Evolution vs. Creationism... (dramatic music)

[OldScratch]

yea. it's what I call the pouty child conclusion: "nobody cares about me, I'm not important to anyone, nothing I do matters, I'm not a special and beautiful and unique human being in the opinion of the entire universe, so nothing in my life is worth living for and I may as well kill myself!!@#$%"

To me an orgasm is enough to refute the idea that death is as good as life if there is no great eternal meaning. Hell, the hot cross buns I ate 10 minutes ago were pretty damn good, so why should I go to the bother of killing myself ...cos my eating those hot cross buns wasn't in God's plan? because I didn't become famous or save humanity? because they wont write about it in the history books? oh my god no!!! they taste so much worse now!!! fuck sex, where's the razorblade there's nothing worth living for!!

I have long maintained that all this "God's plan" nonsense, was nothing more than still another decidely obtuse, if self-destructive scheme to explain away one's fear of personal ineptitude, failure or simply lingering helplessly in inconsequential mediocrity(another manifestation of "Slave Morality" perhaps).

It also reminds me in some ways of the childlike and cringe-inducing, "They've gone to a better place" platitude, dutifully issued upon death of a friend, loved-one, etc. Grief=pain...fantasy paradise=comfort. Thus fantasy is better.

 

[Under The Oak]

I have one question... what are "hot cross buns"? Lol.

 

[Seditious]

evolution has been proven. but, i don't understand the point of the debate because creationism and evolution don't have anything to do with eachother. one is concerned with how we exist, and one with what we do while we are here. the comparison is pointless.

Creationism, besides young Earth creationism, is the theory that we were created intentionally, aka intelligently designed.

what they have to do with eachother is 'did we just evolve by the interactions of atoms or did something set it all in motion intending things to reach this stage' - both are a theory of origins.

the only problem with creationism (the theory of our being created) is that there is nothing to base it on and there is no science to teach. A catholic school may as well have their science teacher conclude his teaching of natural selection with 'and that's how God did it.' and they have successfully included creationism in science class time (maybe if he speaks slowly at the end he could give it equal time)

 

[Seditious]

Evolution has been proven? That is ridiculous. There is a reason it is called a THEORY.

lol, actually, evolution is called a fact; what is called a theory is 'the theory of evolution by natural selection.'

The only thing here that is ridiculous is wasting people's time with a debate when you know nothing of the issues.

If we were going to discuss Christianity I'm sure you'd require us to read the bible, so why don't you learn about science before you talk about it.

 

[Seditious]

I have one question... what are "hot cross buns"? Lol.

LMAO

another American on another forum just asked me that too. (Since Joey on the Friends episode where Ross gets a male nanny plays the song hot cross buns on the recorder I figured Americans knew what they were.)

they're something they only bring out around easter time here (a quick google told me "Hot cross buns at Easter are a metaphor for the resurrection of Christ") and they taste really good toasted and with margerine and raspberry jam on top

 

[JoeVice]

what they have to do with eachother is 'did we just evolve by the interactions of atoms or did something set it all in motion intending things to reach this stage' - both are a theory of origins.

the theories can be simultaneously true. the creator set it all in motion, and evolution is the study of the nature of the process.

in that case, it is senseless to not believe in evolution, as it is not actually a theory of origin. it is a study of a process that goes back in time for as long as we can discover. its a form of history.

 

[Under The Oak]

Ah, I thought you were talking about the buns (ass) of a hot nun or religious woman you've been shaggin'. Lol. That would be much better, I have to say.

 

[Seditious]

Ah, I thought you were talking about the buns (ass) of a hot nun or religious woman you've been shaggin'. Lol. That would be much better, I have to say.

yes, I have to agree, that certainly would have been better

 

[JColtrane]

is English not your first language?

I got only about 2 hours of sleep last night, so I will only respond to this for now, except to make a couple of off-hand comments. Firstly, just because something is unexplainable in words does not mean it is irrational. Faith and belief do not directly equate to understanding, otherwise they wouldn't be what they are. They are more existential than just pure objective knowledge.
Also, I was responding to evolution in the sense of pitting it against creationism as an explanation of the origin and development of all that exists. Of course evolution is a fact; as has been said previously it is observable. But as a fact that explains everything as opposed to creationism, this is simply not true. I think that this debate has gotten this far: that we can all acknowledge that creationism and evolution are not two essentially opposed theories.

Anyways, on to your purposefully inflammatory and wholly irrational remark. Your grammar is atrocious. Take a look at your first sentence in the aforementioned paragraph--it is one huge run-on. I counted 8 grammatical mistakes during a simple and quick perusal (try and find them all!). And don't even get me started on your style. Being at least semi-proficient in grammar is essential to effective communication, which is precisely the reason why it was difficult for me to understand your argument--not because English is not my first language. :Smug:

 

[OldScratch]

Also, I was responding to evolution in the sense of pitting it against creationism as an explanation of the origin and development of all that exists. Of course evolution is a fact; as has been said previously it is observable. But as a fact that explains everything as opposed to creationism, this is simply not true. I think that this debate has gotten this far: that we can all acknowledge that creationism and evolution are not two essentially opposed theories.

It seems to me you may be dismissing a great deal of very tangible evidence and supportable theory regarding the origin of "things"(particularly of the biological variety since we're discussing evolution) simply because these ideas are ultimately at odds with your chosen belief system, whether you accept evolution or not(which of course you say you do).

I say this, as a one-time "believer" ages ago, who either consciously or not, did just that. And indeed, it seems the mysteries of the origin of matter alone is a fairly thin premise to base a continued belief in ancient Hebrew mysticism upon. As others have noted, by that very logic, then virtually ANYTHING (terrestrial or not)may likely be just as responsible as an Asiatic Deity. So what ultimately makes that particular belief system any more valid as an explanation of the origin of anything, honestly?

Are you familiar with the works of Professor Richard Dawkins? These would include, "The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, The Ancestor's Tale, etc." I'm not sure that anyone who has digested his collective catalog, or even portions thereof, could still maintain that Creationism and Evolution are in fact not, "...two essentially opposed theories."
If you were so inclined, I really would respectfully recommend a read through at least some of this, even if you come away with no change to your religious inclinations at all, it is at least very informative and quite accessible material. This is just an honest suggestion, as I do not wish to come off as some "unholier-than-thou" type simply sniping at your beliefs - but think there may be more information out there to explain these mysteries that you might think. Perhaps...

 

[JColtrane]

I wasn't aware that there was any scientific explanation for the origin of matter, let alone any evidence to back it up. Could you please specify what information you are referring to?
I don't base my beliefs solely on the fact that I think matter is inexplicable apart from a creator. It was simply a point of departure for me to discuss why I think that Creationism has validity as a world-view, and to affirm that you can: a) believe in God, and b) affirm the factuality of evolution. To put it simply (and as I said before, faith cannot really be expressed in words), I am convinced of the truth of the Bible. It continues to have a daily impact on me--not only in understanding the world, but also in relationships and morality. Although I do recognize atheism as a rational worldview and am certainly not trying to disparage you or your intellect, I must say that in my experience I have found the Bible gives not only a better way to understand the universe, but also a better way to live. I certainly admire and respect atheists like Nietzsche who try to find meaning and value in life apart from belief in the other worldly, but essentially I disagree that the Bible's ideas are false.
So what makes Christianity a "better" explanation than anything else? In my opinion, the truth found in the Bible. I realize this is not convincing anyone, and I apologize. But I really don't think there is a way that one can purely objectively talk about different world-views when they are by their nature so very tied to subjectivity.
Professor Richard Dawkins sounds intruiging. If I was not simultaneously taking 18 hours and writing a thesis on Kierkegaard I would get right to it!
I am definitely interested though, and I will take a look whenever I get some free time.

 

[OldScratch]

I wasn't aware that there was any scientific explanation for the origin of matter, let alone any evidence to back it up. Could you please specify what information you are referring to?
I don't base my beliefs solely on the fact that I think matter is inexplicable apart from a creator. It was simply a point of departure for me to discuss why I think that Creationism has validity as a world-view, and to affirm that you can: a) believe in God, and b) affirm the factuality of evolution. To put it simply (and as I said before, faith cannot really be expressed in words), I am convinced of the truth of the Bible. It continues to have a daily impact on me--not only in understanding the world, but also in relationships and morality. Although I do recognize atheism as a rational worldview and am certainly not trying to disparage you or your intellect, I must say that in my experience I have found the Bible gives not only a better way to understand the universe, but also a better way to live. I certainly admire and respect atheists like Nietzsche who try to find meaning and value in life apart from belief in the other worldly, but essentially I disagree that the Bible's ideas are false.
So what makes Christianity a "better" explanation than anything else? In my opinion, the truth found in the Bible. I realize this is not convincing anyone, and I apologize. But I really don't think there is a way that one can purely objectively talk about different world-views when they are by their nature so very tied to subjectivity.
Professor Richard Dawkins sounds intruiging. If I was not simultaneously taking 18 hours and writing a thesis on Kierkegaard I would get right to it!
I am definitely interested though, and I will take a look whenever I get some free time.

I wasn't stating that such a fully evidenced scientific explanation of matter had specifically been issued(though I cannot say one has not - I'm no scientist). My point was the collective body of scientific data surrounding the origins of living and inanimate things better explains what did or may have brought these things into existance, than simply accepting that magical beings must then be the source, absent incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

Either way, I'm not here to talk you out of your faith anyway, only offer possible suggestions of a more tangible nature than the supernatural to consider. I think you would find the Professor interesting - though you will likely disagree with a good deal outside the purely scientific - notably his assertion that "God" is indeed a delusion...but that's another story altogether.

 

[Blowtus]

Although I do recognize atheism as a rational worldview and am certainly not trying to disparage you or your intellect, I must say that in my experience I have found the Bible gives not only a better way to understand the universe, but also a better way to live.

Atheism is not a way of life. As an example, Buddhism is a way of life that incorporates atheism. Have you tried and considered such ways of life? Or are you just comparing Christianity to consumerism and hedonism?

 

[JColtrane]

Atheism is not a way of life. As an example, Buddhism is a way of life that incorporates atheism. Have you tried and considered such ways of life? Or are you just comparing Christianity to consumerism and hedonism?

First of all, certainly not all Buddhists are atheists. You obviously have not tried and considered suh ways of life if you are ignorant of that
Secondly, one does not have to try a bunch of different ways of life just to validate one's own life.

 

[Seditious]

I wasn't aware that there was any scientific explanation for the origin of matter, let alone any evidence to back it up.

feel free to give us the creationist explanation of how matter, and a whole intelligent being before it originated.

I think that Creationism has validity as a world-view,.

of course it does. but what is the explanation of the creators creation?

If humans, in a millenia, created another universe, we would be the explanation for that universe, but us as creators doesn't explain everything, the real question if that universe's life discovered us would be how we originated, and if it was 'God' who created us, how it did.

To put it simply (and as I said before, faith cannot really be expressed in words), I am convinced of the truth of the Bible.

What in it convinces you? To speak of 'convincing' is to speak in the language of reason and explanation.

It continues to have a daily impact on me--not only in understanding the world, but also in relationships and morality.

I feel the same way about the novel Ender's Game

I have found the Bible gives not only a better way to understand the universe.

in what respects?

but also a better way to live.

a matter of opinion, nothing to do with the validity of religion. Indeed perhaps scientology or Taoism gives a better way to live than Atheism, but that doesn't mean its spiritual ideas are real.

essentially I disagree that the Bible's ideas are false.

I'm sure much in the bible is true, or at least, not a matter of true and false but simply value judgements. All that is important is whether the God idea is false.

 

[Seditious]

just because something is unexplainable in words does not mean it is irrational..

just because you hide the explanation (which demonstrates your irrationality) from yourself does not mean it is inexplicable.

as a fact that explains everything as opposed to creationism, this is simply not true. I think that this debate has gotten this far: that we can all acknowledge that creationism and evolution are not two essentially opposed theories.

sure. as long as we're meaning creationism simply to mean theory of intentional creation, of course we can say evolution was the means of intentional creation. The point is that creationism explains nothing. Indeed perhaps I did invent everything, then I limited my own omnipotence, made myself human, injected myself into the era I created because I wanted to live in it, then erased my whole memory of my Godhood. Or perhaps it was ET with a galactic particle accelerator. The point is, whether it was me, a god who isn't me, an alien, or whatever, the origin of this universe has nothing better explained by suggesting any of these, though indeed it is possible that I am the forgotten God and cause of all creation. Suppose I'm right about myself being God, or suppose your God is the right one, still nothing is explained.

Anyways, on to your purposefully inflammatory and wholly irrational remark. Your grammar is atrocious. Take a look at your first sentence in the aforementioned paragraph--it is one huge run-on. I counted 8 grammatical mistakes during a simple and quick perusal.

uh oh, I hope I don't get a bad grade.

as others understood it, it seems you were just digging for an ad hominem, so it isn't an irrational remark to give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose that you're just not familiar enough with English.

Frankly, I would rather be a rational man bad at grammar than a well written man who's bad at logic.

 

[YsteJammer]

I love sheer emotional extremist responses. She assumes that without creation there is no purpose? How so? What if our purpose is to spread our genes? Can't we still have reasons to live even if we evolved to our current state? Even if there is no fundamental purpose to my existence, I will make my purpose to live a good life and treat others well without a god looking over my shoulder and no "eternal forgiveness" promised if I screw up. I think it's important to live well and do good to others this first time around, because who knows what's beyond this?

I completely agree with your reason.

I was raised as a Christian, and it's taken quite a long time to tear down the mental damage and brainwashing it did to me. I realize that not everyone goes through that, and I don't think religion is the scourge of the earth anymore than politics, jealousy or greed, but it certainly doesn't help things at all. However, I think we all look for whatever answers seem most sufficient to us and it's hard to persuade someone to change those beliefs.

Yet again, I agree with your reasoning. You covered most of what I would say so I won't go repeating what you have written but in my words.

Also, I do think it's a bit naive to say there's no debate going on over evolution, because even among secular scientists, there is debate taking place. I'd encourage some of you to read "Darwinism and it's Discontents" by Michael Ruse, as it's a very comprehensive look into Darwin and evolutionary theory. But if you read that book and still believe evolution is not fact, then you need to go back to school.

I did put it so that it sounded naive, but it wasn't meant to sound like it. And I think I will read it, to expand my mind to more information on the topic. Though, as you said, it can be very difficult to change someone's mind on beliefs, I can at least give my opinion to the situation and knowing more than I do.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Unlocking The Mystery Of Life - The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design
http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=153

I found this video that was quite an interesting look into intelligent design from a scientific point of view.

first 10 min goes over some of Darwin's ideas, then the part that really interested me is around 11 min.

 

[Imp!]

I'm a born again Christian, but I do not support any forced teaching of "intelligent design." Anybody that needs to argue against evolution might need to take a look at their own faith. What I disagree with is the "facts" being so politicized, that education is being "democratized" and forced to bend to certain people's own beliefs. I do sympathize with those who feel their beliefs are under attack, but a Christian's faith can be measured by how big a threat against his own faith evolution poses. It poses no threat to those who are most faithful.

 

[Imp!]

Interesting video SI, I was getting a bit weary of it as it started off with the ol' canard of how things are too "complex" to have not been formed by an intelligent creator, but it got deeper, I'm about 25 mins into it, the idea of cells inability to break down any further is very new to me.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

-Darwin

Very interesting quote there, that video does a good job of questioning whether or not cells are too complex to evolve completely out of a selective process.

And the question remains, how life does life appear from non-living matter?