A solution to the creationism v. evolution debate

[tk1989]

The thing is i think that the stuff that caused the big bang had to come from somewhere so there is the distinct possibility that this 'stuff' had to come from some form of higher creator.

However i have i theory that will satisfy both parties in this argument.

God created the building blocks for the universe and then guided the evolution of the universe to what it is today.

Spoiler: for the record

I'm an Agnostic. I'm open to the concept me religon but I have never been truly convinced by it.

Ok man, I can see where you are coming from. In fact, I'm sure everyone can understand what you are saying. While i do not personally believe that God caused the big bang, there is no evidence on what did, so i can't exactly argue against this idea.

What I do argue against though is the people who believe that the world is 4000 years old.... Generally die hard creationists take the old testament and believe that it is meant to be non-fictional stories, which they clearly were never meant to be. When i hear the word 'Creationist', it reminds me of these kind of people... meh

 

[Uszi]

You all know about it. The debate about How god created everything or it all started slowly creating itself from a giant explosion.

Too bad the theory of evolution says NOTHING about the origins of the universe. It does not depend at all on you believing that. All evolution says is that given enough time, forces like genetic drift, migration, mutation, natural selection and assortative mating will shape a population such that the mean fitness of each individual increases.

There is absolutely nothing in violation of evolution if you think space traveling, tap-dancing leprechauns seeded the earth with the first microbes by sneezing in a warm puddle.

The thing is i think that the stuff that caused the big bang had to come from somewhere so there is the distinct possibility that this 'stuff' had to come from some form of higher creator.

And many, many scientists agree with you.
It's just much more useful to adopt a materialistic approach to questions in the labratory. You can never answer a question if you say, "It was an act of God," rather than investigating what possible natural phenomenon could cause something. But that's not to say you can't put your head on the pillow at night thinking, "Well, it must have been an act of God."

However i have i theory that will satisfy both parties in this argument.

God created the building blocks for the universe and then guided the evolution of the universe to what it is today.

And so many people would personally agree with you. But if you're asking scientists trying to develop an understanding of the universe to call it a night, invoke the "God" clause, and go home, then you miss the point. The debate is irrelevant. I would wager that many evolutionists agree with your above quote.

As a side-note, the escapist has a disproportionately large number of atheists. So I will not consider, "I don't think that!" a valid exception.

An equivalent in our lives is spore. Guiding games moulding the universe, constantly improving on his creations, adapting them to better suit their environments, also known as evolution , much like a kid in a sandbox.

Do you have a theory that would satisfy both sides and allow this debate to cease or is this a fairly decent one?

Here's my theory:
Believe whatever the fuck you want. If you want to base your beliefs on evidence, then do, if you don't want to use science, then don't; the further back in time you go, the less and less difference there are between the two anyway.

 

[SecretTacoNinja]

As for the debate on how the universe came into being: Tell them to stop giving a shit because we'll never know. I think The Big Bang is a plausible theory

Your expertise in the scientfic field and this compelling argument has moved me to incredible sarcasm.

What did I do?
Alright alright, I put it in a rather stupid way, but we'll never know so why the fuck are we arguing about it? And what's wrong with the Big Bang theory?

 

[Limasol]

That theory is actually already one of the six existing brands of creationist thought. But the young earthers get all the attention because they are the most retarded and loudest shouters. Also, saying that doesn't satisfy both sides. The science side is only satisfied once you've proved a God existed to make the building blocks. Seeing as there are hundred of more likely scenario's there no reason for them to adopt this even if they were tired of arguing. All your doing is putting the god part in a less important part of the question, but it is still unnecessary.

 

[AuntyEthel]

Two words.

No solution.

 

[Uszi]

The Catholics and The Jews see it.
Hell, the Jews are the most scientifically understanding of the religions that worship Yahweh.
Why can't the fatty american Christians see it?
Oh.
Yeah.
American.

YEAH!
There are no fit American Catholics!
JFK was a secret protestant robot!
YEAAAH!

 

[Graustein]

What did I do?

I think it was the whole "tell them to stop giving a shit because we'll never know"
Apparently we will know eventually. Although the relevence and practical applications of such a discovery continue to elude me.

 

[Amnestic]

What did I do?

I think it was the whole "tell them to stop giving a shit because we'll never know"
Apparently we will know eventually. Although the relevence and practical applications of such a discovery continue to elude me.

Why not simply "because we can"? Discovery for the sake of discovery's sake is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Graustein]

What did I do?

I think it was the whole "tell them to stop giving a shit because we'll never know"
Apparently we will know eventually. Although the relevence and practical applications of such a discovery continue to elude me.

Why not simply "because we can"? Discovery for the sake of discovery's sake is not necessarily a bad thing.

Nothing wrong with discovery for its own sake, but I can't help but feel like people are too tied up with this instead of doing something that might actually make a difference in our lives. It really does seem like we have better things to do is all.

 

[RufusMcLaser]

I can tell you, after years of consideration, that the only solution is not to bring it up. Creationists are generally tied to a literal interpretation of the Bible (or Koran). They generally won't agree to anything less than what is in their text of choice.
It's an important and unpopular fact that some disagreements cannot be settled by mutual compromise- there are some mutually exclusive positions out there.
"We want you all to go away and also die" verus "We want to live here in peace" is one such. Another is the creation/evolution theme. There really isn't much common ground to find.

 

[RufusMcLaser]

What did I do?

I think it was the whole "tell them to stop giving a shit because we'll never know"
Apparently we will know eventually. Although the relevence and practical applications of such a discovery continue to elude me.

Why not simply "because we can"? Discovery for the sake of discovery's sake is not necessarily a bad thing.

Some of them cannot be convinced. They use the argument of "mature creation" to sidestep any sort of falsifiability. Handy for them, but scientifically unsound. If you put them in a time machine (leaving aside the problems of physics which rear their heads) and flung them back to the Cretaceous, they still wouldn't believe it. They'd assume they were being tricked by ol' Scratch.

 

[Stalington]

the only difference between a scientist and a priest is that a priest is certain...

PWNT

 

[Amnestic]

the only difference between a scientist and a priest is that a priest is certain...

PWNT

Being certain and being wrong are not mutually exclusive things.

 

[xitel]

I think the idea that Creationists refuse to believe that evolution is at all possible is another in a long line of unfair categorization of a group based on the views of its loudest members. I'm sure there are some creationists that don't refuse that evolution could be possible, it's just that they are not as outspoken as the ones who believe that people who put their faith in evolution are going to hell.

 

[Samirat]

The Catholics and The Jews see it.
Hell, the Jews are the most scientifically understanding of the religions that worship Yahweh.
Why can't the fatty american Christians see it?
Oh.
Yeah.
American.

Go to hell, troll.

the only difference between a scientist and a priest is that a priest is certain...

PWNT

Yes, I'd say that that's actually an accurate representation. And would you rather have someone who's ideas are subject to change, based on evidence? Or someone who will maintain his position despite all contrary evidence, and dismiss any opposing opinions as incorrect, without even having to think about it.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of fools, remember.

That's the difference between scientists and priests. Scientists accept the possibility that they might be incorrect. And were it scientifically proven that God exists, I suspect that would become part of the scientists' doctrine as well.

So, I think the only solutions to this problem, since scientific findings and religious dogma are so often in opposition, are for them to find a way to mesh their theories, for it to be scientifically proven that some religion is correct, or for religion to just ignore science, and get on with its life.

EDIT: This applies only to orthodox religion, of course. Many people can already hold religion and science in their minds, simultaneously, with no contradiction, or at least the faith that any apparent contradiction is merely the result of incomplete understanding.

 

[Amnestic]

I think the idea that Creationists refuse to believe that evolution is at all possible is another in a long line of unfair categorization of a group based on the views of its loudest members. I'm sure there are some creationists that don't refuse that evolution could be possible, it's just that they are not as outspoken as the ones who believe that people who put their faith in evolution are going to hell.

The creationists most famous for rejecting evolution are the Young Earth Creationists, I believe. Those who think the Earth is somewhere between 4,000 and 10,000 years old. Carbon dating? A lie. Dinosaur bones? Tricks of the devil sent to test their faith.

 

[xitel]

I think the idea that Creationists refuse to believe that evolution is at all possible is another in a long line of unfair categorization of a group based on the views of its loudest members. I'm sure there are some creationists that don't refuse that evolution could be possible, it's just that they are not as outspoken as the ones who believe that people who put their faith in evolution are going to hell.

The creationists most famous for rejecting evolution are the Young Earth Creationists, I believe. Those who think the Earth is somewhere between 4,000 and 10,000 years old. Carbon dating? A lie. Dinosaur bones? Tricks of the devil sent to test their faith.

Right. And as with every conflict, there are other people in each side that disagree with some of the specifics of the majority, but agree enough with the overarching opinion to say that they agree.

 

[Amnestic]

As a doctor (which i hope I'll one day become) I'll prescribe only those antibiotics that no longer work because of the viruses/bacteria evolving to creationits. If there is no evolution they should be fine .

Except for that pesky Hippocratic Oath [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_oath] thing, that's a great plan.