catholic religion does not, some conservative Baptists do.

There seems to be a lot of people talking about things being proved, I don't know where they learned their science but I was always taught you could NEVER prove a theory or hypothesis true, you could only prove it false. In fact many times in recent scientific history, long held theories that underpinned our scientific knowledge were proved false. These "truths" we believed in, we had faith in, and we had to go back to the drawing board and come up with new Hypothesis or modify existing ones.

Religious faiths are no different, they evolve as well. There will always be people that are closed minded and not willing or are afraid to/of change -- but they fade after time to be replaced by others (sort of Darwinian).

Some of our greatest scientists that we look up to, believed in god.

 

[wonderboy416]

Well, I cannot speak as a Christian, but you can believe in a god, and that there is an underlying "plan" in that things are constantly "evolving" from simple to more complex organisms, and it takes just as much faith that this is completely random.

Completely random?
What's completely random?
Evolution?
Life evolves and adapts with a very specific purpose.
Eye balls just didn't pop into our heads for no reason. Humans developed exactly as our counterparts in nature did using the same processes.

Maybe I got your message wrong, but no one who has studied evolution would ever tell you that it's random or by chance. Planet earth may have won the lottery and been one of the small % of planets capable of sustaining life (there's little doubt that there's others out there), but that doesn't mean the life on this planet is itself random.

It takes a lot more faith to believe in a holy spirit you cannot see, hear, touch or smell than it does to believe in the natural forces of nature for which there's a hugely impressive scientific body of work to support.

 

[jenny_zhang]

Well, I cannot speak as a Christian, but you can believe in a god, and that there is an underlying "plan" in that things are constantly "evolving" from simple to more complex organisms, and it takes just as much faith that this is completely random.

You are basically proving my point. You don't seem to understand evolution either.

 

[SP!RE]

You should be able to choose more than one option in this poll.

Creationism and Evolution are two different lenses of looking at the world-- one mythically/spiritually, and the other, scientifically.

I believe both. And it's not cherry picking. Nowhere does the Bible say that the creation story is the only truth or even anything more than a myth. Mathematically and scientifically is one way of looking at the world.

I prefer multiple approaches that satisfy my spiritual being as well as my scientific self.

 

[wonderboy416]

SP!RE,

There are only two options because the poll is about where life came from. Either it was created, or it wasn't.

The poll is not about religion being true, it's about how you think life originated. If you think there was some sort of divine intervention, at all on any level then choose option 1 as that would render option 2 false.

You can believe both all you want, but that's no different than believing a tennis ball is also a peanut. How can there be more than one truth? A truth is a fact. It doesn't rain because the clouds can no longer retain the water AND because the rain god decided it's time to rain. I also think it's fair to completely dismiss anything in the bible in any type of debate, courts of law don't accept hearsay as testimony for a reason. If the words in the bible are to be accepted it must be proven that it is an accurate eye witness testimony of an actual event (which we all know has be revised countless times by people we don't know). So the very fact that you referenced the bible as if what it says has some sort of high ruling authority discredits everything IMO... as it would if you were to use that as the basis of your testimony in a court of law...

 

[Admiral Beez]

We should remember that the opposite of Faith is not doubt, but is certainty.

 

[afransen]

Nah. I'd say the opposite of faith is skepticism. Faith is believing something is true until it is disproved, while skepticism not believing something is true until it is proven.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

SP!RE,

There are only two options because the poll is about where life came from. Either it was created, or it wasn't.

The poll is not about religion being true, it's about how you think life originated. If you think there was some sort of divine intervention, at all on any level then choose option 1 as that would render option 2 false.

evolution (if you're speaking about natural selection) deals with the diversity of life, the process which creates different forms of life. the topic which deals with how life originated (formed) is called abiogenesis.

 

[Dan416]

Coruscanti Cognoscente,

Many atheists make their case known because they believe that religion is to the detriment of man-kind. There's a common belief that teaching people to be good to please god and thus be rewarded is corruption at its best. What's wrong with being good because you want to? Why must there be a reward with the fear of punishment? Why must people buy into their religion to the point of madness? Surely no one would strap a bomb to their chest if they didn't feel they would be in their god's good books in the after life... not the best of career choices if they're wrong isn't it?

I believe as an atheist that religion is bad for everyone. There is countless evidence to support that as well... so why should I be quiet? Truth is I am rather quiet about it in person as I care not to always engage in such conversations, but perhaps I shouldn't be.

I sincerely believe that religion is a cancer to man kind. It gives us the wrong motivation for being virtuous, it teaches us that god likes people to suffer to test everyone around them and so forth. What kind of sick message is that?

Perhaps if there weren't millions upon millions of deaths and countless more suffering attributed to religion I'd hold it in a higher regard, but since that's verifiable I will think the way I do... and wish more atheists were vocal about their beliefs. Supporting the notion that we don't need religion is drastically different then selling a particular faith.

I have no problem with people thinking religion is bad/evil/whatever. My problem is with people who try to convince people their religion is baaaaaad. In particular in the west we see a lot of people bash Christianity and Catholicism in particular.

And I disagree with the person who said you either believe or you don't. I'd rather not choose sides. Just because you think we all must, doesn't mean we have to. You don't have to choose one side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

That said, if I had to choose between a religious society and a non-religious one, I'd choose the non-religious one.

But when it comes to dating, I'd rather date someone who has a similar background to me, preferably Catholic or Christian, preferably non-religious, agnostic. But real turnoffs are atheism, paganism, Wicca, all of that nonsense.

My word this is turning into a TNZ thread...

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

And I disagree with the person who said you either believe or you don't. I'd rather not choose sides. Just because you think we all must, doesn't mean we have to. You don't have to choose one side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

that is a false analogy. whether you believe in something or not has nothing to do with taking a particular side, such as in a political conflict.

do you believe in santa claus? or would you rather not takes sides? which makes absolutely no sense since the question doesn't ask you to take sides. the question also doesn't ask you to make a statement whether you think it may or may not be possible for santa claus to exist, if it can be known whether santa claus exists or if you know whether santa claus exists or not.

not wanting to state whether you believe in something or not is one story but if you yourself don't know if you believe in something or not, well, how is that even possible?

 

[GenerationW]

There should have been a choice for neither.

Usually, those pimping hard in the media for one or the other are trying to raise funds or sell books. And I find that many of them come across as nasty ideologues.

At the end of the day its just a feeling, not facts or evidence.

And humans are filled with feelings. Overwhelmingly so. Some are rational, some irrational, some debatable, and some beyond description.

The other day I was approached by some fellows and asked if I had heard the good news, I politely responded with a no and then they both got really really passionate and starting talking about Jesus before I could blink. I also found myself holding a pamphlet... I was very polite and said I'm sorry we don't share common beliefs and walked off... and one of them actually followed me asking if I wanted to learn about the good Lord. I wonder what kind of society we live in when we tolerate this type of behavior in public. Had an atheist started approaching strangers in the mall I'm sure security would have been notified as someone would have been deeply offended... I wasn't offended as much as I was mildly annoyed.

Lost opportunity: You should have used your atheism to wow him. Or invoked the Great Pumpkin.

When a large group of atheists have such deeply held beliefs that they try and sell their program in public places, call the media. But until that day comes (probably when hell.....I mean Hawaii freezes over), to avoid another shocking encounter like that, try walking away faster.

I sincerely believe that religion is a cancer to man kind. It gives us the wrong motivation for being virtuous, it teaches us that god likes people to suffer to test everyone around them and so forth. What kind of sick message is that?

Perhaps if there weren't millions upon millions of deaths and countless more suffering attributed to religion I'd hold it in a higher regard, but since that's verifiable I will think the way I do... and wish more atheists were vocal about their beliefs. Supporting the notion that we don't need religion is drastically different then selling a particular faith.

Hmm, eliminate all tests. I like that!

In Rwanda, a tribal feud led to mass murder. Hitler, Stalin (atheist!), Mao (atheist!) and the Mongols (just to name four) killed in the tens of millions and religion was no factor in all (though you can argue about Hitler but he didn't hate Jews based only on religion, and, in fact, Darwinian biology actually played a part in Hitler's twisted mindset......but I digress).

You can kill in the name of anything (or not much of anything) under the correct conditions.

I too cannot understand why people who hold "Christian values" dear to them would say that evolution was "guided by God's hand".

Not agreeing with it is fine, but if you can't understand that some people (or even a lot of people) think differently than you on an issue, your head will hurt forever.

Planet earth may have won the lottery and been one of the small % of planets capable of sustaining life (there's little doubt that there's others out there), but that doesn't mean the life on this planet is itself random.

WHOA! There is EXTREME doubt that there is life anywhere else in the universe (I for one think we're all there is), and WIKI says:

To date, no credible evidence of extraterrestrial life has been discovered which has been generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

but we still make movies and write books about it, and, one could argue, the belief in extraterrestrial life has become a religion unto itself (and I mean apart from Scientology). Is that good or bad?

Hey, YOU are in DIRECT conflict with science!!! Fifty lashes for you.

There are only two options because the poll is about where life came from. Either it was created, or it wasn't.

The poll is not about religion being true, it's about how you think life originated. If you think there was some sort of divine intervention, at all on any level then choose option 1 as that would render option 2 false.

Then your question may be incorrect. Evolution does not answer how life was originally created. According to WIKI, evolution is:

change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations

The most commonly held scientific theory for the creation of the universe is the Big Bang Theory.

Therefore, in the case of Creationism vs. the Big Bang Theory (not the TV show), I choose the "neither" option which doesn't exist, even though I believe it actually does, in fact, exist.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

In Rwanda, a tribal feud led to mass murder. Hitler, Stalin (atheist!), Mao (atheist!) and the Mongols (just to name four) killed in the tens of millions and religion was no factor in all (though you can argue about Hitler but he didn't hate Jews based only on religion, and, in fact, Darwinian biology actually played a part in Hitler's twisted mindset......but I digress).

first off, you are severely misinformed about "evolution by means of natural selection" to suggest that darwinian biology is what played a role with hitler's mindset. killing people so that they don't exist is not a concept that darwin invented and neither is artificial selection which is what something from eugenics to developing developing new types of apples deals with. it doesn't take a theory on evolution to know that if you kill somebody, they can't have offspring. i think you've been watching too many ben stein movies. and if you're gonna blame stalin's or mao's lack of belief in a god for his evils, what makes you so sure it wasn't his lack of belief in santa claus?

also, are you saying that because people can be harmed by means other than religiously inspired, religiously inspired harm or the ability of religion to provide justifications for evils shouldn't be criticized?

 

[GenerationW]

first off, you are severely misinformed about "evolution by means of natural selection" to suggest that darwinian biology is what played a role with hitler's mindset. killing people so that they don't exist is not a concept that darwin invented and neither is artificial selection which is what something from eugenics to developing developing new types of apples deals with. it doesn't take a theory on evolution to know that if you kill somebody, they can't have offspring. i think you've been watching too many ben stein movies.

Hitler's was a political (and twisted) evaluation of Darwin as opposed to a correct scientific one, influenced by the eugenics movement started by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, who was heavily influenced by Darwin. But I'm definitely not saying Darwin was responsible for Hitler.

Ben Stein was in a movie other than Ferris Bueller?

and if you're gonna blame stalin's or mao's lack of belief in a god for his evils, what makes you so sure it wasn't his lack of belief in santa claus?

I'm not blaming their lack of belief in a god for their evils. That would be as simplistic a conclusion as saying that one can blame person or group X's belief in a god for a horrible crime.

also, are you saying that because people can be harmed by means other than religiously inspired, religiously inspired harm or the ability of religion to provide justifications for evils shouldn't be criticized?

No.