Evolution vs. Creation

[Redzeppelin]

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.

The fact that it is an argument (and has been for a number of decades [at minimum]) should be enough to show that your simple reduction of the debate into "there's no evidence for God so there" is insufficient and does not take into account the inductive nature of science which can only prove so much and must rely upon a certain degree of educated speculation to draw its conclusions. Note that I am not arguing for the existence of God so much as I am asking you to consider the "holes" (however small) that science contains within it. To repeat myself: science can prove pretty irrefutably many, many things - but evolution it cannot. It can put forth a reasonably convincing case - but that's not definitive.

Secondly, your quick dismissal of this argument is only valid if every aspect of life can be understood and explained by scientific processes and "evidence." Please don't expect me to believe that every single aspect of the life you live, the attitudes you have, the beliefs you hold are due to "evidence." You yourself (if I recall correctly and correct me if I'm wrong) have indicated that you believe in a Divine Being - got proof (or a "shred of evidence") for that particular belief? By your own reasoning, that is an absurd belief because it cannot be proved.

[hyperborean]

I believe in a divine being but I don't base my reason off it. I don't have a divine being influencing my actions and decisions. In fact, I don't care if there is a divine being or not.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm just read it

You make it seem as if evolution is just a "guess"...as if we have no evidence whatsoever. What's "not definitive" is the fact that you base your theory of human existence off a parable/myth in the bible.

It's sick to watch some of you educated people lower yourselves down to creationism. http://anthropology.net/user/kambiz_...e_in_evolution

[Redzeppelin]

I believe in a divine being but I don't base my reason off it. I don't have a divine being influencing my actions and decisions. In fact, I don't care if there is a divine being or not.

Then why bother to believe in one at all?

You make it seem as if evolution is just a "guess"...as if we have no evidence whatsoever.

Since you apparently didn't read my post closely, here it is again with key words highlighted and Cliff's Notes-like interpolations placed for your convenience:

Note that I am not arguing for the existence of God so much as I am asking you to consider the "holes" (however small) that science contains within it [i.e. that science must base certain conclusions on clues and educated guesses based on available evidence]. To repeat myself: science can prove pretty irrefutably many, many things - but evolution it cannot [prove irrefutably, that is, because we weren't there to see it and the theory cannot be tested]. It can put forth a reasonably convincing case - but that's not definitive [in terms of being undeniably true based on presentable evidence].

In other words: I never said it was a "guess." I said that the best science can do in terms of evolution is 90%+ (that's pretty generous of me, don't you think?).

(If JGL is reading this: 90%+ is a guess, by the way Let me know if my numbers are off).

What's "not definitive" is the fact that you base your theory of human existence off a parable/myth in the bible.

That and some other things - some of which that occur within the human heart. Dismiss away: there is more to life than facts and that which you can see. In fact, all the great literature of the world (along with most spiritual texts) emphasize again and again that there is much more to life than what can be seen, measured, observed. Such concrete reasoning that "only what I see exists" is often considered a characteristic of infantile thinking (which, by the way, I'm not applying to present company).

It's sick to watch some of you educated people lower yourselves down to creationism.

Well, I'm sure you'll get used to it someday. I've managed to tolerate evolutionists'/atheists' "lowering" of me into the crowning evolutionary step of pond scum and primates pretty well (though I will admit that it's an acquired taste ).

[hyperborean]

There really isn't a point in debating this. Once someone believes something (and they set their heart on it) it's very difficult to change their views (this goes for both sides of the argument).

I don't know, guess I'm more stubborn than anything. Personally I don't see creationism as much of a choice when it comes to "versus" evolution, since it isn't even in the same league. One is about the creation of everything, the other is about the evolution of life after it existed. They've nothing to do with eachother, outside of the fact that creationists seem to enjoy proding at evolution because it is somehow a threat to their beliefs when it doesn't even involve the origin of life until one continues asking the "why" question throughout about science.

Hopefully that made some sense.

It doesn't get clearer than that.

[Redzeppelin]

There really isn't a point in debating this. Once someone believes something (and they set their heart on it) it's very difficult to change their views (this goes for both sides of the argument).

It doesn't get clearer than that.

"Clear" doesn't necessarily = convincing.

At the risk of making you think I'm just trying to be contrary: I didn't know that the only point of debating was to change someone's mind. I was under the impression that part of debate was simply laying out the arguments and evaluating them, learning what the arguments against your position are and evaluating your own position in light of the opposition. I certainly had no illusion that any of my arguments would convert anybody here. I engage in debate here to hear what others say and see if they'll consider my position or my points. So yeah, if you're here to "win" well that is a waste of time.

[Stanislaw]

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.

I think the problem of this thread is... Chrisitian idea of God, vs some form of divine, vs science is god.

[Pendragon]

Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous.

Well, I really don't know how we got here, but I'll take it! It was what I was trying to say, perhaps in a terrible choice of words. Obviously, evolution is taking place still, as things adapt to an ever-changing world. The beginning was all I ever wonder about to begin with. Pure evolution, man and ape from a common ancestor, I cannot see, yet I concede the possibility, since everything is possible with God.

[atiguhya padma]

<Well, I really don't know how we got here, but I'll take it! It was what I was trying to say, perhaps in a terrible choice of words. Obviously, evolution is taking place still, as things adapt to an ever-changing world. The beginning was all I ever wonder about to begin with. Pure evolution, man and ape from a common ancestor, I cannot see, yet I concede the possibility, since everything is possible with God.>

Looks like I was rather slapdash in my choice of language. I was not in any way trying to suggest that evolution is on a par with religious arguments. Any argument for anything in nthe physical Universe that is not evidence-based on physical events is a fruitless argument in my opinion. You can wish all kinds of arguments into existence, but only evidence-based arguments will have any weight to them.

[Redzeppelin]

Any argument for anything in nthe physical Universe that is not evidence-based on physical events is a fruitless argument in my opinion. You can wish all kinds of arguments into existence, but only evidence-based arguments will have any weight to them.

I suppose I could "split a hair" and challenge the term evidence. What kind of "evidence" do you consider authoritative?

[Pendragon]

Whew. This is why the argument persists. If one endeavors to accept both science and God, the evolutionist says "Not good enough. You still have something in the mix that cannot be measured, quantified, etc., and until we can do that, we will not believe in it." And yet, the idea of infinity doesn't seem to bother you at all. Who can measure the limits of infinity? With a universe that is still expanding, who can quantify the borders? With technology making more and more of the once impossible possible, the lines between what can happen and what is pure fiction begin to blur. So, now, having made the statement that God is possible, you wish to crawfish on that statement. Why? You were right to begin with, you know...

You know that the value of PI is approximately 3.14159265358... Have you ever tried to actually prove it? It is much harder to do so than it sounds, because you must prove every step you use as you go. But there isn't a doubt in your mind that this is correct. Nor in mine. Proof isn't always easy to gain. And not everything in science is proven, some is accepted without need of proof. I don't tell science they are wrong on everything, or even the vast majority of things. But I believe in God, and for me, I require no proof. And for me, chance will never prove evolution's beginnings. You can't prove chance. Maybe it happened. Maybe it didn't. 50-50. I still accept that things evolve and change. I am not the enemy, AP. Never was, never will be. Here's to you!

[hyperborean]

zeppelin, I know what you mean about debating and such, but this argument can go on forever. It's not even worth debating because the same points are brought up over again.

Good points, pendragon. Sometimes it's scary to think about how vast the universe really is. Actually most astronomers believe in God because of this. read this article: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=231

[Redzeppelin]

zeppelin, I know what you mean about debating and such, but this argument can go on forever. It's not even worth debating because the same points are brought up over again.

Right: the fact that it probably will go on "forever" tells me that there is no simple answer (or even definitive answer in terms of "winning") that will end it.

I think the dialogue is useful if (and only if) both sides are willing to listen to the other and consider the positions rather than rejecting them out-of-hand without even trying to see the reason behind the position. If that's going on (which happens more often than not) then, yes, the debate become two voices talking over each other.

I assume that people simply disappear from the thread when they tire of this perpetual debate.

[AdoreroDio]

Hi all! I believe in God the father and that he created the world in 7 days.
And...I really don't want to read the last 92 pages of argument or even the last 2 pages so could someone update me on where the argument is at it's current point (what is being currently discussed), where the argument is heading, any important questions and/or arguments have been posted? It would be helpful so that I could join "the fun".

[JGL57]

Hi all! I believe in God the father ...

What makes god a father - does he have a penis?

...and that he created the world in 7 days....

If god is omnipotent, then why so long? The omnipotent god down the street can create a universe in Planck time.

... any important questions and/or arguments have been posted? It would be helpful so that I could join "the fun"...

No, it's the same old same old. Apparently god can do anything except evolve.

[Wintermute]

What makes god a father - does he have a penis?

If it does, that makes my question of what was it doing for infinity before it decided to create the universe 13 billion years ago even more pertinant...imo. Another thing I wonder about: Is God to be considered and extraterrestrial?