News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5K     0 

Creationism or Evolution?

  • All life was created by some divine being(s)

    Votes: 4 5.8%
  • Life on this planet originated and evolves from natural processes

    Votes: 65 94.2%

  • Total voters
    69
That's a possibility. Some astronomers who reject the Big Bang Theory believe our universe existed back in time into infinity.

you're comparing infinity (time) to infinate creators who created creators which is not the same thing.

actually, i'm pretty sure the universe has existed forever. the universe we live in wasn't created some 13 billion years ago in the big bang, it was formed by it. like a flood that unleashes a torrent of water and debris, the water and debris didn't come into existance the instant the flood happened.

p.s, there's astronomers that reject the big bang theory? let me guess, do they believe the world is only a few thousand years old? and that the grand canyon was carved out by the great flood in which noah built an ark?
 
you're comparing infinity (time) to infinate creators who created creators which is not the same thing.

I thought this as well. I can't help wonder if a creator only makes one other creator or do they keep making more creators that will also be making more creators? Where do all these creators live? Do they die after a new one has been created? When they die do they go to creator heaven? Maybe that's where my first dog Rusty went. It must be awfully crowded wherever it is... and who was the creator so incapable of creating a perfect creator that they had to create man and all of our numerous imperfections? I guess they decided we should lose our tails before we're born and that our organs show many signs of their primitive origins... I mean designs. Maybe our creator was simply drunk at the time? Did our creator create another creator? I certainly think it could use some more practice first. I'm also still curious how the first creator came to be. If man in all of his complexity requires a creator, then surely the creator cannot simply exist on its own either right?
 
People who are silent tend to never become majorities.

They don't have to be vocal, shouting it from the rooftops, trying to indoctrinate others, convert them to their beliefs. Respect for others' life choices, what each individual decides he or she wants to precieve as real and as the truth, is the right course of action. If persecution is what keeps atheists silent then the onus is on theists to make them feel welcomed, not the other way around.

You as an individual with free will can assume whatever you want, but I don't know why you keep bringing up god as if I'm making a case for that. I'm talking science, and to date science has found no proof of extraterrestrial life.

It has, the organisms that created those fossils in the Martian meteorite discovered in Antarctica.

Careful there speaking for the world. The possibility for you might be nill, but the possibility for a religious person is metaphysical certainty. Still others would say they don't know, or they don't care, or extraterrestrials sparked humanity, or (my favourite) evil corporations are responsible.

Religion cannot explain life in a rational, tangible way. Science can because protein synthesis of naturally occuring chemicals has been conducted successfully in labs from the 1950s onwards.

Out of curiosity, which historical massacres do you solely attribute to religion?

Religion warps minds, just as any dogma can. It's indecipherable to tell what motivations drove the heads of state or leaders of militias to war. That's for political scientists to figure out. But many, many dictators have used religious belief as a coercive tool, as a motivator, as a cause reason why the citizenry should risk their lives. This is documented fact. So-called secular wars that you may cite in response to this only harken right back to religion in just about every circumstance. Remember that a mind susceptiable to indoctrination most likely was preconditioned to be that way from early childhood exposure to religion even if they no longer practice it as an adult.

Considering how many people still have religious beliefs today, Dawkins had better propose building giant institutions to house all those crazy people. Siberia's got lots of space, except that shipping undesirables there was already tried once with disastrous results. Or we could build more Walmarts and make them work there.

Why the mockery? The only reason why religion is still popular today is society's fear of rapid changes. Societal change scares a lot of people, especially those already born into a position of good life quality. Conservatists cling to the church/mosque/synagouge as a crutch, a constant that will not change even as the rest of society and culture does. This is why the right wing and religion goes hand in hand, they have the numbers and politicians whom otherwise are as liberal as the next person co-opt the skin of a purist in order to win elections. This is why liberals starting off their campaigns often become centrists by vote-casting time because of religious-minded majorities. Youth observing these trends feel as though power lies with the majority and so where otherwise they only give lip-service to god, choosing to affiliate with religion gives their elders hope that the traditional way of life will not just up and die away.

And putting aside that religious people obviously don't think their beliefs are "total nonsense", the main reason people still believe is that it gives them peace of mind, which, as one gets older, can become even more important than one's physical health. Until science comes up with a new cell phone that can match that, or until religion stops working for people, it's a fact of life.

True, I will give you that. Many people are scared of death and cling to the hope of an afterlife through devotion as a means of preserving themselves. However so much time is wasted believing in something that might amount to nothing that they forget to appreciate the one certain life that they do have, to appreciate all those around them whatever their life choices may be, to appreciate the beauty of the outdoors and not the confines of manmade places of worship. To say that these people are living fulfilled, happy lives through their faith is questionable.

Religion may not stop working for people but tell me, what is religion anyway? When one obsesses over their favorite sports team or rock band, is that not a form of devotion and worship? When one marries are they not devoted to that other person more than others? Religion like all things is random and subjective, and so is the belief in nothing. Humanity doesn't really need to know where we came from or where we're going, only that we're here and very second spent preoccupied with these questions only subtracts from us living out our known existences.
 
if life is too complex to originate and evolve by natural means, that it must have had a designer for that reason, imagine how complex the designer must be. but surely, such a designer would be too complex to have originated on its own and must have had a designer. but surely, a designer who designed a designer who designed life is too complex to originate on its own and must have had a designer. but surely, a designer who designed a designer who designed a designer who designed life is too complex to originate on its own and must have had a designer ( infinity-->)

I hear what you're saying, but do you ever wonder? We as humans can create clones, eco systems. I know, i know, it kinda follows your theory....

I'm not saying either way, It's probably arrogant to be able to say either way: creation vs evolution. Can't it be both? where did matter come from? black stars etc? Perhaps our puny brains can't grasp the complexity of it all and then we create an inexplicable icon/object we call god.
 
Coincidence???? Perhaps you need to open up a an evolutionary book or two. May I suggest anything written by mr Richard Dawkins? While chance variation is what leads to more complexity, life itself (and evolution) has a very specific purpose... SURVIVAL. Our thumbs became opposable because they greatly enhanced our ability to survive - otherwise this trait would have been discarded if it were a hindrance. It is no coincidence that they sit on our hands where they do...

Yes, I think i have a good graps of how we evolved from molecules >> Proteins >> Amaebas and evolution/natural selection etc.

Not religious, but just more curious as to see how some are so certain.

Evolution and Creation does not have to be mutually exclusive no? Where did the big ban theory come from? Science tells us matter cannot be created or destroyed, but just changed? (but Did they not create/destroy an atom? Anti-matter? or was this some junk science article i read lol)


Where did it all begin?






but ever wonder where these elements came from? where the univers began from? a big bang theory requires energy... where did that come from?


Not religious, but just more curious as to see how some are so certain.

Evolution and Creation does not have to be mutually exclusive no? Where did the big ban theory
 
Seems to me that it's easier to conclude that although there probably is no god, and no obvious need for one to exist, we cannot say for certain that none do. However, it seems fairly irrelevant whether a god exists of not. The idea that that god just so happened to be the same god worshiped by any religion on earth seems comical in its improbability. Can't we all just be decent to each other? There are plenty reasons to do so, and the better ones don't rely on the existence of an angry sky-man.
 
Yes, I think i have a good graps of how we evolved from molecules >> Proteins >> Amaebas and evolution/natural selection etc.

Not religious, but just more curious as to see how some are so certain.

But you said...

It is a little tough for me to say for certain that all the blocks just fell into place, by coincidence.

Only the absolute initial stage could be considered coincidence, from then on everything that has taken form and evolved has done so with purpose... Calling it a coincidence is a tactic often used by creationists trying to reason that surely there must be a reason behind everything... So perhaps you understand how evolution works - but you also need to understand WHY, which is something science has proven over and over again.

Evolution and Creation does not have to be mutually exclusive no?

I think they do... but I cannot prove that. No one can. Evolution explains the process after life had emerged, how life began is still a big unknown. To say that it was created is to make a statement based on zero evidence - which is where the creationism argument falls flat. If all life as we know it has evolved naturally... why would we assume its very beginning to be unnatural? It also leads to a serious problem (as others have pointed out), if life was created, what created it? Then what created that creator? How can a creator "just exist"? It's best just to accept that we don't know, science will probably get to the bottom of it some day, but until then such concepts as a grand creator are just wild speculation based on nothing... At least the various theories for the origins of life generated by the scientific community are plausible and one day will be testable.

Where did it all begin?

I don't know. Why do you feel such a strong need to know think it's ok to assume something we obviously can't confirm?

but ever wonder where these elements came from? where the univers began from? a big bang theory requires energy... where did that come from?

Sure I do. We live in a wonderful age, 93% of all scientists who have ever lived are alive RIGHT NOW, we're unlocking things that were thought impossible 100 years ago and making startling progress... Just because I don't know doesn't mean I should assume.

Not religious, but just more curious as to see how some are so certain.

Evolution IS as certain as there is gravity and that the sun rises each morning. To say otherwise is to be wrong. It's not ignorance.

Evolution and Creation does not have to be mutually exclusive no? Where did the big ban theory

Perhaps our puny brains can't grasp the complexity of it all and then we create an inexplicable icon/object we call god.

You're answering some of your own questions...
 
Last edited:
Evolution and Creation does not have to be mutually exclusive no? Where did the big ban theory come from? Science tells us matter cannot be created or destroyed, but just changed? (but Did they not create/destroy an atom? Anti-matter? or was this some junk science article i read lol)


Where did it all begin?






but ever wonder where these elements came from? where the univers began from? a big bang theory requires energy... where did that come from?


Not religious, but just more curious as to see how some are so certain.

Evolution and Creation does not have to be mutually exclusive no? Where did the big ban theory


this is where elements come from:

[video=youtube;neMEo8ZrwuI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neMEo8ZrwuI[/video]


also, i'm not sure what your point is with atoms.


this covers alot of questions:

[video=youtube;uyCkADmNdNo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyCkADmNdNo[/video]
 
Last edited:
To say that it was created is to make a statement based on zero evidence - which is where the creationism argument falls flat. If all life as we know it has evolved naturally... why would we assume its very beginning to be unnatural? It also leads to a serious problem (as others have pointed out), if life was created, what created it? Then what created that creator? How can a creator "just exist"? It's best just to accept that we don't know, science will probably get to the bottom of it some day, but until then such concepts as a grand creator are just wild speculation based on nothing... At least the various theories for the origins of life generated by the scientific community are plausible and one day will be testable.

Not to stir the pot, but to continue your line of argument, god is a human construct and therefore creation is an artefact, not a fact. Fair enough. But, you must also acknowledge that science - the scientific method and the tools and technology by which humans practice science - is also a human construct. Therefore, evolution is also an artefact rather than a fact. Since both empiricism and religion are human constructs, you can't say that evolution is, by definition, more plausible than creation especially when the tools and methods to test the validity of evolution are human constructs and therefore subject to human fallibilities (as is religion).

I don't know. Why do you feel such a strong need to know think it's ok to assume something we obviously can't confirm?
Evolution IS as certain as there is gravity and that the sun rises each morning. To say otherwise is to be wrong. It's not ignorance.

These two sentences of yours contradict each other.
 
Not to stir the pot, but to continue your line of argument, god is a human construct and therefore creation is an artefact, not a fact. Fair enough. But, you must also acknowledge that science - the scientific method and the tools and technology by which humans practice science - is also a human construct. Therefore, evolution is also an artefact rather than a fact. Since both empiricism and religion are human constructs, you can't say that evolution is, by definition, more plausible than creation especially when the tools and methods to test the validity of evolution are human constructs and therefore subject to human fallibilities (as is religion).

One could reason that in order for any life form to obtain advanced technology that some scientific method would need to be deployed. The scientific-method is a human construct - but science itself I would argue is a human discovery.
Science has demonstrated its usefulness and proven that it is invaluable to humanity. I won't argue that the scientific-method itself is ideal, it probably isn't, as you pointed out that it's a human construct and subject to fallibility... however the successes it has brought makes it nearly impossible to refute the effectiveness of the scientific-method.

Your entire argument falls flat as science makes no claim to be perfect, or to hold all of the answers and is always willing to update itself when new information is found. For the most part science does a remarkably accurate job of explaining our world to us (in a manner which is completely verifiable).

Man has many triumphs and many failures... We once thought the earth was flat and the centre of the universe, then science came along and proved that to be rubbish. Maybe you still think the former?

These two sentences of yours contradict each other.

No, you just fail at reading comprehension.
The first statement was with regards to the origins of life (unknown) and the second was with regards to evolution of life (known).
 
One could reason that in order for any life form to obtain advanced technology that some scientific method would need to be deployed. The scientific-method is a human construct - but science itself I would argue is a human discovery.

The world exists. Its interpretation on scientific terms is, however, a social construct of fallible humans. That is not to say it is a bad thing, but one should never be so certain about one thing at the exclusion of all others, recognizing that the manner in which we perceive and absorb phenomena is heavily value-laden and determined through human tools which are, as natural extensions of ourselves, humanly flawed.

Science has demonstrated its usefulness and proven that it is invaluable to humanity.

I generally agree with that statement. I wish there were less people like Mengele, however, legitimizing what they did in the name of science. When religion was hegemonic its legitimacy was used to rationalize horrible things like the Spanish Inquisition. Now that science/reason is hegemonic, its legitimacy is used to rationalize other horrible things.

I won't argue that the scientific-method itself is ideal, it probably isn't, as you pointed out that it's a human construct and subject to fallibility... however the successes it has brought makes it nearly impossible to refute the effectiveness of the scientific-method.

Your entire argument falls flat as science makes no claim to be perfect, or to hold all of the answers and is always willing to update itself when new information is found. For the most part science does a remarkably accurate job of explaining our world to us (in a manner which is completely verifiable). Man has many triumphs and many failures... We once thought the earth was flat and the centre of the universe, then science came along and proved that to be rubbish. Maybe you still think the former?

Science doesn't update itself. Scientists, the human agents that practice science, do. Very often, they will obfuscate findings or politicize knowledge production to maintain status and legitimacy. Generally, the more value-laden the scientific outcome, the more likely the chance for obfuscation or for scientific reporting that is not meant to advance discovery but to prove a preconceived point. Obviously proving that the earth is round is not very value-laden and not open to dispute. Who stands to benefit from a flat earth? Something much more value-laden, like climate change science, is likely to be more nebulous because of dispute and a volley of scientific evidence that appear on both sides of the debate. Do you see the connection?

And if you think that all science ends with the ability of an article to be verified, I refer you to philosophers of science starting from Karl Popper and moving on to Ian Hacking and Nancy Cartwright.
 
Now that science/reason is hegemonic, its legitimacy is used to rationalize other horrible things.

how and what things? isn't that like saying knives are used to rationalize killing people? what ideology does science or reason have that is used to rationalize horrible things?
 
^It was the interpretation of reason and science that permitted the Nazis to commit the holocaust. Many of the Nazi doctors at concentration camps, including Mengele, and many higher ups in the SS had PhDs in medicine where they used an inductive approach to conclude that traits, such as jaw structure, between different 'races' of human beings were noticeably different and this led them to infer that Africans and Asians were genetically inferior. Their scientific "evidence", which was obviously clouded by prior values, led them to set up some of the most barbaric medical experiments we have ever performed.

The same thing applies to the Spanish Inquisition; it was not Catholocisim, per se, that caused the Inquisition. Rather, it was the interpretation of texts by subjective human beings with prior values and interests that set the wheels in motion. In this sense, your knife analogy doesn't quite hold, for it's not the knives that do the killing but people with irrational motives that use the knives as the tool. I am basically arguing the same for science and religion. Like knives, they are tools to be wielded by humans in whatever capacity they wish to use them.
 
Science can provide irrational motives, but so can anything.
Why stop pointing the finger there?

science itself = rational
religion = irrational

To state otherwise would be to declare yourself a fool in my eyes. That's just my opinion, but just like science I'm subject to fallibility lol.

Is there anything in science that could be summed up as irrationally as this:

Jesus created man and woman with original sin. Then Jesus impregnated a woman with himself as her child so that he could be born into this world. Once alive, he gave up his life as a sacrifice to himself to save everyone from the sins he condemned them to in the first place...

What accepted scientific theory or belief can come close to rivaling that for absurdity? Your attempt to put science on the same plain as religion is probably your way of letting us know you deem creationism to be just as likely as an entirely natural beginning.
 
Science can provide irrational motives, but so can anything.
Why stop pointing the finger there?

science itself = rational
religion = irrational

First off, what is 'science'? There is the natural world, but its interpretation and discovery is subject to the vagaries of human subjectivity. You can't appeal to reason because humans are not rational creatures. The Nobel Prize winning economist and psychologist Herbert Simon tested this theory by asking us to suspend disbelief and read Mein Kampf from a purely rational perspective. Based on the evidence presented (Jews are a pest that stand in the welfare of the German people), one could end up agreeing with Hitler's motives from a rational standpoint. But almost all of us read this book seething with anger and find these passages reprehensible. What is going on here? The fact is that reason alone cannot explain how we feel, rather behaviour and our value system are totally at odds with what Hitler describes. Amos Tversky (another Nobel prize winner) has done considerable research to demonstrate how the rational actor theory for human decision-making falls apart. Simply put, we are not rational and so therefore you cannot champion science as a tool for human use on grounds that it is rational.

To state otherwise would be to declare yourself a fool in my eyes.

The very fact that you are resorting to iimpassioned ad hominem attacks underscores Amos Tversky and Herbert Simon's belief that humans are fundamentally irrational beings.

That's just my opinion, but just like science I'm subject to fallibility lol.

Exactly.

Is there anything in science that could be summed up as irrationally as this:

Jesus created man and woman with original sin. Then Jesus impregnated a woman with himself as her child so that he could be born into this world. Once alive, he gave up his life as a sacrifice to himself to save everyone from the sins he condemned them to in the first place...What accepted scientific theory or belief can come close to rivaling that for absurdity?

That's pretty silly, I'll admit. I would be cautious of any one system having the answers, whether that is religion or science. Again, I refer to the fact that both are human constructs and that humans are non rational actors.

Your attempt to put science on the same plain as religion is probably your way of letting us know you deem creationism to be just as likely as an entirely natural beginning.

How did you reach that conclusion? Did you apply logic and reasoning?
 

Back
Top