Evolution vs. Creation

[Stanislaw]

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".

basically...science is right...no religion is right...no science is right.......

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?

Well...here comes the issue, again...it seems the goal is not to attack a divine being...but the christian ideal of this divine being...where all the animosity is being directed towards christian perspectives.

Scientist are supposed to be open...well for the most part they are open to the idea of a divine...however, very closed in regards to christianity...its like they want to punish christians for the punishments delt by early christians.

[Wintermute]

Well...here comes the issue, again...it seems the goal is not to attack a divine being...but the christian ideal of this divine being...where all the animosity is being directed towards christian perspectives.

Scientist are supposed to be open...well for the most part they are open to the idea of a divine...however, very closed in regards to christianity...its like they want to punish christians for the punishments delt by early christians.

Hi Stanislaw,

As an agnostic:

If I have any animosity, it should be directed at any group that claims with certainty to know what is going on in the universe--that includes Chrisitians, Atheists, and Scientists (although I've met few that do). In my universe, certainty leads to zealotry which leads to violence and unnecessary meanness.

Note: I reserve the right to retract this the instant I see a burning bush, hear God clearly speaking to me in the method of its choice, or witness absolute evidence that would proove that one group is right and all the rest have gone astray.

[atiguhya padma]

It seems to me that as science increases our knowledge of our world, life and the Universe, so those who pedalled some truth merely based on what they want to believe, recede into fuzzy areas of our knowledge, places where we do not have the full picture. As has been said, science increases our understanding, measuring things which were once immeasurable due to previous technological limits. However, science, when it unravels these mysteries, tends to move further away from religion, not nearer to it. Religion can only hide in the shadows of our knowledge, feeding off ignorance and misunderstanding. When was the last time some important religious hypothesis was proved? Of course, the ignorant will always obfuscate and mystify with unverifiable claims and untestable hypotheses.

[Stanislaw]

I don't know...I'm just saying...be open minded enough to accept the possibilities...maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but, keep an open mind.

[Pendragon]

Good article, hyperborean. Thank you. I am glad that some scientists can keep their work heads and still believe in God. Thet don't let it cloud their work, but then hold to their belief. As it should be.

[Redzeppelin]

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

Ha ha. One may be a "father" and be missing his genitalia. The word "father" has a number of different meanings, only one of which that means "male parent." I assume you understand such things. I also assume you "get" the idea that God must speak to us in the very limited medium we call the human language. As such, He is - to an extent - "straight-jacketed" by the limits of our language to express things/concepts/Beings that transcend our temporal humanity. Please don't make me think you don't get this most basic point.

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

This idea presents the rather absurd idea that "faster" is necessarily "better." As well, this belief totally bypasses the idea that God - as a Being concerned with order - may have had a specific reason to create in a certain number of days. If human beings are sensitive to the symbolism of ritual and ceremony, I would assume that God would consider such things - especially if there was to be record of His creative actions.

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

That which is perfect need not "evolve" - only inferior creations need to "improve" (like science).

It seems to me that as science increases our knowledge of our world, life and the Universe, so those who pedalled some truth merely based on what they want to believe, recede into fuzzy areas of our knowledge, places where we do not have the full picture.

Why don't you give this tired reasoning a rest? You merely assume that holy writings are merely the scribblings of deluded human beings. You don't really know - you just believe thusly. Your refusal to believe doesn't make you right - it just means you don't believe.

As has been said, science increases our understanding, measuring things which were once immeasurable due to previous technological limits. However, science, when it unravels these mysteries, tends to move further away from religion, not nearer to it. Religion can only hide in the shadows of our knowledge, feeding off ignorance and misunderstanding. When was the last time some important religious hypothesis was proved? Of course, the ignorant will always obfuscate and mystify with unverifiable claims and untestable hypotheses.

You are free to "worship" science all you wish. That science and religion seem to contradict each other (I say "seem" because we do not know what discoveries lay around the corner that might move the two closer together) doesn't necessarily mean one is right and the other wrong. Your idolization of "evidence" and "proof" holds no real water because - as I have said before, asked you to respond to and you have ignored thus far - there are plenty of things that people (believers and non alike) believe to be true that they have no verifiable "evidence" to support that belief.

Second, science clarifies things - yes: but science also reveals new problems, new complications. It presents us with a mixed blessing. We have medications that do great things - but many of them have significant side-effects that can harm us even to the point of killing us. Cars are an important part of our lives - but they are polluting our atmosphere and are involved in one of the leading causes of death in the United States. You speak of science in glowing terms - but it has not brought about any Utopic existence here on earth. It solves problems, but creates new ones at the same time.

Again: your terming those "ignorant" who don't base their lives on "evidence" is silly - unless you wish to share how every single belief you have is based upon incontrovertible "proof." As far as Christians are concerned, those who base their idea of "truth" only on what they can see are seriously handicapped in their ability to understand reality.

[atiguhya padma]

I do not worship science. I would have thought it was pretty clear by now that I consider all worshippers tobe deluded. You seem to live in a world of worship, not me. I recognise science as the best range of methods we have for identifying how the universe is.

You say "seem" because we do not know what discoveries lie around the corner. What kind of argument is that? I assume you use "seem" all the time, for everything then? I say God seems to be a giraffe, after all, we don't know what we might discover just around the corner.

<Second, science clarifies things - yes: but science also reveals new problems, new complications. It presents us with a mixed blessing. We have medications that do great things - but many of them have significant side-effects that can harm us even to the point of killing us.>

Science does indeed reveal new complications, new problems. As I have send before, science unlike religion, is a living system of knowledge, a deepening understanding of our universe. If it did not reveal developments in our thought, it would not be worth spending our time on it. If you believe the only truths worth exploring or defending are absolutes, then you must be either a fool or a total sceptic, after all, everything "seems" true remember?

On the contrary, equating evidence with incontrovertible proof is naive.

So tell me, what do you base your idea of truth on? And are there any truths that do not just "seem" true?

[atiguhya padma]

<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.>

I do find it quite amazing how religious people can justify such rubbish. Listen, if it was OK for children to die and go to heaven no questions asked; if that was benevolent, then anyone who was altruistic enough not to care where they ended up (ie in hell), could go on a murderous spree killing the world's children and sending them all to heaven as innocents. When God destroys a community because he doesn't like their sexual orientation, you believers somehow justify such actions, yet if a man destroysd an equal amount of people for the same reason, he seems quite evil (or maube some of you would actually commend such an act). The fact is morality isn't relative to who does what. Either killing people is wrong or it isn't. Either homophobia is wrong or it isn't. It doesn't matter whether you are God or man, an act is either moral, immoral or amoral.

I say, a child whose skin peels of his body everyday because of a genetic deformity that will eventually kill him or her, is not blessed at all, no matter where that child goes. Only a sick mind could devise a form of torture that will lead to everlasting happiness. Only a confused or naive mind could condone such a belief.

[Redzeppelin]

I do not worship science. I would have thought it was pretty clear by now that I consider all worshippers tobe deluded. You seem to live in a world of worship, not me. I recognise science as the best range of methods we have for identifying how the universe is.

Did you not see the quotation marks around the word "worship"? Do you understand what that writing convention means (when you put quotation marks around a word)? I assumed (wrongly, apparently) that it was clear I did not mean the word literally. I recognize science as one of the best range of methods we have for identifying how the universe is.

You say "seem" because we do not know what discoveries lie around the corner. What kind of argument is that? I assume you use "seem" all the time, for everything then? I say God seems to be a giraffe, after all, we don't know what we might discover just around the corner.

I say "seems" because science has had to reverse itself a number of times because new equipment/discoveries rendered the former scientific understanding obsolete or flat-out wrong. The argument is based on the history of scientific discovery; had science never been wrong or had to correct/contradict a former position, then my statement is absurd. As it is, it is perfectly logical.

Your idea that God "seems" like a giraffe is based on what? Because the only recorded account of what He's like is in the Bible - and nothing in it conforms to your rather absurd imagining. As well, because God is unchanging in His nature, we can assume the picture of Him (incomplete as it is) presented by the Bible is accurate and not subject to revision (except in how we understand Him).

Science does indeed reveal new complications, new problems. As I have send before, science unlike religion, is a living system of knowledge, a deepening understanding of our universe. If it did not reveal developments in our thought, it would not be worth spending our time on it. If you believe the only truths worth exploring or defending are absolutes, then you must be either a fool or a total sceptic, after all, everything "seems" true remember?

The Bible is a living record as well - it continues to speak to generation after generation. While its words don't change (though we do have different translations which do shed light on certain truths), their relevance continues to change with the times.

Where did I say anything about absolutes? As well, where did I indicate that "everything" seems true? I don't believe that at all. There are plenty of things that don't seem true to me and some that I don't believe to be true at all.

As far as the name-calling - depending upon who you ask in this forum, probably either term is applicable. I'm not worried about how you categorize me.

On the contrary, equating evidence with incontrovertible proof is naive.

That's true - but to listen to many atheists/evolutionists, you'd think that they see the two terms as synonymous. I'm only arguing for the limitations of science. It's got them, and those limitations mean that its "certainty" is up for questioning and revision. That tiny degree of uncertainty means that to dismiss my position because it doesn't provide evidence is hypocritical. The argument that you pose that "Any argument for anything in the physical Universe that is not evidence-based on physical events is a fruitless argument in my opinion" may not be arguing incontrovertibility, but it sure seems to look that direction - as if physical evidence establishes the truth of something.

So tell me, what do you base your idea of truth on? And are there any truths that do not just "seem" true?

I use probably the very same tools you use to assess the world and its truths. The difference is that I'm not chained to the idea that "if I can't see it, it's not real" (which your leaning on physical evidence implies). I accept that certain truths about life, love, and human nature cannot be apprehended through "scientific method." I believe that many of the greatest "truths" we accept about life (and especially human nature) are tentative at best - often reasonable, but not necessarily definitive.

Plenty of so-called "truths" do not "seem" true to me - and plenty of others do not merely "seem" but are untrue absolutely.

[Redzeppelin]

I do find it quite amazing how religious people can justify such rubbish.

Trust me, we feel the same way about some of the ideas/hypophesis/comments/arguments thrown our way from your side of the fence too. We just exchange the word "intelligent" for "religious."

Listen, if it was OK for children to die and go to heaven no questions asked; if that was benevolent, then anyone who was altruistic enough not to care where they ended up (ie in hell), could go on a murderous spree killing the world's children and sending them all to heaven as innocents.

But the record of God's character - the Bible - does not condone this behavior. That's why the Bible is so important - it establishes the parameters of Christian behavior. Your example is, therefore, invalid.

When God destroys a community because he doesn't like their sexual orientation, you believers somehow justify such actions, yet if a man destroysd an equal amount of people for the same reason, he seems quite evil (or maube some of you would actually commend such an act).

There are two errors in this logic. Number one, God is perfect in his goodness, His love, His justice and His mercy. Human beings are not. So, just on that differentiation, the two cannot be compared. We may question a human being's motives and actions - but how do you question those of a perfect Being? Number two: these kinds of comments proceed from the idea that God's justice is random, as opposed to correct and just and in response to established law. It has nothing to do with what God "likes" - the Bible clearly tells us that our greatest acts of service and holiness are mere "rags" compared to the holiness of God. Furthermore, this logic tends to imply that all behaviors (i.e. lifestyle choices) are equal and that God's justice is whim or caprice; what if His justice is based on the way things ARE? Perhaps God's justice is mercy. I think the end of Sodom was pretty harsh - but I'm not God, and I don't know all the things that went into His decision (but I do know that He would have been willing to spare the city if even 10 righteous people could be found). God's decisions are not based so much on what He "likes" or "prefers" but upon what He has established reality to be. I wonder how opposed to capital punishment you'd be for child-rapists or murderers who torture their victims? In God's eyes, all sin is equally destructive - so in His heirarchy, homosexuality is equally as destructive as murder. I'm not asking you to agree; I'm just telling you how God says He views our behaviors. Just because we may view homosexuality as a harmless non-issue does not mean that He who created everything can't see things differently.

Real Christians do not rejoice in the suffering or death of any of God's children.

The fact is morality isn't relative to who does what. Either killing people is wrong or it isn't. Either homophobia is wrong or it isn't. It doesn't matter whether you are God or man, an act is either moral, immoral or amoral.

This sounds pretty black/white - absolute (wasn't I getting criticized for being "absolute" a few posts ago?). Morality isn't relative, but I believe that even God understands mitigating circumstances. As well, are you saying that all killing is wrong, always? Really? I do not see my killing of the maniac intent on raping/torturing my wife as inappropriate in the least.

I say, a child whose skin peels of his body everyday because of a genetic deformity that will eventually kill him or her, is not blessed at all, no matter where that child goes. Only a sick mind could devise a form of torture that will lead to everlasting happiness. Only a confused or naive mind could condone such a belief.

God would agree that such a life is not a blessing; but He would counter that eternity in heaven is fair compensation for the troubles we have had to endure. Don't think that means that God is cavalier or indifferent - it means that someday, all our sufferings here will vanish in the light of eternity by His side.

Again: as far as "confused" and "naive" is concerned, we Christians feel the same way about some of the thought processes we hear argued towards us from your side of the fence.

[Pendragon]

And so it goes… The horse is dead, no amount of beating will make it get up and go. Bury the poor creature; the stench is stifling. When we get reduced to name-calling, we cease to be intelligent adults, regardless of our argument, and are behaving like kindergarteners. Time-out, please.

[Redzeppelin]

And so it goes… The horse is dead, no amount of beating will make it get up and go. Bury the poor creature; the stench is stifling. When we get reduced to name-calling, we cease to be intelligent adults, regardless of our argument, and are behaving like kindergarteners. Time-out, please.

Oh, Pen, I so agree. But the debate will go on whether you or I engage or not. If all of the current posters vanished, a new slew would take our place. Carpe diem, buddy.

(PS - I don't like the name-calling either, but I can't custom pick my opponents, so I'll just continue to put up with it )

[kilted exile]

In God's eyes, all sin is equally destructive - so in His heirarchy, homosexuality is equally as destructive as murder. I'm not asking you to agree; I'm just telling you how God says He views our behaviors. Just because we may view homosexuality as a harmless non-issue does not mean that He who created everything can't see things differently.

Just a quick point, if I am wrong and there is a god, and if he thinks likes this I dont think I'd enjoy heaven too much, rather take my chances in the other place.

[hyperborean]

Speaking of sins...

Sin is an imaginary burden. Repenting to a priest (that believes he has some sort of special connection to God) is ridiculous. If in fact you want God's "forgiveness" then just pray...you don't have to speak with a man that thinks he's higher than you.

Instead of calling these burdens "sins", rename them "flaws". Replicate what Dante did and correct your character. Only then will you reach the stars.

[Redzeppelin]

Just a quick point, if I am wrong and there is a god, and if he thinks likes this I dont think I'd enjoy heaven too much, rather take my chances in the other place.

Lightly said - because if you really believed that Hell existed, you might say differently. I find it fascinating that people will often make this statement - "I'd rather suffer in Hell than be with a God like this" as if political correctness is worth sacrificing your soul for.

Your comment is based on the idea that our idea of the implications of a homosexual lifestyle are more enlightened/informed/realistic/whatever than that of a Supreme Being. We can trumpet "politically correct" ideas all we want - what I'm asking you to entertain is the idea that our evaluation of a specific thing may not be correct.

Try this: just pretend for a minute that a Being exists that is PERFECT in its mind and heart - that it is the embodiment of all that is good and right and just and fair and merciful and compassionate - but to a degree of perfection that humans can never, ever reach. Assuming such a being exists, shouldn't we have reason to consider what this Being defines as right and wrong? To speak as you have is - in my opinion - to treat God as if He is just another person who says "I don't like homosexuals" (which, by the way is not something He would ever say). God is not a magnified human being - He is a Supreme Being - one who is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Once you accept that, then you have to consider that He may very well know better than we as to what is good and bad, right and wrong.

In fact, I think the idea that God sees all sin as equal is actually comforting - it means that none of us is better than anybody else; as well, it also means that there is no sin so terrible that places a person outside of the forgiveness of God. The bad part is that everybody now finds themselves in need of forgiveness, no matter how "virtuous" the life.