Evolution vs. Creation

Man, you're energetic. How do you keep up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Well, then I really do believe, deep down inside, that the kind of God who allows people to suffer eternally for the crime of atheism is (warning, this will be offensive) an incredibly petty, jealous, controling sort of deity. I presume that will land me in hell anyway. I can't win, so I think I'll just keep being an atheist.

---

Again: I don't want to turn this into a theological seminary, so I will have to be content with saying that the God you're describing is not one that the Bible describes. Everyone is given a chance (probably more likely many, many chances) to "find" God. Nobody who dies the "second death" (because I don't believe in eternal suffering either for sin that was committed during a finite lifetime) will do so without having been given ample chance to choose otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Evolution is a biological theory, not a cosmological one. The evidence for the Big Bang is, again, plentiful, but, as I've said, nothing is a certain as you seem to be demanding.

---

Again: I was only responding to your charge of "putting words" in your mouth. You're quibbling over terminology that I did not attempt to pick up. If I'm a little loose with my terms, forgive me - I'm not even slightly scientifically literate. And, I'm not "demanding" anything - I'm simply asking for clarification. Christians will generally admit that we cannot "prove" God exists - but you rarely hear an atheist admit the same; many speak of evolution and/or cosmological origins as if science has all but nailed them down - a "certainty" so to speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

And, as I've said, 'highly probable' is the closest we ever come to certainty.

---

Yep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

And it most certainly does not suggest that he was.

---

I didn't say it did. I'm pointing out that the process we observe as "red shift" has a number of possible origins besides a spontaneously occurring explosion.

*le sigh* XD I still have a bunch of rhetorical précis to write for Monday. Oh and um, cuppajoe (oO 19? I doubt you're an AP English teacher)..you spelled my sn wrong in all the quotations..o.o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

In response to Silv's question: Umm...yes I am. Which would probably explain why I'm taking such a beating here.

---

Actually, I'm just an AP Lang student.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Yes, I am assuming that, and I have a very good reason to: every time I divide the circumference of a circle by the radius, I get 3.14159... If somebody does that and gets 47, then pi has a serious problem, but I'll worry about that when and if it happens.

---

Yes but taking again from my earlier example of Copernicus and Ptolemy: both their calculations always led to the same conclusions. However, now we believe in Copernicus's. What I'm saying is that our reason cannot always be trusted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

I hope somebody does. However, the fact that future evidence may prove that evolution does not, in fact, happen is no reason to throw up our hands and say "oh well, we'll never know for sure". If we're to find out anything at all about how the universe works, we've got to work with what we have.

You can't use fallibilism as an argument in itself. Maybe my reasoning is wrong, sure, maybe everybody's reasoning is wrong, but you still have to show why it's wrong. Like I said, we have to work with what we have.

Of course it could be anything, but it only is one thing. Don't you think we should at least try to find out what that one thing is?

---

We've got to work with what we have - That I agree with. But we don't have to choose to believe in either of the theories we come up with. We can work with them, but we don't have to pick one and stick to it. That's the whole point of working and investigating on them: to come up with further explanations. In order to do that, we should not reject one theory for the other, but should rather keep both in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Pinker has access to much better evidence and methods than Ptolemy did. The point is that the assertion that ther is no way to explain morality without supernatural thinking is false.

We DO have evidence for evolution.

---

Evidence yes, and all of it is valid only IF we describe it to other humans. Suppose now there is a being of another species and we explain the laws of physics to him and he goes: nono, we believe it works this way..
So we work it out using his methods, and voilà: we arrive at the same conclusion. What then? For that is exactly what happened with Ptolemy and Copernicus until further knowledge was discovered. It's not supernatural thinking per se, it's that "explaining morality" is all taking place in terms of human reasoning. If we believe in human reasoning as being absolute and flawless, then there's no problem. The point is that this evidence is also created for and based on our understanding. You could say, then, that all of this is just models for us to interpret the world - not that the world really and truly works this way. That is something we don't yet know. There's no way of ruling out every single thing that Creationism OR Evolution brings up. Mentioning earlier that you chose Evolution because it's the likelier of the two to have happened doesn't really stand in itself, because you're ignoring all the other points of Creationism that could be valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

The point is that it isn't a consequence I believe in.

---

Apologies. Was probably getting my facts mixed up over who believed in what. :blush:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

However, the second you start to say that this sort of reasoning implies that God did it, you are arguing from ignorance.

---

Don't recall implying God did it - if I did, that wasn't my intended meaning. What I do imply is that something, someone, or some process did it (and it could be any of the three, I'm not holding either one of them above the others). It could be anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Again: I don't want to turn this into a theological seminary, so I will have to be content with saying that the God you're describing is not one that the Bible describes.

---

Maybe not, but it doesn't make Pascal's wager any more valid. Assuming that God and hell exist, people who die atheists either go to hell or they don't. If they don't, then I have no reason to worry about it, and I remain an atheist. If they do, then I think God is a...well, I go to hell anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Christians will generally admit that we cannot "prove" God exists - but you rarely hear an atheist admit the same

---

That's not ture, I'm perfectly willing to admit that Christians can't prove that God exists.

Anyway: the point is that when you ask for the evidence that evolution happens, or that the Big Bang is the best explaination for the origin of the universe, I can point you to a large pile of evidence. When I ask for evidence for God's existance, I get arguments from ignorance, Pascal's Wagers, and appeals to religious faith. This tells me that we are dealing with two very different kinds of beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silv

Oh and um, cuppajoe? You spelled my sn wrong in all the quotations..o.o

---

My apologies. It's been a long day, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't go back and correct it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silv

Suppose now there is a being of another species and we explain the laws of physics to him and he goes: nono, we believe it works this way..
So we work it out using his methods, and voilà: we arrive at the same conclusion. What then?

---

Then we were wrong, and we'll have to admit that. As I've said, though, you still have to show why, we're wrong. What you are doing is saying that ID and evolution are on equal footing because evolution may, at some future point, be proven to be false. Yeah, mabye they're both wrong, but it's still on the shoulder's of whoever I'm arguing with to knock down my evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silv

Mentioning earlier that you chose Evolution because it's the likelier of the two to have happened doesn't really stand in itself, because you're ignoring all the other points of Creationism that could be valid.

---

I most certainly am not, I'm adressing those points. No creationist has ever shown me a fatal weakness in evolution, and if he did I would, if I am honest, have to abandon it. It's possible, yes, but I'm still waiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silv

Don't recall implying God did it - if I did, that wasn't my intended meaning.

---

Just making sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silv

What I do imply is that something, someone, or some process did it (and it could be any of the three, I'm not holding either one of them above the others). It could be anything.

---

Yes, it could. The question is what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Yes, it could. The question is what?

---

That is where I arrived at. Yay! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

I most certainly am not, I'm adressing those points. No creationist has ever shown me a fatal weakness in evolution, and if he did I would, if I am honest, have to abandon it. It's possible, yes, but I'm still waiting.

---

But do you agree that there are some points - even if few - of creationism that you agree with?

Either way I'm here just to share my view, which is that both theories have their valid and invalid points, and it may be that either one or even none of the two eventually will hold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

That's not ture [sic], I'm perfectly willing to admit that Christians can't prove that God exists.

---

Ha ha - I won't insult your considerable intelligence by pointing out my implied object to the word "same."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Anyway: the point is that when you ask for the evidence that evolution happens, or that the Big Bang is the best explaination for the origin of the universe, I can point you to a large pile of evidence. When I ask for evidence for God's existance, I get arguments from ignorance, Pascal's Wagers, and appeals to religious faith. This tells me that we are dealing with two very different kinds of beliefs.

---

I never asked for evidence of the Big Bang because there is none that definitively proves it happened - at least in the way science claims. It is - to quote you - a "high probability." And, most Christian apologists will flat out tell you there is no real evidence for the existence of God (hence faith); I have not proffered any of my arguments as '"evidence" for anything. You'll not get evidence for the existence of God. What I question is the veracity of your "evidence."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

I No creationist has ever shown me a fatal weakness in evolution, and if he did I would, if I am honest, have to abandon it. It's possible, yes, but I'm still waiting.

---

Who's trying to do that? I'm not seeking a "fatal flaw" in evolution; I'm asking evolution to offer me something reasonable - to defend itself against some questions I have. If a "fatal flaw" could be laid out, well many WAY smarter than me would have already offered it and shut the argument down - but then again, even if we found what we considered a "fatal flaw" - would you "buy" it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silv

But do you agree that there are some points - even if few - of creationism that you agree with?

---

I suppose that we agree that organisms are complex, and that the bacterial flagellum is really neat and that the sky is blue and that chocolate is delicious, yes, but I still think that evolution happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Who's trying to do that?

---

Michael Behe springs to mind. I wasn't refering to you in that comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

...but then again, even if we found what we considered a "fatal flaw" - would you "buy" it?

---

Good question. That would entirely depend on what it was. If they finally came up with a structure that actually is irriducibly complex (none have so far been discovered), then I would admit that the theory needs to be reviewed. If an organism was discovered that coded for proteins using a molecule other than DNA, I would have to seriously reconsider the validity of the theory. If it was, say, a human skeleton found in pre-cambrian rock, and then dated by several radioactive decay tests and found to be the same age as the mater around it, I would have to completely abandon evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Good question. That would entirely depend on what it was. If they finally came up with a structure that actually is irriducibly complex (none have so far been discovered), then I would admit that the theory needs to be reviewed. If an organism was discovered that coded for proteins using a molecule other than DNA, I would have to seriously reconsider the validity of the theory. If it was, say, a human skeleton found in pre-cambrian rock, and then dated by several radioactive decay tests and found to be the same age as the mater around it, I would have to completely abandon evolution.

---

Interesting. See, I have a hard time believing that science couldn't come up with an explanation for the "fatal flaws" you listed. In my mind, if science can explain how we got here, well - then it should be able to come up with a pretty convincing explanation for anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

yes, but I still think that evolution happens.

---

Well then, you believe in some points of Creationism, therefore you cannot completely refute it. In other words, you believe in Evolution, but you also believe in Creationism - though arguably, to a lesser degree. But, you have taken to refuting Creationism and all that it stands for. You're actually casting aside a list of points belonging to Creationism that you yourself can't object against. If you can't completely disagree with certain points of Creationism, you can't rule it out and simply go with Evolution.

For me, again, I'm not leaning towards either one or the other.

*yawn* - ok I'm off to bed. You guys are way too energetic for me. I'll check in tomorrow and see where the arguments have gone. Thanks for the discussion :yawnb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Interesting. See, I have a hard time believing that science couldn't come up with an explanation for the "fatal flaws" you listed.

---

Of course it could (hopefully), but that explaination wouldn't be Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silv

Well then, you believe in some points of Creationism, therefore you cannot completely refute it.

---

Non sequiter. I probably agree with some points of phrenology (your head is located on top of your neck, for example), but that doesn't mean phrenology isn't complete nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silv

In other words, you believe in Evolution, but you also believe in Creationism - though arguably, to a lesser degree.

---

No I don't, because creationism is the theory that the earth was designed by some sort of deity. I do not believe any part of that sentence. Just because creationists occasionaly have to make some statement that has something to do with reality, it doesn't mean that their basic premise is correct. I certainly can reject creationism and accept evolution, because one theory explains the evidence, and the other doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

And, as I've said, 'highly probable' is the closest we ever come to certainty.

---

Thank you, Joe. You may not realize it, but this seems to be something many people have a hard time understanding. Science takes what facts it can collect, and since there are no eyewitnesses to question, have to draw their conclusions based on that evidence, which sometimes is fragmentary and a real "toss-up". So "most likely", "most highly probable", and "best guess" often have to win out. It is still based on facts, there are simply parts of the puzzle that are missing at the moment or unclear. When they become available or the fog clears, the statement may change. But this type of fragmentary evidence is what convicts criminals and solves crimes. The tiny pieces hold truth, but it is hard to get it out of them. Some investigations take years, but truth will out. Doesn't stop my belief in God, but I do admire science! :)

Life is too short to follow all this discussion, but I noticed this comment from Cuppajoe:
"The fact that the universe is expanding says that the Big Bang happened at all. We know that the universe is expanding becuase we can measure the red shift to see what direction stars and galaxies are moving in, and they're all moving away from a common centre."

Would the observable phenomena be the same if the universe were pulsating - but currently in an expansion phase?

The question has nothing to do with the discussion, but I'm just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pen

Thank you, Joe. You may not realize it, but this seems to be something many people have a hard time understanding.

---

Well, it seems that many people don't want to understand it, and I can see their point. Absolute certainty is comforting, and I imagine that having it suddenly taken away would leave one reeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

Would the observable phenomena be the same if the universe were pulsating - but currently in an expansion phase?

---

The red shift would look the same, but a lot of other things wouldn't. The main problem with the Big Crunch theory, in my limited understanding, is that the universe is a bit lopsided, with relatively large clusters of mass in some parts and vast expanes of nothing in others. This means that if an when the universe stops expanding and starts contracting it will not colapse back into a singularity as neat as the one that apparently initiated the last Big Bang. I have also read that the expansion of the Universe appears to be be accelerating, rather than slowing down, which means that, if it continues, the universe will not colapse back into itself, but instead be torn apart at the atomic level. Exciting things happening in astrophysics these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Of course it could (hopefully), but that explaination wouldn't be Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

---

Right - but it wouldn't point to God either, so our argument would more than likely continue on (and on and on and on).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Just because creationists occasionaly have to make some statement that has something to do with reality, it doesn't mean that their basic premise is correct. I certainly can reject creationism and accept evolution, because one theory explains the evidence, and the other doesn't.

---

In your opinion. In mine, not so. As I've said before, once we choose our position, the "evidence" for it (whether "scientific" or not) becomes convincing. Your evidence would only become convincing to me if I decided that God wasn't real - but I wouldn't make that decision because of any "evidence" you could offer me. I'm inclined to believe the same is true vice versa.

You know, Joe, I respect your arguing, but your rather patronizing tone tends to get abrasive after a while. I'm here in the cooperative spirit of debate, but comments like these are attempts to belittle the position of creationists. I'm pretty sure nothing in my posts is nearly as condescending as your language often sounds. You dismiss people's questions/comments as "meaningless" and "nonsequiter," make jokes out of points someone makes or split hairs over their language (when it's a pretty sure bet you understand the intended point). This all makes you a very intimidating debate partner - but is that what you want?

I can respect your position - it's well argued and you have a ready command of endless factoids to defend it. Bravo - but please don't act as if creationists only "occasionally" make a statement "that has something to do with reality." There are respected Christian scientists who do good research and have drawn valid conclusions. The "reality" comment is based on the idea that your position is "reality" while ours is some fantasy. Our world view is every bit as valid to us as is yours to you - but you come off pretty flippant about our position. I could easily be as partonizing about some of the things evolutionists postulate about the origins of human beings - but I don't think that's conducive to a cooperative discussion. And before you fire back about how your "evidence" makes your reality correct, I would remind you that your evidence is no more convincing to me than mine is to you. Sometimes, my friend, I think the "health" of a discussion is maintained not so much by always having a ready retort as it is by communicating a willingness to accord honor to your opponent's position. Humans are emotional as well as rational - and any good debater knows that rock solid evidence can fall on deaf ears if those ears are being patronized or insulted. Just a thought :)

I imagine I can get pretty irritating, and I apologise, and that comment was not directed to you. I was reacting to the position that I am unable to reject creationism because creationists and I agree on a very few points, a fairly condescending position in itself, in my opinion. I was in no way thinking of you when I made that statement, but rather to those Intelligent Design scientists who persist in pushing ideas such as irreducible complexity when, in actual fact, they have been unable to come up with anything fitting their own definition of irriducibly complex in nature. There certainly are respectable arguments for creation, but those are not them. Again, I apologise if I've offended you.