Creation vs Evolution

Started by Alliance221 pages

Originally posted by Badabing
My view says that it's just as plausible that a Creator is responsible for life as is a random occurrence.

Why? Have you run stats on that?

Originally posted by Badabing
I choose to have faith in a Creator. I'm not too sure why this is such a problem with some people.

I haven't figured out why most people have a problem if I don't believe in Gods either.

Originally posted by Badabing
You have faith that evolution is responsible even though the theory has holes in it.

Evolution didn't DO anything.

Choosing the most probable answer is NOT an act of faith.

Besides...which holes in the theory have you so concerned?

Originally posted by Alliance
...Besides...which holes in the theory have you so concerned?

Ya, I would like to see what these holes are also.

I bet all we will get is: "you know, the holes". 😆 Probable something like the missing link, without even considering that the concept of a missing link is flawed.

Originally posted by Badabing
Thanks for the explanation but I have knowledge of the theory. If you read my entire post then you'd see I already made a concession that evolution was possible. Again, people seem to focus on one aspect of a post and run with it. My point of view, belief if you will is that doesn't answer the why. One cell is very complex. My view says that it's just as plausible that a Creator is responsible for life as is a random occurrence. I choose to have faith in a Creator. I'm not too sure why this is such a problem with some people. You have faith that evolution is responsible even though the theory has holes in it. In my opinion, evolution and Creation are parts of the same equation. One fills in the answers from another.

I'm not sure how to take that last remark Digi....🤨 I've already told you before that I'm not a kid and I'm well educated.

The last part wasn't aimed directly at you...more in general because quite a few seem to have very little knowledge on the subject.

And I did read your whole post, you just seemed fairly adamant in the "how does it explain life?" thing, so I went ahead and answered it to the best of my ability.

And if you espouse faith in a Creator, perhaps a designer of evolution, shouldn't we have some sort of evidence in His influence upon evolution? Evolution works fine on its own, and does explain life quite thoroughly....where, then, the need for an intercessor guiding it?

^^^ Not if it is a passive god.

The George Jetson of Life, if you will. Push the button and sit.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The last part wasn't aimed directly at you...more in general because quite a few seem to have very little knowledge on the subject.

And I did read your whole post, you just seemed fairly adamant in the "how does it explain life?" thing, so I went ahead and answered it to the best of my ability.

And if you espouse faith in a Creator, perhaps a designer of evolution, shouldn't we have some sort of evidence in His influence upon evolution? Evolution works fine on its own, and does explain life quite thoroughly....where, then, the need for an intercessor guiding it?

Well, evidence and faith are contradictory to each other. My point of view is that the very building blocks of life, DNA, is intelligently designed by the nature of the language and mathematical principles they show.

As I've stated, I'm not one to dismiss the theory of evolution, I just believe there is more to life and existence than a random occurrence or stroke of luck.

Originally posted by Alliance
^^^ Not if it is a passive god.

The George Jetson of Life, if you will. Push the button and sit.

😂

Originally posted by Badabing
Well, evidence and faith are contradictory to each other. My point of view is that the very building blocks of life, DNA, is intelligently designed by the nature of the language and mathematical principles they show.

As I've stated, I'm not one to dismiss the theory of evolution, I just believe there is more to life and existence than a random occurrence or stroke of luck.
😂

There is no such thing as chance or luck, but that does not mean there is a biblical god.

Originally posted by Badabing
My point of view is that the very building blocks of life, DNA, is intelligently designed by the nature of the language and mathematical principles they show.

Or is it that you merely percieve it as mathematical, as this is how we describe it in the first place. Just because you have awe for something, doesn't point to God.

There is no reason to assume design, much less intelligent design anywhere. There are many MORE intelligent ways to do things. They way we are is not perfected or even close to being the best designed system possible.

Originally posted by Badabing
My point of view is that the very building blocks of life, DNA, is intelligently designed by the nature of the language and mathematical principles they show.

If it is intelligently designed, then why are fragments of RNA observed to form in neutral and reducing atmospheres?

Because its a physical probability based on pervasive environmental conditions?

Life happening by "random occurence" implies improbability. Given the millions of years over which the opening stages of evolution formed, it would be more improbable for it NOT to happen, given the conditions on Earth.

And yes, evidence and faith are contradictory with each other. Thus the dangerous problem with faith, imo. We don't even need fundamentalists (though they help) to show us how damaging faith can become, when it overrides both reason and evidence, as well as concern for human life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no such thing as chance or luck, but that does not mean there is a biblical god.
I'm also open to that possibility.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
If it is intelligently designed, then why are fragments of RNA observed to form in neutral and reducing atmospheres?
There are fragments of metal and wood in a forest does that mean that a hammer will eventually appear? My opinion is the linguistics and mathematical properties of a living cell show intelligent design.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Life happening by "random occurrence" implies improbability. Given the millions of years over which the opening stages of evolution formed, it would be more improbable for it NOT to happen, given the conditions on Earth.

And yes, evidence and faith are contradictory with each other. Thus the dangerous problem with faith, imo. We don't even need fundamentalists (though they help) to show us how damaging faith can become, when it overrides both reason and evidence, as well as concern for human life.

If I wanted to imply improbability I wouldn't have said random occurrence. *sigh* As I said earlier:
As I've stated, I'm not one to dismiss the theory of evolution, I just believe there is more to life and existence than a random occurrence or stroke of luck.

Your proceeding with the assumption that the Theory of Evolution has been proved without a doubt. As I've stated numerous times in this thread, I am open to the theory but not convinced that it's the "answer".

Now faith is dangerous? Einstein and Newton had faith and they were two of the most brilliant minds in history. Did there faith override their reason? How did we get onto fundamentalists? Every religion, political group, environmental group, scientific group, etc have their sect of fringe zealots. Remaining objective in science is actually quite easy with an open mind.

It seems that people just have a problem with any opinion which doesn't put faith wholly into Evolution or a Non-God. I've stated numerous times that I am open to other explanations and thoughts. I've conceded that there is a possibility other than God for Life and all things numerous times. I've been respectful and open to other points of views. I would hope others to be as open.

I was speaking about faith, not about your personal faith. Einstein and Newton allowed their reason to overcome their faith, not the reverse. But the idea of faith, and the importance that religions put on it, is an epidemic problem in my opinion.

Good people have faith...you're obviously among them, especially because of your willingness to accept aspects of scientific theory. But it's the macrocosmic institution of it that I dislike, and the insane actions it can produce in many people. Large parts of Middle America or the Middle East are examples of this.

We're also in fundamental disagreement about the overall validity of evolution. I see it as fact. It explains life on Earth as we know it, down to its smallest intricacies, and no other theory comes close to offering any alternative that makes any sense. Calling it a theory is fine, but it is, in my opinion and many others, a proven theory.

And bada...I haven't been trying to take a controversial tone with you or attack you. I've also been accused of ignoring parts of your argument. I'm reading your full posts and trying to respond, nothing more. And I hope that you know I have the utmost respect of you from our interactions on the forum (most of which are outside of this forum).

Originally posted by Badabing

There are fragments of metal and wood in a forest does that mean that a hammer will eventually appear? My opinion is the linguistics and mathematical properties of a living cell show intelligent design.

There is a big difference between fragments of wood turning into a hammer and nitrogenous bases, pentose sugars, and phosphate groups bonding into nucleic acids and those nucleic acids forming into fragments of RNA sequences. One being the fact that the hammer is designed by man, and is thus not affected by natural selection, but rather artificial selection, much like the Heike Crab.

The random formation of RNA sequences is also not the only thing formed in these kinds of conditions. Protobionts have also been observed to form spontaneously in multiple models of early earth conditions.

Originally posted by Badabing
There are fragments of metal and wood in a forest does that mean that a hammer will eventually appear? My opinion is the linguistics and mathematical properties of a living cell show intelligent design.

Thats because you're nowhere near the qualification level to make those opinons. CHemistry guides the processes of life and life is a chemical probability.

I SAY THE EARTH BE FLAT!

There are plenty of organic coumpounds in space, including nucleic acids and consitant ratios of R and L amino acids in space and on earth. In response to your uninformed analogy:

If you throw a bunch of magnets together, do they build into something else/greater, or to they remain seperate entities?

You are clearly not well informed on these issues, buecause you constantly pull out fallacies and phrases from the intelligent design movement. Your opinion comes down to "I beleive this"

Besides, you can't.haven't even respond(ed) to my posts.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Newton

Newton was convinced Gravity proved God. He simply didn't allow God to get in the way of reason.

Originally posted by Alliance
You are clearly not well informed on these issues, buecause you constantly pull out fallacies and phrases from the intelligent design movement. Your opinion comes down to "I beleive this"
Originally posted by Alliance
Your opinion comes down to "I beleive this"

Rephrasing: You're argument consitantly comes down to:

"I believe this"

Without any shread of logic either way. You've neither responded to nor provided biological arguments or any physical arguments as evidence of your positions.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
There is a big difference between fragments of wood turning into a hammer and nitrogenous bases, pentose sugars, and phosphate groups bonding into nucleic acids and those nucleic acids forming into fragments of RNA sequences. One being the fact that the hammer is designed by man, and is thus not affected by natural selection, but rather artificial selection, much like the Heike Crab.

The random formation of RNA sequences is also not the only thing formed in these kinds of conditions. Protobionts have also been observed to form spontaneously in multiple models of early earth conditions.

I was just making an analogy with the hammer to try and illustrate how complex one cell let alone a large living organism is. For me, life has the fingerprint of intelligence behind it due to the nature of its language, mathematics and the digital nature of DNA. From my perspective, it's a leap of faith to believe fully in life just happening. Again, I'm in no way saying evolution doesn't occur, I'm saying it just doesn't answer all the questions for me. I covered most of my viewpoints below. I appreciate the discussion and the civil, knowledgeable tone which you have posted in response to me. 😎
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I was speaking about faith, not about your personal faith. Einstein and Newton allowed their reason to overcome their faith, not the reverse. But the idea of faith, and the importance that religions put on it, is an epidemic problem in my opinion.
That's the point I was making about Einstein and Newton. With all the scientific progress we make every year I have to disagree with you on the "epidemic problem". I would like to know how religion has adversely effects your life though.
Originally posted by DigiMark007

Good people have faith...you're obviously among them, especially because of your willingness to accept aspects of scientific theory. But it's the macrocosmic institution of it that I dislike, and the insane actions it can produce in many people. Large parts of Middle America or the Middle East are examples of this.

I fully agree with you.
Originally posted by DigiMark007

We're also in fundamental disagreement about the overall validity of evolution. I see it as fact. It explains life on Earth as we know it, down to its smallest intricacies, and no other theory comes close to offering any alternative that makes any sense. Calling it a theory is fine, but it is, in my opinion and many others, a proven theory.
Well, it's just probably nitpicking at this point. I would never dismiss evolution or call it invalid just on my beliefs. I believe evolution fills in a lot of gaps but it just doesn't paint a complete picture for me. I'm looking at things from the viewpoint that life is incredibly complex and seems to have an intelligence behind it. But I am always open to different points of view.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

And bada...I haven't been trying to take a controversial tone with you or attack you. I've also been accused of ignoring parts of your argument. I'm reading your full posts and trying to respond, nothing more. And I hope that you know I have the utmost respect of you from our interactions on the forum (most of which are outside of this forum).
Sorry if I came off as defensive but I usually get attacked on these threads and I guess my guard was up. I appreciate the debate and the kind words Digi.

Alliance, I was going to respond to your posts but I've seen some of your tactics on KMC and your hostile and smug tone you posted in response to my posts. I don't know you, at all, and I may have misjudged you but you don't seem to be open minded or inclined to a civil discussion. 😬

Again, Faith by it's nature does not require direct proof. I believe Faith is good for exploring all the possibilities of existence.

Originally posted by Badabing
Alliance, I was going to respond to your posts but I've seen some of your tactics on KMC and your hostile and smug tone you posted in response to my posts. I don't know you, at all, and I may have misjudged you but you don't seem to be open minded or inclined to a civil discussion. 😬

Considering I've been the one asking questions that have gone unanswered, I don't see how I'm the one not inclined to discussion.

Tactics change and I use different ones on different people, depending on how they act. If peole act like 2 year olds, I really could care less what I say to them.

As for open-mindedness, I am open-minded, open to evidence and theory. If you provide some, I'd be happy to think about it. However, open-mindedness should not be confused with willingness to accept others opinions regardless of how well substantiated they are. People can be wrong and are not entitled to be wrong simply for the sake of having a personal opinion.

I'm a biologist and a historian. I have very little tolerance for the blatant ignorance of the neo-creationist/intelligent design movement. I've studeied this movement a lot, perhaps more than I've studied the Theory of Natural Selection. I've read a good percentage of Darwin's works and I know a heck of a lot on the history of evolution and the historical relationships between science, evolution, Natural Selection, creationism, and the public.

Thus, I feel I'm pretty entitled to make comments, especially when people drastically misunderstand the Theory. Its in science's interest right now that the public gets a good understanding of what evolution is, which is why you'll often find me posting in this thread...and less and less in the other annoyances that pass as threads these days.

I'm open to civil discussion, but it must be civil discussion. I know you HAVE an opinion. I really could care less what it is. I'm interested in how you justify your opinoin. THAT is intellectual discussion.

So yes, I do feel you have slightly misjudged me.

Thanks for response bada. We disagree at times, but I think we understand each other.

Originally posted by Badabing
That's the point I was making about Einstein and Newton. With all the scientific progress we make every year I have to disagree with you on the "epidemic problem". I would like to know how religion has adversely effects your life though.

I feel like answering this because I feel strongly about it.

Personally, it hasn't negatively affected me. But I'm again trying to look at the larger picture. Individually, a lot of people do good things through their faith, and even institutions like churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. The problem comes at a larger level, where religious distinctions (caused by faith in a particular belief) create division between people. And I'm not even talking about extreme division like religious terrorism. There's a cultural schism between, say, Catholics and Born-Agains, or Jewish and Christian, or Lutheran and Baptist, or Islam and etc. etc.

And the reason for that is because each of those religions has a dogmatic Truth that can't be wavered from, and which puts it at odds with other religions. Eastern religions wisely avoid this trend (largely) because they don't view their way as rigid, literal truth. Stories about the Buddha, for example, are intended to help the listener understand something on the path to Enlightenment. If it never really happened just as the story says, that is inconsequential to the message. But if Jesus wasn't exactly as the Gospels say, or if Mohammad wasn't really God's final prophet, then there's a problem....a split in the unity of humanity based on faith. And then that same faith turns those divisions into holy wars and subversive legislation and attempts to undermine scientific inquiry. The horrible stuff that faith is responsible for isn't all in history...it's esconced in our modern culture. And these forces, at the moment, are >>> scientific community in terms of fervor and influence in the world, if only because of the nature of religious followers and their penchant for grouping together.

Scientific discovery, it seems, merely holds these sects at bay, and also because the non-religious don't usually have "banners" to follow together, and are much less likely to act in unison.

But within belief structures, there are shared messages, unifying themes and practices, even aspects of the same Rituals and beliefs, across all Western religions (and many, many other myths, philosophies, and practices throughout human history). There is unity in that. But we shun that unity in favor of having "the one truth". Rather than an adult version of Aesop's Fables, intended to teach us something without believing the strict details of it, we turn it into the center of our being. Of course, this is coming from someone who feels like religious stories should be treated as myth, not historical fact, and that there is ample evidence to support that way of thinking...so I realize not all are in a place to be able to embrace this style of thinking.

So that's what faith is to me. Irrational, potentially harmful. If one wants to believe in a God or religion, so be it. If there is a rational justification behind it, I applaud it. But faith means without evidence. Intuitive. Blind hope. Quite honestly, it scares me, and faith of that kind isn't something I could ever submit to.

Take away faith...hell, take away all religion and you might still find atrocities committed by humans on a large scale. Perhaps culture wars would replace religious wars, or something similar. But the good that religion does wouldn't disappear either, and would still exist in other forms as well. The good is in people, not in archaic pagan moral laws and tradition. And that's why I can't say, in good conscience, that I feel like religion (and faith) does more good than harm.

....

...again, as a disclaimer, this isn't directed at bada or those like him, though I do think anyone with blind faith in a religion or God has misplaced their trust. In any case, he doesn't strike me as the irrational fundamentalist type. It's just my soapbox manifesto on religion.

I didn't read any claims that he was a fundamentalist. I simply object to his lack of response to other people, especially when he invokes the language of the intelligent design movement.

Then there is a problem.