Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 440,556 views
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
- 27,205
- United Kingdom
- 5,693
- Canada
Last edited:
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
VANDENAL
Macro-evolution shows us a theory of how origins of species came into existence (and quite unconfidently, in my opinion). It does not explain how life began at all. It's the same with the big bang theory, it shows us a theory of how the universe was formed, but not how it actually began (and it does so again quite unconfidently, in my opinion).
People forever seek for the reasons 'why' to feel satisfied. I would like to know who I am, what my purpose is, the reason behind life, etc.
What if I am certain that the universe needs reason to begin or continue to exist? What if I am certain that life needs reason to begin or continue to exist also?
Some atheists will respond to these questions with a nihilistic approach, but what if that is defeatist? What if people seek comfort from convincing themselves that there is no reason to life?
There is more to life than material substance in my opinion. A naturalistic explanation is just not enough for me.
- 7,601
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
If it's a theory, it's not "unconfidently proven". It's basically fact.
That's because a completely different theory addresses that. Because Evolution is not a theory on the origin of life.
Why do you think that? What if it's this irrational, unsupported belief that is making it hard for you to find the truth?
The same can be said of your point of view. At the very least, there is no evidence for a reason, so those who don't think that there is a reason are probably in the best shape based on current evidence.
But if this is just based on "feel", what goes is it? If you think of something for no reason, it's not really valid.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
But that is not valid critisism since the theory of evolution was never meant to explain how life began, nor is big bang meant to explain how it began. There are already theories about that.
You might as well critisize the theory of gravity for not answering those questions.
That is fine. But that still doesn't mean there is a why. Your opinion or belief does not affect reality.
What's interesting is reality, not what you want reality to be.
- 5,693
- Canada
The purpose of humans is to reproduce. That's it.
Everything else is just a bi-product.
Some people can't stand that this is true, so they seek out comfort by thinking something must have created them, when there is no proof this is so. Christianity has so many examples of hypocrisy, that listing all of them would crash my browser. Given that many creationists are Christian, the majority "acknowledge" science while at the same time shooting these theories down with their "truth", trying to void what has been presented research and proof, with hear-say.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
- 7,601
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
VANDENAL
I do not wish to annoy you, but you said that the only reason in life is to reproduce, and that everything else is less superior.
I was purely asking confirmation of your thoughts.
Why do you think that we should make new life if there is no reason for life to be in existence anyway?!
Again, please answer the question, in fact, ignore the persuasive part, that is irrelevant. Are you a atheistic existentialist?
- 27,205
- United Kingdom
Why should we be pigeonholed? (And as others have suggested, why should it even matter?)
Even so, I'll answer this question. In two ways. I'd say I'm not, my views would suggest to you that I am.
I don't need to feel "comforted" by the possibility of an afterlife, nor do I need to feel "comforted" by the fact we're all here as a byproduct of the universe and nothing else. I simply find the latter considerably more fascinating than us all being put here for a reason. It doesn't entertain me in the slightest to think there's a meaning to life, I'd much rather discover how life works than why it exists.
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
It matters because existentialism runs parallel if you like with nihilism.
'The first and major problem with the existentialist is how to make sense of what he says. At it's simplest, the existentialist message is that everything is meaningless. Immediately we must ask whether that message itself is meaningful or meaningless. This is not some verbal trick of twisting words to suit one's own purposes. Rather it is a realisation that there are some things which cannot be said or thought. "Everything is meaningless" is such an unsayable... The existentialist massage of absurdity is itself absurd for it is an attempt to say the unsayable, think the unthinkable, and to live the unliveable. It cannot be said, thought, believed as correct, or put into practice, it is self-contradictory. Thus it rules itself out as a serious view. From the very start, existentialism is a non-starter.' - British Philosopher David Cook
I personally believe in monotheism because it is the only think that I see that works, not because I seek to convince myself lies for comfort.
'The first and major problem with the existentialist is how to make sense of what he says. At it's simplest, the existentialist message is that everything is meaningless. Immediately we must ask whether that message itself is meaningful or meaningless. This is not some verbal trick of twisting words to suit one's own purposes. Rather it is a realisation that there are some things which cannot be said or thought. "Everything is meaningless" is such an unsayable... The existentialist massage of absurdity is itself absurd for it is an attempt to say the unsayable, think the unthinkable, and to live the unliveable. It cannot be said, thought, believed as correct, or put into practice, it is self-contradictory. Thus it rules itself out as a serious view. From the very start, existentialism is a non-starter.' - British Philosopher David Cook
I personally believe in monotheism because it is the only think that I see that works, not because I seek to convince myself lies for comfort.
- 27,205
- United Kingdom
Why does it "work" any more than anything we can observe and study*?
I'd argue that the more you seek to learn about the universe and the way physical, chemical and biological processes work, the more realistic a concept existential nihilism becomes. When you learn more about the vastness of space and time it isn't in the least bit unlikely that we're here for absolutely no other reason than because we are.
The only reason the debate exists is because we're here to partake in it. If we hadn't evolved over millions of years to develop self-awareness then we wouldn't be discussing it. If our planet hadn't formed over billions of years in a way that supported life, then we'd not be here at all and some other race on some other planet a billion light years away might be discussing their evolution instead.
*And on an unrelated note, after dragging the God thread towards a discussion of creation and evolution, why are you now dragging the creation/evolution thread back towards theism? This is exactly the problem I mentioned a page or two ago - or maybe even in the other thread. You undermine the discussion by making it too philosophical.
Strittan
Premium
- 4,065
- Sweden
- Strittan
- 3,245
- United Kingdom
- TankAss95
Macro evolution has not been 'proven' at all. No one has observed a complete example of macro-evolution taking place.Strittan
If I seem to be that way or not to you then is an opinion. To go further if you think that is truth (I am not saying that you do), then the statement does not hold water.Strittan
Ever since I first contributed to the debate over the existence of God, I have been studying many topics in science. Secondly the Bible is not a 'ready made package to save' me 'a lot of thinking'. The Bible is a foundation which I base my life upon. Part of that lifestyle drives me do admire and study the Lord's handiwork, which can be achieved through studying the sciences.
- 5,069
- Panama City, FL
Earlier in the thread Famine (I think) pointed out an insect species that inhabits the London Underground, a species that did not exist before the London Underground existed. Not a newly discovered species, but a new species, within our lifetimes. (Well, within that of some folks still around today, anyway.)
And science isn't about "proof." Never has been. It's about finding an explanation for that which is observed, and testing that explanation against continued observation. Once an explanation (hypothesis) begins to fit better and better and become more widely accepted as The Explanation as opposed to a possible explanation, it becomes a Theory.
That is the HIGHEST state an idea can attain. It's not proven anywhere, but it's accepted, because it's the best explanation yet devised. Its mechanics do not have to be well understood (we know diddly about how gravity works, but we have a very good Theory on it,) it just has to fit what is repeatedly observable.
And science isn't about "proof." Never has been. It's about finding an explanation for that which is observed, and testing that explanation against continued observation. Once an explanation (hypothesis) begins to fit better and better and become more widely accepted as The Explanation as opposed to a possible explanation, it becomes a Theory.
That is the HIGHEST state an idea can attain. It's not proven anywhere, but it's accepted, because it's the best explanation yet devised. Its mechanics do not have to be well understood (we know diddly about how gravity works, but we have a very good Theory on it,) it just has to fit what is repeatedly observable.
Last edited:
- 15,487
- UK
Yet again you've completely missed the point. You berate the lack of observation in Science, yet your very own belief system has about as much observation as the WI's nude vegetable calender.
At least show some consistency in your opinion.
Edit: <insertrandomquote>
At least show some consistency in your opinion.
Edit: <insertrandomquote>
