Evolution vs. Creation

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

02-19-2007, 01:40 PM
atiguhya padma

You can accept the divine and evolution if you so choose. It adds no value to either in my opinion. Furthermore, as evoltuionary processes reveal a cold, cruel world, the world of Tennyson's In Memoriam, belief in evolution does make some kind of negative statement about the divine. I find it difficult to accept the rosy-spectacled lover of benign nature, of the spiritual, divine in nature, when it is so obviously indifferent to suffering, pain and misfortune.

Children born with genetic deformties, that mean their bodies are time bombs, programmed to kill them in a year, two three etc, are surely evidence of an indifferent blind natural process of evolution in the world, rather than a divine benevolent overseeing designer of evolution. Quite frankly, if there were a God who created evolution, then I can see very little benevolence in him/her. If a scientist created the evolutionary process in a garden of eden type world, I'm sure we would condemn that scientist as the most evil human that ever existed.
02-19-2007, 01:45 PM
Stanislaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

<er, it is primarily the basis for western thinking.>

I think you'll find that Greek philosophy is primarily the basis for Christian thinking.

To claim that some texts from ancient Palestine are the basis for western thinking is unbelievably christocentric of you. For starters, lets ask where virtually all the languages of the West came from. Then I suggest you start looking at where the knowledge that inspired the Greek philosophies came from.

Firstly, Hi atiguhya, long time...

Secondly...Its crazy to deny the influence of the bible (both hebrew and new testamnet) on western cultural development. In literature, history, science, and even mathematics. Western culture has been heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs, and writings. "In God we Trust".

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Stanislaw said: <I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it. >

Hyperborean said: <That's what I believe as well. I'm arguing that God didn't create humans in the beginning and from scratch. He created the universe which led to evolution of microscopic organisms which led to us. >

Once you have accepted evolution, why do you need to find some design behind it? What are you actually adding to the theory by postulating that God designed evolution?

well... eventually, God comes into play, unless you believe that people create the universe in the future by travelling back in time and thus existance is just a gigantic cirlce...which started just cause...gotta be a beggining somewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperborean

I believe in the divine. You can accept evolution and believe in the divine.

indeed. :thumbs_up
02-19-2007, 01:59 PM
atiguhya padma

Hi Stan,

I'm not sure that I understand your claim about the future. As for beginnings to space and time, well God can't possibly provide an answer: if you can't explain God's existence other than to say he/she is eternal, you may as well save time and just say the Universe is eternal.
02-19-2007, 02:05 PM
atiguhya padma

Stan,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not deny that the Bible had an influence on western cultural development. My criticism was based on the claim that the Bible was the basis for western cultural development. In all areas of western culture, you can find roots way before the biblical writings.
02-19-2007, 02:13 PM
Nightshade

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stanislaw

er, it is primarily the basis for western thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stanislaw

I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it.

:thumbs_up :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

You can accept the divine and evolution if you so choose. It adds no value to either in my opinion. Furthermore, as evoltuionary processes reveal a cold, cruel world, the world of Tennyson's In Memoriam, belief in evolution does make some kind of negative statement about the divine. I find it difficult to accept the rosy-spectacled lover of benign nature, of the spiritual, divine in nature, when it is so obviously indifferent to suffering, pain and misfortune.

Children born with genetic deformties, that mean their bodies are time bombs, programmed to kill them in a year, two three etc, are surely evidence of an indifferent blind natural process of evolution in the world, rather than a divine benevolent overseeing designer of evolution. Quite frankly, if there were a God who created evolution, then I can see very little benevolence in him/her. If a scientist created the evolutionary process in a garden of eden type world, I'm sure we would condemn that scientist as the most evil human that ever existed.

Can I just point out somthing sure God is kind and benevoulent but hes also a pretty harsh task masters ( by human standerds ) and theres good reason for this. Also belivieng in God includes putting your faith to test Im mean look at Job ( wait it is Job in english who lost all 12 of his chikedren and had disatser after disaster occur to him in a year so he went from a rich succesful man to practically a begger with no family?). And then there is the belief that if they die as children they go straight to heaven no questions asked, some would call tha a mercy.

But stan mathamtics? That wasnt the christians it was the antient muslims hence algebra being called algebra after Al-Gaber ibn Hayan. But yeah christianity is reponsible for the spread of alot of things but just at this moment other than the printing press fabioulous arctechture I cant really think right now but I do know christianity and even all the major abrahamic religiouns have all played big and even massive roles in getting us where we are today and I think thats somthing all the people who nessereily belive in them should rember that no matter what you actually think about them the ideas of the people before us our 'intellectual heritage' as it were is responsible for more than you might like to think.
02-19-2007, 04:32 PM
JGL57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The only 1991 poll listed on this page concerns the general public - not exclusively Christians. As well, the only 1991 poll on this page indicates that the Creationist view was held by 47% in the "Everybody" category. While my guess was wrong, your numbers do not add up either. As well, I indicated "monkeys" while you have conveniently added "monkey-like": there's a difference. The poll indicates nothing about developing from monkeys, which was the focus of my comment (I specifically avoided saying "evolution" because I'm aware that a portion of Christianity believes in some form of that).

In 1997, the poll indicates that a little less than half still believed in Creationism (44%) and only a tiny number (10%) believe in Naturalistic evolution (that which I am primarily arguing against).

As far as the poll from the Christianity section of About.com - those results are not clear in how they were tabulated; as well, the sample was very small (2904 votes) - highly unrepresentative of mainstream Christianity. Below this poll is the following disclaimer: "Needless to say, Internet surfers are are not necessarily typical of the general public."

Why? Here's what I said: "I'm willing to guess that an equally small percentage of Christians believe we evolved from monkeys - so?" Where on that page did you find anything that contradicted that idea? Here's an interesting note from the page:

Auctioneer Gary Corwin said: "I believe that the Lord God created everything, just like the Bible says, I don’t think we came from apes." [Author's note: 95% of scientists support evolution and have reached a consensus that humans did not come from apes either; they believe that humans and apes have a common ancestor.

As far as I'm concerned, my numbers may be off (it was a guess, after all) but I don't think you've made a solid "hit" of any sort.

I am free to post whatever I wish that conforms to the forum rules. I could easily respond that your commentary about the Bible and Christianity (to any well-read Christian) is equally uninformed.

Irrelevant. That's an "apples vs oranges" comment. Your original comment dealt with "intelligence" rather than philosophic thought - now you've changed the comparison - faulty reasoning. CS Lewis revolutionized Christian apologetics and it was said that an atheist never bested him in a debate.

Oh - it's a conspiracy thing. I get it. Only those "in the know" understand. Utterly ridiculous. Whenever I post such things about Christianity and how unbelievers cannot fully understand the message of the Bible I get criticized for saying such things. Now you do too.

Why? Because you said so? You're kidding, right? I don't recall asking either you or JGL for advice as to what I "have" to do. Perhaps you could table your unsolicited "advice" and concentrate on your argument?

All this is the biggest load of sophistry I have ever seen on any internet forum.

The poll was scientific to within some small degree of accuracy. Most theists in the U.S. are christians. 47 + 40 divided by 40 = 47 per cent of theists, mostly christians, believe humans evolved. There is no one who claims that humans evolved from present day monkeys. Your claim was that less than one per cent of christians in the U.S. believe humans evolved from a monkey. Obviously, this means a common ancester.

Thus your "guess" is wrong. Polls show that a sizeable minority, not less than one per cent, of christians in the U.S. believe humans evolved from a monkey-like ancester (essentially a monkey).

Your "guess" has been proven wrong. Period. In black and white. The fact that you can't even admit this means that you have a problem that I, as a non-psychiatrist, cannot help you with.

I cannot deal with overt dishonesty like this. If all christians are as dishonest as you are then I've no doubt it is a false religion.

I will be ignoring your posts from now on.
02-19-2007, 04:36 PM
hyperborean

this thread is going to become interesting once zeppelin returns.
02-19-2007, 06:44 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL57

All this is the biggest load of sophistry I have ever seen on any internet forum.

You mean I have excelled at something? Is there an award for this category?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL57

The poll was scientific to within some small degree of accuracy. Most theists in the U.S. are christians. 47 + 40 divided by 40 = 47 per cent of theists, mostly christians, believe humans evolved. There is no one who claims that humans evolved from present day monkeys. Your claim was that less than one per cent of christians in the U.S. believe humans evolved from a monkey. Obviously, this means a common ancester.

Not necessarily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL57

Thus your "guess" is wrong. Polls show that a sizeable minority, not less than one per cent, of christians in the U.S. believe humans evolved from a monkey-like ancester (essentially a monkey).

Oh OK, if it makes you feel better, here: my guess was silly and inaccurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL57

Your "guess" has been proven wrong. Period. In black and white. The fact that you can't even admit this means that you have a problem that I, as a non-psychiatrist, cannot help you with.

OK - I said something careless (which means you and I may be more alike than we may wish to admit ;) ) - it's not the first time nor will it be the last.

(I pretty much doubt you could help me even if you were a psychiatrist. My absurd belief in an invisible deity already qualifies me for the insane asylum.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL57

I cannot deal with overt dishonesty like this.

On the contrary: I believe with unequivocal certainty that everything I say is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL57

If all christians are as dishonest as you are then I've no doubt it is a false religion.

You mean you hadn't figured this out before talking to me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL57

I will be ignoring your posts from now on.

Two possible responses:
1. Promise?
2. Is this called a forfeit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperborean

this thread is going to become interesting once zeppelin returns.

Wow - is this another compliment? You two really need to stop. I actually thought the thread was quite interesting whether I was around or not.
02-19-2007, 07:26 PM
Pendragon

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

<This is a circular argument. You understand that given infinity, Anything can, and even must happen. >

I actually said anything THAT can happen, not anything can happen. If something is impossible, no matter whether the Universe be infinite or not, it cannot happen. How does limitless time make something contradictory possible? If something is impossible it is impossible now and every other now til infinity. Just by adding an infinite number of nows does alter the possibility of something impossible.

OK. Then by that channel of thinking, that giving limitless time CANNOT make the IMPOSSIBLE happen, then I will chose to put no faith in any principle of science based on chance. When science wishes to disprove claims of anything supernatural taking place, the first thing they do is calculate the odds of it happening by mere chance. "Eliminate the 'chance factor', and maybe we have solid fact with which to work." That seems to be the major maxim, and I do not disagree. But it is fine to allow infinite tries to make chance take place, but not something you do not wish to believe in anyway. OK. Just so we know where we stand.

<Oh, and how much Science has been put to a search for Atlantis, which was in a book written by Plato, I believe?>

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Big deal. Plato, in the Timaeus, writes of a fable about Atlantis. Again, what is your point? Furthermore, the reason why so little science has been put into a search for Atlantis, is because scientists don't tend to waste their time on fables and myths like Atlantis and the Creation story. Leave that to the people who do not care about evidence-based theories.

The point was not how little Science has wasted on this, but how much. I see countless references to it by very serious scientists, they try to pinpoint the location, (including the lastest, South China Seas :rolleyes: ), they rave over the Bimini Road, etc. Did anyone ever research and see if Plato ever traveled at all?

I have messed around enough. Good luck, folks!
02-20-2007, 06:13 AM
Stanislaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Hi Stan,

I'm not sure that I understand your claim about the future. As for beginnings to space and time, well God can't possibly provide an answer: if you can't explain God's existence other than to say he/she is eternal, you may as well save time and just say the Universe is eternal.

Well...thats where the blind faith comes in...some say God, Some say Nirvana, some say nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Stan,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not deny that the Bible had an influence on western cultural development. My criticism was based on the claim that the Bible was the basis for western cultural development. In all areas of western culture, you can find roots way before the biblical writings.

Well, I'll give that, it was poorly worded, I didn't exactly say what I meant, the Greek, and pre-greek influences are clear, even in Biblical interpretations.
02-20-2007, 01:51 PM
atiguhya padma

<OK. Then by that channel of thinking, that giving limitless time CANNOT make the IMPOSSIBLE happen, then I will chose to put no faith in any principle of science based on chance.>

If something happens based on chance, then it disproves its impossibility does it not? If something is impossible, it simply cannot happen, no matter what mix of chance and infinity your recipe concocts.

<When science wishes to disprove claims of anything supernatural taking place, the first thing they do is calculate the odds of it happening by mere chance.>

If something happens in nature, no matter how wild the probability of it happening, then, in my book, it ceases to be considered supernatural. In fact, I think the term supernatural seems to me to be a nonsense term. I've just looked it up in the dictionary, and fail to understand what it can mean: "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." How can something in the natural world be above or beyond nature? Its existence in our world must make it natural. Being unexplained by natural law or phenomena says more about our own understanding/ignorance of the natural world then it does about the natural world itself. So it appears to me that the term supernatural is merely used to describe ignorance. Peoples of the past must have described all kinds of natural phenomena as supernatural.

<"Eliminate the 'chance factor', and maybe we have solid fact with which to work." That seems to be the major maxim, and I do not disagree.>

I don't really know what you are talking about here.

<But it is fine to allow infinite tries to make chance take place, but not something you do not wish to believe in anyway. OK. Just so we know where we stand. >

I'm confused about this too I'm afraid. What do you mean about infinite tries and chance taking place? Chance doesn't take place. Chance is a calculation based on things that take place. Infinite tries do not an impossibility make. Supposing we say that God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. This is obviously a contradiction in terms. No matter how much time you allow, I'm afraid it will still be a contradiction in terms.

Science, as I understand it, takes the most efficient explanation for physical events. So the most sufficient explanation that requires the least amount of improbable factors will be favoured. Any physical explanation of the Universe will be more probable than a religious explanation. If only because reference will be made to evidences of what we empirically already have discovered. Any explanation relying on deism or theism, is dependent on postulations that cannot be weighed up in terms of probability. Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous. I may as well say that xfgmnsad made the Universe. It will have as much meaning.
02-20-2007, 04:04 PM
hyperborean

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Science, as I understand it, takes the most efficient explanation for physical events. So the most sufficient explanation that requires the least amount of improbable factors will be favoured. Any physical explanation of the Universe will be more probable than a religious explanation. If only because reference will be made to evidences of what we empirically already have discovered. Any explanation relying on deism or theism, is dependent on postulations that cannot be weighed up in terms of probability. Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous. I may as well say that xfgmnsad made the Universe. It will have as much meaning.

Exactly. This should end the argument.
02-20-2007, 04:44 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

If something happens based on chance, then it disproves its impossibility does it not? If something is impossible, it simply cannot happen, no matter what mix of chance and infinity your recipe concocts.

That depends upon a number of factors. Many experts once contended that manned flight was "impossible."

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

If something happens in nature, no matter how wild the probability of it happening, then, in my book, it ceases to be considered supernatural. In fact, I think the term supernatural seems to me to be a nonsense term. I've just looked it up in the dictionary, and fail to understand what it can mean: "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." How can something in the natural world be above or beyond nature? Its existence in our world must make it natural. Being unexplained by natural law or phenomena says more about our own understanding/ignorance of the natural world then it does about the natural world itself. So it appears to me that the term supernatural is merely used to describe ignorance. Peoples of the past must have described all kinds of natural phenomena as supernatural.

Something that happens once, in violation of the known laws of nature cannot be defined as "natural." If we had precise records of the sun for the last 5000 years and only once was it recorded that it traversed the sky from west to east, we would call that "supernatural." What you're suggesting is based on ignorance of perhaps an unknown law, but when things occur in opposition to known laws without any way to explain them, it seems perfectly logical to call them "beyond natural" events because they are aberrations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Infinite tries do not an impossibility make.

But infinity opens up the door for an inconsistent result of an experiment. Inductive reasoning tells us that because 1000 rocks thrown at 1000 windows shatter said windows that it's a pretty safe bet to say that rocks thrown at windows shatter them. However, who is to say that on the 10,345th try that the same rock thrown does not break a window? Now you have an exception. That's the nature of inductive logic: you're working with probability. An infinite number of tries opens up the possibility for exception.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Supposing we say that God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. This is obviously a contradiction in terms. No matter how much time you allow, I'm afraid it will still be a contradiction in terms.

But since your example deals with logic as applied to the system of language, you have provided an example that is not comparable to the idea that infinity makes the existence of God possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Science, as I understand it, takes the most efficient explanation for physical events. So the most sufficient explanation that requires the least amount of improbable factors will be favoured. Any physical explanation of the Universe will be more probable than a religious explanation. If only because reference will be made to evidences of what we empirically already have discovered. Any explanation relying on deism or theism, is dependent on postulations that cannot be weighed up in terms of probability. Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous. I may as well say that xfgmnsad made the Universe. It will have as much meaning.

Science is reassuring to us because it speaks in a limited language that we can understand. Because it is limited by the humans that create/implement it, of course it seems more reasonable because - for the most part (at least until we start discussing some of the odds for evolutionary development) - it gives us facts and numbers we can comprehend. The idea that a Supreme Being created the universe actually gives the simplest answer - it is science's answer that requires astronomical numbers and coincedences. The term "improbable" is used to describe plenty of things we can't conceive of - but many people throughout history could not conceive of many of the most basic tools we have the advantage of today. Nonetheless, science possesses it's own catelog of facts that are less than verified, and require a certain amount of faith in that they present some rather improbable numbers and statistics to prove its points - many of which are based on the speculative nature of inductive reasoning.

Science seems more believable simply because it has limits, like we do. Once we start dealing with a Being that has always existed and is all powerful, well, we wish to dismiss that because we can't conceive of it so it must not be true. How much of our modern technology could a medieval peasant conceive of?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Exactly. This should end the argument.

Oh darn. Was I supposed to stop now?
02-20-2007, 04:53 PM
davidvall

Simplicity

As if it is really that difficult to be honest in spite of our inclinations and predispositions. Who does not want to be the best? Who does not want to rely on their own understanding? I think it is so very presumptuous of any man or woman to think that they have the answer to the origination of the cosmos. Some believe in a transcendent God, while others believe in the miracle of life unintended. Either way they are both clearly walks of faith. Some shroud themselves in religion, while others do the same with the covering of science; both clearly human constructs create to provide answers to questions that cannot be answered. But still, the argument continues, and the clash magnifies the human condition of the purely imperfect. In truth, I comes down to the reality that mankind longs to clean on to some understanding, even if the pursuit divides. Do we not all need to stand strong against an opponent? Our existence is the mark of a momentary lifespan riddled with unsatiation.
02-20-2007, 05:00 PM
hyperborean

Theism is based on beliefs and faith...things that cannot be proven in the physical universe. Any shred of evidence given off by science is more concrete than creationism because it can be proven in the physical realm. God is imaginary...it does not physically exist...it's a conjecture. I can't believe this is even an argument.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page