Evolution & Atheism... Is it really more plausible?

[MalthusX]

The official stance is that God kickstarted Life and let it go nuts. When Humans came about, He showed up and said, "Hey, kids, check this out", then showed them how to murder'n'shit.

Well, probably not that, but the first part is true. God shows up, kickstarts a self-replicating chemical reaction and watches the results. Occasionally dropping a meteor or two, when He got bored.

This sure as shit makes the most scientific sense. I mean 'living organisms just randomly appeared' seems impossible and implausible. And if God didn't do it then what?

Sarcasm? I really can't tell.

No I'm serious. Looking back it probably doesn't make the most SCIENTIFIC sense, maybe mathematical sense (as it all involves random chance). I agree with this theory, sorry if it sounds sarcastic.

No need to apologize. I always have difficulty with online chats. The lack of voice inflections throws me.

 

[klakkat]

The Christian (and all religions, actually) arguments are entirely based on ancient lore and faith. There is no scientific way to argue such beliefs except when they directly contradict what is observed. Much of the creation theories DO directly conflict with what is observed, so those theories are clearly false. However, this doesn't invalidate the religion in itself; religion is more of a philosophy, and it is only the stupid ones that take religious principles entirely literally. Religion is in a sense art; it is meant to be interpreted and spark thought. Too often though, it is used as a control system of the masses instead, which is a shame, frankly.

 

[Dys]

PS: Don't hate me for making a religious thread.

Fine, I'll hate you for knowingly starting a flame war. Honestly, if you cannot understand the basics of evoloution you are one of two things:
1. A moron
2. Too damned lazy to bother doing any basic research or readings on what it actually is (and then because you're trying to argue with it without any knowledge, a moron)

Neither have any place trying to contest it or imply it doesn't make sense. In the case of the second, here is a good place to start. You can read about some of the basic concepts without the "I'm not a monkey" bullshit most people would try and counter evolution theory with.

Sounds fun! Did you also read this before you made this post? I sure know that I did, before instructing another to take the same road. Anyone can go there and read about some of the basic concept without the "God isn't fair" bullshit most people would try and counter Creation theory with.

You may want to observe that I made no mention of my opinion on creationism (it is irrelivant, this is not a debate on it), merely the most common and most stupid counter arguament to evoloution. You'll find my understanding of christianity is far greater than most, so please refrain from patronizing me with wikipedia articles on faith at least until I say something that in some way could be taken as a contradiction of the fundamental concept of faith (perhaps if I was to argue something along the lines of "you can't prove god).

What I said was that you'd have to be a moron to not be able to understand the basics of evoloution (please note that understanding is different from beleiving). To even need to ask if one can "even argue it (evoloution) logicially" implies that you have no understanding of evoloution, logic or both.

 

[grimsprice]

Show me a REAL missing link, noob. Part of the point of this thread is to have people actually give real EXAMPLES.

If you'd like, you can sit through the fallowing video. I realize that it is about intelligent design, but there good points about evolution in it.

http://fora.tv/2008/08/18/Kenneth_Miller_on_Evolution_and_Intelligent_Design

Or, if you don't like listening to cell biologists, you can stick your head in the sand and read this...

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html

 

[grimsprice]

Religion and science will never coexist peacefully, because you have the two strongest fundamental aspects of human nature: faith, and truth. Do not flame me because I say truth, or I will force you to ride the triceratops with the fucking saddle. What I mean is, science gives answers and satisfies the human need for knowledge. We need to know WHY things are. Hence why Amelia Earhart is still studied even though all she was was some chick who crashed a plane. We don't know what happened, so we need to find out. Faith on the other hand gives a different sort of knowledge. Rather than breaking things down into their little bits, they look at a bigger picture that seems to explain things. Hence, faith. It's fire and water, the two cannot exist in the same place, which is why quite frankly we should stop bothering with this discussion.

Now watch as ten people quote lines from my post out of context and point out how I'm wrong.

I will do no such thing. I simply want to expand on your fire and water analogy. Science is water, because as the water spreads, it consumes the fire. If you fill something with water, there can be no fire, as fire needs air. (air being ignorance)

 

[Jedoro]

There's nothing that really says creationism and evolution are opposites. They're meant to work together to explain everything, to me.

What I never understood about people who only advocate evolution, is this question: if we evolved from monkeys, why are they still around?

 

[grimsprice]

There's nothing that really says creationism and evolution are opposites. They're meant to work together to explain everything, to me.

What I never understood about people who only advocate evolution, is this question: if we evolved from monkeys, why are they still around?

That is an intensely ignorant question. One that boils the blood of a scientist. What we evolved from is not around anymore. Other species of primates evolved from the same ancestor along side us. Our ancestors aren't around anymore. Evolution is a tree, not a pole, living species being leaves, and old, dead species, being the branches and trunk.

 

[LongAndShort]

I mean 'living organisms just randomly appeared' seems impossible and implausible. And if God didn't do it then what?

Well if there are an enormous amount of planets out there (like trillions probably), the chances of there being at least one where a lightning strike or a super-heated phenomenon occured and caused the first cell to be formed are pretty high, especially when you consider the fact that the universe may have existed forever. albeit in different states. But eventually something like life would occur and I don't understand why people think there has to be any rhyme or reason to existance.

The sheer randomness perplexes me. It may not you, but it does me. And I think that's one of the greatest reasons why people believe there is a god. We believe there has to be a reason for everything. On the one hand it has allowed us to search for and find the answers to numerous questions, underpinning scientific discovery throughout history. We must find the A that causes B. We must find a reason, and most people would find God creating the first life to be a lot more likely than a lightning strike. I accept the reason why you disagree with me, and i hope you accept why i find it difficult to agree with you.

 

[CptCamoPants]

Isn't there another thread like this on the same page of the forum?

It is true evolution is based in well-founded provable facts, but thats the thing, if the bible was founded in true PROVABLE facts, than there would be no such thing as faith.

Fictional books on WWII was founded in true provable facts. Just because some things that the bible says really happened doesn't mean that all of them were true.

 

[ntafiend]

Having grown up in a religious family i have put a lot of thought into this myself. Personally i believe in science way more than i do religion. I dont think that either science Or religion has any business trying to prove or disprove the other because both of them are more wrong than right.

For example, as most people know, it was once a scientific fact that the world was flat and revolved around the sun. Extreme examples i know, but it does show that the nature of science is to be wrong more often than right. And as i understand it, science has proven that evolution happens. I also understand that while science has presented plenty of evidence supporting human evolution from apes and the like, it still hasnt been completely proven, its simply widely accepted. I am talking about the "gaps" in the fossil record here, not the absence of any proof at all.

As for religion, i think most of its mistakes are even more widely known so i wont list any here. The most telling thing i have found when discussing this is that people who support creationism always wind up with and argument ending something like " because god says so."

I believe that we evolved. and i do believe in god. Nice link MalthusX
Just my opinion people.

 

[Jedoro]

There's nothing that really says creationism and evolution are opposites. They're meant to work together to explain everything, to me.

What I never understood about people who only advocate evolution, is this question: if we evolved from monkeys, why are they still around?

That is an intensely ignorant question. One that boils the blood of a scientist. What we evolved from is not around anymore. Other species of primates evolved from the same ancestor along side us. Our ancestors aren't around anymore. Evolution is a tree, not a pole, living species being leaves, and old, dead species, being the branches and trunk.

I appreciate your use of "ignorant" and not something along the lines of "stupid."

That raises the question of why other primates didn't evolve into humans as well, though, given the high amounts of similarities.

 

[Lukyo]

Micro-evolution of course, but macro-evolution is still to far-fetched to consider.

 

[ICs2Xist]

Well if there are an enormous amount of planets out there (like trillions probably), the chances of there being at least one where a lightning strike or a super-heated phenomenon occured and caused the first cell to be formed are pretty high, especially when you consider the fact that the universe may have existed forever. albeit in different states. But eventually something like life would occur and I don't understand why people think there has to be any rhyme or reason to existance.

1) I won't mention "occured", I'm okay with that. But "existance" has me laughing. (haha it has started. I love being OCD)

2) The universe may have existed forever? look up some authorities on that, noob. Intelligent-response-giving evolutionists don't believe it. Besides, they also believe planets are much, much, much, much younger than the universe itself, and evolution basically requires life evolving throughout time on a single planet.

3) Struck by lightning or superheated... Really? What an idea. Got any idea how complex DNA is? Got any idea how complex a cell is? Got any idea how complex a single-celled organism is?

4) Trillions of planets in our universe: look this up, it's fascinating. To give a number, once you figure just a few of the factors regarding a planet's habitability: experts say 1 in 10 to the 144th power (http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH4-3A.htm), which with the estimated 10 to the 22nd power planets in the universe (same site) suggests that no planet in the universe should be habitable at all, according to the odds. And I suppose the lightning just happened to strike perfectly there, too. And superheated conditions are very common on life-sustaining planets, I'm sure.

that was a fun one.

as for Dys's post... I won't even quote it.

WOOT!!! I'M A MORON!!!! I LOVE IT!!!!

as for evolution through God's hand:

I'm actually not entirely opposed to that idea. The problem I have with it is what the heck the point of it would be when God could just speak everything into existence in 6 days like conventional Christians believe he did. Are you sure Catholics believe this though? I hadn't heard that. Learn something new every day, I guess (assuming that's actually true).

Isn't there another thread like this on the same page of the forum?

It is true evolution is based in well-founded provable facts, but thats the thing, if the bible was founded in true PROVABLE facts, than there would be no such thing as faith.

I'm assuming (hoping) that you meant "isn't" based on provable facts. I acknowledge that Creation isn't provable, and it never will be (if it became provable... that would just be kind of stupid and a killjoy). But evolution isn't either. I'm asking for evidence that actually suggests that evolution is more believable.

Man, I love debating. And this got posts quicker than I thought.