Creation vs. Evolution

[Duke]

What you have to bear in mind that science has a tendency to be just as dogmatic as religion and that, at the bleeding edge of theory, a great deal is taken on faith i.e. the basis for much theory is the acceptance of certain assumptions.

Now I'm not saying that these assumptions are necessarily unreasonable, just that some of them are likely to be things that are 'unproven'. Given that one of the most basic rules of science is that you can never prove anything right, you can only prove it wrong ( ref. Karl Popper), that doesn't imply a fatal flaw in the theory. What it does mean is that it is a theory and not a fact.

I don't think anyone of intelligence on the science side has maintained anything other than the above. Quite the contrary, it is the Creationists who are trying to thrust this attitude upon us.

One problem I have with arguments such as this is that those with a scientific angle on things tend to state their arguments as facts and dismiss the creationists points as myth.

See my comment above. Very few of the pro-science posters here have said anything other than that science is always based on skepticism and contingency.

A more level approach is to say that the disputants differ on what they accept as evidencial.

Level, perhaps, but not necessarily validly level. I live in a real, physical world. My senses and instruments tell me about that world. That, to me, is what constitutes "evidence" - information about the physical world in which we live.

To open the definition of "evidence" up to include intangible - intangible by any means - information is to render the term "evidence" meaningless.

Once you accept emotional/non-rational information as "evidence", you instantly remove any real method you may have of deciding between the infinite intangibles our minds can create.

Does blue look better than wine tastes? Does a piano sound better than wood smoke smells? Is Jehovah more God than Allah or Buddah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

When you move into intangibles you open an infinite scope of possibilities with absolutely no non-arbitrary method of choosing between them.

I take a stance similar to Dan in that my opinions are formed by a flexible belief system that allows for changes in the underpinning theories i.e. what is promulgated as 'reality' by the sciences morphs as studies and experiments reveal new insights.

As I've repeatedly said, I don't believe many of the pro-science faction have done anything other than this throughout the discussion. In fact, non-flexibility and resistance to change in understanding are hallmarks of the Creationist side, and that's the largest complaint made by the Scientist side.

 

[Zardoz]

...To open the definition of "evidence" up to include intangible - intangible by any means - information is to render the term "evidence" meaningless.

Once you accept emotional/non-rational information as "evidence", you instantly remove any real method you may have of deciding between the infinite intangibles our minds can create....

...When you move into intangibles you open an infinite scope of possibilities with absolutely no non-arbitrary method of choosing between them...

...and you end up creating $25,000,000 monuments to irrationality:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/

Sukerkin, you are too kind. Way too kind...

 

[sukerkin]

I haven't had chance to read through the whole thread I'm said to say (only work's portal offers enough bandwidth to make the 'Planet useable for me ) so I can't speak to what has been put forward by those who wear the Creationist hat.

I'm assuming by your tone that not much has been proferred that is internally consistent or convincing?

That's a shame as there is much in the observable data that can be argued both ways (as in either supporting the idea of a Creator or a life-biased universe).

You can while away many a night, sipping wine and pondering the matter, with the only conclusion that you can reach being that one person sees a point one way and another sees it another way.

I think that there are some instances of talking at crossed-purposes in the thread as how you define certain issues can influence how people respond to them. For example, even my father, who is deeply religious, can see that life changes and adapts through natural selection.

For him (and me) Evolution is a more encompassing term which refers to the spontaneous appearance of living things and the change of one species into another.

Even tho' I do not believe (as yet) in a Divine Creator who organised the whole universe for our benefit, I also struggle to give credence to Evolutionary Theory. I suspect as a gentecist, Famine has a much more detailed knowledge of this than myself, including more recent changes in theory to help it suit observations. However, my general view has been that it has too many gaps and 'make-it-fit' assumptions to be really believeable.

So, like Dan, in the end I have to say "I don't know". Maybe if his Noodly-ness gives me a prod with one of his appendages I'll have a revelation ... mmm ... Revelation ... anyone fancy a trip to the other end of the Bible ?

 

[sukerkin]

...and you end up creating $25,000,000 monuments to irrationality:

Crikey!

Not a bad idea in principle but I suspect it will be rather heavy on the anti-Evolutionary propoganda and rather light on the reasoned argument front .

Sukerkin, you are too kind. Way too kind...

I was just trying to be even-handed, Zed, as nothing polarises the intelligence right out of an argument quite like attacking a persons religious beliefs.

It can work the other way too - my father sometimes gets exasperated with me when I don't see things his way on this issue. A particular point will be plain-as-day evidence of God's hand to him but to me can be rationalised as selection in progress or 'in an infinite universe anything can happen'.

 

[Danoff]

What you have to bear in mind that science has a tendency to be just as dogmatic as religion and that, at the bleeding edge of theory, a great deal is taken on faith i.e. the basis for much theory is the acceptance of certain assumptions.

Anyone claiming to be a proponent of evolution who claims that it is indisputable, unquestionable, undeniable fact deserves to be put on an equal level with religious people (ie: taking something based on faith). In fact, anyone claiming that ANYTHING is indisputable, unquestionable, undeniable fact is faithful and on par with religious folks in those terms.

So if you meet someone (I can't quickly point one out) who thinks this way, you should have them show their evidence and compare it to yours to see who has more credible evidence - the one with the best evidence is then more likely to be (but not certainly) correct. In otherwords, once you have two people who are faithful, the only way to tell who wins is to compare their stories and see which one fits the data best.

However, if you meet someone who has no faith. Someone who accepts nothing as indisputable, unquestionable fact (ignoring the cogito that is). Then you have met someone who has reached a higher ground in the argument. That person is not one who believes anything they are not justified in believing.

If you meet such a person they can throw "what if" scenarios at your faith and you will not be able to answer all of them. Such a person should be able to successfully explain why you are not justified in believing what you believe (as I have done in the cogito thread).

Either way science wins. You have the ultimate skeptic who only accepts that which MUST be true. Or you have the faithful scientist who has faith but more evidence.

That's why this debate is lopsided.

 

[Swift]

Anyone claiming to be a proponent of evolution who claims that it is indisputable, unquestionable, undeniable fact deserves to be put on an equal level with religious people (ie: taking something based on faith). In fact, anyone claiming that ANYTHING is indisputable, unquestionable, undeniable fact is faithful and on par with religious folks in those terms.

So if you meet someone (I can't quickly point one out) who thinks this way, you should have them show their evidence and compare it to yours to see who has more credible evidence - the one with the best evidence is then more likely to be (but not certainly) correct. In otherwords, once you have two people who are faithful, the only way to tell who wins is to compare their stories and see which one fits the data best.

However, if you meet someone who has no faith. Someone who accepts nothing as indisputable, unquestionable fact (ignoring the cogito that is). Then you have met someone who has reached a higher ground in the argument. That person is not one who believes anything they are not justified in believing.

If you meet such a person they can throw "what if" scenarios at your faith and you will not be able to answer all of them. Such a person should be able to successfully explain why you are not justified in believing what you believe (as I have done in the cogito thread).

Either way science wins. You have the ultimate skeptic who only accepts that which MUST be true. Or you have the faithful scientist who has faith but more evidence.

That's why this debate is lopsided.

Danoff, that post has just leveled the playing feild for this discussion. That was very well said. Thanks.

 

[Swift]

He's believes we were created

You don't think so


No matter what you say, he will say "yea, well god MADE that"

or etc.

but we are drifting away from what the bible tells us. The bible lets us all know that he first created earth, then everything around it. Now if we KNOW for a fact that the universe does not revolve around the earth, then we must dismiss the bible, therefore dismissing god, therefore it shouldn't even be argued about since we all know that the bible is mostly just stories and lies.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Looks like heaven(space and our universe) was first. So that just shot a huge whole in that particular argument.

 

[Danoff]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Looks like heaven(space and our universe) was first. So that just shot a huge whole in that particular argument.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.

Looks like the firmament was created AFTER the light and Dark which were created AFTER Earth.

And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

So trees and grass were created BEFORE the sun was created - which is the LAST thing created in this list.

 

[Swift]

Looks like the firmament was created AFTER the light and Dark which were created AFTER Earth.



So trees and grass were created BEFORE the sun was created - which is the LAST thing created in this list.

Ok, so since we only know light to come from the sun that means that it's the ONLY possible source of light? Doesn't that go against your general philosphy?

 

[Famine]

We know light to come from LOTS of places - stars included, though they weren't made until the 4th day. The light bulb came about 5,800 years later (Usher time).

But no Sun = no green plants. It's not the light, but the kind of light that matters.

 

[Swift]

But no Sun = no green plants. It's not the light, but the kind of light that matters.

No argument here. But is it possible to plant a tree at night?

 

[Danoff]

Ok, so since we only know light to come from the sun that means that it's the ONLY possible source of light? Doesn't that go against your general philosphy?

Huh? Not quite following. I will say that it would appear as though the bible claims God provided the light on his own until the sun was created (last) to provide it for him. Seems like a roundabout way of going about things but hey... anything's possible with a supreme being. He can do things out of order if he wants to.

I was just pointing out (and Sage pointed this out earlier in this thread or in another thread) that the order is as follows:

1) Earth
2) Water
3) Light
4) Day & Night, evening & morning
5) Heaven
6) Dry Land
7) Grass, Trees (the first life)
8) Seasons, years
9) Stars
10) Sun and Moon

So God must have supplied the heat necessary to keep the water in liquid form since dry land was created after water but before the sun. God must also have supplied the light since we know daylight comes from the sun now.

We know that Earth was created way before heaven.

Grass and trees were created before the sun so god must have supplied heat and light for them as well. An atmosphere is also necessary in there before water - and certainly before the trees so one expects that an atmosphere was created along with Earth. I guess god created nitrogen, oxygen and C02 prior to or along with the creation of water.

 

[Danoff]

No argument here. But is it possible to plant a tree at night?

Not necessary since light and the day and night came before the trees.

 

[sicbeing]

Yea, he created all that first, its been a long time since i read that bible.

Anyway, some of that stuff is 450 million light years old out there, that means when we look out in the night sky, we are looking 450 Million years into the past.

When we see reallllllly far, that means we are looking into the past. No doubt about it.

Are you willing to admit that the universe that God created during those 7 days is over 400 million years old?

 

[Danoff]

Yea, he created all that first, its been a long time since i read that bible.

Anyway, some of that stuff is 450 million light years old out there, that means when we look out in the night sky, we are looking 450 Million years into the past.

When we see reallllllly far, that means we are looking into the past. No doubt about it.

Are you willing to admit that the universe that God created during those 7 days is over 400 million years old?

Anything is possible when you consider a supreme being. God may not only have created the stars and placed them 400 million light years away - he may also have created the light that traveled the distance from there to the Earth and included information in it that never actually happened. He could do that.

That means that the light we're looking at from the stars actually didn't come from the stars, it was placed somewhere between here and the stars and sent toward us by God to arrive here when we see it.

What's so complicated about that?

 

[Danoff]

Also note that Genesis never mentions the planets (because Genesis was written by man and we didn't know about them then). So since the planets aren't mentioned we have to assume that they were considered stars by God - that stars and planets are in the same category in the mind of the almighty. That means that the planets were created along with the stars.


...and I want to make this VERY clear. It WASN'T omitted simply because planets looked like stars to early man.

 

[Swift]

Are you willing to admit that the universe that God created during those 7 days is over 400 million years old?

Nope, but I believe the earth is more then 6,000 years old.

 

[Danoff]

Nope, but I believe the earth is more then 6,000 years old.

...but if we trace our lineage back to Adam and Eve and follow what the bible says about how the universe was created in a week... then it IS 6,000 years old. How do you account for the difference? Where was the bible wrong?

 

[sicbeing]

I never even thought about God making light inbetween us and the stars millions of light years away to make it look like it's really old, but why would God do that? To trick us?

 

[Swift]

...but if we trace our lineage back to Adam and Eve and follow what the bible says about how the universe was created in a week... then it IS 6,000 years old. How do you account for the difference? Where was the bible wrong?

Because I don't believe that it was 6 literal days. I've said this in this thread and others. The bible even says that a day is like a 1000 years and a thousand years like a day to God. So, it could EASILY have been a few thousand or even millions of years from creation to adam and eve. I don't believe the earth is saw 500 million years old, but at the same time, I think that to say the earth is 6,000 years old makes no sense and can't be backed up biblically. It can be extrapolated. But you can't STAND on a 6,000 old earth.

 

[sicbeing]

Because I don't believe that it was 6 literal days. I've said this in this thread and others. The bible even says that a day is like a 1000 years and a thousand years like a day to God. So, it could EASILY have been a few thousand or even millions of years from creation to adam and eve. I don't believe the earth is saw 500 million years old, but at the same time, I think that to say the earth is 6,000 years old makes no sense and can't be backed up biblically. It can be extrapolated. But you can't STAND on a 6,000 old earth.

right, but he is talking about the time between adam and eve, to us. Not the amount of time it takes to create the earth. Maybe I'm not following..

 

[Danoff]

Because I don't believe that it was 6 literal days. I've said this in this thread and others. The bible even says that a day is like a 1000 years and a thousand years like a day to God. So, it could EASILY have been a few thousand or even millions of years from creation to adam and eve. I don't believe the earth is saw 500 million years old, but at the same time, I think that to say the earth is 6,000 years old makes no sense and can't be backed up biblically. It can be extrapolated. But you can't STAND on a 6,000 old earth.

But you COULD interpret it literally if you chose to. Anything is possible with a supreme being. But what you've done is chosen to interpret the bible in a way that makes more sense with scientific evidence. Evidence that suggests that if we can see stars that are 400 million light years away, then the Earth is more than 400 million years old. Anyway that's a perfectly reasonable thing for you to do, I'm just making things clear.

So the bible leaves some wiggle room there, perhaps the Earth was created in 6 literal days, perhaps it was "like a thousand yeras". Either way the sun came after the trees and heaven came after the Earth - which is why children everywhere still celebrate Tuesday as opposite day.

 

[Zardoz]

Thousands of years ago, some guy who has no idea that the world he lives on is a spheroid, no idea of what the stars in the sky are, no idea of what the sun and moon are, no idea of what a microbe is, no idea of how his own bodily functions work, and no idea of the actual specifics of how babies are made, sits down at a rough-hewn primitive table, takes his primitive quill pen in hand, and writes some stuff down on some primitive parchment paper.

Fast-forward thousands of years to the year 2005. Incredibly, a huge percentage of the human race fervently believes that what that guy wrote so very long ago is a literal, accurate, correct description of how the universe came to exist. They cite the "absolute authority of scripture".

EDIT (Unfortunate choice of words): Amazing, isn't it, that so many really do believe it to be so?

 

[PS]

...but if we trace our lineage back to Adam and Eve and follow what the bible says about how the universe was created in a week... then it IS 6,000 years old. How do you account for the difference? Where was the bible wrong?

It was back in the 1600's when that. . ."idea". . .was proposed that the Earth was 6000 years old, a huge amount of time back then. This was probably a ploy to involve some sort of "evidence" of how old the Earth is in response for more followers to the church.

However, my general view has been that it has too many gaps and 'make-it-fit' assumptions to be really believeable.

And you're saying that religion doesn't do that? Oh my.


[edit]

Just for ol' times sake, I'd like to refer some of you to this post:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=613794&postcount=1

 

[code_kev]

Zardov, you put it better then I ever could.

 

[sicbeing]

Im not sure what zardoz was getting at, was it sarcastic?

 

[Touring Mars]

No...

 

[Swift]

right, but he is talking about the time between adam and eve, to us. Not the amount of time it takes to create the earth. Maybe I'm not following..

Two things we DON'T know about Adam and eve. 1) How long they were in the garden 2) Whether they started to age before or after they left the garden.

So if they didn't age, then they could'be been there for a good long time and it didn't matter, until the fall.

But nobody knows how long they were in the garden, we just know how old Adam was when he died.

 

[code_kev]

Swift, a simple question. Why do you believe everything Bible says? It was wrote by people who could have been making things up. Doesn't it scare you that your entire faith may be one big lie? Okay...that's two questions. It just really confuses me to think that you find talking snakes, magic boats and gardens more plausible then real scientific evidence, simply because it's in a book wrote by people with little understanding of the world they lived in.

 

[sukerkin]

I believe so sicbeing. Not quite an accurate rememberance of what's actually in Genesis (and other parts of the Old Testament) but good enough for humour/satire .

@PS - I think I've not been particularly eloquent at getting some of the inferances of my stance across.

I've mostly read in this thread what seem like blinkered "Science is Holy and God is Bunk" statements and I've been gently trying to get people to think about how similar scientific theory and religious belief actually are. To approach matters with an open mind. From what Duke said above, I gather that some of the more religious posters have not done a good job of that, sad to say.

Anyhow, to respond to your quote above, if I recall correctly (and not implying anything remiss) you're still quite young and education tends to be of the "It's like this" ilk until you get past Bachelors Degree level. Once you get into post-graduate research, then the scales are lifted and you're suddenly informed that actually, that nice, sussed out, orderly, scientific view is largely conjecture with a dollop of common sense (Newtonian rules of thumb that generaly work out).

Scientists strive for internal consistency with existing theory and try to avoid publicising experimental results that don't support those theories (ask any chemist how often his results match what they're 'supposed' to (in fact ask me as an Engineer how often the maths doesn't match what we see)).

Religion is the same. It strives for internal consistency and it's proselytisers try to avoid making interpretations of whatever the holy scriptures of the faith state that contradict what has been said before.

The difference is that scientists do it by theorising - observing - experimenting and clerics by reference to scripture and how it relates to temporal knowledge at the time.

Both approaches to understanding the world (and that's how religion really got going) are built upon the way the human mind seeks for foreknowledge and stability in what can appear a very cruel and arbitrary world. Both approaches are also about social control by manipulating the perceptions and expectations of the population at large ... but that's a whole other area.

The only true answer to most of the 'Big' questions that science and religion attempt to tackle is that we don't really know but here's our best guess.