Evolution vs. Creation

[cuppajoe_9]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Just making sure.

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?

[Silv]

Yes, it could. The question is what?

That is where I arrived at. Yay!

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.

[Redzeppelin]

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."

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."

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?

[cuppajoe_9]

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.

Who's trying to do that?

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

...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.

[Redzeppelin]

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.

[Silv]

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.

[Redzeppelin]

*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

[cuppajoe_9]

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.

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.

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.

[Pendragon]

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!

[Whifflingpin]

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.

[cuppajoe_9]

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.

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.

[Redzeppelin]

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).

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

[cuppajoe_9]

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.

[Redzeppelin]

No real offense taken. I know I'm capable of coming on strong as well- and I enjoy how you keep me on my toes. But perhaps because I'm a bit older (twice your age if I'm guessing correctly) I'm less interested in "winning" an argument than in winning my opponent's respect (not to say that you are guilty of the first - just clarifying my priorities). I would rather lose every argument I posed but feel like I'm among friends who love a good argument than to win a debate at the cost of a potential intellectual friendship (much more valuable to me than any "point" I could make).

I understand you point thoroughly. Thanks - I appreciate the time you took to respond. I look forward to our future discussions (I'm sure there'll be many ).

[Laindessiel]

Please try to make your points with your arguments, not with the size/color of your fonts.

Uncle Pen explains this quite thoroughly and reasonably. Please, I don't want a debate. As my Secret Santa clue says, "I try to veer away from the religious threads because I don't want no arguments."

That is, I try. Sometimes, I can't help it. And besides, if I see someone on my side and if I agree completely with what he/she says, why add to the ruckus?

I know that arguments and discussions will take you to greater heights to make you understand and comprehend fully about the subject, but as I said, I'll leave it to my companions.

I'm a creationist, that is all.