Evolution or Creation?

[jwinslow]

Watch yourself!!!

 

[generaladm]

Watch yourself!!!

Jesus! Fine! Just don't make me watch that craziness again! It's like watching a mutant Jet-Li have 10,000 orgasms on acid. (me on acid, not Jet-Li, although that may be) Between that abomination and Gator's sig, epileptics don't stand a chance on this board.

 

[Apache]

Evolution or Creation

and the answer is: Yes

 

[Brewtus]

One question I have for you, Brewtus, and maybe I've asked it before (If I have, I have just forgotten, and apologize) how is "the universe was created out of nothing" a satisfactory answer for you when science says so, but insufficient when religion says so?

Now, it's true that there's no "proof" of anything... but, as working theories go.. I don't understand how the idea of a creator G-d is distasteful when the alternative is "All that is now came to be from nothing." What I mean is, emptiness does not create fullness... ever... and yet.. that's where science begins. Now, again, I don't suggest that the lack of a scientific answer requires that the alternative "Creator G-d" theory must therefore be true.... I just don't get what's so distasteful about it.

In as much as religion(s) try to regulate morality, I'm quite fine with your objections to a G-d. But, G-d, as a working theory for how or why we're here, it seems to me to be quite a viable one... at least I can't think of a more sound alternative... can you?

Well I'm not certain the universe was created out of nothing. Maybe our universe came from a piece of another larger universe, or maybe there are multiple universes which all have different properties. And I even acknowledge that it is possible that God created the universe (however slight that might be). But we haven't gathered enough evidence yet on how the universe came to be for science to put forward a theory that is strongly supported. Science is still relatively ignorant on the subject, so I'm okay to leave it at that for the present time and say I'm not really sure how the universe came to be. But ignorance shouldn't be confused with creating a need to make God the answer.

The reason I don't believe in the existence of God as an answer to the unknown mysteries of the universe, is that God doesn't really solve anything. Invoking God as an answer to who created the universe leaves an even bigger question as to who/what created God? If God is even more complex and incomprehensible than the universe, then you need an even better answer as to how God came to be. Explaining the existence of God is even more difficult than explaining the origins and workings of the universe.

 

[generaladm]

I'm just curious. Aside from debating Creationism and Evolution because it's an interesting subject, are there any people on here who truly believe that the book of Genesis is a literal account of the creation of the universe? I'm sure there are many religious people on here, but I'm talking literally, 7 days style.

 

[muffler dragon]

Few or no modern humans get their moral guidance by literal interpretation of the bible or tora. Otherwise, we'd all be trying to burn our children hoping god steps in to save them at the last minute. Or, like Joshua said, we should rape and pillage our enemies and burn everything they own (except the gold, bronze and silver) or other awful things the bible instructs.

I must say that this is a rather surfacy presentation. I'm not about to sugarcoat things and say that there aren't events in the Tanakh that didn't exist; however, I will adamantly state that context is HUGE. And what is stated above has none whatsoever.

Most modern humans, regardless of religion (or lack thereof), race, gender basically believe in the same moral code, meaning the bible has nothing to do with our modern morals. The "cuz god did it" answer just doesn't fly with me. If we allowed that to be the answer for everything we don't understand, we'd still be living in the Dark Ages. I encourage all of you (on both sides of the fence) to read Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion." He's pompous, arrogant and a bit annoying sometimes, but makes excellent arguments for why the world would be a better place if we didn't depend so heavily on religion for our education and moral code (including creation).

Viva la Flying Spaghetti Monster!

To each their own.

 

[muffler dragon]

I think it's worth pointing out that the Old Testament was first transcribed hundreds of years before people realized the Earth was round (okay, the Egyptians knew, but they weren't letting on).

FTR, there's nothing in the Tanakh that says the earth is flat.

Like all societies, the Jews created a series of explanations for the unexplainable. All the mysteries of the ancient world: day and night, the weather, the tides, were controlled by an unseen supernatural power that, of all things, had human characteristics.

Point of clarification: there is no literal anthropomorphism in the Tanakh; but instead, the usage of such phrases is for the finite to attempt to understand the Infinite.

Unlike the other mythologies of the time, which had multiple dieties representing different aspects of humankind, the Jewish God was a soverign God (later split into 3 parts) who was perfect in every way except for being an egomaniac who condemned all who would worship another.

This, too, is incorrect. There is no decree stating that non-Jews be condemned.

The record of the begining of the world and all life in it, always writ in Hebrew, was then translated to Greek and Latin. Something tells me there might have been a few typos in there, especially the Latin. Israelites and Romans weren't exactly two peas in a pod. But that doesn't really matter, because centuries later (not long after the round world thing caught on) someone would rewrite the whole thing and put King James' name on it. And that's what hundreds of mllions of people base their lives on: what ammounts to the Jewish Edith Hamilton's Mythology, after it had traveled thru the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican Churches (none of whom were crazy about Jews). And somebody's going to take that word over carbon dating, DNA testing and, well, common sense? Okay. Did I mention they thought the world was flat.

Hope that wasn't too offensive.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I'll go with Revolution. (numberninenumberninenumberninenumbernine......

Not too offensive. Just ill-informed.

 

[muffler dragon]

Well I'm not certain the universe was created out of nothing. Maybe our universe came from a piece of another larger universe, or maybe there are multiple universes which all have different properties. And I even acknowledge that it is possible that God created the universe (however slight that might be). But we haven't gathered enough evidence yet on how the universe came to be for science to put forward a theory that is strongly supported. Science is still relatively ignorant on the subject, so I'm okay to leave it at that for the present time and say I'm not really sure how the universe came to be. But ignorance shouldn't be confused with creating a need to make God the answer.

Brewtus:

I would really like to know if the emboldened is meant to come across as a back-handed slight or if you mean to word the statement some other way?

The reason I don't believe in the existence of God as an answer to the unknown mysteries of the universe, is that God doesn't really solve anything. Invoking God as an answer to who created the universe leaves an even bigger question as to who/what created God? If God is even more complex and incomprehensible than the universe, then you need an even better answer as to how God came to be. Explaining the existence of God is even more difficult than explaining the origins and workings of the universe.

Or one can have no problem with acceptance of the Unknown or "mystery".

 

[muffler dragon]

I'm just curious. Aside from debating Creationism and Evolution because it's an interesting subject, are there any people on here who truly believe that the book of Genesis is a literal account of the creation of the universe? I'm sure there are many religious people on here, but I'm talking literally, 7 days style.

I used to be YEC, but I am not any more.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Well I'm not certain the universe was created out of nothing. Maybe our universe came from a piece of another larger universe, or maybe there are multiple universes which all have different properties. And I even acknowledge that it is possible that God created the universe (however slight that might be). But we haven't gathered enough evidence yet on how the universe came to be for science to put forward a theory that is strongly supported. Science is still relatively ignorant on the subject, so I'm okay to leave it at that for the present time and say I'm not really sure how the universe came to be. But ignorance shouldn't be confused with creating a need to make God the answer.

The reason I don't believe in the existence of God as an answer to the unknown mysteries of the universe, is that God doesn't really solve anything. Invoking God as an answer to who created the universe leaves an even bigger question as to who/what created God? If God is even more complex and incomprehensible than the universe, then you need an even better answer as to how God came to be. Explaining the existence of God is even more difficult than explaining the origins and workings of the universe.

I've never really been concerned with who or what created G-d... Although, your point is an important one. For me, the real question is why is there anything at all? In terms of the evolution question, for me, it's interesting to ask - What is the evolutionary signifigance of us even asking the questions about our origin(s)? Is there any signifigance in it? In other words, what is the "selective advantage" (if any) in discerning our position in the universe?

Incidentally, I was watching a show on History International last evening called "The Universe" and I was reminded of something which, as a science guy, I would think you'd find a tad troubling about the "Big Bang" theory. As you probably know, there is a 3 degree radiation out there and it is observed uniformally across the universe. The explaination for how this is possible, however, is troubling. The theory is that for a very brief epoch between the instant the universe began and it's first second of existance the universe expanded (to the size of a grapefruit, basically) and did so faster than the speed of light... about 4 times faster, actually. This is, of course, impossible.

The book Muffler's talking about suggests that G-d is responsible for that anomoly, and it's surely an interesting idea. That said, I would agree with you where you suggest that man has a long history of saying gods were responsible for things they didn't understand.

Anyway.... thanks for your remarks.

 

[Brewtus]

Brewtus:

I would really like to know if the emboldened is meant to come across as a back-handed slight or if you mean to word the statement some other way?

It wasn't meant as a bank-handed slight, but rather that a "God-of-the Gaps" approach has serious flaws. By answering "God did it" to every Unknown or "mystery" doesn't really solve anything. Science is ignorant in many areas, but giving up and invoking God as the answer isn't the way to discover the true workings of nature.

Or one can have no problem with acceptance of the Unknown or "mystery".

To each their own, but I'd never be satisfied with contentment. I accept that there are unknowns and mysteries, but I see them as problems needing to be solved. I take the approach that all "mysteries" theoretically have an answer (whether humans have the technology and intelligence to find the correct answer is another matter). The reason I adhere to the scientific method is that it is self-correcting and will never stop trying to find answers without needing to invoke the supernatural.

 

[muffler dragon]

It wasn't meant as a bank-handed slight, but rather that a "God-of-the Gaps" approach has serious flaws. By answering "God did it" to every Unknown or "mystery" doesn't really solve anything. Science is ignorant in many areas, but giving up and invoking God as the answer isn't the way to discover the true workings of nature.

The part that took me aback was the usage of "need". Personally, I don't "need" to invoke the concept of Deity in order to make myself feel any particular way or to assuage a thought. I understand what you're saying above.

To each their own, but I'd never be satisfied with contentment. I accept that there are unknowns and mysteries, but I see them as problems needing to be solved. I take the approach that all "mysteries" theoretically have an answer (whether humans have the technology and intelligence to find the correct answer is another matter). The reason I adhere to the scientific method is that it is self-correcting and will never stop trying to find answers without needing to invoke the supernatural.

I, too, adhere to the scientific method; however, I guess I'm not as driven to find answers to all that comes to my mind.

 

[Brewtus]

I've never really been concerned with who or what created G-d... Although, your point is an important one. For me, the real question is why is there anything at all? In terms of the evolution question, for me, it's interesting to ask - What is the evolutionary signifigance of us even asking the questions about our origin(s)? Is there any signifigance in it? In other words, what is the "selective advantage" (if any) in discerning our position in the universe?

I think the question to "why is there anything at all" can be answered either philosophically or scientifically. You will get two different answers which are based on very different methodologies.

And I'm not sure there is any evolutionary significance of us seeking answers about our origins, and there doesn't necessarily have to be. Some evolutionary traits come as a side-benefit to something else. Our large brains and intelligence helped early man survive better and maybe self-consciousness was just a side benefit.

Incidentally, I was watching a show on History International last evening called "The Universe" and I was reminded of something which, as a science guy, I would think you'd find a tad troubling about the "Big Bang" theory. As you probably know, there is a 3 degree radiation out there and it is observed uniformally across the universe. The explaination for how this is possible, however, is troubling. The theory is that for a very brief epoch between the instant the universe began and it's first second of existance the universe expanded (to the size of a grapefruit, basically) and did so faster than the speed of light... about 4 times faster, actually. This is, of course, impossible.

The book Muffler's talking about suggests that G-d is responsible for that anomoly, and it's surely an interesting idea. That said, I would agree with you where you suggest that man has a long history of saying gods were responsible for things they didn't understand.

I know a little bit about Inflation, but I don't believe there are physical restrictions on how fast space can expand. Particles and information can't travel faster than light, but there is no speed limit on how fast space can expand. But correct me if I'm mistaken.

And Muffler's suggestion is just another "God-of-the-Gaps" solution. What happens if science determines a natural explanation for the anomaly in a few years; will Muffler be an atheist then?

Anyway.... thanks for your remarks.

And thanks for yours!

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I think the question to "why is there anything at all" can be answered either philosophically or scientifically. You will get two different answers which are based on very different methodologies.

And I'm not sure there is any evolutionary significance of us seeking answers about our origins, and there doesn't necessarily have to be. Some evolutionary traits come as a side-benefit to something else. Our large brains and intelligence helped early man survive better and maybe self-consciousness was just a side benefit.

Self Consciousness, however, isn't essential to survival. Crocadiles have been quite successful without sentience (of course, for all I know they are as sentient as you or I, I guess). I dont know... it just seems to me that if we accept evolutionary theory, self-conciousness must be considered, at this point, as "selected for." And... there must be a reason. That is to say, if there was no advantage to it, then self aware critters in our past would not have had a reproduction advantage. I undestand what you're saying about secondary benefit, and dont mean to ignore it and it could well be the case that sentience has no particular evolutionary value at all.

An answer to that question might go a long way towards understanding the nature of life, the universe and everything.

I know a little bit about Inflation, but I don't believe there are physical restrictions on how fast space can expand. Particles and information can't travel faster than light, but there is no speed limit on how fast space can expand. But correct me if I'm mistaken.

The answer given on the show was that there was no "speed limit" to the universe yet because light did not yet exist and the major forces at issue (gravity, electromagnatism, strong and weak atomic) were not yet individual forces, but rather a "super force" of some kind. Seemed like a cop out to me, but I'm not an expert by any means.

And Muffler's suggestion is just another "God-of-the-Gaps" solution. What happens if science determines a natural explanation for the anomaly in a few years; will Muffler be an atheist then?

I don't know that "God in the gaps" is a "solution." What I mean is, it's a thoery, just like the big bang.

Now, when I say things like that, I realize I'm toeing the line of seemingly trying to "legitimize" creationism... and THAT is NOT my intention. Certainly not in terms of biblical literalism, anyway. Frankly, literalists are quite confusing to me (and I don't mean to put anyone on this board on the spot with that remark, just saying I don't get how you can believe what you believe)

 

[muffler dragon]

And Muffler's suggestion is just another "God-of-the-Gaps" solution. What happens if science determines a natural explanation for the anomaly in a few years; will Muffler be an atheist then?

I'm not quite certain how acceptance of the unknown is a "God of the Gaps" solution since I'm not looking for a solution, but I could be misunderstanding what you're saying.

As for your question, I believe that nature is an out-pouring of the Infinite. I believe that the Natural Laws were put in place by a Supernatural being. Thus, even a "natural explanation" has a supernatural basis to me. I guess you could think of it in a priori terms. And thus, no, natural explanations do not nor would they make me an atheist. I believe that G-d operates through natural occurrences, events, etc.