Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 442,263 views
- 1,202
I'm definitely not on the creationist side of this argument - at least not at the expense of evolution, but I also feel that nd 4 holden spd was dumped on overly harshly for stating his belief, particularly by snoopy.
However, as far as I'm concerned, much as I disliked the response, I wouldn't seek legislation against the freedom to be outspoken against someone's beliefs or person any more than I would seek legislation against allowing someone to state an unpopular believe without elaboration. As far as I am aware there's no rule on the site that prohibits a claim of faith without an accompanying scientific verification, any more than there's a rule against calling someone foolish to hold such faith.
Or is there?
.
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
I don’t remember the particulars of what you’re referring to (I have read the book), but a very, very common misconception is that Hawking uses the word “God” in the sense of a supernatural being, which is absolutely not true. Einstein often gets mis-credited for the same thing. Both of them use the words “God” and “religion” to describe awe in the structure of the universe. I very much wish they didn’t use those words like that, because it does cause confusion even amongst atheists, but I can guarantee you that Einstein and Hawking didn’t/don’t believe in a supernatural being. If you want a better explanation, you can find the opening of The God Delusion online, wherein Dawkins goes into detail about this.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,384
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
As far as I know a previously contracted universe. Like I said, I do not know this stuff as well as others on this site might. I've only had a brief introduction to it during some of my classes.
- 5,603
- England, Warwickshire
- GTP_Sigma
While I am sure this is no doubt true for you, I cannot say the same myself. I used to beleive in god as a child and I no longer do, I haven't been less happy since though.
I am by no means trying to say it invalidates your feelings and experiences, just that it doesn't appear to be the same for everyone.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,384
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I agree, I am the same way. I used to believe in a supernatural being but now I do not. I think I might actually be happier now since I don't have to worry about doing thing that will send me to hell.
But as you pointed out different people need and want different things, which is fine.
Smallhorses
Staff Emeritus
- 7,260
I just hope that if I'm right in what I believe, that I'll get a chance to have some heavenly races against my GTPlanet mates!, that's all.
*Places tongue firmly in cheek.*
On the other hand, why take a chance on the fact that there might very well not be an afterlife to enjoy, and thus: you should get your arse over to one of the next UK or SF GT Parties, to enjoy some not-quite-angelic, but still pretty heavenly races while you're still alive?!!!!
There is only 1 certainty in life: you're going to die eventually.
As grim as that sounds it's also a great reason to make the most of everyday you're alive whatever you chose to believe in. 👍
That said, as far as I'm aware the following passage doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible: "And lo, those that gathered to partake in the sins of Gran Turismo video racing were smitten by the Lord."
Since it's a non-smotable offence, there's no reason you can't come along!
Besides, if you're right and some of us are wrong, all the best afterlife racing is going to be going on in Hell!
*Removes tongue from cheek.*
- 919
Besides, if you're right and some of us are wrong, all the best afterlife racing is going to be going on in Hell!
Although in heat like that, we'll be pitting for tires every two laps!
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
*Places tongue firmly in cheek.*
On the other hand, why take a chance on the fact that there might very well not be an afterlife to enjoy, and thus: you should get your arse over to one of the next UK or SF GT Parties, to enjoy some not-quite-angelic, but still pretty heavenly races while you're still alive?!!!!
There is only 1 certainty in life: you're going to die eventually.
As grim as that sounds it's also a great reason to make the most of everyday you're alive whatever you chose to believe in. 👍
That said, as far as I'm aware the following passage doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible: "And lo, those that gathered to partake in the sins of Gran Turismo video racing were smitten by the Lord."
Since it's a non-smotable offence, there's no reason you can't come along!
Besides, if you're right and some of us are wrong, all the best afterlife racing is going to be going on in Hell!
*Removes tongue from cheek.*
I hear yeah, and would love to check out the next 'local' meet!!! BTW - I hear they have HD 1080p in heaven, only SD in hell....
- 26,627
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
Yeah, right. If Hell is real, we'll be racing on Need for Speed if we are lucky.Besides, if you're right and some of us are wrong, all the best afterlife racing is going to be going on in Hell!
Smallhorses
Staff Emeritus
- 7,260
- 5,070
- Panama City, FL
My grandmother hated Daylight Savings Time, I never knew why. In the fall, she made sure everybody knew how happy she was to be back on "God's time."
Apparently the arbitrary nature of hours, minutes, and seconds had escaped her notice. Maybe she needed to learn a little more railroad history, too.
Apparently the arbitrary nature of hours, minutes, and seconds had escaped her notice. Maybe she needed to learn a little more railroad history, too.
- 29,195
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Interesting question. Indeed, how does God do anything? We hear alot about what He (allegedly) does (or has (allegedly) done in the past...) We've heard a bit about what He is (allegedly) going to do in the future as well... We've even heard plenty about why He (allegedly) does what He (allegedly) does, but strangely we hear very little about how He's actually doing it. In the context of the Creation v Evolution debate (or more specifically, the origin of mankind debate), it is exactly these "how" questions that ID theory has a major problem with. Evolution theory addresses these "How" questions a lot more convincingly than the only answer ID theory ever produces - "God did it". Therefore, to answer your question in a way consistent with Intelligent Design theory, this is how God measures time - "He just does".
Pretty much. Given that human civilizations have always tracked the passage of time in terms of the relative movement of the Sun and Earth, I think we can safely say that a day on Earth today is pretty much the same length as a day on Earth has always been.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
So your quality of life is an observation that validates your faith right? I don't see it. I don't see how wanting something to be true makes it so. Truth has nothing to do with your quality of life, or the quality of anything. It's independent. A scientist doesn't consider whether it makes him feel good to think a certain thing is true, and that's why your medicine, television, computer, and cell phone actually function - because if the guy searching for some fundamental truth about the universe who pioneered the technology those things are based on were using his emotions to determine what was true, I can guarantee we wouldn't have those products.
- 29,195
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
On the subject of faith and Creationism, I wondered if Creationism wasn't all it is cracked up to be on that front. It's a bit difficult to explain what I mean, but here goes anyway...
The most vocal and ferocious proponents of Creationism do not countenance any disagreement with their viewpoint, and no amount of evidence can change that viewpoint (a key difference between creationists and scientists). But what does that say to a person of faith who happens to disagree with some (or any) of a Creationist's claims (like Ken Ham, for example)? My point is this - if you disagree with anything Ken Ham says, you are as wrong (in his view) as anybody. Don't accept that the Earth is 6000 years old? You're not one of them. Don't accept his interpretation of how God speaks to you? You're not one of them either. In order to qualify for membership of the club, you must leave your faith at the door and adopt their views.
My question, therefore, is this... does not Creationism defeat the whole purpose of faith itself? If they are so sure they are right on faith alone, how can they justify denouncing other people of faith who disagree with them? (and they do... take Ken Miller for example, he is a prominent Christian evolutionist, a man of faith and someone who no doubt has a relationship with his God as true as anyone. Yet to Creationists, he might as well be the anti-Christ.) When it comes to matters of one's own personal relationship with God, what gives Creationist hacks like Ken Ham the right to refute (not just question) one's own beliefs?
The most vocal and ferocious proponents of Creationism do not countenance any disagreement with their viewpoint, and no amount of evidence can change that viewpoint (a key difference between creationists and scientists). But what does that say to a person of faith who happens to disagree with some (or any) of a Creationist's claims (like Ken Ham, for example)? My point is this - if you disagree with anything Ken Ham says, you are as wrong (in his view) as anybody. Don't accept that the Earth is 6000 years old? You're not one of them. Don't accept his interpretation of how God speaks to you? You're not one of them either. In order to qualify for membership of the club, you must leave your faith at the door and adopt their views.
My question, therefore, is this... does not Creationism defeat the whole purpose of faith itself? If they are so sure they are right on faith alone, how can they justify denouncing other people of faith who disagree with them? (and they do... take Ken Miller for example, he is a prominent Christian evolutionist, a man of faith and someone who no doubt has a relationship with his God as true as anyone. Yet to Creationists, he might as well be the anti-Christ.) When it comes to matters of one's own personal relationship with God, what gives Creationist hacks like Ken Ham the right to refute (not just question) one's own beliefs?
Smallhorses
Staff Emeritus
- 7,260
The other question remains: If the Christian Creationists are right, why then do other faiths such as Judaism,Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Ba'hai, Shintoism, Druidism, and so on and so forth exist?
Purely because Man since being endowed with the ability to think freely has sought to justify his existence! The thought of an afterlife and a higher power calling the shots stops many people going nuts! People used to believe in Sun Gods, Moon Gods, Earth Gods, etc. etc., until it was proved that they're merely Solar bodies obeying Gravitational laws.
In all of the religions previously mentioned, (and not wishing to offend any I haven't referred to specifically (nor for some people's benefit that choose to interpret my posts as they alone see fit, to offend the people of the religions I have used as examples here)) can anyone give evidence of an event in the last 2000 years that proves the existence of a "God" type figure in any modern religion?
Science offers a plausible alternative to this in that we seem to be pushing back boundaries of understanding on a daily basis with factual evidence. It's pretty difficult to turn up at at scientific debate nowadays with a proclamation that "x = y" without some pretty compelling data to prove that this is the case, otherwise you're likely to get laughed off stage!
We scientists are more than willing to offer our faith in the face of proof, it's kind of our raison d'etre, problem is, no religion has been able to offer anything convincing in the last couple of Millenia, while Science seems to have offered a whole load of explanations for why things are the way they are.
To be honest, I have a respect for those that hold faith in what they believe, and I'd be wrong to suggest you don't have a right to believe in what you believe, but, as an individual you have your own right to question that, and explore the possibilities that lie outside what you are lead to believe is true, and that choice is yours, and yours alone.
Purely because Man since being endowed with the ability to think freely has sought to justify his existence! The thought of an afterlife and a higher power calling the shots stops many people going nuts! People used to believe in Sun Gods, Moon Gods, Earth Gods, etc. etc., until it was proved that they're merely Solar bodies obeying Gravitational laws.
In all of the religions previously mentioned, (and not wishing to offend any I haven't referred to specifically (nor for some people's benefit that choose to interpret my posts as they alone see fit, to offend the people of the religions I have used as examples here)) can anyone give evidence of an event in the last 2000 years that proves the existence of a "God" type figure in any modern religion?
Science offers a plausible alternative to this in that we seem to be pushing back boundaries of understanding on a daily basis with factual evidence. It's pretty difficult to turn up at at scientific debate nowadays with a proclamation that "x = y" without some pretty compelling data to prove that this is the case, otherwise you're likely to get laughed off stage!
We scientists are more than willing to offer our faith in the face of proof, it's kind of our raison d'etre, problem is, no religion has been able to offer anything convincing in the last couple of Millenia, while Science seems to have offered a whole load of explanations for why things are the way they are.
To be honest, I have a respect for those that hold faith in what they believe, and I'd be wrong to suggest you don't have a right to believe in what you believe, but, as an individual you have your own right to question that, and explore the possibilities that lie outside what you are lead to believe is true, and that choice is yours, and yours alone.
- 29,195
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Ironically, this is also the same logic that Creationists apply to justify their challenge of Evolution theory in high schools across America. You are "led to believe" that Evolution theory is true but you have the right to challenge it. They will even tell you that this 'right to challenge' even constitutes 'Defending Our Academic Freedoms'
What Creationists fail to point out, however, is that the process of forming a scientific theory is subject to challenge at every stage of development of that theory - if a single piece of evidence contradicts the theory unequivocally, the theory is dead... hence only the fittest theories survive! (
) Raising a challenge to a scientific theory requires providing evidence that the theory is wrong, not just an argument based on personal conviction. This may not be the case when questioning someone's faith (although Creationists do that too - see my previous post!), but it is when questioning a scientific theory.So you may have the right to question what you are told is true - it is even the correct thing to do to question what you are told. But questioning is only worthwhile if you are prepared to evaluate the answers. Creationists, however, start with the viewpoint that any evidence is meaningless in the face of faith, hence no theory based on evidence stands a chance. In the case of Creationism, 'questioning' is infact a euphemism.
As any torturer worth his salt will tell you, if you 'question' something hard enough, you can make it tell you whatever you want it to tell you - but it doesn't make the results true!. But that is the antithesis of the scientific process. In order to question science, you have to use scientific methods. Arguments from personal conviction are simply not enough to challenge a scientific theory. Creationists know this, hence why they are attempting to pass off ID theory as science (hence providing a 'legitimate scientific challenge to the theory of evolution'). The only problem with that is that ID theory is not science at all.
(I hope this doesn't sound like a biased rant from a scientist, but let's remember what the argument is all about in the first place... postulating that ID theory - a theory entirely based on faith and zero evidence - should be taught in science class as an equally legitimate scientific theory to evolution theory.)
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
I am just going to correct some of your thinking here for factual purposes.
Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all come from the same roots. Islam branches off at Abraham, Christianity branches off at Jesus. They all three worship the same God, but differ on their messiah/prophet accounts. So, it is the same creation story.
Ba'hai is similar as it is a sort of all-inclusive monotheistic religion where they believe all monotheists are worshiping the same God and they all have their own prophets, and all the prophets are valid prophets.
I don't know enough about Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, or Druidism to answer that. I've never met any personally to discuss their beliefs.
