Creation vs. Evolution

[Touring Mars]

A. I saw Scientists trying to prove there were planets revolving around a star, in space, earlier this year. I saw those pictures, they were crap, you couldnt see anything. Question: How could they possibly see/know what causes stars to form and eventually burn out, if that was all the better they can see out there? If they can see better, why not give us a better picture?

You're talking about 'extra-solar' planets? There is very strong evidence that shows that extra-solar planets exist... When you say 'in space', I take it you mean extra solar-system space? What's wrong with looking at our solar system first? Our star (the sun) is in space too... by studying this one prime example, this should prove to you that planets can (and do) form and orbit their parent stars... of course, this has been established fact since the 19th Century, and was even postulated as early as the the 16th Century by Copernicus... The point is, the evidence for extra solar planets that you disregard is infact solid, peer-reviewed evidence. Basically, if you don't understand it, how can you disregard it?

B. The bible never once says how God would have created the earth, not once, not ever. So, assuming the earth was actually created by a giant bang, a star burning out, and fragments and what-not melting and forming in a "clump" to form the earth.... who says God didnt purposefully do this? where is the founding evidence that makes everybody take this for granted?

If you read my last posts properly you would see that I do not disagree with the notion that God exists (even though I choose not to believe myself).... I am quite willing to concede that God may well exist, but you do not need to invoke the supernatural to explain planet formation, nucleosynthesis, stellar evolution, or even human evolution... the point is, we do NOT take it for granted at all... accepted facts about how planets (and even elements) form is based on rigorous evidence, which in turn is based on rigorous observation. That is the total opposite to 'taking it for granted'. As for the question, 'Where is the evidence?' - all I can say is 'Look It Up!'...it's right there in textbooks and libraries across the nation...

Since all we have are theories, and arent even close to proving anything about the origin of "matter", why is any theory more logical or sensible than another?

Because science explains much more plausibly and accurately the real origins of matter than creation science ever will (or can)... like I said before, the origin of matter from first principles is of little relevance to the debate about the 'creation' of Mankind.... what does Creation science say about how heavy nuclei originate? Incase you don't know, I'll tell you.... sod all, that's what it tells you. What does actual science tell you? Read the links I posted above, or (better still), go to school and learn about it for yourself.

This is all seperate from the fact that, assuming I believe in God, why would I simply believe what a scientist tells me? wouldnt I want to see actual results?

Easy... try finding out for yourself..... but if you are so sceptical of science, then maybe you should afford the same level of scepticism towards what religion tells you to believe? Your faith in God is not in question here... (as I alluded to in my previous post)... but there's no point in thinking that scientists are all just out there trying to fool you... scrutinise the evidence for yourself and then make up your own mind. Unfortunately, however, when it comes to Big Bang theory, quantum physics, or the early evolution of living material, in order to make a sound judgement about validity of the evidence, you need to study physics, chemistry, maths and biology for quite some time...

So what do Christian scientists believe?

Good point (again)... in my experience, Christian scientists believe in much the same thing that I was alluding to in my previous post... that Big Bang theory (although it destroys Creation theory) does NOT preclude the notion of God at all... by incorporating modern scientific understanding and disregarding outmoded (and disproved) notions about the world, modern Christians may equip themselves with 'the best of both worlds'... rather than what Creation science offers, which in reality is the 'worst of both worlds' scenario of scientific ignorance and a 'blind' faith, as opposed to a guided, well-informed and intelligent faith...

 

[Swift]

Good point (again)... in my experience, Christian scientists believe in much the same thing that I was alluding to in my previous post... that Big Bang theory (although it destroys Creation theory) does NOT preclude the notion of God at all... by incorporating modern scientific understanding and disregarding outmoded (and disproved) notions about the world, modern Christians may equip themselves with 'the best of both worlds'... rather than what Creation science offers, which in reality is the 'worst of both worlds' scenario of scientific ignorance and a 'blind' faith, as opposed to a guided, well-informed and intelligent faith...

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things NOT seen. So, I have a very guided faith, well informed and might be considered intelligent. But it's still faith and faith isn't proven in a scientific lab.

I'm not trying to bad mouth what you said. I just wanted to make sure that the distinction was clear.

 

[Touring Mars]

Yes, I agree with what your saying... just as there are questions of faith that cannot be answered in the lab, there are also questions of science that cannot rightly be answered by religious belief - kind of a quid pro quo (if my Latin/Silence of the Lambs terminology is to be trusted anyway )

 

[LeadSlead#2]

anybody ever get that answer as to why some apes and monkeys still exist?
And why only some evolved into humans?


TM: I could be wrong, but I don't believe Disurbed questioned planets revolving around stars...we learn about that in 3rd grade...
I think rather his question was this: You would assume they would give the best picture they could get, so people would believe them, yes? Now, if that in fact, is the best picture they can get, how would they possibly know how stars form/disintegrate, from that kind of view?
We can't even get to Mars, how/why, we we ever take for granted that we KNOW what the stars are being formed out of, or even what causes them to burn out? And I readily agree, I've never heard these things thought of as facts, though some scientists may claim them to be, the general consensous is that it is all theory's that havent been disproven....yet

 

[Famine]

anybody ever get that answer as to why some apes and monkeys still exist?
And why only some evolved into humans?

None of them did.

TM: I could be wrong, but I don't believe Disurbed questioned planets revolving around stars...we learn about that in 3rd grade...
I think rather his question was this: You would assume they would give the best picture they could get, so people would believe them, yes? Now, if that in fact, is the best picture they can get, how would they possibly know how stars form/disintegrate, from that kind of view?

Pictures require visible light. "Seeing" things does not.

This is one of the most famous telescopes on Earth. It "sees" incredible things - but you can't use a camera and take photographs with it.

 

[Touring Mars]

TM: I could be wrong, but I don't believe Disurbed questioned planets revolving around stars...we learn about that in 3rd grade...
I think rather his question was this: You would assume they would give the best picture they could get, so people would believe them, yes? Now, if that in fact, is the best picture they can get, how would they possibly know how stars form/disintegrate, from that kind of view?

As Famine is alluding to in his reply, the evidence that shows that this particular (distant) star has a planet orbiting it is not solely comprised of that one picture... Many astronomical images are shown in false color just to make them more understandable to other people (the general public). Indeed, they do show the best pictures they have, but the evidential value of the picture is trivial compared to the rest of the evidence/data. But in the public arena, that data wouldn't make much sense, but it doesn't make the evidence any less convincing or real.

We can't even get to Mars, how/why, we we ever take for granted that we KNOW what the stars are being formed out of, or even what causes them to burn out? And I readily agree, I've never heard these things thought of as facts, though some scientists may claim them to be, the general consensous is that it is all theory's that havent been disproven....yet

With all due respect, scientists do not merely 'take for granted' the facts about star and planet formation, or even the formation of heavy elements. By making detailed observations of objects in the cosmos, we (as a race) have built a very broad understanding of how things like planet formation work. And, despite the fact that no human has yet set foot on the surface of Mars, we can get there, and have been going there since the 1970's... we even have photographs taken on the surface of Mars to prove it. (Check out NASA's Touring Mars website )

Here's a question for you... if you don't believe the modern 'theories' about how planets and stars form, then how do you propose they form? The evidence which supports current theories about star formation is taken from direct observation of objects in the night sky. By looking at a range of spectroscopic data, not only can the chemical composition of a star be accurately known, the relative abundance of elements (such as hydrogen and helium) also gives us a good approximation as to their age. By observing the surroundings of newer, younger stars, i.e. within nebulae, we can get a good idea of how stars are made. Bear in mind, the universe is filled with stars of all ages, as well as nebulae where new stars are in the process of forming as we speak (actually, since these nebulae are so far away, it takes light so long to reach us that what we actually see is how they were in the distant past) If all stars were the same size, shape, age, colour, distance from us etc., then you might have an argument for creationism. But the FACT is, they are not. Stars form from gas clouds (nebulae) and then the live, evolve and die (link) Many things can happen to a star when it dies, again, the evidence (supernovae, neutron stars, black holes, white dwarfs etc.) is all around you.

anybody ever get that answer as to why some apes and monkeys still exist?
And why only some evolved into humans?

None of them did.

To add to that, saying that some monkeys evolved into humans and some stayed as monkeys would be factually incorrect. The point is that all variety of apes, ourselves included, evolved from a common ancestor (for which there is clear, genetic evidence). But that common ancestor existed many millions of years ago, and differences within individuals of that species of common ancestor gave rise to new species, which then evolved independently. My mate Steve said the other day that every animal we see today is at the pinnacle of evolution. Humans are no 'more evolved' than anything, except for our direct ancestors (who, of course, do not exist anymore)...

 

[Danoff]

With all due respect, scientists do not merely 'take for granted' the facts about star and planet formation, or even the formation of heavy elements. By making detailed observations of objects in the cosmos, we (as a race) have built a very broad understanding of how things like planet formation work. And, despite the fact that no human has yet set foot on the surface of Mars, we can get there, and have been going there since the 1970's... we even have photographs taken on the surface of Mars to prove it. (Check out NASA's Touring Mars website )

Here's a question for you... if you don't believe the modern 'theories' about how planets and stars form, then how do you propose they form? The evidence which supports current theories about star formation is taken from direct observation of objects in the night sky. By looking at a range of spectroscopic data, not only can the chemical composition of a star be accurately known, the relative abundance of elements (such as hydrogen and helium) also gives us a good approximation as to their age. By observing the surroundings of newer, younger stars, i.e. within nebulae, we can get a good idea of how stars are made. Bear in mind, the universe is filled with stars of all ages, as well as nebulae where new stars are in the process of forming as we speak (actually, since these nebulae are so far away, it takes light so long to reach us that what we actually see is how they were in the distant past) If all stars were the same size, shape, age, colour, distance from us etc., then you might have an argument for creationism. But the FACT is, they are not. Stars form from gas clouds (nebulae) and then the live, evolve and die (link) Many things can happen to a star when it dies, again, the evidence (supernovae, neutron stars, black holes, white dwarfs etc.) is all around you.

This is wasted effort Touring, and as valiant a try as this is, it's not going to get anywhere. Many people don't understand science, don't understand how one comes to scientific conclusions or how one develops theories or defends those theories. If they don't understand the fundamental process of developing new science, they aren't going to accept the conclusions - which is fine in principle, except when you decide you're not going to try to understand the process.

It's a catch 22. If I say "I don't understand how you came to that conclusion and I'm not just going to take your word for it", and then I say "It's too complicated, I'm not going to try to understand your reasoning", you've effectively blocked yourself out of accepting new knowledge.

You can try to explain the process all you want, but until they've gone deep, and I mean really deep, into the explanation behind why we think planets, stars, galaxies, formed the way they did or why we think life has formed the way it has, they're not going to accept it. And they aren't interested enough to go deep into the subject...

So nobody is going to get convinced.


Edit: If you took a simple scientific assertion, like "This rock cooled from liquid rock 100 million years ago", and let people who don't believe reality existed 100 million years ago ask questions. You'd be amazed at how much expertise in how many feilds it would take to satisfy their massive degree of skepticism. "How do you know that?" it would start. "Well we know how long it takes for certain elements to decay and we observe those elements in nature and compare them with the level found in the rock etc. etc." They would say "How do we know how long it takes those elements to decay? How are we certain we can extrapolate that information? How do we know how rocks form? How do we know what the chemical environment of the Earth was 100 million years ago? How do we know our methods for determining chemical composition are correct? How do we know that the instrument we use to analyze the rock doesn't introduce a bias in the measurement? etc. etc. etc."

All of those questions have answers, but I don't know them all. I don't understand the innermost workings of the instruments used to analyze the chemical composition of a rock, nor do I really understand how those chemicals decay, or how we know how they decay, or any of that stuff. What I do know is that in my 25 years of experience on this planet, asking questions about science from "Why is the sky blue?" to "Why do the forces in a 2-body gravitation system develop equilibrium points?" to "Why does solving for the lagrange multipliers in the hamiltonian maximize the dynamical system objective function?" There is always an answer as to why scientific conclusions can be considered well reasoned. There is simply too much scientific knowledge out there for a person to absorb in a lifetime. You have to pick and choose your battles, and right now there are more important questions for me than how the carbon dating machine is made. But given my experience with science and the rigor of scientific development, I fully expect solid answers behind just about any question I throw at the process.

Interesting to note though that they won't approach their own beliefs with the same degree of skepticism.

 

[Touring Mars]

This is wasted effort Touring, and as valiant a try as this is, it's not going to get anywhere. Many people don't understand science, don't understand how one comes to scientific conclusions or how one develops theories or defends those theories. If they don't understand the fundamental process of developing new science, they aren't going to accept the conclusions - which is fine in principle, except when you decide you're not going to try to understand the process.

It's a catch 22. If I say "I don't understand how you came to that conclusion and I'm not just going to take your word for it", and then I say "It's too complicated, I'm not going to try to understand your reasoning", you've effectively blocked yourself out of accepting new knowledge.

You can try to explain the process all you want, but until they've gone deep, and I mean really deep, into the explanation behind why we think planets, stars, galaxies, formed the way they did or why we think life has formed the way it has, they're not going to accept it. And they aren't interested enough to go deep into the subject...

So nobody is going to get convinced.

You may well be right, but I'm still in favour of atleast attempting to put forth a rational argument that may allow someone to make a more informed decision... whether it falls on deaf ears or not is really not my problem, literally! It's one thing to have deaf ears, but it's quite another to purposefully attempt to tell people things that simply have no evidential support, like intelligent design theory for example...

All of those questions have answers, but I don't know them all.

This should be the scientist's motto 👍

 

[Danoff]

You may well be right, but I'm still in favour of atleast attempting to put forth a rational argument that may allow someone to make a more informed decision... whether it falls on deaf ears or not is really not my problem, literally! It's one thing to have deaf ears, but it's quite another to purposefully attempt to tell people things that simply have no evidential support, like intelligent design theory for example...

Evidence? No evidence necessary! It's complicated so it must have been desgined. What? Bam! There's your reasoning right there. I just threw out thousands of scientific journals and decades of thinking from the best minds ever to come from mankind in one sentence. Where's the logical flaw?

^^ That was sarcastic of course.

 

[Zardoz]

..Interesting to note, though, that they won't approach their own beliefs with the same degree of skepticism.

Our "beliefs" are too crucial to our whole perception of our existence to question them. We just can't afford to do that. Something bad might happen.

 

[Pako]

*snip* Interesting to note though that they won't approach their own beliefs with the same degree of skepticism.

Who are they that you talk about? And if I fall into that category, I might be able to address that question from my own experiences.

 

[Danoff]

Who are they that you talk about? And if I fall into that category, I might be able to address that question from my own experiences.

People who refuse science, who don't accept evolution as the most likely explanation for our existance, or who don't accept that the Earth is almost undoubtably billions of years old, do not approach their beliefs with the degree of skepticism I posted. Many don't approach their beliefs with the same degree of skepticism they themselvs have for scientific explanations.

^^ That's what I was trying to shorthand. You fall into the category of "refusing science", so I claim that you aren't as skeptical about your beliefs as my example illustrates.

 

[Joey D]

Well I returned from my Anthropology class just now and I learned something very intresting...

We read the last chapter or the conclusion (depends on the verison I guess) of the Orgin of Species. Come to find out Darwin actually talks about the Creator, which surprised me quite a bit. Plus my professor is a religious wack-o guy that has a weird twist on everything, but never the less he brought this up and I found it particularly intresting.

 

[Danoff]

Well I returned from my Anthropology class just now and I learned something very intresting...

We read the last chapter or the conclusion (depends on the verison I guess) of the Orgin of Species. Come to find out Darwin actually talks about the Creator, which surprised me quite a bit. Plus my professor is a religious wack-o guy that has a weird twist on everything, but never the less he brought this up and I found it particularly intresting.

We'll never know. He'd have never been taken seriously if he didn't claim to believe in a creator. But regardless whether he did or not, he didn't regect science in favor of his religious beliefs. There is still room for religion and science to coexist in a non-conflicting manner in one's mind.

 

[Joey D]

Science and religion shouldn't conflict really. I mean use science to explain religion, but I know I see it that way, but others don't.

 

[Pako]

People who refuse science, who don't accept evolution as the most likely explanation for our existance, or who don't accept that the Earth is almost undoubtably billions of years old, do not approach their beliefs with the degree of skepticism I posted. Many don't approach their beliefs with the same degree of skepticism they themselvs have for scientific explanations.

^^ That's what I was trying to shorthand. You fall into the category of "refusing science", so I claim that you aren't as skeptical about your beliefs as my example illustrates.

I think all humans want to know where they came from. I think it's a curiosity that we naturally have. I think that people who don't believe in God feel that in order to satisfy their curiosity, to fill that void they might feel, they look towards science where billions of dollars are being spent to find that answer. Then you have someone who does believe in God and has that void filled, but is still curious in 'how' he created the universe. We see evidence all around of things happening and science helps to explain those processes. Then you have the person that will accept either or (creation or evolution) as fact and never turn back....finding more important things to do with their time. With science we can see the inter-workings of how things happen, but they don't explain to us the purpose of those events. So then one has to decide (since theirs no way to prove it) that it is either random with no purpose, or that there are specific reasons why things happen the way they do, in which case their is a orchestrator behind what science is discovering. So now it comes down to believing in the Bible, it's teachings, and learning from them and having faith that God sent his own son as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, or you choose not to have faith. Either way it's a personal choice that every person has to make, and no amount of evidence that science can provide will help make that choice.

I don't feel it's a question of 'evidence', it's a question of personal choice in what you choose to believe.

 

[Danoff]

I think all humans want to know where they came from. I think it's a curiosity that we naturally have. I think that people who don't believe in God feel that in order to satisfy their curiosity, to fill that void they might feel, they look towards science where billions of dollars are being spent to find that answer. Then you have someone who does believe in God and has that void filled, but is still curious in 'how' he created the universe. We see evidence all around of things happening and science helps to explain those processes. Then you have the person that will accept either or (creation or evolution) as fact and never turn back....finding more important things to do with their time. With science we can see the inter-workings of how things happen, but they don't explain to us the purpose of those events. So then one has to decide (since theirs no way to prove it) that it is either random with no purpose, or that there are specific reasons why things happen the way they do, in which case their is a orchestrator behind what science is discovering. So now it comes down to believing in the Bible, it's teachings, and learning from them and having faith that God sent his own son as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, or you choose not to have faith. Either way it's a personal choice that every person has to make, and no amount of evidence that science can provide will help make that choice.

I don't feel it's a question of 'evidence', it's a question of personal choice in what you choose to believe.

No scientist will describe science as a personal choice, because fact is not a matter of personal interpretation or choice, but an external, testable, knowable entity in and of itself. When I calculate an orbit or turn on a light switch, the physics behind these events are not subject to any choice or belief that I have. The light turns on because it has been wired by man to take advantage of physics, nothing more.

You say "So then one has to decide (since theirs no way to prove it) that it is either random with no purpose, or that there are specific reasons why things happen the way they do, in which case their is a orchestrator behind what science is discovering" but you've improperly phrased the problem. Evolution is not random, it's a natural process. It is as much a natural process as the Earth orbiting the sun or the freezing or thawing of water. There are "random" elements of evolution, and the Earth's rotation, and the Earth's orbit about the sun, and even the freezing or thawing of water... but the processes are predictable and observable, not random.

The absence of randomness, however, does not imply an orchestrator. Simply because the process has order does not mean that it must have been designed by someone external. Logic, math... these things have order, a natural order, the natural consequences of our reality - but they sprang froth from our reality as consequences of its nature, mathematics and logic were not designed by man, or anyone. They simply exist because they must. If they did not exist reality could not exist. They exist because it literally cannot be any other way.

Then we get to the most fundamental question of all. Why does reality exist in the first place? This is a question for which science has no answer. Religion has an answer for it and some people choose to believe that answer. I'm too skeptical to believe that anyone knows the answer to this question, but again an orchestrator is not necessary to answer the question. I can coceive of a universe that exists because it is the equivalent of non-existance. I can conceive of a universe whose sum total is zero - that when taken as a whole does not exist. Perhaps that doesn't make sense to you, but you should know that the answer may come in a form of that nature - that as self-evident to you as it may seem that there must be a creator, it is not necessarily so. Even if no-one could conceive of a way in which the universe could exist without a creator it does not necessarily follow that there was a creator. We simply don't know how it happened.

There is no personal choice in the pursuit of truth. There is only fact. And there is no emotional void that science fills for me - there is only the innate desire for truth, an instinctual desire that propelled early man to the top of the food chain ensuring that that genetic code was passed on. We all have the desire for truth, the only question is to what standards we hold the answer.

 

[Kylehnat]

All of those questions have answers, but I don't know them all.

This should be the scientist's motto 👍

Bullseye.

In addition to that, I think that many proponents of creation are very quick and very naive to lump everything together as "science". Chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, whatever... are all enormous fields, and all are very different from one another. No one person can know everything about all of them. Furthermore, no one person can know everything about any one of them.

This is where most creation/evolution debates stall. As soon as the pro-evolution guy says "I don't know", in the eyes of the creationist, the fraudulent science has been exposed, the debate is over, and God wins.

As danoff said, all of the answers are out there. It's not that evolutionists want to send creationists on a snipe hunt, it's just that there is so much knowledge out there, you would need countless numbers of experts in each field to have all the answers necessary to stage a real debate.

 

[Pako]

No scientist will describe science as a personal choice, because fact is not a matter of personal interpretation or choice, but an external, testable, knowable entity in and of itself. When I calculate an orbit or turn on a light switch, the physics behind these events are not subject to any choice or belief that I have. The light turns on because it has been wired by man to take advantage of physics, nothing more.

You say "So then one has to decide (since theirs no way to prove it) that it is either random with no purpose, or that there are specific reasons why things happen the way they do, in which case their is a orchestrator behind what science is discovering" but you've improperly phrased the problem. Evolution is not random, it's a natural process. It is as much a natural process as the Earth orbiting the sun or the freezing or thawing of water. There are "random" elements of evolution, and the Earth's rotation, and the Earth's orbit about the sun, and even the freezing or thawing of water... but the processes are predictable and observable, not random.

The absence of randomness, however, does not imply an orchestrator. Simply because the process has order does not mean that it must have been designed by someone external. Logic, math... these things have order, a natural order, the natural consequences of our reality - but they sprang froth from our reality as consequences of its nature, mathematics and logic were not designed by man, or anyone. They simply exist because they must. If they did not exist reality could not exist. They exist because it literally cannot be any other way.

Then we get to the most fundamental question of all. Why does reality exist in the first place? This is a question for which science has no answer. Religion has an answer for it and some people choose to believe that answer. I'm too skeptical to believe that anyone knows the answer to this question, but again an orchestrator is not necessary to answer the question. I can coceive of a universe that exists because it is the equivalent of non-existance. I can conceive of a universe whose sum total is zero - that when taken as a whole does not exist. Perhaps that doesn't make sense to you, but you should know that the answer may come in a form of that nature - that as self-evident to you as it may seem that there must be a creator, it is not necessarily so. Even if no-one could conceive of a way in which the universe could exist without a creator it does not necessarily follow that there was a creator. We simply don't know how it happened.

There is no personal choice in the pursuit of truth. There is only fact. And there is no emotional void that science fills for me - there is only the innate desire for truth, an instinctual desire that propelled early man to the top of the food chain ensuring that that genetic code was passed on. We all have the desire for truth, the only question is to what standards we hold the answer.

Sorry if my post was misleading. I never said that the truth of science or the facts derived from science were a matter of choice. Facts are facts. We cannot deny truth that can be proven again, and again. What is a choice is to believe or not to believe in a creator, a higher power, God. We come to the point of decision when science no longer has any answers. Instead of saying that life is the bi-product of a series of random events......, one can choose to believe that these prior events that lead to mankind's existence happened so that we can exist. Science can show us how that was done.

I choose to believe that I was created out of a choice, instead of choosing that I am the reaction of a series of other reactions of a random event that led to my consciousness of those events. I can see why you are skeptical of my faith, after all you can't test God in a lap, or extrapolate his existence with math, but surly you can see why I am skeptical of your belief as well.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry if my post was misleading. I never said that the truth of science or the facts derived from science were a matter of choice. Facts are facts. We cannot deny truth that can be proven again, and again. What is a choice is to believe or not to believe in a creator, a higher power, God.

I think it may have been my post that was misleading. I was talking about truth in general, all truth. If God exists it is not a matter of choice, it is either true or not. You might choose to believe in a creator, but his existance or non-existance is independent of that choice.

We come to the point of decision when science no longer has any answers. Instead of saying that life is the bi-product of a series of random events......, one can choose to believe that these prior events that lead to mankind's existence happened so that we can exist. Science can show us how that was done.

First of all, nobody is claiming that we exist because of a series of random events. We exist because of the physical and natural properties enherent in our reality. We are tautological consequences of our reality. It is certainly no coincidence that we are here, physics, chemistry, logic, all dictate that we will be here. Your problem with that is meaning. The Earth orbits the sun not out of randomness, but as a result of the fundamental nature of our universe - but that doesn't give the Earth's existance or orbit meaning. Your refusal to see man as part of nature is what leaves you empty, looking for meaning in our existance. Science does run out of answers at that point, and you'll have to look to philosophy or religion to get meaning out of life.

I choose to believe that I was created out of a choice, instead of choosing that I am the reaction of a series of other reactions of a random event that led to my consciousness of those events.

A question of fact, like whether we were created or developed naturally is not a matter of person choice. It's a matter of fact, fact that we have the tools to discover.

I can see why you are skeptical of my faith, after all you can't test God in a lap, or extrapolate his existence with math, but surly you can see why I am skeptical of your belief as well.

I don't have a belief. I don't "believe" in science as you "believe" in faith. We have been through this before and I see that you have not accepted this fundamental fact. Given my experiences, science holds the most probable explanation, but I don't have "faith" it it. I can understand your skepticism of science, I am also skeptical of science. What I cannot understand is your lack of skepticism toward faith.

 

[niky]

Well I returned from my Anthropology class just now and I learned something very intresting...

We read the last chapter or the conclusion (depends on the verison I guess) of the Orgin of Species. Come to find out Darwin actually talks about the Creator, which surprised me quite a bit. Plus my professor is a religious wack-o guy that has a weird twist on everything, but never the less he brought this up and I found it particularly intresting.

Actually, Darwin doesn't talk about the Creator to gain acceptance, but as a reaffirmation of his personal faith. It was his fear of the politico-religious repercussions of his work that held off publishing it for many many years.

One fact that many people overlook is that Darwin didn't want to believe it himself, at first, but mounting evidence and discussions with colleagues led him again and again to the conclusion that man also evolved. He did leave that part completely out of his work, but Creationist "scientists" at the time pounced on it immediately, as they saw the conclusions one could draw from Darwin's book regarding man.

It's not a matter of personal faith as an either-or proposition. Like I've said before, many anthropologists and paleontologists are very very Christian. It's more of whether you let the dogma of the church institution color your life, or if you connect with your religion on a more personal level.

It's these issues of dogmatic tradition that have irrevocably split the Christian faith into many different factions. For reasons often as silly as a disagreement over theological interpretation, two factions may war with each other for decades.

As for me... I went through pre-med once upon a time... I can trace the similarities and differences in bones structure and muscles between a human, a cat or dog and a primate. I have seen it with my own eyes, and examined the differences with my own two hands. We are cut from a common cloth.

As I type this, I look upon my daughter in wonder. I stroke her tiny hand and her grasping reflex... born of a time when mothers had fur for babies to cling to... makes her close her fingers around mine. I stroke her feet and her toes do exactly the same thing... a vestige of the time when toes were not toes, but fingers, too.

With the Catholic Church and many Christian groups and Christian scientists now saying that Darwin's Theory does not contradict the Bible, the drive of the Intelligent Design movement (aka Creationists) merely becomes one of ego. The refusal to believe that humanity (not God, mind you, but MAN) is not perfect.

When I look at my daughter and I reflect on what humble roots we came from, where we are now, and where we are going, I think evolution is wonderful.

 

[Pako]

I think it may have been my post that was misleading. I was talking about truth in general, all truth. If God exists it is not a matter of choice, it is either true or not. You might choose to believe in a creator, but his existance or non-existance is independent of that choice.

Oh for sure, with out a doubt!

First of all, nobody is claiming that we exist because of a series of random events. We exist because of the physical and natural properties inherent in our reality. We are tautological consequences of our reality. It is certainly no coincidence that we are here, physics, chemistry, logic, all dictate that we will be here. Your problem with that is meaning. The Earth orbits the sun not out of randomness, but as a result of the fundamental nature of our universe - but that doesn't give the Earth's existence or orbit meaning. Your refusal to see man as part of nature is what leaves you empty, looking for meaning in our existence. Science does run out of answers at that point, and you'll have to look to philosophy or religion to get meaning out of life.

I have found that meaning. A great book that would help you understand what I'm talking about is:
The Purpose Driven Life

A question of fact, like whether we were created or developed naturally is not a matter of person choice. It's a matter of fact, fact that we have the tools to discover.

Yet we haven't extracted those facts with our tools to determine the answer to that question. All we have is speculation and/or 'belief' in one theory or another. You don't believe that God created you, because you believe that God doesn't exist. (sorry if I seem presumptuous in that statement....)

I don't have a belief. I don't "believe" in science as you "believe" in faith. We have been through this before and I see that you have not accepted this fundamental fact. Given my experiences, science holds the most probable explanation, but I don't have "faith" it it. I can understand your skepticism of science, I am also skeptical of science. What I cannot understand is your lack of skepticism toward faith.

As far as belief, see the reply just above this one. As far as my lack of skepticism towards my faith? To be quite honest, once I had a personal relationship with God and could feel the glory of his grace in my life, how could I be skeptical. After all that he has done for me personally, not to mention the countless miracles that other people have experienced in their faith, the proof of God's existence is too overwhelming to ignore.

What's interesting is the latest point of having different scientific fields where no one person is expected to know everything, so somethings are accepted as truth from different experts in different fields. They are usually respected and you would have no reason to not believe them, but if you wanted to, you could always check their working papers and run the tests for yourself, given the time, expertise, and equipment to do so. In some cases, my faith is the same, in that my personal faith is strengthened through the experience of others as well. My faith is confirmed when God's promises are fulfilled in my life as well as others. What is different about my faith, is that it's not difficult to understand and it doesn't exclude anyone. You don't need special instruments to experience it, and you don't need a panel of experts to decipher it.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

I think some people assumed I had an alterior motive with my post. I wasnt saying that scientists are wrong today, I'm simply saying they COLUD be, as they have been many times in the past. After all, they are human. and one thing we know about humans is that they make mistakes, even the greatest and smartest of us.

Apart from that, I was watching The Colbert Report the other day, and they had a christian scientist on, and his theorys were all quite interesting, and fairly well lined with mine, (And I thought I was the only one!)

Basically, he believes in a smarter God than most christians, one that built a universe that can sustain, and change with different various elements, and can also evolve.
Whereas most believe he made some things, and they failed, so he made more.
Sort of like Disturbed said, why don't more people consider God having simply created all Matter, and then gave it some guidence, creating earth, and mankind?
Honestly, preaching random chance of matter developing eventually into humans sounds like a strange, off-the-wall sci-fi movie, at least to me.

P.S. Earlier tonight, I thought to myself, as I was speeding down a drak back-road, "oh well, God probly doesnt exist anyway". Then I looked over, hey! a tree branch! WHACK! and it smacks off the windshield of my car, because the wind broke it, and it was hanging in the road.
Thought it was a neat story for you all, this happens every time....

 

[Zardoz]

...God having simply created all Matter, and then gave it some guidence, creating earth, and mankind...sounds like a strange, off-the-wall sci-fi movie...

...at least to me.

Pick your sci-fi movie script, huh? What's logical to some is bizarre to others, which is why this debate has gone on since humans developed speech, and will go on as long as we exist.

 

[Famine]

Sort of like Disturbed said, why don't more people consider God having simply created all Matter, and then gave it some guidence, creating earth, and mankind?
Honestly, preaching random chance of matter developing eventually into humans sounds like a strange, off-the-wall sci-fi movie, at least to me.

That's because, as danoff said, you don't understand the science behind it. And there's no shame in that - it's quite complicated and has taken many decades of patient investigation, still ongoing, to detail.

BUT to blindly deny (or accept) something that you don't understand because you don't understand it so it must be wrong (or right) IS foolhardy.

 

[Pako]

*snip*

BUT to blindly deny (or accept) something that you don't understand because you don't understand it so it must be wrong (or right) IS foolhardy.

I would agree.👍

 

[LeadSlead#2]

I havent seen or heard of any science that proves random chance a rational theory. Maybe somebody in here explained it, but it's a pretty big thread....

Zardoz, why not type it yourself, rather than making it as though I posted that? You might confuse someone.
I'd like to hear of the sci-fi movie with only one God involved preaching any kind of christian views... wait, there are none.

I can only debate what people say, and only if they explain in full-detail. So if anybody feels as though it is pointless, or doesnt have time to post a full, detailed, all-entailing side to the story, it's simply on them for not presenting their case.
In other words, it gets old seeing people post some of a scientific view, then after somebody disagrees, then that person adds to their story, or includes some logic, or in any way makes it make more sense, or at least seem rational.

I don't think random-chance fits in with science, or scientific facts, though I could be wrong, I thought to scientifically prove something it couldnt be a once in a billion year event, that never ever happens again.

Anybody have an answer yet as to where matter comes from? the matter that creates everything? Did random-chance create matter itself, too? ( this question can only be answered by those who believe there is no God)

Don't you find it convenient that, these occurences are so few and far between, that none ever happen to any around us, or that we can see really good? or that earth has been here so many billions of years? it's so slow, and all so far away, that none of us ever would have a clue, if we didnt pry? and home come out of all this random-chance alive on earth, ( anmals, birds, etc..), we are the only ones who can speak any kind of distinctive language? the only ones who can make telescopes, and cars, and do all the things we can do, but no other animals can? why are we so superior to all these other creatures on our planet? Most animals have very low abilitys, all generally close to each other, and here we are, way up here, on a plateu, far above them in language, coordination, why are we so far advanced?

 

[Small_Fryz]

Anybody have an answer yet as to where matter comes from? the matter that creates everything? Did random-chance create matter itself, too? ( this question can only be answered by those who believe there is no God)

That is not what this thread is about.

It is EVOLUTION vs CREATION which means ONCE matter existed did it evolve into humans and everything we see, OR did GOD create humans around the same time he made the universe and we never evolved from anything, what you see now is the same as we was when he made us.

That is what this debate is about.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

That is not what this thread is about.

It is EVOLUTION vs CREATION which means ONCE matter existed did it evolve into humans and everything we see, OR did GOD create humans around the same time he made the universe and we never evolved from anything, what you see now is the same as we was when he made us.

That is what this debate is about.

A. pretty quick to bring that out.
B. (the important one) That would depend on the definition of CREATION.
Actually the bible says he made EVERYTHING within seven days.

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth.
And the Earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said "let there be light" and there was light.
And God saw the light, and it was good, and then seperated the night from the darkness.
God said: let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. It was so, and God called the Firmament heaven.
3rd day. God says, let the waters under heaven be gathered in one place, and let dry land appear, and it was so.


Now, depending on the translation from original scripture to this, and from this, to the reader, this sounds like it could quite easily be explaining the science people speak of today, simply being guided by God.


P.S. Small Fry, off-topic? no.
If you can't establish where all matter comes from, how can you completely prove the Bible wrong? or how can you prove evolution right? (aside from them not contradicting themselves) it's quite on-topic, I'm sory you can't see that. But if you believe there is definetly no God, be prepared to answer such questions as to how the universe came about, and science doesnt have your answer for you
Evoloution proves in no way that the earth is billions of years old, that is simply a mathematical aging process used, based on how something ages in a time-frame we can measure, then multiplyed by the difference, far from exact science.

 

[Small_Fryz]

P.S. Small Fry, off-topic? no.
If you can't establish where all matter comes from, how can you completely prove the Bible wrong? or how can you prove evolution right? (aside from them not contradicting themselves) it's quite on-topic, I'm sory you can't see that. But if you believe there is definetly no God, be prepared to answer such questions as to how the universe came about, and science doesnt have your answer for you

You want to play like that.

Where did God come from?

BTW i never said i dont totally believe in God, So many miracles happen in my life i can not say their is no God. HOWEVER my idea of a God and yours is totally different. I belive God is a higher being but DID NOT create humans and earth like it says in the bible. Too muc scientific evidence proves he did not create the heaven and the earth and humans like it says in the bible. Thats not to rule out he didnt create the "big bang" and let everything unfold from there. Who knows i belive the universe always has and always will be and it runs in cycles?

But looking at the scientific facts it is nearly stupid of me to belive evolution didnt happen and that it never has happened. Even in our short life as humans we can see how their are so many different types of humans, we see how many things in nature "adapt" to new habitats and ever changing conditions, which is what evolution is.

Evoloution proves in no way that the earth is billions of years old, that is simply a mathematical aging process used, based on how something ages in a time-frame we can measure, then multiplyed by the difference, far from exact science.

A much better and accurate method then beliveing words written in a book. Where is your proof that the earth is only 10,000? years old?

Where is your proof that the earth ISNT billions of years old?