Evolution vs Creation

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Ah yes the dodge, dip, dive duck and dodge.

You can do better than that Kurt.

Answer the first question then. What proof would convince you?

Come on Kurt try to keep up.

I was serious with my post. Can you be?

Lol, what are you asking?

You asked me what would prove to me there is no God, I said tell me where the universe begins, and where does it end?

Keep up? Your so far behind you think you're ahead!

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Sounds like the old "you can't prove the existence of God, therefore He must not exist" and "you can't disprove evolution, therefore it must stand" is totally reasonable but "you can't disprove the existence of God, therefore He must exist" and "you can't prove evolution, therefore it doesn't stand" is totally illogical. Some people wouldn't know what hypocrisy was if it knocked them off their feet.



Blows my mind that someone can find the crudest of arrowheads and deduce its man made, but a skeleton must have just formed over time, let alone the nervous system, complete workings of the solar system (size of the earth, size of the sun, distance to the earth, tilt of the earth, atmospheric mixture, ozone which filters the UV rays, etc. allowing life on earth fascinates me), etc.

Creationists are illogical by definition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by alta270

So, can you provide any evidence such a god exists.

Accepted as "man made":


Based on evolution, formed "naturally":


That is all the evidence I need. Actually, in my mind, its pretty black and white......

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Accepted as "man made":


Based on evolution, formed "naturally":


That is all the evidence I need. Actually, in my mind, its pretty black and white......

Expected.

[Salmon Slayer Lenny]

Originally Posted by sjemac

Creationists are illogical by definition.

How does that make any sense at all?

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

I believe in Evolution.

One of the most arrogant things I have repeatedly heard from Creationists is that all Science is bunk, that all Scientists are wrong. The funny part is they can not even come to common ground about an actual deity.

Millions upon millions and maybe billions of man-hours/years/lifetimes spent researching, discovering, documenting, trying to determine and explain our very existence and the age of the Earth is lowered to 'nope, God'?

This is honestly what has kept me away from religion, I just can not throw out everything I have learned and believe after hearing and seeing religious 'zealots' for lack of a better more pc term saying some of the world's smartest and most respected scientists are just 'wrong' because a single book says so.

jmo

To be fair though Ken, lots of scientist argue amongst themselves on a wide variety of issues, climate changes comes to mind, but that doesn't mean all science is inaccurate. You get a group of people, from religious, to scientist, to sportsmen, and you're most likely going to end in disagreement regardless of the topic.

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Lol, what are you asking?

You asked me what would prove to me there is no God, I said tell me where the universe begins, and where does it end?

Keep up? Your so far behind you think you're ahead!

Answering a question is not answering is it?

See what I did there.

So far the scientific community says the big bang theory is the origin of the universe as we know it. The end is entropy according to thermodynamics.

Means nothing to those that don't understand science.

As for the creation of life I have no idea. Primordial goo seems to be the one accepted today. I like that questions are being asked and looked into. If it was up to creationists we would stop looking because the good book has all the answers no need to dig deeper.

Now your turn.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Salmon Slayer Lenny

How does that make any sense at all?

It makes sense. Putting all your belief in a fictional account of life 2000 years ago versus modern scientific discoveries? Yeah I'm out there.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by Trochu

To be fair though Ken, lots of scientist argue amongst themselves on a wide variety of issues, climate changes comes to mind, but that doesn't mean all science is inaccurate. You get a group of people, from religious, to scientist, to sportsmen, and you're most likely going to end in disagreement regardless of the topic.

I agree.
But they for the most part agree on math, etc.

When (if) the Alien's land and all the religions find out they were wrong, will they start praying to the aliens stating 'see, toldja'?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Answering a question is not answering is it?

See what I did there.

So far the scientific community says the big bang theory is the origin of the universe as we know it. The end is entropy according to thermodynamics.

Means nothing to those that don't understand science.

As for the creation of life I have no idea. Primordial goo seems to be the one accepted today. I like that questions are being asked and looked into. If it was up to creationists we would stop looking because the good book has all the answers no need to dig deeper.

Now your turn.

These are theories, not proof.

Come on, get up to speed here.

[fitzy]

I wish I was surprised at where this thread ended up.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

I agree.
But they for the most part agree on math, etc.

When (if) the Alien's land and all the religions find out they were wrong, will they start praying to the aliens stating 'see, toldja'?

No. They will determine the aliens are heretics and burn them.

That's all we are good for.

[338 Rules]

Originally Posted by fitzy

I wish I was surprised at where this thread ended up.

lmao, no doubt

[Salmon Slayer Lenny]

Originally Posted by sjemac

It makes sense. Putting all your belief in a fictional account of life 2000 years ago versus modern scientific discoveries? Yeah I'm out there.

Actually, no it doesn't no matter how much you want to believe it nor how much faith you have that it does. It's a generalization and an association fallacy that scientifically and mathematically can not be true. You're guilty of your own accusations and your credibility as a person of science is in question.

[Salmon Slayer Lenny]

Originally Posted by fitzy

I wish I was surprised at where this thread ended up.

At least it lasted 19 pages and over 500 posts! That's actually impressive. Lol

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by sjemac

It makes sense. Putting all your belief in a fictional account of life 2000 years ago versus modern scientific discoveries? Yeah I'm out there.

Um, no it doesn't.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Um, no it doesn't. Illogical is putting all your faith in science, and then when a discovery, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, is dated and confirmed to be historical via science, calling what it confirms, "fictional". Can't have it both ways....

So if I found stories dated from 12,000 years ago that stated that the moon actually consisted of cream cheese and bat guano I should believe it? How are the Dead Sea Scrolls the work of nonfiction?

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Trochu

To be fair though Ken, lots of scientist argue amongst themselves on a wide variety of issues, climate changes comes to mind, but that doesn't mean all science is inaccurate. You get a group of people, from religious, to scientist, to sportsmen, and you're most likely going to end in disagreement regardless of the topic.

True - but if you want to use climate change as the topic (in an example) the overwhelming majority of all scientist will tell you climate change is scientifically proven .......that's seen quite easily through the ice ages, warming cycles etc... etc... - it hard to rationally argue about climate change's existence. What the argument is focused on is mans impact to recent climate change.


The problem with the science of evolution versus creationist theology is that one is a science and the other is faith.

It's just not the same in my mind. Really apples to bicycles to me.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Salmon Slayer Lenny

Actually, no it doesn't no matter how much you want to believe it nor how much faith you have that it does. It's a generalization and an association fallacy that scientifically and mathematically can not be true. You're guilty of your own accusations and your credibility as a person of science is in question.

Prove it.

[Talking moose]

Oh god.

[Salmon Slayer Lenny]

Originally Posted by sjemac

Prove it.

Actually, no. You made a truth statement, you prove it. According to scientific method, the onus is on you not me.

[alta270]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

These are theories, not proof.

Come on, get up to speed here.

Good grief man, do you have any idea what a theory means to science? You clearly do not understand science, just through your use of the term in the way you have.

Here's short quiz. Tell us what you understand is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory in science?

[Salmon Slayer Lenny]

Originally Posted by EZM

The problem with the science of evolution versus creationist theology is that one is a science and the other is faith.

It's just not the same in my mind. Really apples to bicycles to me.

I think that is a very valid statement and observation. The problem though regarding 'science' is that most people believe (insert trust, faith, etc) it to be true without really truly knowing or understanding the evidence of 'science'. Does the average person question the laws of thermodynamics or just hold them to be true because scientists tell us that they are? Quantum mechanics? The list goes on.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Salmon Slayer Lenny

Actually, no. You made a truth statement, you prove it. According to scientific method, the onus is on you not me.

Prove it.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by sjemac

So if I found stories dated from 12,000 years ago that stated that the moon actually consisted of cream cheese and bat guano I should believe it? How are the Dead Sea Scrolls the work of nonfiction?

This sounds like a case of you don't want to believe it therefore you've classified it as "fiction". Unless the Jewish-Roman war didn't occur, John Hyrcanus was fictional, someone wanted to write thousands of pages of material reflecting their way of life, etc. isn't non-fiction. How are they fictional?

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

I agree.
But they for the most part agree on math, etc.

When (if) the Alien's land and all the religions find out they were wrong, will they start praying to the aliens stating 'see, toldja'?

I'm not sure if "religion" and "aliens" are mutually exclusive, are they? I know some religious people that wonder if God created life on other planets. I don't believe, the Koran for example, states that he didn't.

[bb356]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Oh god.

[Salmon Slayer Lenny]

Originally Posted by sjemac

Prove it.

You're funny, did you know that? Someone challenges you intellectually and you become like a bully having a temper tantrum because someone stood up to them.

For the record, I've done nothing to give a suggestion as to where I fall on the spectrumone way or the other? What if I said I was an open minded and objective secular humanist and I just Hitchslapped you for giving us a bad name?

[Salmon Slayer Lenny]

Originally Posted by sjemac

There is a possibility of a God. There is no evidence to support that possibility as of yet. Provide me the evidence and I could believe.

I responded to this statement earlier and you ignored the question. I'll ask it again, "what evidence could be sufficient that would convince you that there is a god?" So, from your perspective, what evidence could be presented to you that would cause you to believe?

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Salmon Slayer Lenny

I think that is a very valid statement and observation. The problem though regarding 'science' is that most people believe (insert trust, faith, etc) it to be true without really truly knowing or understanding the evidence of 'science'. Does the average person question the laws of thermodynamics or just hold them to be true because scientists tell us that they are? Quantum mechanics? The list goes on.

There are two answers to this, I think.

There's a difference between blind faith and deferring to experts in a field - and science allows us to defer to experts who are constantly tested by other experts. If I'm unfamiliar with a subject, it's entirely reasonable to listen to those people who have spent their lifetime studying it.

Second, there's no secret or hidden knowledge in science. If I truly want to understand a subject, there are a multitude of people willing (and often excited) to explain it in as much or as little detail as I would like.