Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

I can accept evolution from common ancestry, it is a fairly valid theory; but how would life have come without a creator?

---

If matter/energy is neither created or destroyed and they are in a constant state of transformation then there is no need of a creator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Just to help out a little here, is there some part of the above statement that is unclear? If so, while you are trying for a knock-out punch on Cuppa, aim one at me, for I also said that I could not explain God. And that was also a clear and precise statement. What is the matter with you people? An honest "I don't know." and an honest "I cannot explain that." isn't good enough? You'd rather we lie, so as to continue an already pointless argument? God forbid! And it goes against logic as well.

---

My post was certainly not intened as a "God definitely does not exist" statement. I simply assumed (wrongly, perhaps) that Dante was using ignorance of the process of abiogenesis as an argument for design, as has happened on this thread many times before. I have no problem admiting that I don't know how life got kicked off on the planet, and (for that matter) I haven't got the foggiest idea where the universe came from in the first place. A similar argument, in earlier times, might have gone "Well, you don't know how the universe came to be ordered in seven crystal spheres with a golden chain suspending the earth in the centre now do you? A bit hard for you to explain that one, innit? Nobody could reasonably say that happened just by chance, therefore it must have been made that way by God. QED." Of course now we know perfectly well that there's a much better explaination of how the universe came to be ordered in seven concentric crystal spheres; namely: it didn't.

Again I may have been jumping the gun a bit; and again, this doesn't mean that God definitely doesn't exist, it just means that that particular argument isn't a very good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

My post was certainly not intened as a "God definitely does not exist" statement. I simply assumed (wrongly, perhaps) that Dante was using ignorance of the process of abiogenesis as an argument for design, as has happened on this thread many times before. I have no problem admiting that I don't know how life got kicked off on the planet, and (for that matter) I haven't got the foggiest idea where the universe came from in the first place. A similar argument, in earlier times, might have gone "Well, you don't know how the universe came to be ordered in seven crystal spheres with a golden chain suspending the earth in the centre now do you? A bit hard for you to explain that one, innit? Nobody could reasonably say that happened just by chance, therefore it must have been made that way by God. QED." Of course now we know perfectly well that there's a much better explaination of how the universe came to be ordered in seven concentric crystal spheres; namely: it didn't.

Again I may have been jumping the gun a bit; and again, this doesn't mean that God definitely doesn't exist, it just means that that particular argument isn't a very good one.

---

No, no. I understood what you meant, Cuppa. You were just pointing out that because we don't know how life began doesn't prove the existence of God. What I was saying was, your statement "We don't know, yet." was clear and precise. Also saying that it wasn't enough to prove the existence or non-existence of God was clear. My own statement was that "There is no way to explain God that can be tested." That statement is very clear. I just figured that people might fire a salvo at you and if they did, they could also turn the big guns on myself. Both believing diametrically opposite, we have made honest statements. Neither has blasted the other. So why can't people accept honest answers? http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1...ies/QWERTY.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

The genetic code doesn't 'contain information'. It gives you information if you happen to know how to read it.

---

We don't have to be able to read something for it to contain information. A book of Greek aphorisms contains information - that I don't know Greek simply means it cannot communicate to me - but it still contains information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Contianing information is a subjective quality. The pledge of allegiance doesn't contain any information if you don't speak English.

---

Well, because we speak English, the pledge does contain information; language came first - the pledge came later. Therefore, if the pledge shows up randomly in a scrabble box of letters, we would call the odds of such a thing astronomical. You like to use the argument alot that suggests that without a frame of reference (here English) that a specific pattern of meaning would be meaningless. Sure. But since the frame of reference does exist, then I don't think you can so easily bat away the point. Getting rid of the frame of reference can destroy just about any argument (evolution included); but the frames are there, so lets argue from there. Arguing from an essentially "deconstructionist" platform (where all meaning is made arbitrary) totally destroys our ability to consider any argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Again?

---

Language is not a separate entity that "evolves" on its own - it "evolves" through the decisions and usages of human beings. If people did not alter language, it would not alter. It changes because we do; therefore it is not an independent evolutionary entity so much as it is a manifestation of human change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

We don't have to be able to read something for it to contain information. A book of Greek aphorisms contains information - that I don't know Greek simply means it cannot communicate to me - but it still contains information.

---

But the genetic code does not communicate anything any more than the mineral content of a rock communicates to geologists or a speck of ash left in a hotel carpet communicates to a detective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Well, because we speak English, the pledge does contain information; language came first - the pledge came later. Therefore, if the pledge shows up randomly in a scrabble box of letters, we would call the odds of such a thing astronomical.

---

Only because you're defining your target beforehand. The odds of getting any pre-defined string of letters are the same, whether they 'contain information' or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Language is not a separate entity that "evolves" on its own - it "evolves" through the decisions and usages of human beings. If people did not alter language, it would not alter. It changes because we do; therefore it is not an independent evolutionary entity so much as it is a manifestation of human change.

---

It evolves because of human change, the same way culture does. When I was young, I thought that the English language was arbitrarily designed by some person or small group (I pictured, for some reason, a group of men in robes and powdered wigs arguing about it in a courtroom). Now, of course, I know perfectly well that it wasn't designed like that at all, but rather changed progressively over a long period of time. If English and all other languages were invented the way I pictured, it would be analogous to all the species on the planet having been designed by an independant entity, but it wasn't and it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

It evolves because of human change, the same way culture does. When I was young, I thought that the English language was arbitrarily designed by some person or small group (I pictured, for some reason, a group of men in robes and powdered wigs arguing about it in a courtroom). Now, of course, I know perfectly well that it wasn't designed like that at all, but rather changed progressively over a long period of time. If English and all other languages were invented the way I pictured, it would be analogous to all the species on the planet having been designed by an independant entity, but it wasn't and it isn't.

---

I give up.

*Dum-duh-duh-dum! And the winner of the debate: cuppajoe! :D*

I'm sorry. Please excuse me.

It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move. I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal. I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc. A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism. With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolescent09

*Dum-duh-duh-dum! And the winner of the debate: cuppajoe! :D*

I'm sorry. Please excuse me.

---

Certainly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

---

Bingo, AP. None of us was there—evidence that seems overwhelming to some is unacceptable to others; some people's solemn belief seems mere fairytale to others. The horse is dead. To continue with the beating is ludicrous, as no agreement will be reached. Let us all agree to disagree or whatever, and let's bury the poor dead horse!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move. I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal. I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc. A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism. With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our language and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

---

I like this guy. Nicely put.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move.

---

An interesting polarization - one that contains believers and atheists on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal.

---

On the contrary, I am well aware as to why there is such widespread belief in evolution (despite the astronomical odds against such a thing happening).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc.

---

You'll need to qualify how these beliefs are "childish" - since "childish" would be defined as (essentially) "immature"; I, for one, am unsure as to how the beliefs you listed qualify as "immature"; they do qualify as illogical and miraculous - yes; but, I don't understand how illogical and miraculous things qualify as "childish" except that that is your term of disparagement which functions to make your position seem more "mature." Care to clarify?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism.

---

Would you mind sharing what the "full-baked" beliefs might look like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe.

---

Mind explaining this claim? What exactly exists "outside of time"? What created the matter of which the universe is composed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

---

Probably true - and largely so because the magnitude of the universe is a reflection of the magnitude of God Himself.

Childish in the same sense that the tooth fairy, santa claus, and any other insufficient and inexplicable explanation for 'miraculous' phenomena is created by or given to pre-modern or pre-adult thinkers. Illogical and miraculous explanations seem to satisfy childish minds as explanations for occurrences. When people grow up, they tend to grow weary with such explanations. Some even realise their traditional folkloric and mythological roots.

No doubt the tenuous connection with Mr Claus and the fairy world (the Picts who ran away to hide from us Scots and Norsemen) will be another justification for my Free Prebyterian friends not to celebrate Christmas. Ah but they fairly give the Bliadhn' Ur a whack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

It seems to me that in the argument about where we came from, the debate consists of people who are easily open to change, and those on the extremes who are too confident in their position to move. I for one am of the latter. Some people who are convinced that god exists, without the need for reproducible and falsifiable evidence for his existence, cannot understand why there is a large body of thought that is entrenched in atheistic belief, when the chances of the Universe appearing from nowhere and producing life on an otherwise insignificant planet in an insignificant area, seem phenomenal. I, who am an atheist, cannot, on the other hand, understand how anyone can accept the kinds of childish, immature and primitive notions of Christianity that seem to go hand in hand with the belief in a creator: ie virgin birth; physical resurrection of the dead etc. A belief in a creator seems only slightly more respectable than these archaic traditional beliefs. It also seems like lazy thinking to me. I would be more inclined to believe in an age of the Universe that would be sufficient to account for life, than to believe in the retinue of half-baked beliefs that go with creationism. With regards to the origins of the Universe, we are in the same boat as the believers in creation, with the advantage of not having all that excess baggage to support. If god can be outside time, then so can the mechanisms, processes, or whatever word we can use to talk about the non-physical event that created the Universe. Furthermore, our langauge and our thinking, cannot adequately deal with concepts of outside-time and outside-space, so our reasonings on the pre-Universe will never be sufficient for our understanding.

---

Absolutely brilliant. Even as a strong abiding Christian I find it hard to rival your statements. I agree with you so much... What a purely reasonable and intelligent post!