A solution to the creationism v. evolution debate

[Redlac]

My 2p.

Being a Christian and doing a BA in Christian Theology, this one I knew was bound to come up in our studies. Big Bang or some Miraculous 6-Day thing? Evolution or Being Blinked into Existence by God doing a Jean Luc Picard and saying "Make it So."?

I had to pick a position. So I did. I didn't care one way or the other. The God I believe in is certainly powerful enough to create a Universe or a race of beings any old way they choose.

It just so happens we humans looked into it and discovered that the most likely cause of the universe was a massive explosion and that life has been changed and shaped over the years. Who knew, huh?

However,if it turned out that God DID actually do it in a flash I'd be OK with that too. I'd have some questions about Dinosaurs when I got to Heaven though. Oh, and Platypus. Wasps, too.

I expect when folks on here write the word 'Creationist' they mean those on the Conservative side who lean toward the 6 Day Thang. Because as far as I'm aware my being a Christian automatically makes me a Creationist..

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Neither side will admit that really, they're just taking a guess. Atheists especially.

Wait... what?

You're going to have to explain that a bit...

As far as I know, I've never made a claim about the existence of a supernatural being... how am I guessing at anything?

Actually you have made a claim about the existance of a supernatural being. You're guessing one doesn't exist. That being said that was a typo. I meant people who believe in the theory of evolution as the origin of mankind.

Actually, I don't make any claim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignostic (Generally falls under the umbrella of the non-theistic points of view) No claim -> No belief in a god -> technically atheistic, by definition.

And technically, evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, either. I don't know if you knew that, but the people you refer to who believe that it does are uninformed.

 

[742]

ok, the people who think the earth is 5000 years old and the dinosaur bones are fakes clearly wont be convinced by anything, even pillar of light appearing in front of them, and an old guy with white robes and a beard stepping out of it then slapping them in the face and telling them theyre fucking idiots.

there are people who are only slightly illogical, but try convincing a crazy conspiracy theorist that we really DID land on the moon and that there was no second shooter on the grassy knoll. no matter how good the evidence theres no way to be SURE its not just a trick, hell theres no way to be sure that im really typing this.

and great people throughout history have always CLAIMED to be religious, generally because if they said anything else THEY WERE BURNED ALIVE. IMO religion is bad for soceity, obsolete, and can eat shit and die. it still provides comfort to those in hard times, sure, so do whiskey and vodka.

 

[klakkat]

My solution is to just let other people have their beliefs. If someone is wrong and has a closed mind, they won't listen to arguments, so hating them for being ignorant just causes them to hate you back, and thus they start to hate everything you believe in, etc. It's really a pointless exercise. Believe what you will, for reasons that satisfy you; let others do the same. Talk with those close to you in a calm manner and ask them to justify their views, whether they agree with you or not, and debate from there, keeping in mind that you don't have to change their view (if they disagree with you), and that you could change your view.

 

[The Wooster]

Neither side will admit that really, they're just taking a guess. Atheists especially.

Wait... what?

You're going to have to explain that a bit...

As far as I know, I've never made a claim about the existence of a supernatural being... how am I guessing at anything?

Actually you have made a claim about the existance of a supernatural being. You're guessing one doesn't exist. That being said that was a typo. I meant people who believe in the theory of evolution as the origin of mankind.

Actually, I don't make any claim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignostic (Generally falls under the umbrella of the non-theistic points of view)

And technically, evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, either. I don't know if you knew that, but the people you refer to who believe that it does are uninformed.

Atheists are different from agnostics. You may notice I used the former. Nor did I say anything about the origin of 'life' I said the origin of man. Again, very different subjects.

 

[godinshorts]

i figure that if we were created by some "divine being" then he screwed up big time. Example: the human body, you can look in any anatomy book and see how messed up it is.

I think that if we were created then "god" was a no good slacker who was just concerned with getting us up and running as quickly as possible, Example: you need more than seven days to build something as big as a universe and do a decent job.

if you choose to reply to this please email me big_red_thing@hotmail.com

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Atheists are different from agnostics. You may notice I used the former. Nor did I say anything about the origin of 'life' I said the origin of man. Again, very different subjects.

I am aware of the difference. One can be both, though. Remember the etymological root of atheism = "a" (without) + "theos" (god). For followup reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

There are many kinds of atheism. Unless you are only talking about "strong" atheism (ironically named), you CAN be an agnostic atheist.

And you are correct. I misread. But you actually said mankind, not man. Again, two different things. "-kind" being something you add to a word when you wish to address a variety of similar types, e.g. "apekind" - those that are ape-like. Therefore, "mankind" can be taken as somewhat vague; either meaning Man specifically, or man-like beings (neandertals, etc.).

 

[The Wooster]

There are many kinds of atheism. Unless you are only talking about "strong" atheism (ironically named), you CAN be an agnostic atheist.

And you are correct. I misread. But you actually said mankind, not man. Again, two different things. "-kind" being something you add to a word when you wish to address a variety of similar types, e.g. "apekind" - those that are ape-like. Therefore, "mankind" can be taken as somewhat vague; either meaning Man specifically, or man-like beings (neandertals, etc.).

The dictionary disagrees with you on that point.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
man·kind /ˈmænˈkaɪnd for 1; ˈmænˌkaɪnd for 2/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[man-kahynd for 1; man-kahynd for 2] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?noun
1. the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.
2. men, as distinguished from women.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

i figure that if we were created by some "divine being" then he screwed up big time. Example: the human body, you can look in any anatomy book and see how messed up it is.

I think that if we were created then "god" was a no good slacker who was just concerned with getting us up and running as quickly as possible, Example: you need more than seven days to build something as big as a universe and do a decent job.

if you choose to reply to this please email me big_red_thing@hotmail.com

This kind of thinking always bothered me and it kinda goes with the idea of "higher forms" of life. Who defines perfection? Would an automaton nukuler neo-human android (ANNA) be the perfect human?

The human body isn't perfect, but it works for us, eh?

I'm not going to e-mail this to you, though.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

There are many kinds of atheism. Unless you are only talking about "strong" atheism (ironically named), you CAN be an agnostic atheist.

And you are correct. I misread. But you actually said mankind, not man. Again, two different things. "-kind" being something you add to a word when you wish to address a variety of similar types, e.g. "apekind" - those that are ape-like. Therefore, "mankind" can be taken as somewhat vague; either meaning Man specifically, or man-like beings (neandertals, etc.).

The dictionary disagrees with you on that point.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
man·kind /ˈmænˈkaɪnd for 1; ˈmænˌkaɪnd for 2/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[man-kahynd for 1; man-kahynd for 2] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?noun
1. the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.
2. men, as distinguished from women.

I know what the dictionary says. The dictonaries are simplifiers of words and they don't give the full bouquet of what words mean and where they come from.

I can link, too: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-kind

See?

 

[The Wooster]

Assuming we ignore the definition of the term then mankind would still refer to classes of man. Man being, again by definition, a direct reference to homo-sapiens.

But this is a pointless argument and has nothing to do with the original topic. I'm dropping it.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Beleive whatever you beleive. May be cliche but it makes sense right? Im not particularly religious but the big bang seems improbable to me. Matter just exploding? Where do emotions or feelings come from that?

Emotions and feelings are survival machanisms, cultivated by natural selection. You'll find that an animal with fear, anger and bonding abilities will probably survive longer.

Also intelligent design's logic is fundamentally flawed, they argue evolution is too complicated to occur randomly, and that an infinitely powerful creator directs everything. If evolution is too complicated, how in the universe did an infinitely powerful being come into existence? As for the big bang, solid mathematical data exists to support it, and for the how could it just happen arguement; if during the end of one universe and that universe collapses, then it will become a singulairity again, which in all likelyhood will explode again.
The answer is one or the other not both.
But the truth is religion is almost like an evolved trait. People with faith do have an advantage in situations, it helps them keep their heads where panic could lead to disaster: Think About That

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

I think that if we were created then "god" was a no good slacker who was just concerned with getting us up and running as quickly as possible, Example: you need more than seven days to build something as big as a universe and do a decent job.

Just like Microsoft

 

[godinshorts]

no i dont expect the human body to be perfect, i just expect that if a god made us that he/she/it/whatever would do a decent job

 

[The Wooster]

no i dont expect the human body to be perfect, i just expect that if a god made us that he/she/it/whatever would do a decent job

Do you study biology?

 

[Monkfish Acc.]

I believe that god shouldn't be the answer to how, but the answer to why.

I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but I'm too lazy to read through.

 

[ianuam]

OP sounds like s/he's heading toward a god of the gaps theory (and i'm not using the word in the scientific sense). Slowly getting squeezed into insignificance. What's the point in believing in god any more? There's no evidence, despite what fundamentalists may claim.

 

[Redlac]

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.

 

[Alex_P]

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.

Not the kind of God that does anything. And I mean anything -- writing holy books, sending his son to die for your sins, designing biological systems, appearing in visions, &c., &c. That kind of God is, by definition, an active force within our universe.

The kind of God that isn't... well, he's absolutely indistinguishable from a void, isn't he?

-- Alex

 

[John Stalvern]

Simple. Evolution and creationism deal with two distinct subjects.