Creation vs. Evolution poll II

[Oolon_Colluphid]

buffalo:

Well I am glad that you can admit that you are not sure what the final picture might be.

Not quite. It could turn out to be different. But that does not mean we are completely in the dark – there are all the duck-like pieces to explain. The simplest explanation is that it really is a duck, and that those hoping for an elephant have simply got it wrong.

But you seem a tad bit overconfident of what you expect as we look through the current lens of time.

You seem extremely overconfident that the future will reveal an elephant. What we have now is unequivocally duck. On what grounds do you think the future will show otherwise?

Now God and reason cannot be at odds.

I suppose not. But people’s interpretations of God can easily be, as with heliocentrism.

Because he is truth and cannot deceive or be deceived.

Actually, being ever the pedant, that’s not true, apparently:

“Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.” (1 Kings 22:23)

“Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.” (2 Chronicles 18:22)

“And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.” (Ezekiel 14:9)

“For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

 

[ArisSlatr]

“Nothing in science is ever proven.”

I wouldn’t quite go that far. Science is not a religion, they are opposites, one relies on faith, the other on evidence.

Science is science.

Anyway, there are loads of proof for evolution.
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html
evolutionpages.com/

On top of these talk to your local school teachers, or a college professor, or google “evolution”.
It’s not hard to find.

As for the puzzle argument. The truth of that matter is that we have many pieces, and we know enough to make presumptions. Creation theory suggests that it doesnt matter what’s in the picture, all that matters is that god created it all. If someone can’t understand science, usually they jump to another extreme, and call science religion.

You dont need to believe in science, everything in it can be shown to you.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

“Nothing in science is ever proven.”

I wouldn’t quite go that far.

I know what you mean, agree, and I apologise for the shorthand I used (due to having to repeat myself so often on the ‘proof’ (and so many other!) matters). However, I refer you to the quote from Muller on the Evolution is a fact and a theory page:

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing.

 

[ArisSlatr]

Ok, I see where you’re coming from, That’s cool

The key is we need something to explain the way things go. Explanations although sometimes seemingly crazy, are the right one. But again, we can prove them to that extent. That is why evolution works.

Whatever we can prove in out reletive world, that is what matters to us. So I consider science the only possible means. I like to be able to experiment, and prove things. I like evidence

 

[buffalo]

Oolon Colluphid:

Not quite. It could turn out to be different. But that does not mean we are completely in the dark – there are all the duck-like pieces to explain. The simplest explanation is that it really is a duck, and that those hoping for an elephant have simply got it wrong.

You seem extremely overconfident that the future will reveal an elephant. What we have now is unequivocally duck. On what grounds do you think the future will show otherwise?

I suppose not. But people’s interpretations of God can easily be, as with heliocentrism.

Actually, being ever the pedant, that’s not true, apparently:

“Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.” (1 Kings 22:23)

“Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.” (2 Chronicles 18:22)

“And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.” (Ezekiel 14:9)

“For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

You changed the model with your example. I propose the random pieces would not have shown the picture as you described. You state that what the piece shows is a beak part. You assume there is enough there to show it. I proposed that you only had bits.

Heliocentrism - we may never know for certain until we can look at our solar system from an outside frame of reference. So we have accepted what we can see by observation and physics through our current lens. (and not all scientists accept heliocentrism)

The passages you quoted must be taken in full context. You now are trying to do with scripture what I am asking you to do with evolution. See the point?

 

[Chris_W]

Oolon Colluphid:

Only if you want a literal designer. If there is a literal designer, it is one to be strenuously avoided. Because, it is clearly neither omniscient nor omnibenevolent, and therefore not the usual Christian god. It’s closer to something out of Lovecraft.

No. Only on the evolution vs creationism debate. Whilst I personally, myself, don’t understand how it is possible to accept the scientific method (and the crucial role of evidence in it) while believing in gods, I have no quarrel with those who can manage this double-think.

Oolon, Should I conclude that your belief there is not an omniscient and benevolant God (i.e. the God of Christianity) is the result of empirical scientific data supporting the theory of evolution? Additionally, would you say that if someone really looks at evolution properly, that person should come to the same conclusion?

I am trying to decide if this was just Oolon sharing his world view, or if Oolon was saying this is what should be concluded based on the theory of evolution and the evidence that supports it.

Please clarify.

 

[Chris_W]

Vindex Urvogel:

Your inability to reconcile evolutionary biology and your faith , when most people of faith can do just that, is solely your problem, about which I could care not one bit. It is neither a problem for evolutionary biology nor theology. Furthermore, your inability to reconcile the two scarcely makes evolutionary biology invalid, nor does it invalidate the observation that evolutionary biology does a better job of accommodating the available data and offers a more robust predictive framework than do any hypothesized alternatives. You seem to wish us to discard evolution because you personally have a problem making it mesh with your faith. Fortunately, though, reality just doesn’t work that way.

Vindex Urvogel

There you go again, Vindex, presenting as fact, what you do not know to be true. You say most people of faith can reconcile the two (evolution and christianity) yet no one can tell me how. Have you heard the logic that reconciles the two? Please share it with us if you have.

You also assert that if the two cannot be reconciled, it does not therefore invalidate evolution. Gonna have to disagree with you there You see, for the Christian, the first and ultimate truth is God, and His revealed truth through the Bible, His Church, and including His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, whether you can understand this or not, it is the one non-negotiable belief for the Christian. Therefore, since this we know is absolutely true, it is indeed a lens through which we must judge the validity of all other beliefs. Therefore, if evolution and Christianity cannot be reconciled, then evolution is indeed false. The conclusion that evolution is false, is not falsibiable, as has been stated numerous times, because all the science can do is show that evolution is possible.

I would not expect you to care in the least about the problem Christians have with reconciling our beliefs with evolution. Nor would I think you would try to answer the question, since as a non-christian, it is quite out of your area of expertise. What would be helpful, would be if, when someone poses a possible way of reconciling the two, you could respond with whether or not an evolutionist would agree with the solution.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Chris W:

Oolon, Should I conclude that your belief there is not an omniscient and benevolant God (i.e. the God of Christianity) is the result of empirical scientific data supporting the theory of evolution?

No.

Firstly, all I’m saying is that the evidence for evolution means that there is not a hands-on designer god (unless said god mimicked what we’d expect evolution to look like). Whether you consider such a god to be ‘the God of Christianity’ is for you to take up with your fellow Christians.

Secondly, my disbelief in an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent god is only tangentially related to what I know about evolution. On top of the lack of empirical evidence for this god, there are many things about the world that do not fit with such a god’s existence. My reasoning is the Argument from Moral Outrage (that such a god, if it existed, should allow the stuff it apparently does allow): basically, it is the Argument from Natural Evil, and is echoed by eg Darwin when he wrote “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larvae] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars”.

The evils that man can do unto man are more than enough, and are based on free will. Yet we also have Ebola, Lassa, lyssavirus, trypanosomes, filarial worms, hookworms, HIV, typhoid, cholera, epidemic typhus, bot-flies, sand-fleas, tuberculosis, and all the rest. No matter what purposes we ascribe to God allowing evils, there is a truly massive excess of evil.

Evolution may explain the existence of schistosomes, but it does so whether there’s a god or not (see ‘theistic evolution’). But I reject any god that sits on its fat arse while such things do their natural thing.

And thirdly, as I said before, I do not wish to get drawn into discussions of my beliefs.

Additionally, would you say that if someone really looks at evolution properly, that person should come to the same conclusion?

That there is no designer? Yes. That there is no god at all? That’s entirely up to them.

 

[buffalo]

Oolon Colluphid:

That there is no designer? Yes. That there is no god at all? That’s entirely up to them.

And what do you propose set this all in motion?

 

[ArisSlatr]

Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid

That there is no designer? Yes. That there is no god at all? That’s entirely up to them.
And what do you propose set this all in motion?

Why does it have to be a who? Why does it have to be a conscious who.

And if in your conformity levels you need a who, then why does it have to be an almighty creator. Insects move, viruses move, trees (and non sentient creatures) all move. And they dont need any intelligence to survive.

You say that god is forever Alpha and Omega. But the creation of him can’t be? If one can comprehend a being of infinite time, why can we not comprehend a physical state or place of infinite time.

If you say god has always been, I say;
“No, our universe alone has always been.”

 

[buffalo]

This is what Catholics believe: From our Cathechism

[34](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/34.htm’) The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

Jillian:

Not at all. If God had created life in supernatural, instantaneous acts as per a literal reading of Genesis, then we’d expect to see certain things. We’d form hypotheses based on this idea, and see how they held up against reality. How would we do that?

Well, for starters, Genesis says that God made us from dust. Dust tends to have a lot of silicon in it. Therefore, a reasonable hypothesis would be that people who are made from this dust would have a lot of silicon in them. Unfortunately for this hypothesis, you don’t tend to find much silicon in people - at least, not without surgical assistance.
QUOTE]

**Genesis 3 **19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food
until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken;
for dust you are and to dust you will return."

What is the chemical composition of the “dust” that results from a completely decomposed body?

 

[ArisSlatr]

You citation doesnt work.

Also, I know what Catholics believe. I’m asking you why you choose to believe that over the other explanations. Why do you choose creation when there are hundreds of documented places to find alternative information.

The fact is, if you can comprehend one extreme, going to the other is not any better.

Saying god did it doesn’t “explain” anything.

Where did god come from?

Where is god?

Can you show me god?

I can’t find him. But I can find evidence for evolution.

 

[buffalo]

Because I have come to terms with my limited knowledge and capacity.

Try searching for God and you will find him. To do so, you will have to open your mind and heart to Him. Move outside the evolutionary box you are now in and consider that much may exist outside this box. Only a miniscule amount of what you can know you will find.

 

[ArisSlatr]

It’s not a question of intelligence, it’s ignorance.

It’s what is called self-inhibited ignorance in trade for faith.

There are plenty of resources for origins, and with the Internet, they’re very easy to find.

A person is only as limited as he or she wants to be.

Try searching for God and you will find him. To do so, you will have to open your mind and heart to Him. Move outside the evolutionary box you are now in and consider that much may exist outside this box. Only a miniscule of what you can know you will find.

I ask you, try existing outside the box. You have to open your mind and heart to the real world. Move outside the biblical box, and conside what exists outside of it. You will find that there is much more, many greater things.

I was shown christianity as I said before. I was raised in it, only when I emersed myself in it, did I finally understand that it’s teachings were false. I didn’t become an Atheist from a lack of research, I became an Atheist from a lifetime of study.

 

[buffalo]

I believe your lifetime of study put you in the box. I am not remaining ignorant by coming to terms with my limited intellectual capacity. I understand that all man could know today and in the next 100 years is limited by what we can observe and study. To follow your reasoning you believe that your mind has infininte capacity and understanding?

 

[ArisSlatr]

InI believe your lifetime of study put you in the box. I am not remaining ignorant by coming to terms with my limited intellectual capacity. I understand that all man could know today and in the next 100 years is limited by what we can observe and study. To follow your reasoning you believe that your mind has infininte capacity and understanding?

I don’t know about inifinite, but I know we have yet to reach our own limits.

What you are referring to is faith without evidence. As I’ve grown, the more I see of christianity, the less I agree with, and even less makes sense.

The reason I am an atheist is that it is forthright with answers. It provides me with ideas, and Ive never been happier.

Rather than being in a box, I have looked outside the box for answers, I have defyed everything that was taught by my family by word, and friends, and the bible, and I have searched for the other answers. I have learned that things can be proven, all you need is time and patience. It’s not about limiting oneself, it is about looking at every option.

As an atheist you’re living for yourself, and your own betterment. I need only to strive to live to make life better, since it’s all there is that I can see.

God relies on fear, Atheists rely on hope.

 

[buffalo]

God relies on fear? That’s certainly not the case. Christianity is the only world religion who offers hope as its main goal. The hope that we may attain heaven and that all men at all times can attain eternity. The hope is never extinguished. It is available to anyone until their last breath despite anything they have done in the past. This is truly hope.

What hope does atheism offer?.

What evidence would you have to see to believe?

 

[ArisSlatr]

What would it take to convert me into a christian, An act of god only tracable to god.
Beyond the question of reasonable doubt.

Atheism offers hope in the sense that one knows that the only life your going to live is this one, so live as well as possible.

Also, Catholoscism requires works, unless your a protestant, you need to do things to be a good christain.

Dont begin to tell me that god doesnt inspire his role through fear. He kills those who dont beleive in him, he bases his ethics on what is wrong.

In the old testament he is a jealous god, as the bible puts it.

In the new testament, he is “loving”, yet he still provide infinite punishment for finite sins.

I don’t care what anyone wants to beleive, we know that is not just. It is common sense.

 

[buffalo]

ArisSlatr:

What would it take to convert me into a christian, An act of god only tracable to god.
Beyond the question of reasonable doubt.

Atheism offers hope in the sense that one knows that the only life your going to live is this one, so live as well as possible.

Also, Catholoscism requires works, unless your a protestant, you need to do things to be a good christain.

Dont begin to tell me that god doesnt inspire his role through fear. He kills those who dont beleive in him, he bases his ethics on what is wrong.

In the old testament he is a jealous god, as the bible puts it.

In the new testament, he is “loving”, yet he still provide infinite punishment for finite sins.

I don’t care what anyone wants to beleive, we know that is not just. It is common sense.

It comes down to this. As a Catholic we are to try to convert all nations, so we continue to spread the Good News.

For you it comes down to this. If you pick atheism and you are wrong you will not enjoy heaven. If you pick Catholicism and you are wrong you have lived and excellent life in pursuit of God which is very fulfilling indeed.

We know God as perfect - therefore he will judge perfectly. He cannot do otherwise. Like a father who punishes his child for a wrong, he likewise does the same. His preference for you is to spend eternity with him. You choose. If you want to, you know what you have to do.

I like to play golf. I think it is good and gives me much satisfaction. I join a club. They tell me I have to play by the rules of the club to be a member. I don’ want to, I want to play by my rules. They don’t accept me and tell me I no longer can be a member. Then because I have not found my happiness I trash mouth the club to others. I find another club, which has some rules I like, but not as bad as the other. I still am not happy, so I go on searching. So who made the decision?