Creation vs. Evolution

[Scaff]

Ahh my bad! I figured Creationism and God went hand and hand in this thread. That restricts a lot of comments directed towards the debate because if you have reason to believe God is real that kinda kills the evolution discussion.

Well all involved have managed for a good few years keeping the two topic separate.

 

[wfooshee]

Ahh my bad! I figured Creationism and God went hand and hand in this thread. That restricts a lot of comments directed towards the debate because if you have reason to believe God is real that kinda kills the evolution discussion.

The thread isn't about "Does God exist?" It's about "Show us which is more correct, Genesis or the Theory of Evolution."

Thus it breaks down to faith vs science.

 

[xxxdisciplexxx]

Faith verse science huh? Sadly that is not the case or it would be a shorter discussion wouldn't it? It takes more faith from a Atheist/Darwinist to believe in everything coming from nothing and then not stopping there but in addition dead matter into life. Which both have not been observed to this day! Is it not unreasonable to state the evolutionists have more faith then us believers. It is not just faith verse science...

 

[Tesla]

Faith verse science huh? Sadly that is not the case or it would be a shorter discussion wouldn't it? It takes more faith from a Atheist/Darwinist to believe in everything coming from nothing and then not stopping there but in addition dead matter into life. Which both have not been observed to this day! Is it not unreasonable to state the evolutionists have more faith then us believers. It is not just faith verse science...

Please, show us all the evidence "you believers" have for the universe being created about 6000 years ago, despite there being (literally) mountains of evidence to the contrary. Just because you believe in something doesn't mean you have any right for it to be taken as truth by everyone else.

 

[Barra333]

The 'faith' we have in science is borne from the thousands of experiments which have incrementally increased our knowledge into how the universe came about and evolved. Someone didn't wake up one day and decide how the world started - it came through developing theories and proving/disproving them.
For a while, it was accepted that the earth was the centre of the universe, but someone did a science, by taking observations and measurements, to show that we spin around the sun (and yet there are still people who can't grasp that).

You may very well be correct that no one has observed life begin, but scientists have traced back evolution to landmark points - such as when plants first used photosynthesis. Until then, there was virtually no oxygen in the air. Add photosynthesis, presto, lots of oxygen.

 

[Scaff]

Faith verse science huh? Sadly that is not the case or it would be a shorter discussion wouldn't it? It takes more faith from a Atheist/Darwinist to believe in everything coming from nothing and then not stopping there but in addition dead matter into life.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with auto-biogenesis so I'm not sure what you are even trying to get at here.

Evolutionary theory does not cover how life on earth came into being and never has.

Which both have not been observed to this day! Is it not unreasonable to state the evolutionists have more faith then us believers. It is not just faith verse science...

Which would be great if you were not putting your own spin on evolution and mixing it up with auto-biogenesis, as far as evolution goes faith is not required, the volume of documented and peer reviewed evidence is available for all.

 

[xxxdisciplexxx]

Please deal with my statement on everything coming from nothing and what makes you place your faith in the process of non life matter turning into organic life. Start at the beginning please! If you are going to ignore something as monumental as that i don't see what it would take to fit your bill.

Edit* Well the big bang is commonly excepted by the same people promoting Darwinism, but not all the time so I will be more exact. I am also aware that Darwin didn't teach said theory and was actually a believer in God as well. I read other posts by the evolutionists on here so I generalized. Hopefully that clears it up.

To continue the edit train here lol. Micro evolution is excepted in the Christian world view while macro on the other hand is not. The lack of connecting species haven't even met Darwin's standards if you have read up on it!

 

[arora]

The thread isn't about "Does God exist?" It's about "Show us which is more correct, Genesis or the Theory of Evolution."

I don't think that is correct, are there not people who believe in creation but not the bible? As far as Genesis goes, there is much more to the story you need to find other places in the book.(if you're into that sort of thing)

Please, show us all the evidence "you believers" have for the universe being created about 6000 years ago, despite there being (literally) mountains of evidence to the contrary. Just because you believe in something doesn't mean you have any right for it to be taken as truth by everyone else.

Flaco13 seems to be a young earth guy but that does not mean everyone who subscribes to creation is. I know it sounds funny and cool to poke at this 6,000 year deal and all but, that is a select group.

 

[Barra333]

I don't think that is correct, are there not people who believe in creation but not the bible? As far as Genesis goes, there is much more to the story you need to find other places in the book.(if you're into that sort of thing)

There are also plenty of evolutionary biologists who are very religious. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[xxxdisciplexxx]

The figures I have seen are closer to 7,000 to 10,000 years. While understanding the Bible does not say. Have any of you looked into the maximum life span for DNA half lifetime? Interesting research taking place right there.

 

[Scaff]

Please deal with my statement on everything coming from nothing and what makes you place your faith in the process of non life matter turning into organic life. Start at the beginning please! If you are going to ignore something as monumental as that i don't see what it would take to fit your bill.

Edit* Well the big bang is commonly excepted by the same people promoting Darwinism, but not all the time so I will be more exact. I am also aware that Darwin didn't teach said theory and was actually a believer in God as well. I read other posts by the evolutionists on here so I generalized. Hopefully that clears it up.

More than happy to discuss it in the correct thread. Its a discussion that has been had many times and at great length, however than is in the God thread as it has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.

To continue the edit train here lol. Micro evolution is excepted in the Christian world view while macro on the other hand is not. The lack of connecting species haven't even met Darwin's standards if you have read up on it!

A lack of transitional species that fit Darwin's standards?

I think not....

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms

..its creationists (ever changing) standards they don't meet, not sciences.

 

[Pako]

I know this has been covered before, but I'm not sure I fully accept the answer.

Doesn't your own belief allow you to accept evolution or creationism or some blend of the two? Some will say that evolution is all fact so therefore there is no belief system, only science, but doesn't belief fill in the blanks? Doesn't belief in a lack of God reenforce your facts of evolution?

Just curious if we are actually talking about science being taught or if we are really talking about teaching beliefs in school.

 

[Joel]

From my experience, it's more that scientists are prepared to say "I don't know", rather than claim it has to do with God.

 

[Azuremen]

Fromy experience, it's more that scientists are prepared to say "I don't know", rather than claim it has to do with God.

Which is generally when the creationist jump at the chance to offer "it must be God then" as the only possible solution.

 

[Scaff]

I know this has been covered before, but I'm not sure I fully accept the answer.

Doesn't your own belief allow you to accept evolution or creationism or some blend of the two? Some will say that evolution is all fact so therefore there is no belief system, only science, but doesn't belief fill in the blanks? Doesn't belief in a lack of God reenforce your facts of evolution?

Just curious if we are actually talking about science being taught or if we are really talking about teaching beliefs in school.

Pretty much this....

From my experience, it's more that scientists are prepared to say "I don't know", rather than claim it has to do with God.

....in that I don't feel the need to fill in the (currently) blanks with a belief system of any sort.

Its also incorrect to say that I have a "belief in a lack of God", as it would imply that I am leaving this to blind faith and I'm not. My atheism is a product of a long spiritual journey, one that has provided no evidence for any form of supreme being, as such its not a belief system in any form.

 

[CodeRedR51]

....in that I don't feel the need to fill in the (currently) blanks with a belief system of any sort.

Its also incorrect to say that I have a "belief in a lack of God", as it would imply that I am leaving this to blind faith and I'm not. My atheism is a product of a long spiritual journey, one that has provided no evidence for any form of supreme being, as such its not a belief system in any form.

I tried to explain this to someone I know a couple days ago and it went nowhere, fast.

 

[Pako]

Pretty much this....

....in that I don't feel the need to fill in the (currently) blanks with a belief system of any sort.

Its also incorrect to say that I have a "belief in a lack of God", as it would imply that I am leaving this to blind faith and I'm not. My atheism is a product of a long spiritual journey, one that has provided no evidence for any form of supreme being, as such its not a belief system in any form.

But is it not your understanding then that we have come into existence by the process of evolution? I find it hard to arrive at a conclusion without a belief system when all the facts are not, or cannot be presented. Call it an education presumption if you will.

Here is where I get hung up on this understanding is that one has to fill in gaps of "there is no god, so it must be something that we are missing, we just haven't found it yet" to come to that conclusion.

I'm sure I need to educate myself more on the subject as new discoveries are being found all the time, etc.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

We don't know what kick started life but we know the means by which life evolved. The gaps are filled in the more we learn, till then, stick with "I don't know".

 

[Scaff]

But is it not your understanding then that we have come into existence by the process of evolution? I find it hard to arrive at a conclusion without a belief system when all the facts are not, or cannot be presented. Call it an education presumption if you will.

Are you talking about the start of life in Earth or how we came to be as a modern species?

Life on Earth didn't come into being via evolution, but modern humans (and all other life right now on Earth) did, two quite different things.

Here is where I get hung up on this understanding is that one has to fill in gaps of "there is no god, so it must be something that we are missing, we just haven't found it yet" to come to that conclusion.

Your starting with the presupposition that for me the god question even comes into it, which for me simply doesn't occur.

The blanks don't have to be filled in with anything other than our need to better understand what is really happening with the universe as a whole, something that religion has never for me answered, however science has.

The kicker for me has been the openness with which science has with every subject, the rigors that it places upon evidence and the willingness it has to reassess theories when new evidence presents itself. Something I have never seen in religion, and at the more fundamental end of religion I am often presented with the exact opposite.

I'm sure I need to educate myself more on the subject as new discoveries are being found all the time, etc.

One of the things I love about science and ties in with what I have mentioned above.

 

[Exorcet]

By 3:30, the video had diverted to madness. The story being told sounded like what would happen if Bible authors had discovered, or maybe just happened to come upon the idea of, evolution.

He managed to get a laugh from the auidence by suggesting that bird and bananas are related, despite this being true, yet no one in that room would laugh at the idea that a bunch of dirt stood up and starting walking around one day. And unlike the former, you don't even have to try to make the latter seem ridiculous, there are no details to leave out.

God is Gaia. The Earth is a living breathing system. If it dies, we die. If we die, it does not. We need to be nurturing it and growing hemp on it. We should not be destroying animals' homes to build factories and mansions and golf courses on. We have no sustainability. It's like we're just waiting for the next big wipeout/war.

The Earth can die, it doesn't mean we will. We can just move on. Not yet, but eventually. Thousands of species have died out, some before we even came around. If nature likes to destroy itself more than we do, why does not one blame nature? Also, sometimes factories are just more important than beaver dams. The beavers can go find somewhere to go, maybe we can even help them in that process.

Well the fact that we have order in the COSMOS, Laws governing us both physically and morally (unless you want to go the subjective morality route that is impossible to live up to) it points to a creator. The old watch in the forest example that I'm sure you have heard referenced before.

Objective morals don't point to a creator, they actually point to the opposite. If they're objective, they don't need a creator. If they needed to be created, then they are just subjective "laws" based on however the creators was feeling that day.
[/QUOTE]

Well for every law there is a law maker.

No. Why do you think that?

Faith verse science huh? Sadly that is not the case or it would be a shorter discussion wouldn't it? It takes more faith from a Atheist/Darwinist to believe in everything coming from nothing and then not stopping there but in addition dead matter into life.

There is no faith in science. We don't know where everything came from, and that's the best answer anyone's even given to that question. It is a vastly superior answer to assuming that something was responsible for the universe. If the universe came from nothing, so be it, it would't make less sense than it being created.

Which both have not been observed to this day!

Except in quantum mechanics and organic chemistry.

Is it not unreasonable to state the evolutionists have more faith then us believers.

It's an absolutely ridiculous notion.

 

[Azuremen]

But is it not your understanding then that we have come into existence by the process of evolution? I find it hard to arrive at a conclusion without a belief system when all the facts are not, or cannot be presented. Call it an education presumption if you will.

The thing is, while we do arrive at the conclusion that evolution likely drove our development, we are not absolute in this belief. If evidence is found, however unlikely, that topples evolution to the ground, we'd accept it and move. Science is all about the best explanation given the information, and as information changes so can the conclusions.

 

[Pako]

A force beyond our understanding.... Undiscovered science or divine being. And so the debate continues to rage on.

Thank you guys for your replies. 👍

 

[xxxdisciplexxx]

The die hard faith that this unknown process is much more reasonable then one that gives an account for it right? I wish I could have that level of faith!

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Yes because saying "I don't know" requires so much more faith than saying "God (let alone one particular god that you happen to believe in) did it".

 

[Famine]

The die hard faith that this unknown process is much more reasonable then one that gives an account for it right

Having faith that you know the answer requires "die hard faith". Not knowing the answer yet requires none.

In fact anything that you think is true in absence of evidence requires faith that admitting ignorance in absence of evidence does not.

 

[Exorcet]

The die hard faith that this unknown process is much more reasonable then one that gives an account for it right? I wish I could have that level of faith!

Are the gross number of errors found in that account (assuming it's the Bible) supposed to bolster support for it?

A two year old could come up with an account for the creation of the universe, yet I don't think you'd automatically take it as fact.

 

[Scaff]

The die hard faith that this unknown process is much more reasonable then one that gives an account for it right? I wish I could have that level of faith!

It has nothing at all to do with faith, so please stop attributing positions to people that they don't have.

ID and creationism rely on faith as they do not have a scientific basis upon which to build, evolution most certainly does have a scientific basis (a very, very strong one).

 

[arora]

Faith comes in many shapes and sizes. Is it not reasonable to assume some people put faith in one scientific theory to the point they reject all other theories(even if/when another plausible theory exists)?

All of use put some faith in mankind in general, I have to believe in other's abilities and honesty all the time, it's part of life. Anything from a man holding a rope, to those nasty math proofs we all learned in secondary school.

I understand the argument against blind faith and I agree with it, but to say you guys have zero faith is silly to me. We should all keep searching every angle and come to an absolute truth, it takes at least some faith in someone or some thing to get there

Ha, I didn't forget...

​

 

[Scaff]

Faith comes in many shapes and sizes. Is it not reasonable to assume some people put faith in one scientific theory to the point they reject all other theories(even if/when another plausible theory exists)?

Scientific theory does not require faith as its must (to be a scientific theory) be backed by a substantial degree of peer reviewed evidence:

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

You seem to be using the common usage of theory rather than the scientific definition I'm using, should anyone at any point be able to provide evidence that causes a theory to fail (falsability) then the entire theory falls apart.

What you are referring to is a hypotheses, which is a quite different term.

All of use put some faith in mankind in general, I have to believe in other's abilities and honesty all the time, it's part of life. Anything from a man holding a rope, to those nasty math proofs we all learned in secondary school.

I would use the word trust in that regard, but just as theory has numerous definitions so does the word faith, I honestly think however that you are more than aware of what I am referring to in my posts.

I understand the argument against blind faith and I agree with it, but to say you guys have zero faith is silly to me. We should all keep searching every angle and come to an absolute truth, it takes at least some faith in someone or some thing to get there

Ha, I didn't forget...
[/QUOTE]
I don't agree that we require 'faith' in the religious sense at all to keep searching every angle, quite the opposite. In my experience (and religion in general does nothing to change this in my eyes) religious faith does not keep searching every angle at all, its takes the religious explanation of an event and simply confirms that as truth, either warping or dismissing any evidence that exists that would oppose it.

 

[arora]

Scientific theory does not require faith as its must (to be a scientific theory) be backed by a substantial degree of peer reviewed evidence:

Of course, and a theory can be overturned(not the right word but close enough) by a substantial degree of peer reviewed evidence. My point does not change however, some will hold on to things proven wrong, or actually in the face of something proven more correct, or whatever twist you like.

You seem to be using the common usage of theory rather than the scientific definition I'm using, should anyone at any point be able to provide evidence that causes a theory to fail (falsability) then the entire theory falls apart.
What you are referring to is a hypotheses, which is a quite different term.

Nope, I wrote what I meant, and thanks for the high school science lesson but I do know the meaning of the words.

I would use the word trust in that regard, but just as theory has numerous definitions so does the word faith, I honestly think however that you are more than aware of what I am referring to in my posts.

Now who is using semantics?

I don't agree that we require 'faith' in the religious sense at all to keep searching every angle, quite the opposite. In my experience (and religion in general does nothing to change this in my eyes) religious faith does not keep searching every angle at all, its takes the religious explanation of an event and simply confirms that as truth, either warping or dismissing any evidence that exists that would oppose it.

Who said anything about religion?

If you say you have no faith in anything I am not one to argue, as I said, I think you are being silly.