Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 445,364 views
LOL, I wasn't born a christian. If you've read a decent number of my posts, you'd know that. I'm not sure about Pako though.

But I had plenty of chance to try all kinds of different faiths, I CHOSE Christ.

Also, what are you trying to imply by that statement?

Heaven, paradise....forever... sounds like a good package - complete care... where do I have to sign ? ;)
 
Both is true, you can't deny that. True doesn't mean real though. Ehm, I mean we all know how it works : Light meats the leaf and a certain part of the spectrum gets absorbed, the rest reflected and depending on your specific possibilities to detect these refelctions you get a different real impression of acertain color. This is real, you can proove it. It doesn't end here though, since the information gets another few interpretations in your brain. So your green is not my green.

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.
 
LOL, I wasn't born a christian. If you've read a decent number of my posts, you'd know that. I'm not sure about Pako though.

But I had plenty of chance to try all kinds of different faiths, I CHOSE Christ.

Also, what are you trying to imply by that statement?

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.
 
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:-
Humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall.... Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.
...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:-
Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features
:D


_42207552_evolution4.jpg

"I don't fancy yours much..."
 
So I'm gonna get old and tall and have a hard on all the time ?

he's right ! But they have drugs for that...except the tall part...

What will happen to the midgets ?
 
What will happen to the midgets ?
They will go to Nascar.... :P

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...
 
Blame modern medicine for the nullification of Darwins law.

And the fact that at 2 am when the bars close strange things seem to happen ...interspecies etc......:) :)
 
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!
 
The only way humans will evolve into these two classes (or a super class) is if the people in between stop breeding - which they won't... so it ain't gonna happen. The guy who is claiming all of these things doesn't understand evolution.
 
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!

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.
 
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.[/QUOTE]

Ok then...I throw out the trump card. GOD created evolution!
 
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.
 
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.

It's not exactly coming up roses in the UK, where there is no such legislated separation...
 
It's not exactly coming up roses in the UK, where there is no such legislated separation...

;)

And there in lies the problem with legalistic 'religion' as a governing power. It was the same type of legal religious council that crucified Jesus so I put little stock in legalistic religion.
 
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.

Ok then...I throw out the trump card. GOD created evolution!

Could be.

But evolutionary and other science have to (and only can be) tested in scientific ways. God isn't needed to explain radiation or the occurance of mutation in DNA strands.
 
Oh really?! Science can actually explain why DNA mutates. Or is more like they can see that it happens but really can explain why. Only the creater could explain "WHY" something happens.
 
Oh really?! Science can actually explain why DNA mutates. Or is more like they can see that it happens but really can explain why. Only the creater could explain "WHY" something happens.
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...
 
I'd like to see you prove that.

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. :)
 
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.

How does that mean that "Only the creater could explain "WHY" something happens"?
 
03R1
Only the creater could explain "WHY" something happens.

I'd disagree with that - a creater need not be the only explanation.

It is the difference between whether or not you consider something "inexplicable" or merely "unexplained"....
 
How does that mean that "Only the creater could explain "WHY" something happens"?

Well, it's the essentially the same questions as where did the "nature" that produced the universe, earth and life come from?
 
Yeah, I’m not following either. :confused: 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…
 
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.
 
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.

A) It is not impossible to prove where nature came from via any other method than faith - we simply haven't done it. That's not the same thing as impossible.

B) How does "only a creater would know why something happens" translate to "it's impossible to prove where nature came from"?
 
Ok guys, that's fine.

Honestly I'm not understanding why you don't see it but it's really not all that relevant to the conversation.
 
It's possible to arrive at multiple conclusions given the same scenario. "I am looking for _____________" can determine the outcome of the experiment.
 
How does "only a creater would know why something happens" translate to "it's impossible to prove where nature came from"?
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...
 
Back