A solution to the creationism v. evolution debate

[TheIr0nMike]

Better idea, why don't we teach what's been proven by science in science class. I don't mind people believing in religion, but don't indoctrinate people into it. I don't go into churches and say that their isn't a god and they should all give up hope (I've thought of it, just for lulz, but I have respect for other people's beliefs and know what belongs where).

 

[Samirat]

As far as I'm concerned, atheists are essentially the same thing as those who are religious. Both believe in something, with no proof. In fact, I think there is more evidence towards the existence of God then to the opposite. For instance, what created the universe? The Big Bang is not a theory about the creation of the universe. Even before the Big Bang, there was something, some tiny point of matter, from which the universe sprang. So, what created that?

 

[godinshorts]

i do study biology, as a matter of fact im about a quarter of the way through grade 12 biology, thats what made me realize how messed up the human body is.

 

[Graustein]

As far as I'm concerned, atheists are essentially the same thing as those who are religious. Both believe in something, with no proof. In fact, I think there is more evidence towards the existence of God then to the opposite. For instance, what created the universe? The Big Bang is not a theory about the creation of the universe. Even before the Big Bang, there was something, some tiny point of matter, from which the universe sprang. So, what created that?

Except that atheism is the absence of belief in God, no more, no less. It's not belief in the nonexistance of God, although there are more than a few atheists who hold that view.

The Big Bang is a theory about how the universe as we know it began. As to where the Big Bang came from, we're still looking. The fact that we don't know where the Big Bang came from is not evidence that it was done by God.

 

[Joeshie]

As to the original post that was made, there is no debate between creationism and evolution. Evolution is based on observation and large quantities of evidence while creationism is not. At it's current form, creationism is basically a religiously fueled idea in order to try to push a religious agenda upon society.

As far as I'm concerned, atheists are essentially the same thing as those who are religious.

Atheism can be defined as either the lack of a belief in a God (weak atheism) or a belief in the lack of a God (strong atheism). Weak atheists don't actually have any sort of beliefs either way. This group is often paired up with agnostics.

For instance, what created the universe? The Big Bang is not a theory about the creation of the universe. Even before the Big Bang, there was something, some tiny point of matter, from which the universe sprang. So, what created that?

The problem you are making is that you are assuming that there needs to be a creator. Who says that there needs to be a creator? The problem with the Big Bang is that it's really difficult to theorize what happened "before" it. The current idea is that time (the fourth dimension) was created at the Big Bang. Since there is theoretically no time until the Big Bang, how can something be before it? The concepts of "before" and "after" lose all meaning when time isn't present. The very nature of the universe "prior" to the Big Bang may be completely outside the realm of human comprehension.

 

[Alex_P]

As far as I'm concerned, atheists are essentially the same thing as those who are religious. Both believe in something, with no proof. In fact, I think there is more evidence towards the existence of God then to the opposite. For instance, what created the universe? The Big Bang is not a theory about the creation of the universe. Even before the Big Bang, there was something, some tiny point of matter, from which the universe sprang. So, what created that?

That take on God creates many more questions than it answers, e.g.:
- Who created God?
- How does this version of God actually match up with, say, Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah?

-- Alex

 

[Bob the Average]

the way i reconcile the two is God creates the universe and more or less lets' nature take care of it's self so evolution starts as animals start to hunt or avoid being eaten

 

[Zer_]

String theory, if somehow proven right will probably blow creationism out of the water.

Unless creationists are all like "HA! That stuff is evidence planted by God to test your faith! Gotcha now, eh?!" Sort of what they do with carbon dating.

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

As far as I'm concerned, atheists are essentially the same thing as those who are religious. Both believe in something, with no proof. In fact, I think there is more evidence towards the existence of God then to the opposite. For instance, what created the universe? The Big Bang is not a theory about the creation of the universe. Even before the Big Bang, there was something, some tiny point of matter, from which the universe sprang. So, what created that?

Reminds me of St. Thomas Aquinas.

But who says there was anything before the big bang? Why can't the Universe just have always existed?

 

[Walden]

As far as I'm concerned, atheists are essentially the same thing as those who are religious. Both believe in something, with no proof. In fact, I think there is more evidence towards the existence of God then to the opposite. For instance, what created the universe? The Big Bang is not a theory about the creation of the universe. Even before the Big Bang, there was something, some tiny point of matter, from which the universe sprang. So, what created that?

Well, you can't really say. You can say that God made it, and I can say that an omnipotent slug made it, but there's no evidence to back either of our points. There is no possible scientific way (that we know of) of working your way back before the Big Bang, so any hypotheses about "what came before" have no evidence.

 

[Samirat]

Hey, look at all the people.

Post 109

I would generally consider those that don't believe in a god to be the same as those who believe in no god. However, the former tends toward agnosticism.

Post 110

There are two possibilities. Either what exists now always existed, in some way, shape, or form, and that is hard to grasp. Or, it came into existence, somehow. One's almost inconceivable, though I lean towards it as the more likely theory. The other is more accessible, but only those who believe in something omnipotent can really fashion some sort of explanation for this.

Post 111

1. I don't believe that this issue actually arises for those who are religious, at least in some religions. God exists, has always existed, and will always exist. The fact that he's omnipotent practically requires that. How can you be omnipotent if you can't control everything?

2. Who cares? Just because I use a capital "G" God doesn't mean that I'm talking about one of your traditional monotheistic gods. I just use that because it's like a title. You might say "a god exists" or you might say "God exists." I don't really think it matters how it relates to conventional images of a supreme being.

114

Hmm, I think you've misread me. I'm actually agnostic, I was just pointing out that faith in no god is practically the same as faith in a god. I'm actually agnostic.

I actually agree that the Universe could have always existed.

Post 115

When I say God, I could just as well mean an omnipotent slug. As long as it's omnipotent. Or maybe not, maybe it just has the power to create universes on a whim, but can't really do anything else. Doesn't really matter.

The point is that those who have faith in a god find some answers in their faith, even if those answers are sometimes lacking in physical proof. Atheists who are faithful to the belief that there is no god find no answers, and shut themselves off to an answer that is, to our knowledge, entirely possible. If science were to prove the existence of a god tomorrow, would the atheists then be the ones behaving contrary to scientific proof? Since there is no evidence to support either claim, I maintain that it's best to leave yourself open to all possibilities.

 

[Graustein]

Hey, look at all the people.

Post 109

I would generally consider those that don't believe in a god to be the same as those who believe in no god. However, the former tends toward agnosticism.

It doesn't matter, atheism is defined as the lack of belief in God, not a belief in no God. There is a difference. And atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive, nor, for that matter, are theism and agnosticism.

 

[Blind Punk Riot]

Hitler was also a vegetarian. And terrible at backgammon.

Though he always won at Parcheesi.

True that!
He throws double sixes out like a madman.

 

[Redlac]

Interesting question Alex. But I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

I did write my comment at 3am, so a spot of tiredness might have crept in there. Allow me to elaborate a little.

I was not inferring that God didn't do anything in our universe. I'm certain he's very busy. It's just that we can't test what exactly it is he is doing. What we tend to do is focus on specific God 'Flash-points', when God does something spectacular. It's usually a one-off, an exception to the normal rules. Science relies on repeated observations, so a lot of these 'Flash Point' proofs that some Christians bring to the fore for the existence of God are discounted because they can't be reproduced.

Visions are a good example. Science would see visions in the same class as dreams, because they know from testing over the years that people have dreams and hallucinations, and what causes them. So a vision would probably get placed in this category. They would say my vision would have something to do with the brain, not to do with God actually turning up to say hello.

So my point is, although I believe in a God that is active in the world, it's difficult for science to say that God had moved because it can't be tested. Plus, God himself can't be tested because no one knows what God is made of. I hope that helps.

 

[hypothetical fact]

For everyone asking what created the matter for the big bang, stop. Science has no explanation or theory for it so it is left in the unknown but being researched pile, just like dark matter and everything else you don't know. Science not having an explanation for something yet is not "evidence" for religion because you have no evidence that it was god either. I could make up a random theory on the creation of the universe and according to that form of thought it would be backed by evidence.

Evolution and the big bang are two mutually exclusive theories, stop mixing them! Just because there are holes in the big bang theory doesn't mean a thing about the credibility of evolution.

Finally remember that evolution and the big bang are "theories" as in they are not fact and nobody is parading them as fact; even if they are eventually pulled apart it will not mean a victory for religion only that a new theory needs to be established and tested. So again no; any possible flaws in scientific theories are not evidence of religion because theories adapt to scrutiny and change with new discoveries, religion does not; and is only a fall back if no one can possibly come up with a new theory which is not going to happen any time soon.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

As a proffesional godless infidel, there are several points here I approve of:

1. Teaching Genesis as a religious matter, not as a scientific one- GOOD. Don't pretend it's a fact. It's a religious theory. Much as evolution is a scientific theory. Ergo-Evolution is taught in science, Geneisis is taught in RE. Problem solved! GET OVER IT.

2. Same with Big Bang. Should be taught as scientific theory.

3. A connection I've realised between the two- while evolution and Big Bang are seperate (one's biology and one's physics) is that Genesis combines the two, thus resulting in confusion amongst the opposition.

4. The most entertainingly specious argument I've heard is: 'You'll never find proof of god in the universe, because god is the universe.' It's almost as good as: 'Because the bible says so' and 'Because there's no proof.'


WhatI dissaprove of is.

1. The sheer historical ignorance on this forum. Now, the Lord Fondant shalt enlighten thee, ignorant peasants:
a) Lenin was a mass murderer. His chekists killed several million people directly (bullet-to-the-brain), and far more indirectly due to his stupid 'War Communism' agricultural plicy.

b) I'm sure all the dead Orthodox priests, clerics and general people killed or imprisioned for their beleif systems would be pleased to know that they didn't actually die or suffer torture and imprisonment because Stalin despised the Orthodox church. And I'm sure all the Jews and Catholics who died for their beliefs will be happy to know that too. FOOLS.

(Sources: I would like to that Mssrs Robert Service (A history of 20th Centuary Russia), Donald Rayfield (Stalin and His Hangmen) and Alexander Solzheitsyn (The Gulag Archipelago)for their contributions to explosion of ignorance)

c) Hitler persecuted both the Catholic and Protestant churches in Germany, sent many of their leaders to the concentration camps, and described Christianity as: 'effeminate pity-ethics' and so on.

d)Great Men of Faith: Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Martin Luther, Nelson Mandela, FDR, Colombus, Marco Polo, Caeser, Alexander the Great, Solzyhitzin.... want me to go on?

e) There'ssome other shit, but I haven't the time or energy.

 

[ianuam]

And there lies the problem of theist and atheist alike. God can't be proved or disproved by science. Science can only measure and see what is in this universe of ours. God is separate to the universe. Which doesn't help an awful lot.

Outside/separate from the Universe? What does that mean exactly? That's right it doesn't, it's an excuse/retort from the religious when presented with evidence that is contrary to their belief in the existence in god. How would such a being, separate from the Universe, go about interacting in it? Surely to manipulate this universe one would have to be in contact with it, and thus be bound by the rules of nature. Ergo, becoming succeptable to the laws of physics. Following on from this, surely this would mean existence in the universe? Yet this is all but disproved.

Philosophers feel free to correct any faulty logic.

 

[RetiarySword]

Your theory fails from the start as the big bang was a natural event, your just saying 'God was there' to try bottle it all up. Your implying that a God did make everything, as he made the big bang. Epic fail.

Please close this thread as I single handedly shot it down with my squad cannon.

Wow

Just...

wow.

Hang on, gotta get Jack Thompson on the phone and tell him that we've found someone who's more close minded than he is.
"Hey, Jack? Yeah. Amnestic. You'll never believe it! No, I'm totally serious, he's actually more close minded than you are! I know right, it's mind boggling. Listen man, I gotta go mock him some more on the forums. Okay, go die from a incident completely unrelated to video games man. Hahah. Talk to you later."

Sorry about that, you know how it is, gotta keep people in the loop about this kinda thing.

Your very points are so flawed I can't actually argue. It'd be like arguing with a young earth creationist about carbon dating. I know I'm right but they're so stuck in their moronic stubborn beliefs that they won't budge.

Go on then, enlighten me as your obviously a fucking scholar of knowledge! How was I closed minded exacly?

 

[Redlac]

ianuam, I'd already added some extra stuff about what I'd written in response to someone else, about two or three posts above yours.