Adam and eve or evolution

I think evolution simply because how could everyone in the world come from only two people originally. This would mean that to an extent we are all related and the same family. So where did race, langue, traditions, origins all come from.
I also think evolution because even though scientists have proven to some extent we have the capability to evolve from primates but there is some evidence that we all have the same dna or something which they have proven through carbon dating or something.
But honestly i know that nothing is impossible to some extent so really both answers are up for argument. but my personal view is ecolution.

"evolution" is a fact, anyone that argues differently is an idiot.

I personally don't believe in Adam and Eve. If that story were true how do you explain where Asian people came from.

The theory of evolution vs creation is really just a big pong-debate. Uber christians will not be swayed, and those of the scientific mind will not be swayed. It's a matter of faith vs facts. Evolution is science. Creation is a fairy tale, along with ID.

Begin debate of the infinite.

Agreed, I suppose the best way to resolve it is to ask the question: whether fact is > faith

Is this in the wrong forum?

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Agreed, I suppose the best way to resolve it is to ask the question: whether fact is > faith

Wha...

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
"evolution" is a fact, anyone that argues differently is an idiot.

I personally don't believe in Adam and Eve. If that story were true how do you explain where Asian people came from.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Wha...

Often fundamentalist Christians try to confuse the issue by claiming that science is based on faith just like religion is. This is based on the idea that all reality is relative and we only know something because of a set of assumptions. They do this while at the same time claiming that their beliefs are absolute. 🙄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Often fundamentalist Christians try to confuse the issue by claiming that science is based on faith just like religion is. This is based on the idea that all reality is relative and we only know something because of a set of assumptions. They do this while at the same time claiming that their beliefs are absolute. 🙄

There is a fundamental difference in ideology, hence the endless debates.

Originally posted by Acrosurge
And Darwinian Fundamentalists claim that science contains no elements of faith, despite the fact that observational science cannot prove how the universe came about.

There is a fundamental difference in ideology, hence the endless debates.

I have no idea what a Darwinian Fundamentalists is.

You are making an assumption: you are assuming that the universe had a beginning. The big band theory only says that at some point in the past the universe was very small. Science is based on observations of nature. Observations of nature are not based on faith.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have no idea what a Darwinian Fundamentalists is.

You are making an assumption: you are assuming that the universe had a beginning. The big band theory only says that at some point in the past the universe was very small. Science is based on observations of nature. Observations of nature are not based on faith.

One cannot observe how the universe came into being, therefore it is not strictly scientific to say, "It was created by an eternal series of contractions and expansions," or "It was created by a god," or, "It was created by cows." These are all faith statements that cannot be observed nor proven. Hence, the irreconcilably of ideologies.

Originally posted by Acrosurge
One must also make an assumption to say that the universe did not have a beginning.

One cannot observe how the universe came into being, therefore it is not strictly scientific to say, "It was created by an eternal series of contractions and expansions," or "It was created by a god," or, "It was created by cows." These are all faith statements that cannot be observed nor proven. Hence, the irreconcilably of ideologies.

If you read what I posted, you will see that I was not making an assumption about the beginning of the universe. I was pointing out your assumption.

How is observations of nature equal to faith?

Originally posted by reece123collins
I think evolution simply because how could everyone in the world come from only two people originally.

all life on this planet (so far documented) is the offspring of ONE single cell

Originally posted by reece123collins
This would mean that to an extent we are all related and the same family.

at one point, the population of reproducing human females was reduced to a handful, meaning this is probably true anyways, if the fact that we all come from the same single cellular organism does not mean we are all from the same family.

Originally posted by reece123collins
So where did race,

geographically and family isolated groups of pre-humans

Originally posted by reece123collins
langue,

pre linguistic pointing and gesturing combined with the advantage of more complex grunts as communication devices

Originally posted by reece123collins
traditions,

memes passed to offspring and through transaction, geographically or culturally isolated

Originally posted by reece123collins
origins all come from.

origins of which?

Originally posted by reece123collins
I also think evolution because even though scientists have proven to some extent we have the capability to evolve from primates

evolution isn't an ability, it is a process. We hypothetically have the ability to evolve into anything that genetic variation allows for in our environment, with the long-term changes being based on which of those varieties were best suited for the environment.

Originally posted by reece123collins
but there is some evidence that we all have the same dna or something

yes, all lifeforms on the planet share some portion of their DNA, Depending on how closely related the species are. You and I likely have almost identical genes, whereas a chimp would have 90%+ of the same dna. A dog some smaller percentage, followed by bananas and bacteria.

Originally posted by reece123collins
which they have proven through carbon dating or something.

probably more through genetic sequencing, though I'll admit I don't know for sure

Originally posted by reece123collins
But honestly i know that nothing is impossible to some extent

human imagination is not subject to limits, however, reality is. There are many things which are impossible.

Originally posted by reece123collins
so really both answers are up for argument.

absolutly not. Creationism or intelligent design are unsubstantiable and errorous. They do not conform to anything approaching science. Rationally, only evolution is "up for argument"

Originally posted by reece123collins
but my personal view is ecolution.

lol, nice 🙂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you read what I posted, you will see that I was not making an assumption about the beginning of the universe. I was pointing out your assumption.

How is observations of nature equal to faith?

When it comes to origins, one must make an assumption one way or the other.

Also, you will find the best definition of Darwinian Fundamentalism in Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

Originally posted by Acrosurge

When it comes to origins, one must make an assumption one way or the other.

actually, science doesn't have to explain things it can't possibly...

"I don't know, lets keep looking" is an acceptable answer, thus, science makes no assumptions about anything. It either has the data or does not.

It would however be valid to say "any belief one has about the absolute nature of the origins of the universe is a belief based on faith" then yes. However, all scientific facts could have that said about them, as one of the most important parts to science is the knowledge that its answers are always incomplete. Thus, there are no absolutes in science.

Originally posted by Acrosurge
And if you read my post, you will note that I said nothing about observation of nature being the equivalent of faith. Only that the method of the origin of the universe cannot be proven by observational science. Therefore, the Fundamentalist makes a leap of faith when they say, "It existed eternally."

When it comes to origins, one must make an assumption one way or the other.

Also, you will find the best definition of Darwinian Fundamentalism in Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

Science does not say that the universe is eternal or not.

Do you not see that by asking the question "how did the universe begin?" you are inserting an assumption that the universe has a beginning?

I have not read that book, but I have heard fundamentalist Christians call evolution Darwinism as if Darwin invented evolution.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, science doesn't have to explain things it can't possibly...

"I don't know, lets keep looking" is an acceptable answer, thus, science makes no assumptions about anything. It either has the data or does not.

It would however be valid to say "any belief one has about the absolute nature of the origins of the universe is a belief based on faith" then yes. However, all scientific facts could have that said about them, as one of the most important parts to science is the knowledge that its answers are always incomplete. Thus, there are no absolutes in science.

I agree completely.

Originally posted by Acrosurge

Also, you will find the best definition of Darwinian Fundamentalism in Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

as a further note:

in the same book, Sagan describes an alien species who use vehicular interstellar transport as not being able to determine if it is the cars on earth that are alive or if they are vehicles.

so, ya, Sagan was the man, but again, nothing in science is absolute and people can disagree on many things.

For instance, I believe science should be open to anything supernatural provided it can be empirically tested. Give me an experiment that will provide conclusive evidence for the existance of God and my thoughts are that it should be run. Scientists have their own personal philosophies which will absolutly effect the way they perform science, but the scientific method does not require any philosophical commitment, simply empirical evidence upon which predictions can be made and tested.

Originally posted by Acrosurge
You have stated better than I.

I agree completely.

i must have misinterpreted, appologies