Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Neoteny]

Aha, you've basically contradicted scientific idea. You say power must be created through other power. Meaning that God can't exist because something else would've had to create God. But yet, the science you are agreeing with as far as evolution, says that the universe was created by a cosmic event, The Big Bang, are they not the same thing.

Heh, I'm not saying that's my point of view. It's the religious point of view that says that all this had to be created by something. As far as singularities like the big bang go, again we don't fully understand it, but science has made much more progress at understanding the infinite than any theistic philosophy has.

Anyway, my understanding of big bang theory is that during the big bang, there was a point of infinite density that expanded. The big bang didn't create anything other than the current time scale of our reality. The matter and energy was already there. We can ask what happened before that but that is outside our reality. We may find out someday. We may never know. Maybe that is where god is. If so, then he doesn't exist.

Whatever the singularity at the beginning of our universe is, I can tell you what it isn't. It is not supernatural. It is a natural event that does not answer prayers, save your cat from cancer, or send that guy who cut you off on the highway (probably me) to hell. And it did not create the earth in a way to fool us into thinking the grand canyon wasn't created by a flood.

So what this all boils down to is the following: is god infinite, or is the universe infinite? Well, we can prove the universe exists, unless you are one of those people who thinks we are all illusions (go figure), and a universe without a creator is much more probable than one with a creator (think parsimony or Occam's razor), and in a universe without a creator, we don't have to worry about blowing each other up over our imaginary friends...

or do we?

And seriously, if any of you haven't already, look up string theory. It hurts my head just thinking about it...

[mybike_yourface]

...but an even bigger issue would be "who created god?" for nothing can exist for ever...

That doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand what you mean.

"god" arose from nothingness. it's the only logical conclussion.

[mybike_yourface]

Aha, you've basically contradicted scientific idea. You say power must be created through other power. Meaning that God can't exist because something else would've had to create God. But yet, the science you are agreeing with as far as evolution, says that the universe was created by a cosmic event, The Big Bang, are they not the same thing.

Heh, I'm not saying that's my point of view. It's the religious point of view that says that all this had to be created by something. As far as singularities like the big bang go, again we don't fully understand it, but science has made much more progress at understanding the infinite than any theistic philosophy has.

Anyway, my understanding of big bang theory is that during the big bang, there was a point of infinite density that expanded. The big bang didn't create anything other than the current time scale of our reality. The matter and energy was already there. We can ask what happened before that but that is outside our reality. We may find out someday. We may never know. Maybe that is where god is. If so, then he doesn't exist.

Whatever the singularity at the beginning of our universe is, I can tell you what it isn't. It is not supernatural. It is a natural event that does not answer prayers, save your cat from cancer, or send that guy who cut you off on the highway (probably me) to hell. And it did not create the earth in a way to fool us into thinking the grand canyon wasn't created by a flood.

So what this all boils down to is the following: is god infinite, or is the universe infinite? Well, we can prove the universe exists, unless you are one of those people who thinks we are all illusions (go figure), and a universe without a creator is much more probable than one with a creator (think parsimony or Occam's razor), and in a universe without a creator, we don't have to worry about blowing each other up over our imaginary friends...

or do we?

And seriously, if any of you haven't already, look up string theory. It hurts my head just thinking about it...

string thoery is just the current wacky theory.

daoism has been teaching a parralel philosphy all along. in daoism the universe arose from a nothingness beyond conception. like in the big bang theory(which is a misnomer of sorts)matter and energy suddenly arose and eventually split into 2 main substances (hydrogen and helium) which beget 4 then 8 etc. exponentially.

[Snorri1234]

No, I'm not, but that's a good point as well. I'm talking about the fact that under creationism, everything is made like it is. Meaning that just because there's erosion that has made rivers wider and such, doesn't mean that's it's taken billions of years to do so.

So you're saying that God created the world to look like it has taken billions of years to form, but it has only actually been around for 6000 or so?

[Neoteny]

...but an even bigger issue would be "who created god?" for nothing can exist for ever...

That doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand what you mean.

"god" arose from nothingness. it's the only logical conclussion.

Arising from nothingness is logical? I can't tell if this is sarcasm or something I should respond to...

String theory matches all the predictions made by quantum physics, general relativity, etc so it qualifies as a possibility for a unified theory of physics. However, it's difficult to test experimentally. It makes for an interesting read and doesn't contradict anything we already know.

daoism has been teaching a parralel philosphy all along. in daoism the universe arose from a nothingness beyond conception. like in the big bang theory(which is a misnomer of sorts)matter and energy suddenly arose and eventually split into 2 main substances (hydrogen and helium) which beget 4 then 8 etc. exponentially.

As far as Daoism goes, just because it sounds like a modern theory, doesn't mean it should be given equal status. I've had many thoughts of how the universe was formed, some sound like current scientific theory, most didn't, but I don't claim any of them had any scientific integrity. I was just thinking about the world, not testing it. Plus, before H and He, current theory says there were even more (more than two) particles that had to combine to form those elements.

[Neoteny]

And if anyone is curious, watch PBS tonight for "Judgement Day," the documentary about the comedy... i mean court case... in Dover a little while back.

[MeDeFe]

Could someone record it and put it on the internet? For strictly personal use, of course!

[Carebian Knight]

Maybe that is where god is. If so, then he doesn't exist.

You just contradicted yourself.

So you're saying that God created the world to look like it has taken billions of years to form, but it has only actually been around for 6000 or so?

No I'm saying science is retarded, and wrong.

Whatever the singularity at the beginning of our universe is, I can tell you what it isn't. It is not supernatural. It is a natural event that does not answer prayers, save your cat from cancer, or send that guy who cut you off on the highway (probably me) to hell. And it did not create the earth in a way to fool us into thinking the grand canyon wasn't created by a flood.

Before Columbus, the world was flat. There was no evidence to prove against it, but then again, people couldn't actually see the world. Then after Columbus it was proven that the world was round. We can now see that from space and know that it is true.

People used to think the Earth was the middle of the solar system. Yet there was no evidence and people couldn't actually see the solar system. Now we know that everything revolves around the sun.

The point I'm making is, just because something is widely believed, doesn't mean that it's right. People seem to believe that if the majority of scientists say it's right, then it is right. But later someone comes along and does a simple thing that proves that they have been wrong.

Therefore, we can't truly prove anything about the universe because we can't see it as a whole. We see bits of it and say how it fits together, that doesn't mean we are correct. Plus, there is a large portion that we can't even see, many parts of the universe are guesses, scientists say they are there because it proves their point. But by that standard, why am I not right, all I said, was God was the reason for it all. That proves my point, so why do the majority of people not believe so.

[Frigidus]

daoism has been teaching a parralel philosphy all along. in daoism the universe arose from a nothingness beyond conception. like in the big bang theory(which is a misnomer of sorts)matter and energy suddenly arose and eventually split into 2 main substances (hydrogen and helium) which beget 4 then 8 etc. exponentially.

Wait, are you saying that daoism knew about the elements for that long? Heheheh, maybe I'm misunderstanding. That said:

So you're saying that God created the world to look like it has taken billions of years to form, but it has only actually been around for 6000 or so?

No I'm saying science is retarded, and wrong.

That's got to be a tough point of view to argue from, especially considering how far our society has progressed because of science. Are you referring to the whole of it or just the parts that disagree with the bible (quick note, that isn't meant to piss you off I'm just trying to clarify).

Whatever the singularity at the beginning of our universe is, I can tell you what it isn't. It is not supernatural. It is a natural event that does not answer prayers, save your cat from cancer, or send that guy who cut you off on the highway (probably me) to hell. And it did not create the earth in a way to fool us into thinking the grand canyon wasn't created by a flood.

Before Columbus, the world was flat. There was no evidence to prove against it, but then again, people couldn't actually see the world. Then after Columbus it was proven that the world was round. We can now see that from space and know that it is true.

People used to think the Earth was the middle of the solar system. Yet there was no evidence and people couldn't actually see the solar system. Now we know that everything revolves around the sun.

The point I'm making is, just because something is widely believed, doesn't mean that it's right. People seem to believe that if the majority of scientists say it's right, then it is right. But later someone comes along and does a simple thing that proves that they have been wrong.

Therefore, we can't truly prove anything about the universe because we can't see it as a whole. We see bits of it and say how it fits together, that doesn't mean we are correct. Plus, there is a large portion that we can't even see, many parts of the universe are guesses, scientists say they are there because it proves their point. But by that standard, why am I not right, all I said, was God was the reason for it all. That proves my point, so why do the majority of people not believe so.

Ah, but you forget that the reason that people believed all of those things for so long was because that was the church's official stance. Those that said otherwise were declared heretics and threatened with excommunication (or worse). It wasn't scientists that were pushing those particular theories so hard.

[unriggable]

The point I'm making is, just because something is widely believed, doesn't mean that it's right. People seem to believe that if the majority of scientists say it's right, then it is right. But later someone comes along and does a simple thing that proves that they have been wrong.

What you say is true, but in a reversed sense...

Darwin was the someone and evolution was the simple thing. It is the new concept, the world around the sun, the round earth. Creationism is the theory that stands its ground.

[Bavarian Raven]

its more like that if "god" just came to exist on its own, it is just as probable that life "came" to exist on its own without a "god's" help.

and if "god" is so powerful, how come the best mericles he can preform is making a statue "drink mink" or making his face "appear" on a piece of bread? just putting that point out there...'

sorry if it is a bit off topic but...

[Frigidus]

What you say is true, but in a reversed sense...

Darwin was the someone and evolution was the simple thing. It is the new concept, the world around the sun, the round earth. Creationism is the theory that stands its ground.

What the hell is your avatar.

[Neoteny]

Maybe that is where god is. If so, then he doesn't exist.

You just contradicted yourself.

Glad to see that humor is wasted on you Carebian. I was joking that if god exists outside our reality, then he is not real. It's not as funny when I have to explain it.

Before Columbus, the world was flat. There was no evidence to prove against it, but then again, people couldn't actually see the world. Then after Columbus it was proven that the world was round. We can now see that from space and know that it is true.

No evidence that the world was round? Have you ever seen the horizon? If anything, like Frigidus said, free inquiry into that form of scientific examination was suppressed by the church. Not to mention, all education between classical Greek philosophy and Renaissance and Enlightenment inquiry was purely biblically based. The bible is notorious for its round-earth advocacy (sarcasm). By the way, Magellan's voyage demonstrated that the world was round. Columbus just expanded the known world beyond Europe, Asia, and Africa.

The point I'm making is, just because something is widely believed, doesn't mean that it's right. People seem to believe that if the majority of scientists say it's right, then it is right. But later someone comes along and does a simple thing that proves that they have been wrong.

Therefore, we can't truly prove anything about the universe because we can't see it as a whole. We see bits of it and say how it fits together, that doesn't mean we are correct. Plus, there is a large portion that we can't even see, many parts of the universe are guesses, scientists say they are there because it proves their point. But by that standard, why am I not right, all I said, was God was the reason for it all. That proves my point, so why do the majority of people not believe so.

For the record, in the US, creationism is believed by as many, if not more people, than evolution is. So if your argument is that the majority is not always right, perhaps you should observe that. The beauty of science is that all this "belief" in science is based on observations of our universe. Agreed: entire scientific paradigms have been upset during the course of enlightened inquiry. However, it has always been done by other scientists using facts based on empirical observation. I cannot think of any major paradigm shifts in science being initiated by a religious figure.

As far as scientific "guesses," the biggest guesses in the history of mankind are those based on the archaic, outdated, chavinistic, sadistic, hypocritical, antihuman, antiprogress, narrowminded supernatural texts. Additionally, just because we can't "prove" the existance of anything, doesn't mean we can't have a damn good idea about it. You can't prove your existance to me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

its more like that if "god" just came to exist on its own, it is just as probable that life "came" to exist on its own without a "god's" help.

Well said. I'm not sure I was as clear on that point as I should have been.

No I'm saying science is retarded, and wrong.

And this little gem is astounding. Who are you to place your petty worldview above those of the genius of Einstein, Hawking, Newton (religious), Darwin, Curie, Mendel (a monk), and Pasteur. Get over yourself.

[Neoteny]

And for everyone who missed the PBS documentary, you really missed out. Intelligent design = spanked.

[Frigidus]

For the record, in the US, creationism is believed by as many, if not more people, than evolution is. So if your argument is that the majority is not always right, perhaps you should observe that.

I keep hearing this idea thrown around. Just wondering, but does anyone have an actual figure for what percent of the population believes in creation? Also, is it that they believe in creation or that they don't believe in evolution? Two very different things there.

[heavycola]

[quote="Neoteny"]entire scientific paradigms have been upset during the course of enlightened inquiry. However, it has always been done by other scientists using facts based on empirical observation. I cannot think of any major paradigm shifts in science being initiated by a religious figure.
[quote]

good point. Mass conversion, anyone?

[Neoteny]

I keep hearing this idea thrown around. Just wondering, but does anyone have an actual figure for what percent of the population believes in creation? Also, is it that they believe in creation or that they don't believe in evolution? Two very different things there.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

This is a poll from about 3 years ago that I got from just a quick search. I haven't looked into any biases that might have influenced the poll but I figure the first hit from an msn search can't be too bad. It isn't too hard to find the polls. Looking at a few of them, I realize I may have misspoken: there are polls that show evolution ahead of creationism in some hits. So I'll admit my mistake there. My bad. However, I haven't found one that doesn't show support for creationism being taught in the classroom at less than 60%. I'm curious to see if there are any recent ones showing less than 60% though. Let me know if anyone sees one.

[MeDeFe]

According to that site it was Creationism and Evolution, and it didn't say if creationism should be taught in natural sciences classes or in humanities, like philospy or religious studies or something.

[got tonkaed]

I keep hearing this idea thrown around. Just wondering, but does anyone have an actual figure for what percent of the population believes in creation? Also, is it that they believe in creation or that they don't believe in evolution? Two very different things there.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

This is a poll from about 3 years ago that I got from just a quick search. I haven't looked into any biases that might have influenced the poll but I figure the first hit from an msn search can't be too bad. It isn't too hard to find the polls. Looking at a few of them, I realize I may have misspoken: there are polls that show evolution ahead of creationism in some hits. So I'll admit my mistake there. My bad. However, I haven't found one that doesn't show support for creationism being taught in the classroom at less than 60%. I'm curious to see if there are any recent ones showing less than 60% though. Let me know if anyone sees one.

I did a project once on the legality of teaching creationism in public schools in science classes.

Your stats i think are pretty good, i think they were corroborated by a few different acadmeic studies. However i think its worth mentioning, if it isnt in your source that a lot of these people are sort of in the grey area about teaching it in schools.

The typical argument that is used is something about fairness and equal time for both sides of the discussion...which many people seem to think is alright. However most people dont know about the issues with the establishment clause and the teaching of evolution, so its safe to say many of the people are sort of in the affirmative because they dont know much about the actual issue.

[Neoteny]

According to that site it was Creationism and Evolution, and it didn't say if creationism should be taught in natural sciences classes or in humanities, like philospy or religious studies or something.

That's true, but something tells me that the fifty to sixty percent who wanted it included (evangelicals and regular church-goers) didn't just want to study the literary significance.

The typical argument that is used is something about fairness and equal time for both sides of the discussion...which many people seem to think is alright. However most people dont know about the issues with the establishment clause and the teaching of evolution, so its safe to say many of the people are sort of in the affirmative because they dont know much about the actual issue.

That is one of the most disturbing things about this whole issue. People seem to seriously believe that creationism/creation science/intelligent design are credible scientific theories, indicating that they have no idea how science works. In short, science is not a debate between sides. Science is not a democracy. There is a right answer, and a wrong answer, and though evolution may not have all the answers, it's better supported by evidence which makes it more right than creationism. That only leaves creationism in the wrong answer domain.

I appreciate the backup on the stats. If you still have any of the articles you used for the project, feel free to put them up. I worry that the thread might die before WidowMakers can post the 95 theses/thesis paper that is in the works.

[Carebian Knight]

In short, science is not a debate between sides. Science is not a democracy. There is a right answer, and a wrong answer.

Science is a debate between sides. Only the final product of that debate is when there is a right answer and a wrong answer.

I don't know about the rest of you, but whenever I talk about Creationism, I'm usually arguing by myself or with just 2 or 3 people against everyone else. So I doubt those figures are correct.

Neoteny: It wasn't funny in the first place.
I was referring to Columbus's time, there was no proof that they knew of that the world was round. While it wasn't proven when Columbus discovered the New World, it was more widely believed, and that's what I was referring to.

Plus, how do you get that the horizon proves the world is round?

And this little gem is astounding. Who are you to place your petty worldview above those of the genius of Einstein, Hawking, Newton (religious), Darwin, Curie, Mendel (a monk), and Pasteur. Get over yourself.

You don't have to tell me that Newton and Mendel had connections with the church, I'm not stupid. Second, I wasn't referring to science in general, although it is retarded in quite a few other areas, I was talking about evolution.

[unriggable]

I was referring to Columbus's time, there was no proof that they knew of that the world was round.

Not true. Egyptians figured that out millenia before.

[Guiscard]

I was referring to Columbus's time, there was no proof that they knew of that the world was round. While it wasn't proven when Columbus discovered the New World, it was more widely believed, and that's what I was referring to.

No. It wasn't. Aristotle pointed out that the further south you go the higher constellations seem in the sky. Furthermore, he noted that the shadow of the moon was always round wherever it was in the sky (hence spherical, not a disc). Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth in 240BC. He was between 2% and 20% out (depending on the system of length we think he used) - which is fairly accurate really. In the first century Pliny the Elder wrote that everyone agreed that the earth was spherical. The dominant scientific works through the medieval period all support a spherical earth, as does Islamic scholarship. St Thomas Aquinas wrote about it as a given, as does Dante's Divine Comedy and Magellan proved it outright with a circumnavigation of the earth in the 16th century.

[Bavarian Raven]

Carebian Knight wrote:
I was referring to Columbus's time, there was no proof that they knew of that the world was round.


Not true. Egyptians figured that out millenia before.

i believe egyptians figured it out too...

...the problem with religion is most religous people are so "narrow minded" they refuse to see the truth when the evidence is right in front of them...and that is what makes them dangerous...

(turning away from the truth is treason to one's self)

[Bavarian Raven]

...i meant to write the phinicians (sp) figured it out too...opps, my bad...