Creation vs. Evolution

Because even the Catholic Church itself has pronounced that Evolution in no way runs counter to the written scripture, yet the Creationists refuse to budge.

A lot of people on the "other" side of the debate (pro-Evolution) are very very devoutly Christian. Creationism vs. Evolution is not a matter of faith, it's a matter of dogma vs. the educational system.

I would personally be upset if my child were not taught Mathematics because it was considered "unholy", or worse, if she were taught Astrology in Math class as an "alternative" to Western Mathematics. A lot of people put faith in Astrology, but it isn't a science. Therefore, should it be taught in school?

And yes, the debate pretty much starts and ends in America. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is focused on putting out human supercomputers with their increasingly rigid educational systems and making sure only the smartest kids survive high school (everyone else either flunks or suicides). "Evolution in Action". It's not pretty, though...

Pako

Why is this?...

Click to expand...

My sister and many of my friends are travel addicts. They wander the globe every year. They all report the same thing:

Everywhere they go, people ask them the same sort of questions, such as "What is going on in America these days? What has happened to you people?"

I thought that's what happened to every country formed upon Christian ordeals? [/sarcasm]

The Catholic Church meddles in education in Christian countries quite a bit. Their crusade against contraception (specifically the condom) has reached epic proportions in the past decade, and was severely hobbling the efforts of educators to promote sexual health education in the classroom in a few countries. But they've never interfered with our science curriculums.

I think even Islamic republics do not try to teach ID in school . Even they dont want to risk the results of having morons comming out of their school systems. But look at the bright side , even in the US you just have a small but very vocal and political minority actually pushing their adgenda into the education system ...or trying ....and failing .
The story is they actualy are trying . And considering this is a DEMOCRACY its fascinating to see the system in action actually flushing out the bad poop . Out of office and out of the schools and out of court .

Creationism has no more of a place in American schools as Scientology. They're both as realistic.

Creation and Evolution do not contradict each other, as many have said here... I see this thread's old, and huge, therefore I won't spend 18 hours reading all the posts, since I only have one simple question, and it has more to do with the complete darwin theory, which includes the Big Bang theory.Do people understand that the idea of a creator is far more logical? why?Because the topic is things we do not know, let alone truely understand, therefore, we can only use what we know, as a reference. What do we already know? Actual Earth aside, (plants, trees, rocks, everything) everything on earth was built. not a single solid thing has ever once been created by an explosion, ever. Many things have been created, built by creators, in fact, everything has. Therefore, why would you assume it was created without any creator, and simply an explosion? you have never seen any evidence supporting explosions building anything. But you have seen evidence of creator's (people) building many things.As for Creation vs. only Evolution, without the big-bang? they don't disagree with each other, in any way I've ever heard. This is why I've assumed to use the Big-Bang Theory instead, because it just makes more sense

Disturbed07

Creation and Evolution do not contradict each other, as many have said here... I see this thread's old, and huge, therefore I won't spend 18 hours reading all the posts, since I only have one simple question, and it has more to do with the complete darwin theory, which includes the Big Bang theory.Do people understand that the idea of a creator is far more logical? why?Because the topic is things we do not know, let alone truely understand, therefore, we can only use what we know, as a reference. What do we already know? Actual Earth aside, (plants, trees, rocks, everything) everything on earth was built. not a single solid thing has ever once been created by an explosion, ever. Many things have been created, built by creators, in fact, everything has. Therefore, why would you assume it was created without any creator, and simply an explosion? you have never seen any evidence supporting explosions building anything. But you have seen evidence of creator's (people) building many things.As for Creation vs. only Evolution, without the big-bang? they don't disagree with each other, in any way I've ever heard. This is why I've assumed to use the Big-Bang Theory instead, because it just makes more sense

Click to expand...

Picking up on a couple of points you make.... you say that not a single solid thing has ever been created by an explosion? I beg to differ - even disregarding the Big Bang itself (the original source of all matter in the known universe), explosions in the form of supernovae (exploding stars) are responsible for 'making' heavy nuclei (elements of greater nuclear mass than iron) - lighter nuclei either formed at the beginning of time in the Big Bang itself (mostly hydrogen, and the rest mostly helium), which under the forces of gravity formed stars... stars in turn form heavier nuclei due to nuclear fusion which goes on within them, but only nuclei up to around iron can form by these normal nuclear processes... only in supernova explosions can the heavier 'exotic' nuclei form.

So, in a very real and tangible way, explosions do 'build' things - the very matter on which planets and hence life forms are made of, are a result of stellar activity.

Also, saying that 'Many things have been created, built by creators, in fact, everything has' is misleading - artefacts such as those made by intelligent beings such as ourselves, like watches or cars, have been created, designed by the intelligent hand of man. But just as a watchmaker designs and builds a watch, the watchmaker did not 'create' the metal to make the casing, nor the leather to make the strap etc. Mountains, for example, were not 'created' by an intellegent designer - they are merely the result of the movement of the Earth's crust. We do not need to invoke the presence of a random supernatural creator to explain how the Himalayas got to be the way that they are... nor do we need to do so to explain where metallic elements come from (as we already know) - similarly, we need not invoke the notion of a supernatural creator to explain how complex, higher animals (like ourselves) came to be in existence from simpler origins - genetic and fossil evidence proves beyond all doubt that humankind arose through a long process of evolution. Therefore, there is no need for the 'intellegent designer' argument. It has no basis in fact or even in logic.

Disturbed07

Creation and Evolution do not contradict each other, as many have said here... I see this thread's old, and huge, therefore I won't spend 18 hours reading all the posts, since I only have one simple question, and it has more to do with the complete darwin theory, which includes the Big Bang theory.Do people understand that the idea of a creator is far more logical? why?Because the topic is things we do not know, let alone truely understand, therefore, we can only use what we know, as a reference. What do we already know? Actual Earth aside, (plants, trees, rocks, everything) everything on earth was built. not a single solid thing has ever once been created by an explosion, ever. Many things have been created, built by creators, in fact, everything has. Therefore, why would you assume it was created without any creator, and simply an explosion? you have never seen any evidence supporting explosions building anything. But you have seen evidence of creator's (people) building many things.As for Creation vs. only Evolution, without the big-bang? they don't disagree with each other, in any way I've ever heard. This is why I've assumed to use the Big-Bang Theory instead, because it just makes more sense

Click to expand...

...and who created the creator ?

Max_DC

...and who created the creator ?

Click to expand...

The Bible says that God (the creator) is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. He 'is', 'was', and forever will be.

I don't think we have the ability to fully comprehend what that means in a level of understanding that we can relate it to anything in our own lives.

Pako

The Bible says that God (the creator) is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. He 'is', 'was', and forever will be.

I don't think we have the ability to fully comprehend what that means in a level of understanding that we can relate it to anything in our own lives.

Click to expand...

While I am not religious, I also think the idea behind alpha and omega is the key : How does time really work ? Is a "beginning" always necessary ?

In the end it's up to everybody if he believes in creation or not. Scientists think that they can prove certain aspects of evolution and I believe them. Others believe in the bible, a discussion is rather useless imo. Nevertheless this is post 3131, really weird....

Touring Mars

Picking up on a couple of points you make.... you say that not a single solid thing has ever been created by an explosion? I beg to differ - even disregarding the Big Bang itself (the original source of all matter in the known universe), explosions in the form of supernovae (exploding stars) are responsible for 'making' heavy nuclei (elements of greater nuclear mass than iron) - lighter nuclei either formed at the beginning of time in the Big Bang itself (mostly hydrogen, and the rest mostly helium), which under the forces of gravity formed stars... stars in turn form heavier nuclei due to nuclear fusion which goes on within them, but only nuclei up to around iron can form by these normal nuclear processes... only in supernova explosions can the heavier 'exotic' nuclei form.

So, in a very real and tangible way, explosions do 'build' things - the very matter on which planets and hence life forms are made of, are a result of stellar activity.

Also, saying that 'Many things have been created, built by creators, in fact, everything has' is misleading - artefacts such as those made by intelligent beings such as ourselves, like watches or cars, have been created, designed by the intelligent hand of man. But just as a watchmaker designs and builds a watch, the watchmaker did not 'create' the metal to make the casing, nor the leather to make the strap etc. Mountains, for example, were not 'created' by an intellegent designer - they are merely the result of the movement of the Earth's crust. We do not need to invoke the presence of a random supernatural creator to explain how the Himalayas got to be the way that they are... nor do we need to do so to explain where metallic elements come from (as we already know) - similarly, we need not invoke the notion of a supernatural creator to explain how complex, higher animals (like ourselves) came to be in existence from simpler origins - genetic and fossil evidence proves beyond all doubt that humankind arose through a long process of evolution. Therefore, there is no need for the 'intellegent designer' argument. It has no basis in fact or even in logic.

Click to expand...

Now, first I'll assume Nuclei is a Solid, right?I am not a scientist, but, I do know the rules for scientifically "proving" things, and you state, as an absolute fact, that "stars exploding produce" wait, how close have we gotten to stars? how exactly would we possibly know exactly what they produce? back to scientific proof, can we re-create the star exploding? Because, you have to be able to re-create, to prove. I understand that many people may not think of a car coming from rocks, and what-not, But I however, am not one of them, the point is, we took something "solid" and built them out of it, no explosions, nothing of the sort, the fact that we created in an extremely detailed, long process from something that was created before we were born is 100% irrelevant, to proving where those things came from, if anything that might support my theory. While your entitled to believe what some scientists believe, does not make them facts, and any scientist will tell you there is no scientific proof whatsoever of anything regarding the origin of this planet, it is all theory, or to be harsher, speculation. I understand many people take many very old books, from even before 1500, and consider them to be history books, and true. How exactly is the Bible different? it's a really old book, no? Why do we assume that to be false? because it has a God in it? Question: Do any other religions have a book that they are based on?

Max_DC

While I am not religious, I also think the idea behind alpha and omega is the key : How does time really work ? Is a "beginning" always necessary ?

In the end it's up to everybody if he believes in creation or not. Scientists think that they can prove certain aspects of evolution and I believe them. Others believe in the bible, a discussion is rather useless imo. Nevertheless this is post 3131, really weird....

Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot.... There's your key right in there, Time.... Does that have a beginning, or end? if time doesnt have to have one, why would a God of all that is have to have one? or, Maybe the Bible is for the earth only, I can't think of anywhere in it that it says, there are no other places of life, anywhere, but I could be wrong. Maybe God, has a God.

History is always written by the winners.

For example, the Egyptian history of the Exodus is much different from the Hebrew history of such. In fact, the Egyptian history of some of their own wars differs from that of their neighbors (those who have extant records of said events). Thus, any historical document should be taken with a pinch of salt.

The Bible's older books are based on Judaic scriptures, which also form the basis for the Islamic Quran. Scriptures written by prophets and kings... mortal men, with their own foibles and shortcomings. Some of the books echo material found in other ancient religions and histories, the story of the flood, for example. Some present a one-sided view of events, like the invasion of Palestine by the Israelites. The tone of the Bible changes from the archaic Pastoral God (thunderbolts and lightning, like most old gods) in the Old Testament to the more personal, Christian God of the New Testament.

I may be a Christian (or at least, one in name), but it is difficult to reconcile the personal, forgiving God of Jesus with the petty, vengeful God of the Old Testament. And the belief in Creation hinges on the credence we lend those books and their anonymous human authors. Just because something is written in the name of God doesn't mean it is necessarily of God.

***

On scientific proof. There can be no solid proof of anything to the skeptic. That's the basis of science. Up until a few decades ago, there was still a lot of debate as to whether the "Big Bang" Theory could even be possible.

On the life cycle of stars, the theory of the production of heavy matter from supernovae has been worked out by decades of observation, experimentation and extrapolation.

Science starts out with observable facts, then tries to extrapolate the nature of the universe from those facts. Many recognized scientists were considered revolutionaries and cranks during their time, going against "common" sense, the scientific dogma of their times.

But unlike other kinds of dogma, scientific dogma can be changed if a new idea proves workable.

That's the difference between scientists and others... a true scientist looks at the facts and tries out different worldviews until they fit the facts. Cranks and conspiracy theorists (and there are a lot who also pose as "scientists") develop a worldview and try to fit the facts to that view. If some don't fit, they ignore them entirely.

niky

On scientific proof. There can be no solid proof of anything to the skeptic. That's the basis of science.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what it comes down to. A few posts up TM said,
'explosions in the form of supernovae (exploding stars) are responsible for 'making' heavy nuclei'. However, no one has ever seen an nuclei or an atom or electron. They are just things that fit into our model or our interpretation of the universe.

The same goes for "C vs E". If your model of the universe is that God created it all in a few days, you have to put parts in to make it work for your model, people don't say 'God created the Universe; The End'. If your model of the universe is that we evolved from monkeys and started with an explosion of space and time, then you need to put parts in for that to work too.

Excellent post niky! It is true that to the skeptic, NOTHING is truly proven. It just gets insanely pedantic.

Kinda like old philosophers... "Oi! You just punched me in the face!"
"No I didn't, I wasn't even here."
"But I can see you, and you just punched me in the face!"
"How can you prove I was here? You may not be here either, who knows..."
"You're fist felt real enough..."
"My hand doesn't really exist either... how can you prove it does?"


and so on

Casio

That's exactly what it comes down to. A few posts up TM said,
'explosions in the form of supernovae (exploding stars) are responsible for 'making' heavy nuclei'. However, no one has ever seen an nuclei or an atom or electron. They are just things that fit into our model or our interpretation of the universe.

The same goes for "C vs E". If your model of the universe is that God created it all in a few days, you have to put parts in to make it work for your model, people don't say 'God created the Universe; The End'. If your model of the universe is that we evolved from monkeys and started with an explosion of space and time, then you need to put parts in for that to work too.

Click to expand...

Actually, no. The way it works is this. Scientists look at partial and incomplete evidence and extrapolate those theories. They call them theories because they're aware that the evidence is not complete. They can look at, say, a bunch of modern primates, and the remains of ancient primates and say... maybe these modern day primates developed from these primordial primates. They look at a man, and see the similarities, and say maybe men are related to primates, too.

Again, I say: Scientists call them theories because they can and do change in light of better evidence.

What Creationists do is take the the dogma FIRST. They say "Man was created from clay by the hand of God." Then they go scouring for evidence that'll either support their dogma, or refute scientific theory.

True, we can't see what's happening inside stars. I've never personally seen what happens when you drop a truck off a ten-story building. But I can extrapolate from my experiences of other, similar events. I've seen what happens to a truck that's hit a wall. I know from experience that a truck falling off a building should be going much faster. I then have a pretty good idea of what a truck will look like after a ten-story drop.

That's how science works... only in more detail.

James2097

Excellent post niky! It is true that to the skeptic, NOTHING is truly proven. It just gets insanely pedantic.

Kinda like old philosophers... "Oi! You just punched me in the face!"
"No I didn't, I wasn't even here."
"But I can see you, and you just punched me in the face!"
"How can you prove I was here? You may not be here either, who knows..."
"You're fist felt real enough..."
"My hand doesn't really exist either... how can you prove it does?"


and so on

Click to expand...

I know we don't exist. We're both just incredibly good text parsing programs.

In the words of Jesus, man: Give unto God what is God's, give unto Caesar what is Caesar's... save our souls please, but leave science to the scientists.

Disturbed07

Question: Do any other religions have a book that they are based on?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Islam has the Qu'ran.
Hinduism has the Baghavad Gita.
Judaism has the Talmud.

Disturbed07

Now, first I'll assume Nuclei is a Solid, right?

Click to expand...

A nucleus (plural: nuclei) is the centre of an atom, where you would find protons and neutrons (if there are any neutrons to be found). As such, they can be found in ANY state of matter you'd care to define - soild, liquid, gas, plasma, Fermionic condensate, you name it.

Disturbed07

the point is, we took something "solid" and built them out of it, no explosions, nothing of the sort, the fact that we created in an extremely detailed, long process from something that was created before we were born is 100% irrelevant,

Click to expand...

Not really.

You say that nothing constructive comes from explosions. At a gross level, all life on Earth is the result of explosions - we could not exist if it were not for the stream of radiation coming from a MASSIVE explosion, 93 million miles away. On a finer level, most of the elements on Earth (bar some of the heavier ones which come about through other processes) come from similar, but more catastrophic explosions - supernovae.

As a star gets older, it "burns" what fuel it has. This starts off as hydrogen family atoms and helium family atoms. Gradually you see a shift - from hydrogen to helium. As the helium is used you'll see another gradual shift, to lithium, then beryllium, then boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and so on and so on. Each requires more energy to undergo fusion, and each release more energy after fusion, so the stars become hotter and bigger.

Eventually you reach a point where REALLY heavy elements are being fused - iron and lead, for example. This requires more energy than it gives out. The surface cools and contracts while the core is still hot and trying to get bigger. Result - supernova. The best bang since the Big one. Heavy elements are disseminated everywhere - on the sheets, the carpet, the curtains.

Now this is the cool bit. Heavy elements' atoms have a higher gravitational potential than lighter ones. This means that they attract other elements towards them - again, likely to be predominantly heavy ones because of this. As they clump and get bigger, they get more gravitational potential, attracting more stuff, and more, and more - until you end up with planets. And note that this happens too with the lighter, more abundant elements. So you get small, rocky planets and large gaseous ones*.


The Earth was formed as a result of an accretion disk, but the stuff that made it came from an explosion. The stuff that sustains it comes from an explosion too.


*Note: Almost everything in this explanation is nonsense - but it's a shorter and clearer explanation of what happens than the real one(s), and so has the benefits of being legible and true from a layman's perspective, without necessarily being wholly accurate.


And lastly, cars. Get in your car and drive around a while. You're only going where you're going because of explosions - in the internal combustion engine.

Famine

...each release more energy after fusion, so the stars become hotter and bigger...Eventually...Result - supernova. The best bang since the Big one. Heavy elements are disseminated everywhere...they clump and get bigger...until you end up with planets...

Click to expand...

...and brand-new stars. The explosion of old stars provides the building materials for new ones. New stars are constantly under construction throughout the universe.

Explosions are very creative forces.

Proving the Big Bang would be quite simple, really - build a telescope that can look 20 billion years (20 billion light years ) into the past. The problem is that such a telescope would be monstrous, plus it would have to be outside our atmosphere like the Hubble telescope. We need to improve our telescopular technology immensly first, then we can prove the Big Bang.

While this all may or may not be true, since it is all speculation, these things being created from the explosion would, in fact, not be created, rather, broken into fragment, that would clump together, again I say not actually created.
You're right, the explosions in my car create exhaust fumes... that are the gaseous matter of gasoline... That is all, again, not actually created, simply changed in form. In fact, everything you've stated as a fact here, can be trailed directly to changes in form, things forming together, and likewise.
Nothing here has been created yet...
And now for the unanswerable, assume nothing created the earth, other than an explosion, or, correctly, something changed into the shape of earth, and became it. How exactly did life form here? where did the plants come from, or animals?
Remember the Sun does not create life, it merely sustains it, here on earth.
So, now let's suppose technically the earth was created by this explosion, of a star, or whatever the case may be, who created the star? or more directly, who created the matter that makes a star? it didnt come from nothing, did it? something had to be created, otherwise, it would have no beginning, but then, you can no longer ask how God could have never been existing as well.
We can all duck and dodge details all we want, but you have 2 sensible options, A. Everything in existance always existed, with no beginning, and will never end, or B. Something, someone, created it all, a supreme being, a God.

Disturbed07

While this all may or may not be true, since it is all speculation

Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

Speculation is guessing. Science is testing those guesses to see if they break.

Disturbed07

these things being created from the explosion would, in fact, not be created, rather, broken into fragment, that would clump together, again I say not actually created.

Click to expand...

So then what was your point? You said:

Disturbed07

not a single solid thing has ever once been created by an explosion, ever. Many things have been created, built by creators, in fact, everything has

Click to expand...

And now you're saying that things which are created aren't - they are just things which have been broken apart and have come back together in something else, whether through the auspices of persons or forces.

I think you misunderstand the nature of the phrase "Big Bang". You seem to think it was some big explosion which turned nothing into something. In fact it was just a rapid expansion which turned everything into everywhere.

Disturbed07

You're right, the explosions in my car create exhaust fumes...

Click to expand...

And light, sound and motion.

Disturbed07

that are the gaseous matter of gasoline... That is all, again, not actually created, simply changed in form. In fact, everything you've stated as a fact here, can be trailed directly to changes in form, things forming together, and likewise.
Nothing here has been created yet...

Click to expand...

That's because nothing is required to be "created" - and the Law of Conservation of Energy (and the Law of Conservation of Mass) directly forbids anything from being "created". I quote:

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can change its form"
"Mass can neither be created nor destroyed, but can change its form"

If you're defining "created" to mean "brought into existence, not transformed from existing matter/energy" then nothing has been "created" - chips, badgers, watches, hummus, stars, planets, the universe, nothing. The Laws render your questioning moot.

Disturbed07

And now for the unanswerable, assume nothing created the earth, other than an explosion, or, correctly, something changed into the shape of earth, and became it. How exactly did life form here? where did the plants come from, or animals?
Remember the Sun does not create life, it merely sustains it, here on earth.

Click to expand...

That's not unanswerable. It has been answered many times in this thread alone.

Disturbed07

So, now let's suppose technically the earth was created by this explosion, of a star, or whatever the case may be, who created the star? or more directly, who created the matter that makes a star? it didnt come from nothing, did it? something had to be created, otherwise, it would have no beginning, but then, you can no longer ask how God could have never been existing as well.

Click to expand...

You're so close to answering your own question here, but, just at the last, you drop into woolly thinking.

To ask WHAT created a star (presuming you are now taking "created" to mean "brought into existence", with no reference on where the stuff came from originally) you get a nice answer involving supernovae, gas clouds, accretion disks, gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces. This removes any necessity for WHO created it.

To ask WHERE the matter for making the star came from also gets you a nice answer, involving expansion phases and the Big Bang. This removes any necessity for WHO created it.

To then say "it didnt come from nothing, did it?" throws all this good work away. No-one ever said that it came from nothing - unless you misunderstand what "the Big Bang" is. As I said earlier, you seem to think it was some big explosion which turned nothing into something. In fact it was just a rapid expansion which turned everything into everywhere.

Disturbed07

We can all duck and dodge details all we want, but you have 2 sensible options, A. Everything in existance always existed, with no beginning, and will never end, or B. Something, someone, created it all, a supreme being, a God.

Click to expand...

Not really. If everything in existence always existed, with no beginning and will never end, why can I break something and see it disappear? How can I turn food into muscles and farts?

What you MEAN is that all matter and energy in existence has always existed, and always will, though it can change about and shunt between the two. And this, of course, depends on how you define "always". With the Big Bang, everything became everywhere and, most importantly everywhen. Space is inextricably linked with Time (hence the phrase "space-time" or, if you're a sci-fi buff, "the space-time continuum"). No space = no time. "Before" (though the word makes no sense in this context) the Big Bang there was no space and thus no time so, in the frame of our universe, yes, all matter and energy always has existed and always will.

Your second option is staggering. If "something" is responsible for "creation", WHY does it have to be "someone"?

Numquam ponendo est pluritas sine necessitate.

I've stumbled upon this thread on a lazy sunday, and I've enjoyed the debate I've read.

Famine's work has been mightily impressive, although I've only read the first three pages or so and the last couple, so if there was anything in the middle, I missed it... If, Famine, you are not a biologist, either plain vanilla, micro or molecular, maybe you should be.

And I agree with everything I've read of his, and the persons on here with the similar veiwpoint.

My girlfriend of 18 months is a methodist christian. She believes in the Bible, and most of what is said. She also has a degree in Geography, which gives her some geological insight, (but not much!). Thus her understanding of Earth's creation is that the Bible is largely wrong. Her belief lies in the new testament (the one with Jesus in it) and the matter put forward in the book of revelations. She firmly believes that the second coming will be in her lifetime.

She's asked me to read the new testament, which I probaly will, reading is the greatest source of human knowledge, not the flashing box in the corner of the room telling you that you NEED more pringles. I've read the old testament in school when i was younger, which is where my standpoint arose. Far from making me believe, it made me more disaffected at christianity, as at the age I was reading Genesis, I was already learning Physics, Biology and Chemistry. The sciences were saying, "this does this, and look at why and how and here's a picture of it happening", the bible was saying "This happened, you don't need to know any more than this, go about your business, these aren't the droids you're looking for... etc.". It felt like the wool was being pulled over my eyes.

I consider myself agnostic. The way I put it is, I'll find out when I'm dead. I'm not an atheist, as just as there is no proof of the existence of a supreme being, neither is there proof of non-existence. Whether this supreme being created everything... it doesn't look that way does it?

There could be a God. But rather than creating everything, he may just be sat in Heaven, or wherever you believe, playing GT19 on his celestial playstation 7 and eating an omnipresent Chicken Bhuna. With Tarka Dhal. Now I'm hungry, I love tarka dhal.

You can't "believe" in science in the religious way, but I believe in the arguments for evolution, in the sense of trusting in evidence. If you believe that evidence against creation is the work of Satan, what can you believe?


Kurtis

<Edit>

Famine, great timing on the post, good points there, all of them. One question, The latin at the end, it's been a while, something about never needing something?

Also, the theories I've read on the Big bang condense to essentially that there was nothing, at all, no space no time, and then pop! Singularity appears and everything goes ballistic. I've always assumed this process was related to how matter can "appear" from essentially nothing more than a gamma ray, as long as a particle is created along with it's antiparticle, which typically annihilate and reform the gamma ray which preceded them. Like Hawking radiation.

KurtisGSXR

If, Famine, you are not a biologist, either plain vanilla, micro or molecular, maybe you should be.

Click to expand...

Molecular biologist...

Good shot!

Edit: It's Occam's Razor - "Multiples should not be used if not necessary".

Current theory on the origin of the singularity is Brane Theory (a successor to String Theory).

Famine destroys yet again..... 👍

Brane theory,

I've heard of it, related to the multiverse theory?

The big bang was actually a different brane (universe) hitting ours in 5 dimensional space.

Or something.

I should buy some books.

Disturbed07

While this all may or may not be true, since it is all speculation, these things being created from the explosion would, in fact, not be created, rather, broken into fragment, that would clump together, again I say not actually created.
You're right, the explosions in my car create exhaust fumes... that are the gaseous matter of gasoline... That is all, again, not actually created, simply changed in form. In fact, everything you've stated as a fact here, can be trailed directly to changes in form, things forming together, and likewise.
Nothing here has been created yet...
And now for the unanswerable, assume nothing created the earth, other than an explosion, or, correctly, something changed into the shape of earth, and became it. How exactly did life form here? where did the plants come from, or animals?
Remember the Sun does not create life, it merely sustains it, here on earth.
So, now let's suppose technically the earth was created by this explosion, of a star, or whatever the case may be, who created the star? or more directly, who created the matter that makes a star? it didnt come from nothing, did it? something had to be created, otherwise, it would have no beginning, but then, you can no longer ask how God could have never been existing as well.
We can all duck and dodge details all we want, but you have 2 sensible options, A. Everything in existance always existed, with no beginning, and will never end, or B. Something, someone, created it all, a supreme being, a God.

Click to expand...

The origin of the universe, as a whole, is one issue - the origin of life on Earth (and specifically human life) is quite another, and is really what this thread is about...

I think debating where matter comes from, and even who or what caused it to happen, is a bit pointless. The point is, it's here now, whether we know how or why. But this doesn't address the issue of where life came from. Following the basic principles of physics, chemistry, and the theory of evolution, we can attempt to understand how life began and developed into the myriad forms we see on Earth today. In other words, the origin of matter itself may remain a mystery, but the origin of life need not be. Even the question of how life began is missing the point somewhat. The core of the issue is the origin of Mankind. Since Mankind is portrayed in faiths across the world as the image of God on Earth, and since the Bible and other religious texts suggest that Man was created by the hand of God, the origin of Mankind (specifically) is the central issue in the C v E debate. The implications go much further than we may realise, but that's another story. The upshot is, however, that Evolution theory not only provides an extremely plausible explanation for the origins of Mankind, but genetics now provides solid, irrefutable evidence that the theory is, for all intents and purposes, bang-on correct.

Some argue that Evolution is the mechanism by which God creates. This atleast recognises the fact that evolution does (as a point of fact) happen, but ultimately it still doesn't address how He got it all up and running, and why, (or indeed who created Him)... but real Creationists have no truck with this view either, for the sole reason that it, too, robs Mankind of it's cherished position as Lord and Master of all things living and holy. By failing to realise that Mankind is merely another step in a continuum of evolutionary history, Creationists condemn Mankind to it's current state for all eternity.

I find it highly ironic that only by grasping the fundamental concepts of evolution theory (and disregarding the notion of Humankind as a static entity created from day one in our current form and forever destined to remain the same), one can begin to wonder what Mankind will be like 10,000 years from now. Another irony is that which Creationism assumes that life forms (and esp. humans) are so perfectly designed for their habitats, that they must have been designed (like camoflagued stick insects who look exactly like the trees they inhabit)... but what it perfection? No living creature is perfect. Drop a human being in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and watch how perfect he is at living in the sea. If Free Willy had jumped from the pool and landed in the car park, we'd see how perfect whales are at living on dry land. The point is, no living creature is perfect. And no habitats will stay exactly the same. Only a creature that is capable of adaptation can ever be said to have a shot at becoming perfect. And how do populations of living creatures adapt? By natural selection... (the cornerstone concept of the theory of Evolution)... Ironically, by accepting that life can (and does) evolve, life suddenly (in my book) becomes more and more perfect. The static model that Creationists believe is not only wrong, but contradictory to their highly cherished notion of mankind's so-called perfection.



---

For those interested, there is a programme on Channel 4 (UK) tomorrow night (Monday, 8pm) where Prof. Richard Dawkins will be discussing his views on religion and faith. Given Dawkins central place in the C v E debate, and his outspoken (atheist) views, this programme looks set to be very interesting and probably quite controversial - link

A brief reply to this snaking debate here .
Creationism has an effect if taught in schools, namely blind obedience to authority figures . This is all well and good if you want to program children to be good soldiers and party members etc etc, we've been down that road countless times in recent history but it seems the 'magic' that can be worked upon impressionable minds never ceases to amaze the power hungry .
Evolutionary theory has interesting consequences also, aside from instilling a habit of questioning and cross-referencing. Did you know that Neanderthal man had a larger brain pan than successive hominids, indeed larger than modern humans. This is note-worthy if you consider that we place ourselves at the apex of intellegence for two reasons ; we are manipulative materialy and we 'populate' ie dominate the planet's surface . If you subtract these late-flowering genus maxima of ours, we could be, at a probabilistic level inferior to neanderthal man in terms of culture, way of life, understanding of life etc. It is presumed that Neanderthal man was 'absorbed' through sexual activity into our lineage by a younger, more aggressive branch of the hominid tree that could have committed 'genocidal' movements into the Neanderthal North from the South.
Just some speculation to keep you going.

http://www.mektek.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=46551

Mechwarrior forums...an interesting read from what I briefly looked at

Anyone care to do an in-depth analysis of the information posted here?