Evolution vs. Creation page 3

955 posts

Flag Post

Here’s the theory as far as I know: Outside the universe, the laws of physics break down. The only governing factor is probability.

bq.Outside the universe, there is a “quantum foam,” as scientists call it. No, it’s not literally a foam, but it helps to visualize. Here, space has no definite shape, just a set of improbable shapes.

I’m not sure about the term ‘outside the universe’… this stuff happens ‘inside’ the universe (even if there is any such thing as outside- who knows) on very tiny scales, like, planck size tiny.

 
Flag Post

To be completely honest, the Big Bang Theory explains a lot more than people think it does. Evolution is stupidly obvious, also. I actually want to see if I can have Pseudolonewolf read through this, because I think he would have some interesting insight on it.

 
Flag Post

The measured value of cosmic microwave background radiation is, to all intents and purposes, exactly what the big bang theory predicts. At this point, refusing to accept the big bang theory without an alternative explanation that predicts the CMBR to the same degree of accuracy is nothing less than sticking your fingers in your ear and saying “I can’t hear you!”

 
Flag Post

Both are wrong. I think along with many others that the ‘mistake’ option is what created us.

We are alone in the universe because the odds that created us are higher than the odds that there is other life like ourselves in the entire universe.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Vanguarde:

Both are wrong. I think along with many others that the ‘mistake’ option is what created us.

That’ll be evolution then.

 
Flag Post

Indeed – I’ve never heard a third theory. They all pretty much tend to be “happened on its own” or “happened by God”.

 
Flag Post

That is because there is no other choice. There either was some consciousness (I hope I spelled it right) behind it, or there wasn’t.

 
Flag Post

The posts coming from the religious side, supposed to be my side, are only angering those for the scientific side and are completely off-track from what I want to achieve. I’m not saying they are wrong, they’re in their right to believe whatever they want, but it’s making it difficult for me to talk to those trusting purely in science.

Religion should not try to prove things, religion should not try to get evidence for the beliefs. Religion should not even try to bring down science. They both can exist side by side, with religion being the core beliefs behind what cannot be explained or understood, or perhaps even just the basic claim of the creation of the universe. Science being examining and discovering everything that has to do with the already created universe. The religious and scientific approaches need not contradict, provided there are no extremists on either side refusing to believe the other.

Religion, in my mind, has to do primarily with the past. Creation of the universe. It happened a long time ago and is not “constantly happening”. Science is partly focused on the future. You are examining what is happening or has happened around you, experiment with it, then make claims supported by evidence about how it has happened and why. The contradiction coming from either side is that they intend to go into each other’s time zones. They should not be there in the first place.

Religion does not have to be followed, this is up to you to decide. However, religion need not make claims excluding science entirely from the picture, or the other way around. Both have a purpose in my mind and they should not linger out of their purpose zones for obvious reasons.

 
Flag Post

No, this is not true. As a physics graduate I have to set this right. Matter can and does come into existence from nothing. Most of the time it is ‘given back’ immediately but not always.

I know (well I don’t know how, but I know it can). I thought PFB was talking about abiogenesis, seeing as we were on the topic of evolution.

Religion should not try to prove things, religion should not try to get evidence for the beliefs.

Why? If you believe it, should you not try to show how it is true?

They both can exist side by side, with religion being the core beliefs behind what cannot be explained or understood, or perhaps even just the basic claim of the creation of the universe. Science being examining and discovering everything that has to do with the already created universe.

If I’m reading this right, you’re saying that we should follow the scientific explanations of the universe, but the religious explanations for the creation of it. Why exactly should this be so? If science can explain the creation of the universe, maybe even what came before (if there was a before in this sort of sense), then why should it not?

The religious and scientific approaches need not contradict, provided there are no extremists on either side refusing to believe the other.

True, but people have a right to believe what they want. If someone wants to not believe in science/religion, then nothing should stop them from doing so. It’s generally know as ‘freedom of belief’.

Science is partly focused on the future.

Yes, but also on the past. Geology, Biology, Astronomy – just a few of the scientific sectors that focus quite heavily on the past. In fact, the future itself is left untouched by most of the scientific world, for the simple reason that it hasn’t happened yet and therefore cannot be analysed. Much.

They should not be there in the first place.

If science can explain everything, should it not try to do so? If God’s existance was suddenly capable of being proved and everything explained by the Bible, should religious people not try to show people that? Should we stop people trying to understand the Universe we live in by restricting what they can and cannot study? Because that is what you are suggesting.

However, religion need not make claims excluding science entirely from the picture, or the other way around.

If one of them can, then they should. If religion was shown to be totally and utterly wrong, if God’s existance was disproved entirely, then people should be allowed to know. And vice-versa.

Everything I write has been off-topic recently…

 
Flag Post

Why? If you believe it, should you not try to show how it is true?

If we try, it would become science, not a belief.

If I’m reading this right, you’re saying that we should follow the scientific explanations of the universe, but the religious explanations for the creation of it. Why exactly should this be so? If science can explain the creation of the universe, maybe even what came before (if there was a before in this sort of sense), then why should it not?

Up until now, I’ve only heard theories of how the universe started. There’s no direct evidence for this, because we can’t get back to whatever happened at that time. Religion is a theory in itself, if you scientists wish a name for it.

Any way, I’m not saying you have to believe. I’m saying this is what we think when we believe. By all means stick to your theories.

True, but people have a right to believe what they want. If someone wants to not believe in science/religion, then nothing should stop them from doing so. It’s generally know as ‘freedom of belief’.

I’ve never forced you to believe, yet anyone who doesn’t trust in science looks like he’s about to be portrayed as an idiot. “Evidence” has a lot of impact on the human mind. If there is evidence, people are more likely to trust in it. It’s how our mind works. This doesn’t necessarily mean we are not able to believe in anything, but it does mean science will always be “one step ahead” in terms of searching for evidence (which religion shouldn’t do).

I believe in both and I actually urge every believer to do so as well. I will not force them, as anyone has the right not to trust in science, but I believe God has made it so that we can use science, and use it right. I will not even try asking scientists to believe in creation, I don’t expect them to. Beliefs are a right, not a must.

Yes, but also on the past. Geology, Biology, Astronomy – just a few of the scientific sectors that focus quite heavily on the past. In fact, the future itself is left untouched by most of the scientific world, for the simple reason that it hasn’t happened yet and therefore cannot be analysed. Much.

With what I said, I meant that what you find out in the past is beneficial for the future. If we did not focus on the future, we wouldn’t be caring about illnesses and what-not.

If one of them can, then they should. If religion was shown to be totally and utterly wrong, if God’s existance was disproved entirely, then people should be allowed to know. And vice-versa.

Except that all I see now is mindless shouting back and forth, because someone started the entire “versus” trend. Both are claiming the other to be false, without any real back-up. If it continues like this, nobody would even trust the evidence supporting the wrongness of one or the other when we find it in the future.

Everything I write has been off-topic recently…

It’s not really, all these religious topics have a lot in common, I don’t even know why we’re discussing them in seperate threads.

 
Flag Post

There’s no direct evidence for this

Yes there is. It has been explained many times what the evidence is. Nobody has actually seen it, but we’ve seen the results of it.

Both are claiming the other to be false, without any real back-up.

Science has evidence, evidence being a pretty good back-up in this case. Religion doesn’t, as, like you say, it is based upon belief. Although, I don’t think we should not discuss something because there is no definite conclusion. Philosophers spend all their time on these sorts of questions. Debating on this sort of stuff is good for you.

Any way, I’m not saying you have to believe. I’m saying this is what we think when we believe. By all means stick to your theories.

Ah. No problems with me, then.

It’s not really, all these religious topics have a lot in common, I don’t even know why we’re discussing them in seperate threads.

I suppose it is easier if we focus on an individual element of the argument in each thread. They always end up overlapping though, often when there is no reason for this to happen.

 
Flag Post

“Evidence” has a lot of impact on the human mind. If there is evidence, people are more likely to trust in it. It’s how our mind works.

I think that the majority of American minds are impervious to that statement.

Religion is a theory in itself, if you scientists wish a name for it.

I know I’m being totally anal, but God is a hypothesis.

 
Flag Post

Nope, not anal; it’s just that for some it will be uncomfortably accurate.

 
Flag Post

Nobody has actually seen it, but we’ve seen the results of it.

I’m not a book reader. Where can I easily find and read about this evidence of the universe somehow starting to exist without it being literally created? I’ve read some theories here on the forums, but if I read them correctly, you’re better off believing in God.

Science has evidence, evidence being a pretty good back-up in this case. Religion doesn’t, as, like you say, it is based upon belief. Although, I don’t think we should not discuss something because there is no definite conclusion. Philosophers spend all their time on these sorts of questions. Debating on this sort of stuff is good for you.

Scientists think they have the advantage over religious people, simply because religious people should not come up with evidence for their beliefs. What is there to debate about if scientists always claim to “win” with their evidence? That’s unfair. If you don’t think it’s unfair, go ahead and “win” this debate and we can all get it over with. If you do agree with me on that certain point, then what do you really suggest?

I think that the majority of American minds are impervious to that statement.

That’s too bad for them. I luckily find myself to be open-minded to everything.

I know I’m being totally anal, but God is a hypothesis.

If that was just meant to point out an error the way I worded it, I probably should agree?

Nope, not anal; it’s just that for some it will be uncomfortably accurate.

I’ve never said this isn’t true, but I don’t know how it should make us feel uncomfortable. Are you implying we don’t even like being religious?

 
Flag Post

I’m not a book reader.

Trust me, you’re missing out.

Where can I easily find and read about this evidence of the universe somehow starting to exist without it being literally created? I’ve read some theories here on the forums, but if I read them correctly, you’re better off believing in God.

Hang on, are we talking about the big bang or the causes of it? Either way, I don’t see how God would be a better reason for the big bang than any other reasons. It’s certainly not the most simple theory; it has no evidence, no explanation, nothing to back it up and it raises more questions than it answers. If you’re looking for reasons, then check this forum, as the reasons you are seeing are the reasons suggested, I can’t think of any others that have not been suggested.

Scientists think they have the advantage over religious people, simply because religious people should not come up with evidence for their beliefs. What is there to debate about if scientists always claim to “win” with their evidence? That’s unfair. If you don’t think it’s unfair, go ahead and “win” this debate and we can all get it over with. If you do agree with me on that certain point, then what do you really suggest?

This is probably one of the most unusual things I’ve read in a while. How can you expect to be taken seriously, let alone actually convince anyone, if you refuse to try and prove it?

Evidence wins because it is the single way of proving anything. If, as you said, religion is a theory, then it must have some form of proof. Otherwise, why choose it over all the other options? There must be some reason you believe in God. What is it?

What you are suggesting is just like me turning around and saying ‘the sky is green, but I don’t need to prove it to you. If you want to just ‘win’ this debate and show me that it is blue then go ahead, but you’ll know that is unfair, because my belief is just as valid as everything I believe is in fact true.’

Or at least that’s what I getting.

 
Flag Post

Where can I easily find and read about this evidence of the universe somehow starting to exist without it being literally created? I’ve read some theories here on the forums, but if I read them correctly, you’re better off believing in God.

Better off, maybe. Generally belief in a religion is supposed to make you like life more, because you have faith that everything will be alright and all…but neither one of the theories can be proven to be true, although I have to lean towards evolution more. I have one reason for not believing in Christianity-there is no evidence, and I do not count the Bible.

 
Flag Post

I’m not a book reader.

“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can’t read them.” – Mark Twain

 
Flag Post

“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can’t read them.” – Mark Twain

That quote applies to morality. It’s true, just because you read books doesn’t make you a better person. But when it comes down to deciding who has more credibility when it comes to a scientific discussion, then I think the guy with the books wins.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by muhfish:

“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can’t read them.” – Mark Twain

That quote applies to morality. It’s true, just because you read books doesn’t make you a better person. But when it comes down to deciding who has more credibility when it comes to a scientific discussion, then I think the guy with the books wins.

Nice red herring. Morality has nothing to do with this, I am explaining how those who refuse to seek knowledge have no advantage over those who are ignorant through no fault of their own.

 
Flag Post

I agree with you. But I’m just saying that if the guy who is ignorant, regardless of whether it’s his fault or not, is arguing with an educated person, then the educated person wins.

 
Flag Post

Trust me, you’re missing out.

I’ve been forced to read books nobody liked up from year 1 in highschool .. we’ve had 6.

Hang on, are we talking about the big bang or the causes of it? Either way, I don’t see how God would be a better reason for the big bang than any other reasons. It’s certainly not the most simple theory; it has no evidence, no explanation, nothing to back it up and it raises more questions than it answers. If you’re looking for reasons, then check this forum, as the reasons you are seeing are the reasons suggested, I can’t think of any others that have not been suggested.

Causes. Just a simple approximation of what could trigger it would do. If this is a theory with pure speculating evidence, you could put it aside the “theory” of God.

This is probably one of the most unusual things I’ve read in a while. How can you expect to be taken seriously, let alone actually convince anyone, if you refuse to try and prove it?

Wait, what? First everyone starts flaming the Christians for trying to prove their beliefs, bash them down to hell for even trying such an absurd thing and put them back in the place where they belong. Then you come up ahead and say we actually have to prove things and say we are refusing? Extreme contradiction.

Let’s put that aside, though. You’ve gone back before me explaining why beliefs cannot be proven (actually, nothing can, but that’s for another topic). Beliefs are not to be proven, or they will become science. Can you seriously ask a belief to prove itself or else you’ll just take it as trash? Read the sentence in italics again.

Evidence wins because it is the single way of proving anything. If, as you said, religion is a theory, then it must have some form of proof. Otherwise, why choose it over all the other options?

I cannot believe that this is the reasoning people are coming with. I already explained “evidence” is hardcoded into the human mind. Without evidence, it will never be accepted. Those who believe understand that religion is a different case.

There must be some reason you believe in God. What is it?

I think I’ve made this point in many other threads already. Believing in God is not just saying “he’s the creator, voila”. It’s also the spreading of morals that have gone unnoticed by so many before. It is a source of strength. One you trust in to give you strength. The belief itself allows you to accept that strength given to you. This is a vital point many seem to miss, it’s not just full of theories about what has happened or will happen.

What you are suggesting is just like me turning around and saying ‘the sky is green, but I don’t need to prove it to you. If you want to just ‘win’ this debate and show me that it is blue then go ahead, but you’ll know that is unfair, because my belief is just as valid as everything I believe is in fact true.’

Let me rip apart that argument for you.

the sky is green

I’m not stating God is a fact. I’m believing in him. I’ve never done so much as telling you that he’s pretty much granted in this world. I believe he is, but I will never say he is, unless a scientist somehow, randomly gets to prove it. Note I said scientist, we believers should not go into that area.

Furthermore, if you’re taking this “the sky is green” as a belief and ignore that you’re trying to state it as a fact, you’ve clearly underestimated what this belief truly means for everyone. I suggest you read the paragraph about why I believe in God once more if you cannot understand this.

but I don’t need to prove it to you

Another argument that pops up from time to time, it’s completely false. I never said this. My point is that beliefs are not there to be proven. They might be, as long as a scientist is willing to try, but religious people know it is not their area of expertise. Let science handle evidence, let religion handle the beliefs.

Also, I’m not saying I don’t want to prove it to you. If I could, I would, but that would make this whole discussion pointless. If I could prove to you God exists, he becomes a scientific object, instead of a belief.

If you want to just ‘win’ this debate and show me that it is blue then go ahead

You can’t prove God doesn’t exist, just as we can’t prove he does exist. You can only come up with several theories and a little indirect evidence that makes it unlikely he could exist, for a logical mind. Especially that last part is essential, since a logical person will simply assume God does not exist, since there is no evidence for him. He wouldn’t rather assume God exists until there is evidence he does not exist, since that’s not how he works.

In this discussion forum, some people somehow have the mindset that evidence wins, automatically. Then tell me how am I supposed to debate with you? I’m not supporting evidence not because I can’t or refuse to, but because beliefs and proof do not match.

but you’ll know that is unfair

It is unfair, because you are assuming that evidence is needed to state a point. If you do not accept it if there is no evidence, I can just as well declare your win and we’ll move on with life. If you accept that no evidence is required to believe in something, perhaps we can continue as normal without the constant bugging of having to “prove religion”.

because my belief is just as valid as everything I believe is in fact true

Once again, I am not saying this. I’ve never, ever claimed what I believe is true or a fact. My belief is “valid” in the sense that I’m not alone in this, many more people believe in exactly the same thing. It is valid in the sense that there is a freedom given on this area. It is valid for me in the sense that I’m contradicting science on almost no grounds, except for the big bang theory. I’m not even claiming things like that dinosaurs did not exist, they did. All I believe is that God is the creator of everything that exists through the big bang, I believe he created it.

But that’s only part of the belief. It is not really the core of religion to me. The core is that it brings people together and tells them to love more, hate less. It is a source of strength for those who need it. If you believe, prayers will even give strength to another person, if you ask God to. God gives strength, but he never directly interferes with human lives. This is what is being discussed in another topic.

Or at least that’s what I getting.

To cut things short, you’re getting it wrong.

And I’m sorry if I sounded offensive in my post, I thought it was the best way of setting some very irritating things straight for a while.

Better off, maybe. Generally belief in a religion is supposed to make you like life more, because you have faith that everything will be alright and all…but neither one of the theories can be proven to be true, although I have to lean towards evolution more. I have one reason for not believing in Christianity-there is no evidence, and I do not count the Bible.

Evidence for religion makes it science. I’ve been pointing towards this in other topics as well.

“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can’t read them.” – Mark Twain

It’s true. Not sure what the relevance of that in this topic is, but it’s true.

That quote applies to morality. It’s true, just because you read books doesn’t make you a better person. But when it comes down to deciding who has more credibility when it comes to a scientific discussion, then I think the guy with the books wins.

I heard this was a red herring.

If that’s all you can attack my points on, you’re not standing on a lot of stable ground there.

I agree with you. But I’m just saying that if the guy who is ignorant, regardless of whether it’s his fault or not, is arguing with an educated person, then the educated person wins.

Show me.

 
Flag Post

Darkruler, you generalize most of all in this forum. ‘Everyone’ flames Christianity, ‘all’ scientists think they have the advantage over religious people, etc.

Get a grip.

 
Flag Post

I’m not stating God is a fact. I’m believing in him.

Well, add “I believe that …” before the opening statement. Doesn’t change the absurdity of the argument.

Furthermore, if you’re taking this “the sky is green” as a belief and ignore that you’re trying to state it as a fact, you’ve clearly underestimated what this belief truly means for everyone.

How is “I believe in the existence of an unprovable entity” different to “I believe in an unprovable assertion”?

I suggest you read the paragraph about why I believe in God once more if you cannot understand this.

Believing in God is not just saying “he’s the creator, voila”. It’s also the spreading of morals that have gone unnoticed by so many before. It is a source of strength. One you trust in to give you strength. The belief itself allows you to accept that strength given to you. This is a vital point many seem to miss, it’s not just full of theories about what has happened or will happen.

If I trusted in the greenness of the sky to give me strength, and believing that allowed me to accept that strength given to me, would the colour of the sky then be non-provable?

I never said this. My point is that beliefs are not there to be proven.

How is “I have a belief and it is not there to be proven” different to “I don’t have to prove my belief to you”?

You can only come up with several theories and a little indirect evidence that makes it unlikely he could exist, for a logical mind. Especially that last part is essential, since a logical person will simply assume God does not exist, since there is no evidence for him.

So you’re claiming that belief in God is illogical?

Can you offer an alternative standard by which to debate than logic? Or is God something that shouldn’t be debated at all, and instead just accepted unquestioningly?

 
Flag Post

After finally coming on to the forums, i come to a topic with everyone quoting everyone :P
This sort of makes it hard to put forward a view if an arugment is currently going on

But i’ll make my general statement
Personally, i feel evolution is the more solid argument, cause it has proof. And lets face it, if someone PROVED that God didn’t exist, then Christianity … and most religions would crumble. Proof is what someone needs to back a theory, such as ‘the earth is round’. Besides, even if someone did prove that God isn’t real, then well we’ve got a global crisis. What do we base our years around? How many people actually follow a faith?
However, although i don’t believe that God created the world, i would like to believe in a something. I’m not athiest, i’d hate to think that when you die, thats it. When something really dangerous or threatening goes on in our life, a surprising amount of people turn to faith as a sort of constitutional safeguard.

Those are my two views on science and religion anyway. I’m balanced. I reckon you can believe parts of a faith and believe parts of science. But i reckon ultimatley you’ll only find out any answers if such things as a time machine was invented and functional. Our understanding of the universe is based on the knowledge we have now. Something much much bigger could’ve actually taken place beyond our current understanding, but we’ll have no idea how to find out until we have the technological understanding to do so.

 
Flag Post

And lets face it, if someone PROVED that God didn’t exist, then Christianity … and most religions would crumble.

I would disagree. People will disbelieve a lot of things for religion.

For example, many major religions taught that the Earth was the center of the Universe. But when Gallileo and Copernicus suggested otherwise, and held up scientific evidence that the Earth is not in the center, people disbelieved them! It’s the same with evolution today.