Creation or Evolution - what do you think

[winsor 236]

Quote

can you add life came from aliens
would that be creation or evolution?

Creationism and alien-genesis are both forms of passing the buck. In both cases the underlying concept is that, since life as we know it doesn't seem a likely outcome of any permutation of the pieces of the puzzle we have on hand, the cop-out is that something outside our consideration put the pieces together, and that this something has properties that render it somehow unknowable.

I call bullshit.

Any of the arguments against terrestrial life occurring spontaneously apply equally to the deity or alien to which said life is attributed - only moreso. In each case, excessive complexity is explained away by postulating an origin many orders of magnitude more complex, and it just doesn't wash.

If someone is comfortable with basis entities just kinda being there and creating life for no particular reason (OOH! mystical and magickal and so forth) it should be no more difficult to accept that life on our planet came about as spontaneously as the mythical deities or legendary aliens.

I have heard enough true believers explain that all other true believers are wrong, but that they, alone, are in possession of The Truth to worry about it much. The one thing I accept is their assessment of each other - that they are all entirely out to lunch.

Before you start seeking answers, you first have to figure out the questions.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[78RATS 0]

Quote

and according to some,we could "all" be descended from "Lucy"

"Lucy. You got some splainin to do."

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[JackC 0]

Quote

For many of us, Creationism isn't folded around science. It's at its foundation. Science is the attempt to understand God's creation. Creationism just keeps the idea that God is ultimately responsible in perspective.

Try submitting a letter to any respectable scientific journal saying "godidit" and see how far you get.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Try submitting a letter to any respectable scientific journal saying "godidit" and see how far you get.

I’m not trying to express anything as simply as you made out in your comment. As was pointed out earlier, even some of our most brilliant minds (i.e. Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking) do not discount the real possibility of there being a Creator. I’d say they’re pretty reputable. After much research, both seem to be more on the Deist rather than the Atheist side of the spectrum. I nor anyone else can’t scientifically and unequivocally prove to you that God exists, however, there is much evidence pointing in that direction. The stumbling block for all of our greatest of our scientists, which will continue to be the case, is described very well by Stephen Hawking.

The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.
-- Stephen Hawking

I don’t think he’d be laughed out of the room for submitting a letter to any respectable scientific journal. I’m not discounting science and the search for truth. Just the opposite. I just recognize that the design and complexity of our universe could not have happened by chance and that we should try and figure it out with that in mind.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I nor anyone else can’t scientifically and unequivocally prove to you that God exists, however, there is much evidence pointing in that direction.

There are things that can't be explained by our current knowledge that are then attributed to a supernatural power. That's not evidence, that's a cop out.

In days past hurricanes, eclipses, the weather, sickness, etc., were all attributed to god or gods. As we figured out the true cause of those things, we shifted our thinking. The things that we can't explain and observe the nature of are still attributed to a god by some. But if and when we can understand them, that will also change.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

There are things that can't be explained by our current knowledge that are then attributed to a supernatural power. That's not evidence, that's a cop out.

Then I guess our brightest minds are just opting for a "cop out." Why don't they just take the all too common stance these days of denying a creator since they can't prove that it exists?

Quote

In days past hurricanes, eclipses, the weather, sickness, etc., were all attributed to god or gods. As we figured out the true cause of those things, we shifted our thinking. The things that we can't explain and observe the nature of are still attributed to a god by some. But if and when we can understand them, that will also change.

We've progressed an unfathomable amount since the days when weather, fire, earthquakes were attributed to gods. Even with the wealth of knowledge that we've aquired to this point and our exponential increase of it, we still can't get around the problem of exactly what set everything in motion or why? Did anything exist before time began? How does one account for the incredible complexity and apparent design of things? To say that everything just happened by chance and progressed randomly is a giant "cop out" in my opinion.

[dorbie 0]

Well said.

The evidence for evolution is everywhere, just grab a shovel or a microscope, there's mountains of evidence, literally.

Arguing over missing links completely misses the point, evolution as a theory is well established with plenty of supporting evidence. We know much more today than Darwin did w.r.t. the celular biology of DNA and there's extremely good genetic evidence supporting evolution in addition to other observations.

It doesn't take the production of a "missing link" to "prove" evolution.

If most other primates were extinct and we suddenly discovered their fossils would they be a "missing link"?

If there was a giant ape alive in a remote environment that was half human would we be looking for a "missing link" that was 3/4 human?

Arguing that you need a missing link to prove evolution ignores the vast evidence linking diverse species, their similarities and genetic relationships (with DNA evidence) and evidence of adaptation in isolated populations of species. It also implies that mankind is unique, that other species are evolved but somehow we uniquely made some kind of leap. I mean there are thousands of examples of "missing links" between other species.

There is an antropological obsession in the search for a missing link, but there are links out the wazoo that help establish evolution as the only working theory we have, and that puts it in better standing than most scientific theories laymen consider to be "proven".

Besides all this there have been discoveries of "missing links" anyway, i.e. fossil/archeological evidence of early hominids, several distinct types in fact, but that seems to get ignored by opponents of the theory.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

To say that everything just happened by chance and progressed randomly is a giant "cop out" in my opinion.

But as Winsor pointed out, a 'creator' is likely to be far more complex than his creation, in this case the universe (and the life within it). The presence of such a being would explain nothing, in fact it would merely add another level of unanswered questions.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Then I guess our brightest minds are just opting for a "cop out." Why don't they just take the all too common stance these days of denying a creator since they can't prove that it exists?

And the brightest minds back then did the same. Belief or non-belief in God has not set delineators based on money, power, intelligence or otherwise.

Quote

We've progressed and unfathomable amount since the days when weather, fire, earthquakes were attributed to gods.

Not really, since it's only been a few hundred years since we stopped attributing those things to supernatural forces. In the scheme of human history, we've only just recently started trying to explain the unexplained instead of just writing it off to "the gods".

Quote

Even with the wealth of knowledge that we've aquired to this point and our exponential increase of it, we still can't get around the problem of exactly what set everything in motion or why? Did anything exist before time began? How does one account for the incredible complexity and apparent design of things?

Not yet. But that doesn't mean we won't.

Quote

To say that everything just happened by chance and progressed randomly is a giant "cop out" in my opinion.

I agree. Who says that? I'm saying there is a cause and a reason that we haven't discovered yet. And based on the past history of explaining away things to the gods, and then finally actually deciding to figure out the real cause, I believe we will do the same with these questions as well.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I?m not trying to express anything as simply as you made out in your comment.

Glad to hear it.

Quote

As was pointed out earlier, even some of our most brilliant minds (i.e. Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking) do not discount the real possibility of there being a Creator.

Both of them have quite clearly stated that they do not believe in a personal god. But not discounting the possibility is not the same as actively believing though is it? I do not discount the possibility that I am just a brain in a jar, plugged into a matrix-like computer program. I do however consider this to be so unlikely that I occupy none of my time thinking about it. I am atheistic towards the brain-in-the-jar hypothesis.

Quote

I nor anyone else can?t scientifically and unequivocally prove to you that God exists, however, there is much evidence pointing in that direction.

One of the attributes of your god is omnipresence. Therefore if god can be proved to not-exist in just one place, then your god does not exist at all. Despite your unsubstantiated assertion, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that god exists in any place we have yet looked. So in the abscence of evidence to the contrary, an omnipresent god would seem to be indistinguishable from non-existence.

Quote

The stumbling block for all of our greatest of our scientists, which will continue to be the case, is described very well by Stephen Hawking.

The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.
-- Stephen Hawking

Why stop there, why should there be a god for the religious to describe as being the cause of the universe? Positing a god as the reason merely sweeps the problem under the carpet. Whats wrong with "I don't know"?

Quote

I don?t think he?d be laughed out of the room for submitting a letter to any respectable scientific journal.

He would if he said "godidit".

Quote

I?m not discounting science and the search for truth. Just the opposite.

That is not what it sounds like although I will take your word that you honestly believe that.

Quote

I just recognize that the design and complexity of our universe could not have happened by chance and that we should try and figure it out with that in mind.

Isn't that rather closed minded? What grounds do you have for discounting the possibility of chance? Many of the building blocks for the universe to have evolved by "chance" are there, all proven and accepted, yet you dismiss them out of hand in favour of an unprovable assertion. In your own words "I nor anyone else can?t scientifically and unequivocally prove to you that God exists" and you still believe it. I find that extremely weird.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

There are things that can't be explained by our current knowledge that are then attributed to a supernatural power. That's not evidence, that's a cop out.

Then I guess our brightest minds are just opting for a "cop out." Why don't they just take the all too common stance these days of denying a creator since they can't prove that it exists?

Quote

In days past hurricanes, eclipses, the weather, sickness, etc., were all attributed to god or gods. As we figured out the true cause of those things, we shifted our thinking. The things that we can't explain and observe the nature of are still attributed to a god by some. But if and when we can understand them, that will also change.

We've progressed an unfathomable amount since the days when weather, fire, earthquakes were attributed to gods. Even with the wealth of knowledge that we've aquired to this point and our exponential increase of it, we still can't get around the problem of exactly what set everything in motion or why? Did anything exist before time began? How does one account for the incredible complexity and apparent design of things? To say that everything just happened by chance and progressed randomly is a giant "cop out" in my opinion.

I suspect I am the only person here who has spoken to Stephen Hawking, as I was in grad school with him at Cambridge. I can assure you he is is an atheist. His statement should be interpreted that since there is no disproof of a creator, science cannot rule one out. Doesn't by any means imply that he believes in one.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnMitchell 16]

Interesting insight about Stephen Hawkings, Kallend. It's cool to hear from someone who knows the guy. I've only read one of his books (and I think I understand some of it).

Religion should stay out of science, and science should try to stay out of religion. Unfortunately, the progress of science often leads it into territories previously claimed as the provinces of religion. Religion feels it's importance diminishing, and tries to resist, coming up with strict constructionists and Creationism. I really don't want that being taught to my children in school.

IMHO, one of the biggest setbacks to mankind was the Catholic Church's codifying of the scientific teachings of Aristotle, much of which (Earth the center of the universe, celestial perfection, trajectories of falling objects, etc.) was dead wrong. The Church then held back scientific progress for centuries, using imprisonment and execution for any heretics who dared say Aristotle was wrong. Galileo was the most famous example. I had to laugh when , in the 1980's, years after the moon landings, that the Catholic Church finally relented and said that Galileo was right, the Earth does circle the Sun. Talk about being out of touch. Let's not make the same mistake with Creationism.

(putting on flame resistant suit now)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I have heard enough true believers explain that all other true believers are wrong, but that they, alone, are in possession of The Truth to worry about it much. The one thing I accept is their assessment of each other - that they are all entirely out to lunch.

"Truth is like a great mirror shattered by time into a hundred thousand pieces, allowing all who posess a small fragment to declare 'my religion is the true one.'" --unknown (actually, I just don't remember who)

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

Creationism just keeps the idea that God is ultimately responsible in perspective.

It should read:
Creationism includes the *assumption* that God is ultimately responsible.

As such, Creationism has stepped out of the realm of science.

-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.
-- Stephen Hawking

I don’t think he’d be laughed out of the room for submitting a letter to any respectable scientific journal.

Ignoring the side argument of what Einstein and Hawking may or may not have meant, if Hawking submitted anything resembling a *God did it* letter to a science journal, it would be rejected for lack of scientific merit, inspite of his current status in scientific circles.

If it's junk science, it's junk no matter who writes it.

Quote

I’m not discounting science and the search for truth.

The above statement is incompatible with the below statement:

Quote

I just recognize that the design and complexity of our universe could not have happened by chance..."

Once you've decided to take it for granted that this is true, you are no longer practicing science.

As noted many times before, you're explaining complex, improbable events with even more complex and even less probable events.

Your answer begs the question "Where did God come from?"
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[03CLS 0]

Science can't explain WHY we are here!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Science can't explain WHY we are here!

Not yet.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Science can't explain WHY we are here

What if there is no why?

Sure there must be a how, (how did we get here) but it doesn't follow that there must be a why (for what reason are we here).

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Science can't explain WHY we are here

What if there is no why?

Sure there must be a how, (how did we get here) but it doesn't follow that there must be a why (for what reason are we here).

There's definitely a why. There's a why for everything in nature. Why does E. Coli exist? To break down the flesh of dead carcasses.

I have not expectations that the answer to our why is any more profound.

[03CLS 0]

If science can prove that we are here by accident they the WHY doesn't matter, by if it was by design then there has to be a why.....and science will never be able to prove it.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

There's definitely a why. There's a why for everything in nature. Why does E. Coli exist? To break down the flesh of dead carcasses.

Well thats just a how. How does E. Coli survive, by breaking down meat. If you say that its a reason then you'd have to work out who's reason it is.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

There's definitely a why. There's a why for everything in nature. Why does E. Coli exist? To break down the flesh of dead carcasses.

Well thats just a how. How does E. Coli survive, by breaking down meat. If you say that its a reason then you'd have to work out who's reason it is.

It's both. If the why didn't exist, neither would the how. If there was no need for it, that would be because there weren't any corpses to be decomposed, removing the how. It's not "who's" reason. It's for what reason. That reason is evolution.

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

Science can't explain WHY we are here!

God can! Ask her.

[03CLS 0]

I did and it made sense until I also asked why 50,000 people are going to died this week overseas and she didn't stop it!

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

It's both. If the why didn't exist, neither would the how. If there was no need for it, that would be because there weren't any corpses to be decomposed, removing the how. It's not "who's" reason. It's for what reason. That reason is evolution.

I still disagree. Evolution is the process that has allowed E. Coli to perform that action. It has not bestowed it with a purpose.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?