Evolution vs. Creation

Indulge my meddling again for a moment. This term keeps coming up: empirical evidence . This is evidence that can be proven by experiments.

Now, I think it was my amigo, Robin, who pointed out, that given infinity, chance had to be the starting point behind creation. I will not argue with this point. The math would be something like this:

If x = chance, and y = ∞, then xy = The Big Bang.

The problem would be gaining empirical evidence . There exists no way to run an infinite experiment to see if this is indeed, true. What we have is an accepted fact . Something that we know, but can’t prove.

Now, the same goes for a person who believes, as I do, in God; in Intelligent Design. Given infinity as possibilities, God has to exist.

If x = God, and y = ∞, then xy = God Exists.

Can I prove it to the skeptic? Not a chance.

So with Science we take the best shot at it we can give, it comes down to “This is what we believe happened, based on the fragmentary evidence that we have.” Best guess. Most likely. Not empirical evidence .

With God we come down to a matter of Faith, what one believes.

Hebrews chapter 11. 1-3

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

For by it the elders obtained a good report.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

Faith believes it. It cannot provide empirical evidence .

So why do we argue so vehemently? Take the two, put them together, and you may have a clearer picture of what took place at the dawn of time. But it will still lack empirical evidence . We would still be taking our best shot at the target. God bless.

Well said my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Hey, but at least the fundamentals of creation theories are based off empirical evidence, and not on what some imaginary construct had to say.

---

Here's what I find interesting. In my posts, I never suggest that evolution is silly, imaginary, absurd or even untrue: I simply try to do some "equalizing" by suggesting that a certain amount of faith, assumption and speculation exists in the evolutionistic explanation as to how the universe and life on earth originated. I'm willing to accept that some parts of evolution theory may have some credence; what's fascinating is that some/many atheists will often not bother to at least allow that our view is possible in the least. Pen's post nicely articulates that anything - given infinity - can be possible. The fact that life exists at all (against odds calculated by scientists that are pretty astounding from what I recall) is just as miraculous as the idea that a Supreme Being was behind the beginning of Life.

My point? Hyperboren (like others who argue similarly) immediately tries to refute our position by invoking the "imaginary" nature of the basis of our argument (God) - but as far as I see, the astronomical numbers and coincedences required to believe in evolution are so unreal as to seem almost equally imaginary.

You guys make it seem as if this is a black and white issue. Unlike Creationism, Evolution is not some ballpark theory that requires "faith" for comprehension.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

"only a miniscule 0.15% of the 480,000 biologists and geologists accept creationism".

I suggest looking over the website and maybe you'll realize why almost every scientist rejects creationism. I myself believe in a divine being, but that being didn't zap the earth into immediate existence.

Of course you cannot argue about evolution vs. creationism in a "religious texts" forum. You were all brought up believing in what you were told was true. I however, value science over faith.

I shall quote Nietzsche once more: "Faith: not wanting to know what is true"

Science? Modern witchcraft. One bunch will tell you today 'Eat X and live longer' A few months later another bunch of scientists say 'Don't eat X it's bad for you' Depends who is paying them and what they stand to gain. Moral principles? Don't fit in their test-tubes. Gerron believe scientists and you'll believe anything. They said it was ok to feed powdered cattle to cattle since we're all just molecules after all!! So now we've got bovine brain disease that can jump species. Aye gullible aint in the dictionary of the 'enlightened scientists'

"feed powdered cattle to cattle" and "gullibility" has to do with the validity of evolution?

"Faith is a wondrous thing; it is not only capable of moving mountains, but also of making you believe that a herring is a race horse."
-Arthur Koestler

I personally believe "dyrwen" put the words together the best. Some of you should read the beginning of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyrwen

The point is: Evolution has a lot of documented evidence for it, much more than the contrary evidence, and is therefore regarded as factual theory more so than just some humdrum explanation for the way things are. Show some evidence of creationism not directly quoted from the Bible and maybe you'll make more of a case for it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

You guys make it seem as if this is a black and white issue. Unlike Creationism, Evolution is not some ballpark theory that requires "faith" for comprehension.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

"only a miniscule 0.15% of the 480,000 biologists and geologists accept creationism".

---

And that proves what, exactly? Because the majority endorses something it becomes true or authoritative? I'm willing to guess that an equally small percentage of Christians believe we evolved from monkeys - so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

I suggest looking over the website and maybe you'll realize why almost every scientist rejects creationism. I myself believe in a divine being, but that being didn't zap the earth into immediate existence.

---

"Almost every scientist" eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

You were all brought up believing in what you were told was true. I however, value science over faith.

---

Absolutely absurd. You stereotype Christians - plenty came to the faith as adults, and many from agnostic or atheistic backgrounds. Try to be at least a bit more discerning in your sweeping generalizations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

I shall quote Nietzsche once more: "Faith: not wanting to know what is true"

---

Quoting Nietzsche to Christians is the equivalent of Christians quoting the Bible to atheists. Not very convincing or authoritative.

The fact that Nietzsche was more intelligent than any Christian that ever lived would be authoritative enough.

You call me "discerning" when it comes to my view of Christians. Well that's what happens when ALL of your points come from a strong Christian perspective. It's like trying to argue with a wall. As I'm typing this I still can't believe I'm arguing with a Christian over creationism. Believing that Adam and Eve were zapped here is absurd...especially when Adam and Eve is openly admitted as a false bible story (along with Noah's Ark).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

And that proves what, exactly? Because the majority endorses something it becomes true or authoritative? I'm willing to guess that an equally small percentage of Christians believe we evolved from monkeys...

---

I'll let hyperborean debate the other issues with you if he wants, but I would point out that the above is provably wrong. All the recent scientific polls always show a sizable plurality of Christians who do indeed believe humans evolved from previous "monkey-like" species (as opposed, of course, to any extant species of monkey). You will retract this "guess" as inaccurate - right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

The fact that Nietzsche was more intelligent than any Christian that ever lived would be authoritative enough.

---

Please. That statement is unprovable and quite silly to say the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

You call me "discerning" when it comes to my view of Christians.

---

No: I advised you to try and be a bit more discerning. Sweeping generalizations like the one you presented (which are obviously wrong) decrease your credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

It's like trying to argue with a wall.

---

I know the feeling :brickwall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

As I'm typing this I still can't believe I'm arguing with a Christian over creationism. Believing that Adam and Eve were zapped here is absurd...especially when Adam and Eve is openly admitted as a false bible story (along with Noah's Ark).

---

"Openly admitted" by certain factions or groups - but not Christianity as a whole. I find it interesting that you speak of such things as if they are established facts, but that's not so. Why don't you supply all these sources that say as you claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

I'll let hyperborean debate the other issues with you if he wants, but I would point out that the above is provably wrong. All the recent scientific polls always show a sizable plurality of Christians who do indeed believe humans evolved from previous "monkey-like" species (as opposed, of course, to any extant species of monkey). You will retract this "guess" as inaccurate - right?

---

Why don't you supply me with a link to these "recent scientific polls" so I can see for myself? And no - no need to retract anything. A guess does not claim to be correct - it claims an unsubstantiated belief. Supply proof and I'll consider retracting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

...Why don't you supply me with a link to these "recent scientific polls" so I can see for myself? And no - no need to retract anything. A guess does not claim to be correct - it claims an unsubstantiated belief. Supply proof and I'll consider retracting.

---

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

According to this poll back in 1991 about 46 per cent of theists in the U.S. (I assume the over-whelming majority of which are christian) do indeed believe humans evolved from monkey-like species over millions of years.

You can post your retraction of your uneducated "guess" now.

And why not at least consider refraining from posting anymore such "guesses" in the future - ones based solely on wishes or fantasy - "guesses" that any person who reads a daily newspaper will recognize immediately as just plain wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Please. That statement is unprovable and quite silly to say the least.

---

Name one theologian that revolutionized philosophical ideas like he has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

"Openly admitted" by certain factions or groups - but not Christianity as a whole. I find it interesting that you speak of such things as if they are established facts, but that's not so. Why don't you supply all these sources that say as you claim?

---

It's not like the Church went public and said "adam and eve is fake". It's one of those things an educated Christian understands. They even teach this in CCD and sunday school nowadays.

Here's some links to show you what I'm talking about:


http://www.animationinsider.net/foru...ad.php?t=18235
-make sure you read the comments made by "Ayria" and especially "Vendetta" on the second page

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/chri...damandeve.html (you might not like this one)

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php...0&fpart=1&vc=1

You really have to stop taking Genesis so literally.

I'm right, your wrong, I big, your little, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Lets try another tact.

science is wrong cause its silly, screwy, weirdy, imaginary, annoying, annoyance.

religion is right because we say it is.

or...

religion is wrong cause its silly, screwy, weirdy, imaginary, annoying, annoyance.

science is right because we say it is.

anyother ideas are stupid.

Post your "Im so sorry I was wrong and you are right, infact you must be some sort of geniouse and I a moron"...

I'm still waiting:

Questions:

1. How does science prove religion wrong?

2. How does religion prove science wrong?

3. Why is there such a lack of respect generated for the followers of science, and for the followers of religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

The fact that Nietzsche was more intelligent than any Christian that ever lived would be authoritative enough.

---

Sorry but honestly, how can you expect anyone o take yoyu seriopusly when you make an argumen like that?

Heck the bible is deemed even by non christians as the single most revloutionary world changing book far reaching in its effects philisophical and practicle to ever have appeared in the world. And I say this not only as a muslim who has my own book and rules but as someone who is studying to be librarian.

The secret to be taken seriously never ever make sweeping geralised assumptions. I belive Einstien was a christian, as was Da Vinci. Robert Winston is devout Jew. Who else.....
well you can see where IM going with this I hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stanislaw (PAM)

Post your "Im so sorry I was wrong and you are right, infact you must be some sort of geniouse and I a moron"...

I'm still waiting:

---

And stan dont hold your breath on that one.

Hyperborean said: <"adam and eve" is a false bible story. This has been admitted by the church.>

Which church was that exactly. I know this is a forum for literature, but I do think we need to be a bit more specific and accurate when we are making statements and presenting them as facts.

Redzeppelin said: <Ultimately, none of what is printed above is provable. Just like Creation. Neither is provable.>

Well, first we need to be a bit more certain about what we mean as provable. If we mean something 100&#37; beyond dispute, then there is very little that is provable. If we mean something that is highly probable, then there is plenty that is provable. If we mean something that is demonstrable then again there is plenty. It seems to me that science, unlike religion, is in the business of demonstrating probability. With regard to the explanations of the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life, I don't think religion has ever provided an explanation designed upon probabilities.

Pendragon said:

<Given infinity as possibilities, God has to exist.>

That is not true. As I understand it, given infinity, anything that can happen, musy happen at some point. If something is possible in an infinite time, then it will occur. You need to show that God is possible before you can claim that infinity proves his existence. Regarding God's possibility, if you look at the attributes that have been traditionally been given for him, it is pretty obvious that they are not all compatible. A concept that contradicts itself or isincompatible requires a lot more than infinity to be true.

<The problem would be gaining empirical evidence . There exists no way to run an infinite experiment to see if this is indeed, true. What we have is an accepted fact . Something that we know, but can’t prove.>

You seem to equate provability with empirical evidence. This is incorrect. A mathematical equation can be true without reference to empirical evidence. When Hume claimed that miracles can be dismissed because it is more efficient, or more plausible to accept a physical explanation for any event than a miraculous one, he was referring to probability.

<So why do we argue so vehemently? Take the two, put them together, and you may have a clearer picture of what took place at the dawn of time. But it will still lack empirical evidence . We would still be taking our best shot at the target.>

Taking a belief system from pre-scientific peoples and applying it to the whole system of scientific thought regarding the Universe's origins reduces the strength of the scientific explanation. Can't you see that? Why don't we take the beliefs expressed by the ancient Greeks add it to evolution theory and see what we get? It would be a contradictory mess. A religious belief of the world's beginning created by people a couple of thousand years ago is a ridiculous way of explaining the universe in the 21st century. What can they tell me about the solar system? about the temperature of the core of stars? of the rate at which the universe is expanding? They couldn't even get it right with objects near to the earth like the sun, could they?


Nightshade said:

<Heck the bible is deemed even by non christians as the single most revloutionary world changing book far reaching in its effects philisophical>

Really? I am agraduate in philosophy. Pls enlighten me about the original contribution that the Bible has made to my subject.

<I belive Einstien was a christian, as was Da Vinci. Robert Winston is devout Jew.>

Firstly, I think you are wrong about Einstein. Secondly, all these three being both scientists and christians, they were/are qualified to scientifically evaluate religion. We constantly hear from christian apologists that science and religion are compatible. It strikes me as odd that Einstein didn't scientifically defend religion. It strikes me as odd that Robert Winston seems so impotent when pressed to scientifically justify his religious beliefs by Richard Dawkins. As Dawkins has said, there are some religious claims, that were they true, would leave indisputable evidence that science would be able to corroborate. Let us take the idea that God interferes with the Universe. This would be a scientifically measurable event. Yet no scientist has ever come close to measuring such an event. This leaves most religious scientists with the option of either retreating into desim or holding some mythos form of religious belief: Either God set the ball rolling and then became an armchair viewer, or religion is simply a nice story that helps the cohesion of social groups.