Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 447,356 views
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
Not necessarily just the right point in time - eventually over enough million years, the right conditions would come along. I don't see why it's so difficult to see that over a long period of time life can evolve from simple beginnings.
Of course you would. It's a very comforting notion. All the more reason to suspect that it's made up. The fact that it's comforting doesn't make it any more likely to be true.
You're confusing theory and law. The law of gravitation is our best shot at the reason our experiences (that objects come back down) have shown what they have.
"Laws" in science are the closest science gets to fact.
The best evolution could hope for is to be considered a scientific law.
- 2,614
- Metroider17
DQuaN
breaking news eh...(i said i wasnt going to post, but with such a post like this...)
http://tvsothertenpercent.tripod.com/reddwarf/index.html
did you get your quote from there?
http://tvsothertenpercent.tripod.com/reddwarf/btl.html
better than life...never seen that episode (or any of the others)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094535/
thats the show, right? those names look very familiar to the ones in the first website
- 5,842
- Forgotten Wing
danoff
No doubt that it could happen. What I'm saying is that the chances of all the pieces required for the simplest forms of life tend to be a bit on the fragile side, and the chances of them spontaneously developing at the same time as one another in such a manner that they wouldn't break down is extremely rare. And then there's the idea of the semi-permeable membrane that covers most cells; where did that come from? I just find it rather hard to buy that there was no life and then spontaneously for no reason there was. It could happen, but the chances are really high up there (like, one in 10,000,000,000 or something). Life has been around, according to scientists, for about 2-3 Billion years, so I suppose it is possible, but I don't really buy it.
Comfort is comfortable. And may I say that the fact that the evidence points towards the fact that you killed my best friend Joe doesn't make it any more likely to be true.
I admit that that is a poor example for me to have used. Let me have another take with that.
LAW: You look away from the sun and you can see your shadow on the ground.
THEORY: The shadow is there because your body is reflecting and absorbing the sun's rays before they can hit the ground and reflect into your eyes.
The theory we can't really prove 100% that it's fact, but the law we can. Laws are based on observation, theories are based on deduction.
Same with Creation, although the chances of it happening are far less from a scientific standpoint. Either way, we'll never know until we either meet God, or until we develop time travel so we can go back to the very beginning.
You raise some good arguments, danoff.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
I'd call the "Law" an observation. A law is more general than you are using here, but I understand what you're getting at.
But it does. That's the way our legal system works - amassing enough evidence to make the probability that someone is not guilty so small that it is beyond a reasonable doubt.
We don't know what the chances are. But consider this. There are 10,000,000,000 rocks in the universe (that's an exact figure). If any one of those forms life, the life forms that come from that will think it is very unlikely that they'd have formed. But actually if there are enough rocks floating around enough stars, one of them is bound to have the right situations. If you get enough rocks out there, the probability is 100%.
We don't know what the odds are. As is said in the movie Contact, if one in a million stars had a planet with life and one in a million of those had intelligent life, there would be millions of civilizations in the universe.
This debate is rubbish until a major breakthrough on either side occurs. It's a stalemate between the two sides, with both also being as believable as the next. This may be the only point in history where such a stalemate occurs; but there are, I'm sure, sources on both sides who are withholding key evidence because of the potential for world chaos. The Vatican holds artifacts that could bring Creationists that much closer to proof on the Creation side, and the Gov't. most likely holds any clinching evidence to the contrary in shadow because of the potential chaos Creationists could create if they found out their belief and passion was all a ruse.
One day there will be no need for debate, and there will also be world unity that one of these theories is false. Until then, what's the use of debating two unfinished theories? You can argue over them until you die, but they are both incomplete. Period. How you choose is who you are, and no one can take that away from you. So just be you, and wait for the signs.
Tony
One day there will be no need for debate, and there will also be world unity that one of these theories is false. Until then, what's the use of debating two unfinished theories? You can argue over them until you die, but they are both incomplete. Period. How you choose is who you are, and no one can take that away from you. So just be you, and wait for the signs.
Tony
- 87,648
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Why blame "The Government"? "The Government" is less interested in science than it is almost anything else - unless it can be used to blow more stuff up than the other guy.
We all know how pious George W. Bush is - One Nation Under God, remember? Surely if he was in possession of evidence which could "prove" Creation, he wouldn't hold onto it?
The "debate" will always be a stalemate. Evolution is scientifically valid. Every piece of evidence ever uncovered in the field of "the origins of life on Earth" indicates the validity of the Evolutionary process and the invalidity of the "superior being" Creation of all life on Earth in one instant (or spread over a period of 7 theological days, which may be actual days or thousands of years, depending on which bit of the Bible you want to believe). But "science" will accept any evidence which does not and will amend theories accordingly. Creationism will NEVER accept any evidence which points away from their point of view, and usually fall back on the line "Well, we'll all see when we're dead, won't we? We'll be in Heaven with our One True Lord and you won't." - which is a fascinating piece of reasoning.
Put simply, Evolution IS demonstrable, verifiable and repeatable in a laboratory NOW. Right now. But because it goes against Creation, Creationists refuse to acknowledge it and that is why the debate exists at all.
We all know how pious George W. Bush is - One Nation Under God, remember? Surely if he was in possession of evidence which could "prove" Creation, he wouldn't hold onto it?
The "debate" will always be a stalemate. Evolution is scientifically valid. Every piece of evidence ever uncovered in the field of "the origins of life on Earth" indicates the validity of the Evolutionary process and the invalidity of the "superior being" Creation of all life on Earth in one instant (or spread over a period of 7 theological days, which may be actual days or thousands of years, depending on which bit of the Bible you want to believe). But "science" will accept any evidence which does not and will amend theories accordingly. Creationism will NEVER accept any evidence which points away from their point of view, and usually fall back on the line "Well, we'll all see when we're dead, won't we? We'll be in Heaven with our One True Lord and you won't." - which is a fascinating piece of reasoning.
Put simply, Evolution IS demonstrable, verifiable and repeatable in a laboratory NOW. Right now. But because it goes against Creation, Creationists refuse to acknowledge it and that is why the debate exists at all.
Famine
I work for the government, lol, more specifically intelligence. Take my word on it when I say the government is interested in ALL things that have a pontential to turn a large interest group (creationists, the religious) upside down. They would keep things of this nature classified until they could find a way to release them with minimal damage, which is not any time soon.
As for the Evolution remarks, I read many science mags myself, yet I see no more tangible evidence of Evolution then Creation. So why fool yourself? Nothing has been proven, it has only been theorized. Evidence uncovered in the depths of our earth has pointed to both sides of the theory. Some evidence pokes holes in the very fabric of the Evolution theory. You're generalizing things that are much more complex than a simple sentence.
And lastly, why didn't you mention narrow-minded Evolutionists? There are certainly as many, if not more, narrow-minded scientists on the opposite side of the fence in this matter. Not all religious people are narrow-minded, especially in this day and age. People are investigating for themselves and coming to conclusions more and more, and this is producing a generation of skeptics, whether religious or not. Is that a good thing though? You decide.
Tony
- 14
Hi guys,
The problem with science is that the fundamental tool used to explain and understand the world around is the one scientists openly accept as the one they understand the least, THE HUMAN BRAIN. Therefore isnt the notion of science a fallacy.
Black.
The problem with science is that the fundamental tool used to explain and understand the world around is the one scientists openly accept as the one they understand the least, THE HUMAN BRAIN. Therefore isnt the notion of science a fallacy.
Black.
- 14
Your right, dont get me wrong im not a religious person, nor particularly scientific, i perhaps should have put science and religion. It wasnt a purposeful omission and i guess with the tone of the debate it wasnt your fault you made this assumption. monge-tout monge-tout.
- 87,648
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Not at all, Arc de Triomphe zut alors sacre bleu. I just figured that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Scientifically speaking, of course, the human brain is a variable common to both sides and, while it is often described as the "most complex structure in the universe", can be eliminated from the equation as a common denominator.
Scientifically speaking, of course, the human brain is a variable common to both sides and, while it is often described as the "most complex structure in the universe", can be eliminated from the equation as a common denominator.
- 14
Famine
Et Tu
- 14
I still dont agree that it is a common denominator due to the fact that religious ideas are taken as fact and therefore do not require to be understood, interpreted or analysed. On the contrary scientific ideas, theories and laws are a product of reasoning and experiment using the 'Human Brain', rather than a social construct, and are therfore more fallable to any of your 'scientific' discrepancies which the factor of a 'Himan Brain' might cause.
Might i also add that i dont suggest you doctor peoples quotes as its not an ethical or nice thing to do, obviously i did it in response.
Black.
Might i also add that i dont suggest you doctor peoples quotes as its not an ethical or nice thing to do, obviously i did it in response.
Black.
- 87,648
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Hold up a second there...
Scientific "ideas" are more fallible because they require the human brain to understand them, whereas religious "facts" don't? Religion is every bit as interpretative as - if not more than - science is.
Both are attempts to understand the world about us. One requires evidential testing and the other requires someone believable.
How often do we hear people say that God has spoken to them? If God HAS spoken to them, then their brain has had to interpret the signal, either aurally or "psychically" and relay it to the higher centres of the brain, which then decides an appropriate course of action.
The brain is common to both processes - receiving doctrine OR theory. Saying that science is more fallible because it relies on our brains to interpret when religion does exactly the same is nonsense.
Scientific "ideas" are more fallible because they require the human brain to understand them, whereas religious "facts" don't? Religion is every bit as interpretative as - if not more than - science is.
Both are attempts to understand the world about us. One requires evidential testing and the other requires someone believable.
How often do we hear people say that God has spoken to them? If God HAS spoken to them, then their brain has had to interpret the signal, either aurally or "psychically" and relay it to the higher centres of the brain, which then decides an appropriate course of action.
The brain is common to both processes - receiving doctrine OR theory. Saying that science is more fallible because it relies on our brains to interpret when religion does exactly the same is nonsense.
- 87,648
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Black's "Only Fools and Horses" French made me go pseudo French.
And they were only two of Caesar's last three words - the last being "Brute".
(that's assuming that the human brains around him heard, interpreted, analysed and processed the vocal patterns correctly)
And they were only two of Caesar's last three words - the last being "Brute".
(that's assuming that the human brains around him heard, interpreted, analysed and processed the vocal patterns correctly)
- 14
Well, im not sure if your getting me on this one, or completely missing the boat, is there a boat, where, bugger its gone.
Your obviously a knowledgable and intelligent chap but i think you need to step outside the box (i dont like to use the term but im lazy). When i entered the debate it was science V religion. As stated before im not a strong believer in either (Damn i hate apethetic people).
This is the opinions forum, and as im sure you know an opinion can neither be right or wrong, but just that, an opinion. I dont really think there is a right or wrong answer, just remember that religion is a social construct and as such is a product of the opinions and mind-set of those beliving in the religion. Yes there are plenty of religions, with differing beliefs and im not trying to explain or justify them, only to point out that they do exist, that their existence is a social construct and that the belief you talk about (faith) doesnt need to be understood (and in fact cant be). If something is definite than it exists. By definition you do not need faith to understand something which can be proven, analysed or demonstrated (or even thoretically extrapolated), because these things can be retionalised by the 'Human Brain'. When it comes to religion what is the key fundamental underpinning most of the major religions? Faith. It is with faith that people believe in things that they do not undertand or can comprehend (therefore not using the 'Human Brain' as a tool).
I ask you what came first, the complete understanding of the human brain or rational thought. Of course i am expecting for you to scientifically analyse this, intepret it and come up with another reply based on your scientific undertanding of the world, but all i ask is that you consider my opinion (yes made with a 'Human Brain' (like i said there is no right answer)). Maybe science is the exacting truth, what are numbers anyway, an abstract idea to help humans understand the world around them, and can they be used for this, is it an oxymoron? Or is science a twisted sence of reality which is needed as a tool to depict the observations we witness around us, and therefore a tool within a tool, proving nothing more than the fact that you can prove something given your use of abstract numbers within your given context of what science should be (experimentation, theory, evidence) within your undertstanding of the world around us through the interpretive use of the 'Human Brain'. I dont know.
Are we self aware matter? who knows, who cares.
On a side note, you remind me of the comic book guy from the simpsons. Anyway, where am i, is this real.
Have a nice day, maybe i added nothing to this debate, no i havnt have I. Nevermind.
Have a nice day. Black.
Your obviously a knowledgable and intelligent chap but i think you need to step outside the box (i dont like to use the term but im lazy). When i entered the debate it was science V religion. As stated before im not a strong believer in either (Damn i hate apethetic people).
This is the opinions forum, and as im sure you know an opinion can neither be right or wrong, but just that, an opinion. I dont really think there is a right or wrong answer, just remember that religion is a social construct and as such is a product of the opinions and mind-set of those beliving in the religion. Yes there are plenty of religions, with differing beliefs and im not trying to explain or justify them, only to point out that they do exist, that their existence is a social construct and that the belief you talk about (faith) doesnt need to be understood (and in fact cant be). If something is definite than it exists. By definition you do not need faith to understand something which can be proven, analysed or demonstrated (or even thoretically extrapolated), because these things can be retionalised by the 'Human Brain'. When it comes to religion what is the key fundamental underpinning most of the major religions? Faith. It is with faith that people believe in things that they do not undertand or can comprehend (therefore not using the 'Human Brain' as a tool).
I ask you what came first, the complete understanding of the human brain or rational thought. Of course i am expecting for you to scientifically analyse this, intepret it and come up with another reply based on your scientific undertanding of the world, but all i ask is that you consider my opinion (yes made with a 'Human Brain' (like i said there is no right answer)). Maybe science is the exacting truth, what are numbers anyway, an abstract idea to help humans understand the world around them, and can they be used for this, is it an oxymoron? Or is science a twisted sence of reality which is needed as a tool to depict the observations we witness around us, and therefore a tool within a tool, proving nothing more than the fact that you can prove something given your use of abstract numbers within your given context of what science should be (experimentation, theory, evidence) within your undertstanding of the world around us through the interpretive use of the 'Human Brain'. I dont know.
Are we self aware matter? who knows, who cares.
On a side note, you remind me of the comic book guy from the simpsons. Anyway, where am i, is this real.
Have a nice day, maybe i added nothing to this debate, no i havnt have I. Nevermind.
Have a nice day. Black.
