Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 438,363 views
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
Max, this is central to the creation vs. evolution topic, and it's important to discuss and hash out. We've gone through the nature of reality in this thread several times for a number of different reasons. The most popular reason is when the creationists start claiming that scientists have "faith" in evolution the same way creationists have "faith" in God. What they fail to realize is that scientists don't have faith in anything. Faith requires a belief and in the strictest sense, scientists do not "believe" in evolution (well, some of them probably do).
Anyway, what you describe above is reality (we hope). It is objective extrnal reality, not subject to anyone's perception or interpretation. What you seem to be defining as reality is a perception of reality. You say that everyone has a different reality because they all have a different perception of external truth. In my opinion that misuses the word "reality" and in a very dangerous way - in a way that threatens to render any discussion about truth and the entire concept of truth out of existence.
I've delt with this nihilistic notion of truth on many occasions (mostly in politics). There are some who truly beleive that external truth does not exist. That there is no objective truth, logic, morality, or right and wrong. That these terms are completely meaningless. It's a fundamental difficulty when trying to establish basic things like human rights. To them, the murderer is wrong because society deems it so, when in fact the murderer can be shown objectively wrong via logic (in an almost mathematical sense).
Anyone who wants to invalidate science, claim evolution isn't true, or that God can exist can attempt to do so by claiming that everyone's view of the world is equally (meaning NOT) valid. But they'd be mistaking perception for fact (and they often do).
That's why I jumped on your post.
- 15,854
- QLD, Australia
- Small_Fryz
Im implying that your type of religion is due more to where and how you were raised and born and what you were subjected too, rather than god speaking to you himself.
Sadly im a person who thinks very logically and has to question everything, my mind raises questions i wished it never, but sadly it does. I can never blindly accept anything with no proof just because someone said so. Im always trying to disprove what im taught. While i have an extremely open mind and dont dismiss anything until I belive myself that its simply not possible or plasuable. If you were to say to me that God created the universe then i would consider your statement and with no way to disprove it i will take it on board as a possible scenario. However if you said to me god created mankind as you see him today then obviously this holds no proof and i have to dismiss soooooooo much logical proof and evidence for this statement to be true its simply not correct.
Sometimes I wonder if it would have been better if i was a religion guy who had no trouble accpeting things with no need of proof and beliving word for word in scriptures written by other men a few thousand years ago, as most religious people i know are very peaceful and seem to be very happy. But i cant help but think maybe they are sticking their heads in the sand and taking the easy way out.
- 29,084
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Strictly speaking not a 'Creation v Evolution' post, but anyway: Are we destined to become a race of David Coulthards? One evolutionary theorist predicts that in the year 1000 D.C (1000 years from the birth of David Coulthard, the year 3000 to you and me) that:-
Still, it ain't all bad news:-
"I don't fancy yours much..."
...and that the human race will have 'split in two', with a genetic 'upper class' and 'under-class' forming over the coming millenia. Article...
Still, it ain't all bad news:-
"I don't fancy yours much..."
- 29,084
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
They will go to Nascar....
But seriously, I don't know... I would have thought that, if they were in direct competition with the leaner, smarter, fitter humans (homo sapiens smartarsicus) then the diminutive, less well-endowed human (homo sapiens shortarsicus) would probably become extinct - just another evolutionary dead-end...
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
Here is a thought...if the evolution side is right...you die and then become just another link chain. So a faith based person just ended up wasting a bit of time. On the other side of the fence for a non believer you just made one huge miscalculation in your science and will have to live eternally on the dark side. Thanks...but No thanks. I'll chose wasting a bit of time!
- 283
- PjotrStroganov
- PjotrStroganov
Even if God doesn't exist, religion and faith do have it's merits. At least partly they have formed our ethical and moral values.
Besides that. It doesn't have to be an "if" or "or" story. I bet most biologists and other scientists using the evolution theory in their daily research are religious.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,447
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
How about Science, through evolution, is discovering intelligent design.
This has been previously discussed as well, at length.
Very interesting discussion but waiting for some new material like, "yeah, had a conversation with God and He said he doesn't really exist....., that through free will, man exterminated me...so that's fine...I'll just back away and give them the controls." Then I look at the schools, businesses, and social groups that have ex-communicated God in the name of Separation of Church and State. I have to ask, how well is that working for them? Interesting....be careful what you wish for.
This has been previously discussed as well, at length.
Very interesting discussion but waiting for some new material like, "yeah, had a conversation with God and He said he doesn't really exist....., that through free will, man exterminated me...so that's fine...I'll just back away and give them the controls." Then I look at the schools, businesses, and social groups that have ex-communicated God in the name of Separation of Church and State. I have to ask, how well is that working for them? Interesting....be careful what you wish for.
- 283
- PjotrStroganov
- PjotrStroganov
- 29,084
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Science can explain why mutations happen... DNA replication is a fundamental, but highly controlled chemical reaction, that is amazingly successful. DNA replication is so reliable, that to make an exact copy of a sequence of 3 BILLION base pairs usually works with 100% accuracy. It is a wonder that it happens at all, let alone with such staggering accuracy....
However, a 'mutation' need only manifest itself physically in ONE mistake. 1 incorrect base in a sequence of 3,000,000,000 can (and does) mean a significant physiological difference...
IF the mutation (which happens at random, despite the amazing integrity of DNA replication) confers an advantage to the individual (i.e. it increases the probablility that the individual affected will reproduce) then the mutation will survive and (due to the staggering accuracy of DNA replication) will almost certainly be replicated in future generations, then (by definition) it will survive.
If the mutation doesn't confer an advantage, it will be lost.
The mutation itself is random, (and extremely unlikely) BUT the reason it is kept is totally NOT random.... that is the very essence of what evolution is all about...
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Actually danoff, we came to that conclusion 100 pages back or so. I asked the question where does nature come from and the unanomous "scientific" answer was I don't know. You and others have said that evolution does NOT negate the possibility of a creator.
So, yeah, we went over that before.
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
Yeah, I’m not following either. 
We asserted that a creator can’t be disproved; you’ve now asserted that only a creator would know why something would happen. There’s really no connection there, since your assertion assumes a creator. Unless I’m totally missing something here…
We asserted that a creator can’t be disproved; you’ve now asserted that only a creator would know why something would happen. There’s really no connection there, since your assertion assumes a creator. Unless I’m totally missing something here…
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Sorry guys.
What I guess I'm saying is that from the way I took the "Only the creator would know" line was that it's impossible to prove where the nature came from on a scientific or any other level(except of course faith). So it's the same statement from my point of view. Notice how he said creator and not God.
What I guess I'm saying is that from the way I took the "Only the creator would know" line was that it's impossible to prove where the nature came from on a scientific or any other level(except of course faith). So it's the same statement from my point of view. Notice how he said creator and not God.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
- 29,084
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Good question. The reality is that recent advances in cosmology and particle physics are providing answers to questions that many moons ago were considered unanswerable. The fact that these unanswerable questions are now being answered should tell us something about calling anything 'beyond our understanding'.... that's not to say that we will eventually know everything, or even that if things are knowable that we will know them any time soon... but dismissing something as unknowable or unanswerable is to dismiss human nature itself IMO...
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
👍 +Rep. This is a man after my own heart.
