Creation vs. Evolution

[Spencermm]

I appreciated your post a good deal. It wasd a good and well written "2 cents".
My 2,
Spencer

I would like to respond to the original thread of "Creation vs. Evolution".

I used to be a fundamentalist with strong Creationist ideas. However, I now have a Masters in Biology and through education and personal research and observation have come to strongly understanding that there is so much evidence pointing towards evolution. The evidence is so strong. As a Creationist one thing I was told was that Evolution can not be repeated and also that it is not happening right now. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Evolution is being repeated and happening even as I write this post. For example, take all the various kinds of cats and dogs we have. These different breeds were created (and are currently being created) through what is called "Artificial Selection" (produced by man). Well, if it is possible to produce this type of selection artificially why couldn't it happen naturally. There are many different aspects of evolution I could address but I would like to keep this short.
Another thing I want to mention is that people seem to have this misconception that if you want to believe in God you cant believe in evolution. I dont really understand this.
Why couldn't God have created animals in this manner.
The more I learn about science the more I am convinced that there must be a supernatural force that must govern everything, but I have also learned that I have had to make some compromises regarding my fundamentalist beliefs as I have found very clear evidence that was contrary to my former beliefs.

It is like during the Middle ages when people thought the earth was flat. Explorers would come back to Europe and tell people how they didn't fall over the side of the earth but instead found themselves in India. People started to realize their beliefs were wrong. Not that there was no God but just that the world was not flat.
Ok that's my two cents.

 

[coachpill]

This is simply untrue. Firstly, science is not secular. Nor is it religious. It is a completely separate phenomena which, to be blunt, doesn't give a damn if their is a god or not. Science can only measure things which have a physical existence in our universe, meaning that by its fundamental nature it cannot measure metaphysical things. There is no assumptions there - to date, no one's been able to build a "soul-o-meter" or a "godometer", and until someone finds a way to measure things like that empirically, science will not have anything to say on that matter, one way or the other.
Bryan

So as to not take up too much space...
Are you actually stating that science is ONLY data and evidence? And has nothing to do with interpreting the data? If so, then there would never be any interpretation of data...there would only be data. It is in the interpretations of the data whereby we get different conclusions. And those conclusions are, of course, driven by a presuppostion.

Thanks.

 

[coachpill]

Bryan

Yup. The man-made equations derived to "describe" a phenomenon are fallible...I get that. Newton has been replaced by relativity. Will anything replace relativity...I don't know. However, "gravity" still does occur. The phenomenon does still occur. The description of the phenomenon, typically in equation form, is fallible, but the universe does still operate under certain laws...whether we can accurately describe them via equations or not.

In later posts, you speak much of obeying physical laws, so I guess you really do think they have at least some merit.

 

[Sas]

That's a good question. It depends on whether we're talking politics or religion though it seems that one who is on the left in one is likely to be on the left in the other.

I'm definately on the "right" in both plitics and religion.
I find left wing Christianity and scriptural criticism to be completely invalid by nature and equally as useless.

I would mark the extreme left of politics as pure socialism and the extreme right as pure capitalism and I sit very far to the right.

As time goes on, I seem to move further and further right. Maybe I just pay attention more these days but I think that as time goes on , the devision between the two (or at least the relevance of the devision) becomes more pronounced.

I really don't think that compromise is ever going to be a solution. Seperation seems more realistic though, some socialists claim that there can never be true socialism unless everybody is on board...no borders, no devisions ect, so I don't expect them to allow that. I think we can compromise to the extent that we can share the same planet without killing eachother but that's about the best than we can do.

Well I would be considered right wing too in economics at least (though definitely not socially), see how we're not all the same? I am a strong supporter of the free market, and made my university degree and honours degree studying it in fact. I only think the government should be involved in education, defense, in a minimal welfare system and health. And this is only because all of the above can not be competitive markets so do not work well in a solely capitalistic society. You can compromise Mike, I believe. My country has done it fairly well with its universal health system, welfare system (we are at full employment even with a decent welfare system) and so on.

Is that what you're asking for? It absolutely NOT what is being asked for in this country.

They want to have it their own way but they require that I be made an unwilling party to it by helping to pay for it and they want to teach it to our children in the schools. If they were really willing to stay out of my life, it's unlikely that I'd be more than passively aware of what they were doing and VERY unlikely that I would care.

Mike, it is what I am asking for and after saying it as many times as I have, please take notice this time. How is allowing gay people to marry taking money of you? I would have thought all the effort that the courts have made deciding on the issue because of religious based protesting would have used up more tax payers money? Than just allowing it to become law...

Also how are schools teaching it to your children? Do they get up and make classes on how children should marry other people of the same sex? I am confused...

And the thing that you refuse to understand is that they are interfering with/effecting my life. They haven't left me any more room to back up. I have to speak up and push back just to get enough elbow room and breathing space to live.

I am sure they feel the same way as you. You on the other hand, are not being stopped from doing what you want to do. You are free to believe in your God, not have an abortion, not have sex with other guys and son on.

Yes and the answers are equally as nitpicky. Many revolve around different context of the passage being read. Some require knowledge of Hebrew, or at least the acknowledgement of how some statements aren't 1:1 translations. Why don't you pick a good one out and let's debate 1 of them.

Why bother? I gave you text examples of contradictions, it is there in plain English. It just shows how open the Bible is to interpretation if you are going to say "some require knowledge of Hebrew, or at least the acknowledgement of how some statements aren't 1:1 translations". I have already stated in this thread how the Bible's comments on homosexuality can be shown to not be condemning of homosexuality in general and that IS based on more likely translations. It just means it is up to the individual, so you CANNOT claim that there is a universal 'truth' in the Bible and that there are no contradictions.

and ultimately sin is the reason for most of the problems in the world today. So your fun usually leads to destruction for either yourself, or someone else.

Really? For example, how is not having a piece of paper going to lead to the destruction of my defacto relationship? Is it magical somehow? What about when I have kids? Are they going to be destroyed because I teach them that they should be with whoever they love?

The rest of your comments I have already addressed in detail in this thread, as have others.

Yes...no doubt lots of horse puckey being tossed about today. You wouldn't believe it though. I walked into my computer room today and the computer upgraded itself overnight, by itself!!! Wow...and I thought it would take a million years. What's even more remarkable is the Window's XP Code seems to have evolved and its no longer crashing.

I'd also advise you to stay away from talking about software as you clearly do not understand how it works and it just makes you look bad when you make statements like this. If you want to be taken seriously on other topics, don't show your ignorance on other stuff, just makes you look like you have no idea, fyi.

 

[coachpill]

Science isn't about extrapolation, its about facts. And the fact is that evolution is about how life changes - period, end of story, don't pass go; don't collect $200. Evolution was originally defined, BY DARWIN, as a theory which explains the diversity of life (hence why the book is "origin of species", not "origin of life"). Both he, and all successive evolutionary scientists, have maintained that distinction.

The study of evolution and the study of abiogenesis are radically different. And you can have one without the other - if our ideas about abiogenesis are wrong, it doesn't change that life evolves. The converse is also true - should evolution be shown to be false, it changes nothing that we know of abiogenesis.

All the wishing of you, and the other creationists, doesn't change that.


Bryan

Yes, evolution and abiogenesis are different disciplines. However, since science, by definition, can only delve into the physical and not the metaphysical, the origin of life could not have been done by God...at least not in a scienctific aspect, because metaphysical is not allowed by science. I think that's the point that's trying to be made here.

 

[AXL72]

What I find interesting is your last statement in your post that posed the question, where you said, "...I say that there must be an origin to God." Question...are you setting yourself up as the ultimate authority? If so, that is fine. If not, then who or what?

Please allow me to rephrase the question.

Where did God come from?

I think I know of some stories of where the devil came from. But, where did God come from?

 

[Soggy]

Yes, evolution and abiogenesis are different disciplines. However, since science, by definition, can only delve into the physical and not the metaphysical, the origin of life could not have been done by God...at least not in a scienctific aspect, because metaphysical is not allowed by science. I think that's the point that's trying to be made here.

Where is this "point" you speak of?

 

[AXL72]

We will hit 6,000 posts in another week or so.

Woohoo....5,000 more posts...here we come

 

[Thalassamania]

Yes, evolution and abiogenesis are different disciplines. However, since science, by definition, can only delve into the physical and not the metaphysical, the origin of life could not have been done by God...at least not in a scienctific aspect, because metaphysical is not allowed by science. I think that's the point that's trying to be made here.

It's not a matter of the metaphysical being allowed or disallowed, it's simply that the metaphysical is untestable (not falsifiable in the science lingo) and thus it is irrelevant to the discussion. Science simply does not solve it's puzzles deus ex machina.

 

[sheck33]

I'd love to discuss the physics of it all but I really think this is not the thread to do it in.