Evolution vs. Creationism
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
You're telling some of your secrets. Thanks for the exchange of words from you two there.
Thanks for the insight you two have shared. Still learning, here. Is it manipulative from without or only from within?
...and maybe it still works because people like the challenge you bring to them...
Last edited:
All true; if we suppose that God could have created the universe in its current form and planted a number of fake clues to make it appear to be billions of years old by all scientific methods, then there is no way to disprove it. But why is that possibility even worth consideration? We could invent a multitude of unfalsifiable scenarios, but does that mean that we should refrain from treating our basic scientific knowledge as correct?
What gives you that idea? I already stated why I believe in evolution, which by extension explains why I do not believe in young-earth creationism. The reason why I do not believe in creationism is that there is no evidence for it, and we already have comprehensive explanations without resorting to divine intervention.
It makes it hard to see you as arguing honestly when you keep making up these strawmen. I never said that the only ones perpetuating creationism are literalist extremists. We already covered "old-earth" creationism.
An aside: It is well known by polls that theistic evolution is less common than creationism, and when you try finding evidence for creationism, it is almost invariably from a young-earth standpoint.
Where exactly do you think the information is more reliable? I've researched a lot on the internet and in books, and I have found no solid ID arguments. The major examples of so-called "irreducible complexity" that I've heard of (including the eye, the wing, and the bacterial flagellum) have all been refuted. The last big question is abiogenesis, and I think it's safe to say that that objection will likewise be refuted in the coming decades. It's only a matter of time before we have the whole sequence figured out.
And that is what is so wrong with your thinking in this area. Sometimes it's enormously impractical to withhold judgement like that.4) It might very well beI don't know, and I don't pretend to know; all we have a is a formula.
What you described of our knowledge of gravity was still only the "end result" just like what we can see of evolution is the end result, namely, intelligent life. Being able to measure the gravitational acceleration and all that does not tell us what gravity is, only what it does to objects. My argument here was to demonstrate why your logic should apply to gravity, but since you apparently are willing to doubt gravity as well, this point is a bit beyond the current discussion.
Since you are acknowledging that one part of it was incorrect, you must be ackowledging the scientific superiority of the methods that showed it to be incorrect. Otherwise you would say that Genesis might have actually had the days in the right order, and it was the scientists who were incorrect about the moon and all that.
With that concluded, why should we use Genesis as a scientific reference at all? Why not just use the scientific methods that have already been proven superior?
"Creation myth" is a broad term that includes Norse, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian and other mythologies regarding creation. I don't see anything special about the story of creation found in Genesis that should elevate it above the other mythologies, so I call it a creation myth.
And you have a right to call it the way you see it. I look at time on this earth as having been in Ages. I feel we are living in the Age of Adam. It says a day with the Lord is like a thousand years. Hard to understand eternal things temporally. It also talks about a time, times, and a half a time in a few places. Theologians have thought they could put a handle on these things and feel they understand them some do, but the most important part of this is faith and freedom of choice or free will. If we see that we hope for, how can we any longer hope for that we see? I believe ages have existed on this earth. It is the only explanation I can give. Ages are even spoken about in history books, as in the Bible. Science is great; I have no problem with science. I have no problem if someone wants to believe in evolution; that is their choice, their free will. There must be things to question if we are to seek understanding. From age to age is even mentioned. Like I said, I have no problem with the way somebody wishes to view these things. I do not see it as part of the knowledge in the scriptures that try to teach spirituality rather than worldly things as of the greatest importance. I do think there are things in place to make us look further past what we read or what we hear. The looking is an act of the desire to know. I like the desire to know, and value spiritual things with much higher regard than physical things.....especially so the older I get.
1) It doesn't take a God to "plant fake clues." Trust me, we can do that for ourselves. I'm not saying that I think science goes on fake clues; however, I am saying that to assume that we don't go off of incorrect tangents is asinine. Once again, I'm not saying I'm applying it to anything here.
If I did, though, I would ask you to consider the methods we have of dating the Earth, which is mostly geographical, via fossils, stones, and rock layers in the Earth. Yes, I believe it is mostly accurate; however, it's hard to go beyond just making estimations. Science like that is a bit less solid because of the fact that there is not an experiment to recreate; there is no way of double checking that estimation. So, is it a good hypothesis? Yes. Is it possible that we may be off? Yes.
2) Of how we evolved to this point; science still can't complain the origins of life, or why the universe came to be in the first place.
3) That may be; theistic evolution is a younger theory. However, I'd like to see these polls before I make any conclusions.
4) I'm not so sure; there have been many calculations on the likelihood that life could come from nothing, through some sort of primordial soup, and become an organic, reproducing cell...well, so far, it's hard to be convinced -- creationism or not.
5) I wasn't withholding anything. In case you missed it, half of my arguments have been centered around the idea that science often isn't as completely concrete as many believe it is.
6) Yes, but you have to understand that the concept of evolution is not the same; people can see gravity at work, it is obvious, and you don't need a degree in science to know it. In fact, you could have no clue about the freefall acceleration, and still know that things fall. With evolution, you can only see that we are here.
It could be comparable if you had a ball sitting on the ground, and, without having really seen something fall before, and through calculations based on the size of the crater and a bunch of other factors that point to gravity, conclude that it had fallen. THAT is a lot less concrete, even if it still is a strong theory.
7) I never said to use Genesis as scientific proof. It's not scientific. What I am saying is that socially, historically (especially historically), is that Genesis had more direction going for it than did many other claims of the time. It's not scientific... but it's not as off as many scientists want to believe it is.
8) It's not about whether it's Christian or not; it's about the fact that "myth" automatically implies falsehood, which is disrespectful in either case, whether you believe in it or not.
Only because you associate the other creation myths as false.
They're all equal as far as I'm concerned.
Umm, please help my ignorance because Google certainly didn't help. Dissonance what?
Not necessarily; I'm not that strongly Christian, and other religions have always fascinated me. No, I think the word "myth" automatically implies falsehood or fantasy:
myth
/mɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mith] Show IPA
–noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
And while I could see how some people could view creation as a myth, especially under the context of definition 1 (and don't really have a problem with it -- believe what you want), most of the definitions do imply falsehood, and to assume that it is fictitious in the current context is somewhat rude.
Last edited:
I'm sorry gloomy but I find that funny.
Honestly, what greater evidence can there be presented to prove the existence of the God of the Bible than there is for Zeus or any other mythological figure? To assume that the Creation story presented in the Bible is no more credible than that of any other Creation stories presented in mythology is the right of those who weigh the world by evidence and not by faith.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ...Stephen F Roberts
To be frank, religion by its very nature is "rude". It argues that all other religions and scientific conceptions that differ from it are flat out wrong. Science at least makes the presumption that it could be wrong, and with the discovery of new evidence it can be rewritten.
But there are so many similar stories out there, that it's impractical not to assume falsehood. Most of us assume that the idea that a lonely masturbator, vomited and spat forth existence (egyptian mythology) is false, is it rude of all of us to do that?
Why should christianity be placed on a pedestal?
Does not necessarily imply falsehood. It simply means that there is insufficient evidence to validate the myth.
And also, people tend to romanticize events -- so its not to say that a truthful event could gradually grow to epic proportions where things are assigned supernatural qualities.
Look at literary classics such as "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" -- it is a romanticized account of things that actually happened during China's "Warring States" period, and makes a fantastic story because it has been imbued with qualities that resonate with our emotions. Religious myths may in fact be the same way -- that is, assuming that they are based on truthful accounts.
Just my 2c
*goes back to watching this really interesting debate*
Last edited:
Which is why creation myths, including Christianity's, are dismissed by the different brands of nontheism. The myths lack evidence and so affirming them is not epistemologically justified. The only difference from there is how to interpret the lack of evidence...atheists claim the continued lack of evidence is sufficient for the affirmation of the negative of theism. Agnostics claim that this is a fallacy from ignorance...that we have no evidence either way and so much suspend judgment. Other nontheists, such as myself, claim different things but still have the fundamental lack of belief in a deity.
The evidence for creation myths simply isn't there. The evidence for the existence of God simply isn't there (and the evidence that has been offered has always fallen very short of the standards of reason).
Yep, the religion of the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' is one of the tools used by athiests to attempt to invalidate thiestic myths. I find this interesting because I don't subscribe to theistic myths of any religion I know about, it's too easy to make shit up and pass it off as a religion. This does not mean that a myth cannot be learned from -- in fact many myths that persist today mirror in some ways what goes on internally, hence the idea of them 'speaking to our soul' as if they were in fact true -- hence the reason that they persist.
One reason why I don't buy into creationism is because I believe it was something which was created 'after the fact' as a desperate attempt to cover up holes in christian mythology -- and thus too is riddled with various fallacies, including 'post hoc ergo prompter hoc'. I think I will see the day when creationism is slowly invalidated by empirical evidence, to the point when another thiestic theory will be created which too will be invalidated as the human race begins to learn more about the universe.
Last edited:
"America is a Christian nation, and so most people believe in creationism. Everyone believes that we didn't come from monkeys because that is ridiculous. Why are we even discussing this if everyone believes it already?"