Creationism vs Evolution

[sixrings]

Well inresponse to the world was built in 6 days and now the christians are changing their beliefs to make room for science. Im sure there are alot of christians who simply believe the creation account of 6 days is simply a narative. It isnt a sceintific documentation. Instead it was meant to explain how things more or less came to being. The big principle would be the someone did create or at least cause these things to come into existance...

I was thinking about this last night and what I would really like to see is everyone who doesn't believe in a god hooked up to a lie detector test and asked a few simple questions... Questions such as...

1. Do you believe in a higher power? or a god? or gods?
2. Have you ever encountered something or something happened that you thought was beyond logical explination?
3. Would you like to believe in a God?

What if Richard dawkins took a test and it revealed that he had thought or does think sometimes that maybe there is a god? Would that change some of our opinions about him?

Finally someone posted a link here where a young lady asked Dawkins "what if you are wrong?" Dawkins gos on to avoid the question and speak about how the likely hood is that whatever religion the girl is from it is most likely her parents religion. And if we were in india shed probably be hindu or china budist or where ever whatever. Since the beginning of time people have had religions. Does that make these people stupid? One could say that. But doesn't it say something that humans wwether designed or simply naturally selected have a natural predispositon to want to believe in something. Is it not possible that this urge to believe in a higher power is from God himself, helfself, itself, itselves?

 

[jenny_zhang]

Im sure there are alot of christians who simply believe the creation account of 6 days is simply a narative. It isnt a sceintific documentation. Instead it was meant to explain how things more or less came to being. The big principle would be the someone did create or at least cause these things to come into existance...

Which is exactly my point. People used to believe in the Bible literally, and now they pick-and-choose whatever fits modern science without contradiction.

What if Richard dawkins took a test and it revealed that he had thought or does think sometimes that maybe there is a god? Would that change some of our opinions about him?

What exactly is the relevance of asking this question? What if the Pope took a lie detector test and it revealed he didn't believe in God? What if all the churchgoers in the world took a lie detector test? What's the point of hypotheticals?

Dawkins gos on to avoid the question and speak about how the likely hood is that whatever religion the girl is from it is most likely her parents religion. And if we were in india shed probably be hindu or china budist or where ever whatever.

The point he was making, that you may have missed, is that he as an athiest is not the only one who has to think "What if I'm wrong". Every follower of every religion is an athiest towards every other religion. What if they're wrong with their choice?

Since the beginning of time people have had religions. Does that make these people stupid?

Since the beginning of time, people have believed many things which are incorrect. People used to worship the sun, and think the world was flat.

Is it not possible that this urge to believe in a higher power is from God himself, helfself, itself, itselves?

Many things are "possible". So why blindly believe in one of them?

 

[wonderboy416]

I don't think it's cherrypicking unless you're a member of religion that disavows evolutionary theory. Not all religions are as uncomfortable with evolution as some of the more vocal churches here in North America. Not all religions have a Genesis to interpret literally, and not every religion/denomination that has a Genesis-equivalent does interpret it literally.

So just because an entire group does it then it's not cherry-picking? Will those religious groups continue to adjust their beliefs so they can remain consistent with science up until there's nothing left of the religion? That's nonsense. The Church had to change it's views to allow for a round world and again to allow for the earth not to be the centre of the universe. What you speak of is no different and highly hypocritical.

As for a belief in God, I'm not sure where I stand on the subject, but when it comes to this kind of belief, I don't think you can ask for scientific proof. It's a personal belief you either have or you don't, and so long as you don't use that belief to justify violence or ignorance, I don't think it should matter to anyone else.

How can something be true for one person but not true for everyone?
There is a god (or gods), or there isn't, it's that simple. Is gravity different for you than it is for me? What about the molecular structure of a cookie?
People that say they have a relationship with god without any proof are no more sane than when someone says they have an imaginary friend, the only difference is only one of those two can end up in the loony bin.

I was thinking about this last night and what I would really like to see is everyone who doesn't believe in a god hooked up to a lie detector test and asked a few simple questions... Questions such as...

As mentioned, what does a lie detector have to do with anything? How does a persons response affect whether or not there's a god? This is the type of silly reasoning that religious minded people will throw at you when trying to prove the existence of god. Maybe that feeling deep down inside that you think is god is just a kidney stone? lol Who cares and how is that relevant to proving anything?

We certainly wouldn't sentence someone to prison without a single shred of evidence, so why should I believe there's a God with even less?
"Your honour, this man was the killer because I feel that deep down inside there was no one else who could have done it!"
Think of how ridiculous that sounds.

 

[sixrings]

A lie detector does nothing proof wise. All it does is show that if some of these people who say they are non believiers actually may believe in a God, then for whatever reason their is a longing for something more. Or maybe someone or something is tugging at them trying to get them to pay attention and see that their might be something more. Similarly you could poll pastors rabbis imams to see if they believe or not. Sure you might find some who have doubts. I have doubts myself sometimes. But overall I still believe in something. You are looking for irrefutable proof of a god. Essentially the heavens or whatever would have to part and the supreme being would have to speak to you directly in an audible tone for you to have any "evidence." Actually it sounds like even if that happened you might choose to use science as a way to convince yourelf that "it was just a illusion" or something.

What would be substancial enough proof for you to believe? I am sure you are wondering what would be substancial proof for the believer to not believe.

 

[wonderboy416]

You are looking for irrefutable proof of a god.

What would be substancial enough proof for you to believe? I am sure you are wondering what would be substancial proof for the believer to not believe.

No, I am looking for any proof, anything at all - until then I won't even open my mind to the possibility of such a being.
A "miracle" that is witnessed by the masses might lead me to believe there's something at play, unfortunately such a thing has never happened. Heck even if a miracle were to happen that was verifiable and could not be described by science, who's to say it wasn't the invisible pink unicorn at work or the flying spaghetti monster? Those ideas are just as plausible as the idea of a god. Heck it could be some alien race just messing with the humans - I guess that's it right there, you know and I know there will never be a way to prove there is a god, just as one can't prove there isn't so that is comforting for you. You only believe in god because others have before you and others have told you about him. If you took that away, the concept of god wouldn't even be in your mind. Unlike you, I don't need others to tell me there is no god - that's something I can conclude all on my own.


Debating the existence of god with someone is no different than debating the existence of a tea pot orbiting the solar system.

 

[sixrings]

"You only believe in god because others have before you and others have told you about him. If you took that away, the concept of god wouldn't even be in your mind. I don't need others to tell me there is no god - that's something I can conclude all on my own."

Maybe I wouldnt believe in God if no one before me did. However there is just as much likely hood I would believe that something created this place. I could agree that maybe I wouldnt believe in the God I choose to follow but there is good enough reason to believe I would just as likely be willing to believe in something without someone having told me about God in the first place. ALSO are you implying that the only way someone can believe in God is if someone told someone about God to begin with. If that is true you would come to the conclussion then that at one time or another God made himself known to someone. That or someone had a really creative imagination.

 

[wonderboy416]

That or someone had a really creative imagination.

When people don't know something, they tend to make it up.
After all the earth was once flat.

If you were a poor slave wouldn't the idea of your captors going to hell and you going to heaven help you make it through the day? Wouldn't that be a real easy story to buy into considering your condition?

It doesn't take much of an imagination to dream up the idea of a god, in fact I'd say the Christian-god is the least creative of all... The Egyptians, the Greeks etc were all far more creative.

Anyway, you pretty much admitted you only believe in god because others have told you about it (thus admitting you have never been in contact with this mystical being yourself) and that you'd still think the world was created despite a mountain of evidence proving otherwise. So you'll believe a bunch of people with outrageous stories and no supporting evidence, but you won't believe in science... interesting...

 

[sixrings]

I never said that I dont believe in science. Science is great. It has helped us cure the common flu. Helped ppl with HIV live a normal life. Helped us get to the moon. It helps us understand the world that we live in. Helped us know that we arent the centre of the universe (Galileo was Christian wasnt he). Helped us to know that things evolve (Darwin was Christian wasnt he?).

Just because a christian believes in science doesnt mean hes watering down his or her own bible. The bible (were using christian examples because were talking about 6 day day creation and other apparently ludacris stories from there) is NOT a step by step book of how we got here. All the details are not included. Instead the book is made up of some areas of poetry and imagery (creation story) and other areas that are more what you like - actual events that took place. Does this rereading make the book confusing? sure it does? Are christians or jewish people or Islamic ppl choosing to adopt this new reading as a way to allow science to mix with their faith? Possibly. However a literal approach to the bible is a relatively new phenomenon. Jewish ppl for years didnt necessarly think that these stories were actual God written minutes of his daily activities. Instead God wrote in a way that his people could understand. 4000 years ago I dont think God could explain contenental drift or the big bang to adam and eve. It just wouldnt have maid any sense. So instead the book is written in a way that the people of the time could understand it.

As for other beliefs I am sure they too have no problem with science. How would or could science prrove if a nirvana exsisted? Obviously it cant. Does science stop the budhest from believing what he or she believes. Why would it? Science is a matter for this life not the after life.

What about experiences. Could experiences not be used as a means of knowing if somethings true or not. Well there are millions of people all over the work whom have had spiritual experiences in different faiths. You are simply discrediting all these people by calling them "silly."

 

[jenny_zhang]

What would be substancial enough proof for you to believe? I am sure you are wondering what would be substancial proof for the believer to not believe.

You're already coming from the wrong angle. You are presenting some vague belief and then expecting others to disprove it. Do we also have to disprove the flying spaghetti monster? Do you believe in sun worship? Why not? You haven't disprove it, right? Well, the answer is because you don't have any reason to believe in sun worship. The same reason applies to me.

You are looking for irrefutable proof of a god.

That would be nice, but any sort of proof would be helpful.

Does this rereading make the book confusing? sure it does?

No, it makes it convenient. Ever since the religious readers started taking "symbolic" interpretations of the Bible, now whenever any science is brought up which contradicts the Bible, they can say, "oh, but this passage is merely symbolic". Interpretations will just keep changing and changing to suit modern knowledge. At some point in the future I'm sure priests will be telling everyone that Jesus wasn't real and is a symbolic character.

4000 years ago I dont think God could explain contenental drift or the big bang to adam and eve. It just wouldnt have maid any sense.

Do you understand what you're writing here? Why wouldn't it have made sense?

You're telling me that an all powerful God couldn't explain continential drift? Or that he couldn't have created a better version of Adam and Eve to understand it? Do you realize how silly this sounds? We're talking about omnipotent beings and metaphysical experiences and you're telling me about how God couldn't tell Adam and Even about the big bang because it wouldn't have "maid any sense".

Well there are millions of people all over the work whom have had spiritual experiences in different faiths.

Yes. Some people say that Allah tells them to destroy civilians and destroy Christians, while others tell them that Jesus told them that homosexuals are the sin of the Earth. I'm not sure how these messages go together with the idea that they all originate from a divine being. I think there is a more mundane explanation for them.

 

[afransen]

Galileo was probably Christian insofar as being not-Christian meant burning at the stake.

 

[afransen]

Why has the gay gene survived? Shouldn't it have become scarce due to lack of procreation among homosexuals? Explain that one, science.

It's hard to say since there is no conclusive theory that explains the incidence of homosexuality. One theory is that, for whatever reason, families that produce some portion of their population homosexual were more successful and thus more likely to pass on their genes. That's the most plausible sounding theory I've heard. But then, the existence of homosexuality, and assuming it is not a 'lifestyle choice', would not really support the idea of a designer/God. Why would a god design in homosexuality? Then again, why would god give us an appendix or wisdom teeth? Seems likelier that these things are manifested as the result of a process that produces 'good enough' solutions.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Since the beginning of time, people have believed many things which are incorrect. People used to worship the sun..

there is nothing wrong with worshipping the sun. at least it's there.

Debating the existence of god with someone is no different than debating the existence of a tea pot orbiting the solar system.

you owe bertrand some royal-teas.

 

[cacruden]

Belief in god and science is not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Belief in creationism and evolutionism is not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Blind faith, just like blind anything can be dangerous - since when we stop questioning, we stop learning. It does not mean that you have to give up faith, because faith can keep us going when things are darkest. It does not have to be faith in a religion, it can be faith in a person, or faith in anything that gives us hope.

I find as many non-religious people that are closed minded as those that are religious.

If we exist in 4 dimensions (x, y, z, and to a limited extent time) does that preclude that some other consciousness could not exist in more dimensions than we are aware of. That consciousness could affect us in ways that we can never explain since by our very nature we are unable to explain it - since we have no ability to observe those additional dimensions without help. To us, they would be a god. I don't believe that we came into existence 6,000 years ago, but there does seem to be some order to evolution in that everything seems to be naturally moving from simple to complex, and it does not seem completely random in nature.

We have much more to learn than we have learned, and it is not religion that is our enemy - it is those that are closed-minded.

 

[wonderboy416]

Belief in creationism and evolutionism is not necessarily mutually exclusive.

They ought to be. Creationism can't be explained by any logical means at all. Evolution can not only be proven but the fossil record is immensely helpful for piecing together the history of the planet itself. How can one accept that evolution which progresses based on the need to survive be a created process? They're so fundamentally different that it defies all logic to consider both as being to co-exist with one another.

and it is not religion that is our enemy - it is those that are closed-minded.

Evangelicals are an enemy IMO. They dispute science, teach lessons from the bible as fact to their kids in school and teach them that non-Christians have something wrong with them and need to be saved. They make up nearly 30% of the US population.

Sure other religions are very much the same (many Muslims for example adopt similar attitudes - just as many do not) - however this one hits a bit closer to home.

Children are vulnerable and likely to believe anything they're told by their parents and will often retain those beliefs throughout their lifetime. Well guess what these people are teaching their kids...

Jesus Camp will make the heads of liberal Christians and Atheists alike spin.

 

[urbanboom]

My personal beliefs in response to the original question posed are thus:

I'm not blind: I see and have the needed knowledge to see the creation continually in progress. Evolution is fact, proved by steady science. The theories of natural selection do make sense and it is easy to see its role in the creation of the life that we see and know. To ignore this would we idiotic.

I'm not deaf: There are great holes in our knowledge of life. The current theories about the creation of the first amnio acids, that could over billions of years become as complex as mankind seem to hold grains of truth, but are in no way all conclusive and without fault. The idea is there, but it remains short on details. We can't explain time and space: no person has yet to come near to how matter could simply come into being on its own. For all our knowledge of how the laws of physics work, we have a startling lack of knowledge in terms of why the laws of physics work. In my view, the idea of something of divine proportions - something that is perfect, the beginning and the end of all things - isn't nonsensical. I call it 'God', but that is simply a name (perhaps a scientist would prefer a name like 'unknown force'?). There are gaps in our knowledge where I don't really don't think that they will be filled - we have yet to explain exactly what LIGHT is! Personally, I need more than that.

To paint everything as simply black and white is foolish. Drawing a line in the sand and saying, "you're either with us or against us" will get us nowhere as a species. There tends to be a forgotten colour in this world: grey. Science and Religion are not contradictions, as many people on both "sides" would have us believe. Religion without fact, without substance, without see things that are clearly there is foolish. Science without the humility in knowing its limitations, without openness and without recognizing just how large the universe truly is, is shallow. Evolution as a PART of religion is not a revolutionary concept: hell, even the great dinosaur that we know as the Roman Catholic Church believe in that science!

My understanding of God is from text, mostly written by human beings that were just as flawed as the rest of us. Scripture can be filled with things that are simply bizzare and if taken without a grain of salt can translate into something that diverts greatly from the theme of the tests. (It may be the common denominator between atheist and religious extremism: everything in the bible is literal, that's why they think it's so great or awful). But in those places, I do see the traces of something divine, something greater than mankind could muster. As a Christian, I see something greater than us in Jesus of Nazareth, the historical figure. (Great thinker? Yes. Divine? I think so. 'the unknown factor'? I don't know, but I hope the answer is 'yes'.) To me, this is something worthy of worship: something that at its core makes us work for something greater than us, even our governments. I see the works of God everyday in church missions, and to say that this good would happen without God is untrue.

I don't really have an interest in debating everybody on this forum, simply because it is very time consuming and I am greatly out numbered in terms of what people believe. My critique goes to the poll options: neither of the two represent me. To me, I see the hand of God on every step in the unfolding creation of man, nor do I think that the earth revolved seven times and suddenly Adam walked. I hope I'm not a dying breed.