Creationism vs. Evolution

[Kite]

Quote by: Technosoul Ha, now you know why I am not a scientist. Okay then add Saturn and drop the asteroid belt, the number of planets would still add up to what is needed to make the anology. In addition to your notation many planets also have moons and one could ask why our moon is counted and not all the moons.

Well why are you excluding the moon now? You cant pick and choose celestial objects just so they can add up to your magic number 10.

What is your opinon on the link The Birth of Earth 3

You can add on symbolic meaning to just about anything and make it look relevant.

Some objects have been detected in or near the Kuiper Belt. SPACE.com -- Discovery Hints at a Quadrillion Space Rocks Beyond Neptune Trans-Neptunian Objects - Explore the Cosmos | The Planetary Society I would venture to say that Pluto is part of the Kuiper Belt with the other objects making up that "sea" of icy objects. Therefore counting Pluto and the Kuiper Belt as "one" thing. One influence. As you know, even a theory can be re-interpreted due to addictional findings or data. I am not talking about absolutes here. And this idea has lots of room in it for debating - because of it's very nature.

Astronomy is not a field that is up for interpretation. Photographic and mathematical evidence make it kind of hard to debate whether something is there or not.

None the less, if you ignore my clumsy way of presenting this idea, it is still evidence that perhaps religious stories are really based on scientific knowledge about the solar system, etc.

Or perhaps it is based on the 10 layers on my subway sandwich. Symbolic meaning can be applied to anything, unless there is a passage in the Bible that specifically mentions 10 planets orbiting the sun (which, coincidentally, wouldn't have happened, since the Heliocentric model of the solar system didn't come around until after the death of Christ) then there is nothing definitive at all, simply conjecture.

I must insert however that none of the Creationist oganizations took part in constructing this idea as I outlined. And most religions would reject the idea faster then would a scientific journal. And I doubt it scientists would see any point in adding such to a book about the history of science. None the less, it works for me. In other words, many myths and religious stories are a spin-off of discoveries known to ancient scientists. How then would they know? That would be another debate.

If religion and science go together so nicely as you say, then why has the church made every effort for the past 2000 years to denounce science?

Now (more explaination) if a planet impacted earth at the location of the astroid belt and moved it into our current orbit, then that would account for why we have an astroid belt, and also, our moon would be a left over part of the other planet that impacted earth. If that is the case then the moon would be made of slightly differenct kinds of rocks then what we have here on earth. You know the answer to that requirement.

No, thats not how the cosmos work. If anything, a large meteor might have hit the earth and glommed a chunk off of it and that chunk became the moon. Also, there is way too much material in the asteroid belt to have only come from earth.

[Matt]

Quote by: Isherwood I don't accept the existence of an afterlife, but disregarding that for a moment, what would be the objection to a naturally occurring afterlife? I agree evolution couldn't account for it, as evolution is a natural process that works on living things. But what is the argument against an afterlife that is natural, not supernatural?

How could there be an naturally occurring afterlife with out a God? Afterlife (Heaven) is what we would call supernatural I guess, it is not known really to occur 'naturally'. It is something we can't really grasp completely, and will never totally understand it. Science always tries to find answers for things we don't know, and when they don't find them in a certain topic, they call it false. Sometimes things are not meant to be understood until we enter the next stage.....

So my point is, something like an afterlife can't just occur naturally, it is beyond that level.

Quote by: Tycoon Well, the argument goes as follows: Do you remember life as it was before birth? No, because you did not have a physical body and thus you did not have memory or a consciousness. You did not exist in any way imaginable. When you die you will once again cease to have a physical body and thus you will once again cease to have memory and a consciousness. You will not exist in any way imaginable. I know that the idea of an afterlife is so easy to believe in, the assurance that you will continue to live after death. But there is no proof in an afterlife, there is no reason to believe one exists.

Well, like I stated previous, there is proof there is an afterlife, and alot of it.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Matt Afterlife is something beyond what evolution could make.

When will you get that the purpose of evolution isn't to explain afterlife, but how life evolved? Did you get that if special relativity doesn't explain why cancer kills, it isn't because it is wrong, but because it isn't meant to explain cancer?

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Matt Well, like I stated previous, there is proof there is an afterlife, and alot of it.

Well, stop saying there is proofs and give us proofs.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Matt To believe in evolution and believe in God is very contradicting, and truthfully doesn't make sense.

*talking to a broken recorder*
Not every definition of God suppose that God decided how life shall be. Theistic forms of beliefs are proto-science. Their God was a primitive theory to explain the world. Now Biblical creationism was proven false, the theory failed, let's try something new.
But there is more definition of God than the jealous christian God, as I said earlier, and some of them do not go against science and thus against evolution, and some theories even suppose we must rely on science to explain Nature instead of your bunch of fairytales called Bible.
How do you expect to explain natural phenomeons with supernatural theories?

[Jack]

Quote by: Matt How could there be an naturally occurring afterlife with out a God? Afterlife (Heaven) is what we would call supernatural I guess, it is not known really to occur 'naturally'. It is something we can't really grasp completely, and will never totally understand it. Science always tries to find answers for things we don't know, and when they don't find them in a certain topic, they call it false. Sometimes things are not meant to be understood until we enter the next stage..... So my point is, something like an afterlife can't just occur naturally, it is beyond that level.

So we can't grasp it or understand it, yet we can put conditions on it. That simply makes no sense. Either it's unknown and we can't say anything about it at all, or we know enough about it to be able to say what it can and cannot be. It can't be both.

Science tries to make sense of nature by examining evidence. When there is no evidence, such as in the case of an afterlife, it can reach no conclusions. The supernatural, if it even exists, is beyond the interest of science.

Well, like I stated previous, there is proof there is an afterlife, and alot of it.

I, too, would enjoy seeing that proof. But not in this thread. It has nothing to do with the evolution vs. creationism debate.

[gallo]

Quote by: Matt Because how could there be?

This is you answer to my question? My question was, "why can't there be an afterlife without a god/gods?" Your answer was the above question. As has been pointed out, there are religions that believe in an after life without gods. Gods are not necessary.

Seriously, think about it. How could there be an afterlife with out God?

Asked and answered.

If God didn't make an afterlife...who did?

What is it that needs to be made?

Afterlife (aka Heaven) can not be created by a big 'boom' or whatever other theories there are for what created the earth. Afterlife is something that evolution cannot make, plain and simple. Afterlife is something beyond what evolution could make.

But no one has ever claimed that it has anything to do with your misunderstanding of science or evolution. No one claims that an afterlife is the result of evolution.

Isn't this a debate about creationism and evolution?

Yes. It is not about the afterlife

How am I off topic then?

Because you are discussing neither creationism nor evolution. You are discussing your superstitions.

I think you may think I'm off topic because I'm not following your point of view

Nonsense. Once again. You are discussing neither creationism nor evolution. So, unless you can actually add something meaningful and on topic to the discussion, I won't be responding to your superstitious rants in the future.

[Tycoon]

If we want to get back to the topic of "creationism vs. evolution" then I want to point out a big flaw in Christianity's creation story.


In Genesis it is said that God created man in His image, gave him dominion over all life, and told man to be fruitful and to multiply.

In the story of Adam and Eve, God created Adam in His image and created Eve from one of Adam's ribs. However, Adam and Eve were not aware of their sexuality, they weren't even aware that they were naked.


This is a big contradiction that cannot just be ignored. The stories are obviously flawed and conflicting.

[Michael Raizer]

Science provides us with the logical hypothesis of our reality. Religion, which is just a component of philosophy, attempts to fill in the void of knowledge that cannot be filled in by science alone. The two must coexist, but only as two separate entities. Science cannot be regarded as philosophical, and philosophy cannot be viewed as scientific.

That being said, Creationism is just not scientific, and its claims of intelligent design is also not only unscientific, but completely erroneous as can be proven by Ken Miller, whom I got the privilege of a lifetime to hear speak in person, and whom is also a stalwart Christian, surprisingly. On the same token science does not satisfy the qualms of the philosophical. Although the natural sciences can explain the processes of life, it useless at answering the question of the relevance of life.

The point that many people miss is that these two entirely different schools of thought answer two completely different questions. Science answers the how, and philosophy answers the why. Dissension naturally occurs when one colossus enters the realm of the other, and hence the ongoing battle over intellectual dominance. The major problem with this issue that society faces today is that science continues to progress at a blinding rate, while philosophy--specifically religion, is stagnant in its evolution ().

Arrogance and overconfidence in the scientific community, coughDawkinscough, has resulted in the pushing of science into the realms of philosophy--not to say that its rivals have not done the same, but this era has been a continuously marveling of scientific power and its unfathomable achievements. The proponents of religion of course must return retaliatory fire in an equally ridiculous fashion.

Faith and logic are two components of knowledge that comprise the human experience. Eradicating either one from our palette is an equally obnoxious and unhealthy idea. The perceived conflict that society has today is just a battle for superiority of thought control. Instead of arguing about apple and oranges, we as a society should accept the two as they are, and understand that they are two separate entities that must exist synergistically and peacefully.

[leegao]

Strictly speaking, after-life is not Heaven, but rather the continuation of an individual's existence after his/her physical death. Since we have vast amounts of evident showing that the mind can be explained by physical means, we can stick to the materialistic argument that if the body cease to exist then the conscious mind will also cease to exist after the physical death.

Also, I believe what matt is trying to do here is to start with the premise that there's an afterlife, then there's this leap in logic with the conclusion that an after-life proves the existence of God. From there on he could support his views on creationism.

[Tycoon]

Science provides us with the logical hypothesis of our reality. Religion, which is just a component of philosophy, attempts to fill in the void of knowledge that cannot be filled in by science alone. The two must coexist, but only as two separate entities. Science cannot be regarded as philosophical, and philosophy cannot be viewed as scientific.

Yes, but the two overlap. They both try to explain the same things.

[Kite]

Quote by: Tycoon Yes, but the two overlap. They both try to explain the same things.

The difference is that the religious explanations are from 2000 years ago and never updated, while science tries to keep itself up to date with the latest findings. The bible says the reason the bird can fly is because God made it that way, the scientific reason is that it has wings and that its bones are hollow.

[leegao]

Science cannot be regarded as philosophical, and philosophy cannot be viewed as scientific.

Not necessarily. Religion and Philosophy are very different. It is true that religion shares some philosophical components, yet this does not mean that Religion was a component of Philosophy. Remember, Philosophy is based on rational thinking where-as Religion is Superstitious beliefs. Science uses empiricism which is a logical philosophy.

it useless at answering the question of the relevance of life.

Science just explains it as survival and reproduction. Of course this may not apply to humans as much.

Faith and logic are two components of knowledge that comprise the human experience. Eradicating either one from our palette is an equally obnoxious and unhealthy idea.

This however does not apply to this topic since creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive.

[Michael Raizer]

Quote by: Kite The difference is that the religious explanations are from 2000 years ago and never updated, while science tries to keep itself up to date with the latest findings. The bible says the reason the bird can fly is because God made it that way, the scientific reason is that it has wings and that its bones are hollow.

The bible's purpose is not to explain the processes of the natural world even though it literally does. The people that interpret it this way are naive and ignorant to the concept of reading the bible as a metaphoric tool for understanding the omniscient presence of a higher power. I wish I could find the quote, but St. Augustine said it is an assault of both texts, the bible and the science book, to read either as a means of understanding the topic of the other.

"Test all things; hold fast what is good" -- Thessalonians 5:21

Many instances in the bible itself warn readers to not read the bible as a literal representation of reality. The problem arises from the ignorant that read the bible thinking it is completely concrete in its meaning. This is just as atrocious as a scientist reading a science textbook and believing that it can perceived as a deduction to the abstract. The bible does explain natural processes, but it is not meant to be taken literally. Case and point Ken Miller: "God is my rock. Really? Is he a sedimentary rock or what?" The purpose of both the scientific and religious texts are often mistaken due to reading either solely on a superficial level.

[Technosoul]

Proof of afterlife.

Book Review: "The Afterlife Experiments"

THE FLATLINER PARADIGM: THE NEXT STEP IN AFTERLIFE RESEARCH

Not a lot of proof, eh?

[Michael Raizer]

Quote by: leegao Not necessarily. Religion and Philosophy are very different. It is true that religion shares some philosophical components, yet this does not mean that Religion was a component of Philosophy. Remember, Philosophy is based on rational thinking where-as Religion is Superstitious beliefs. Science uses empiricism which is a logical philosophy.

Only the ignorant and naive take the superstitious beliefs of religion into account. I don't think that philosophy is very scientific in regards to ethics and morality. Whenever you say something is right or wrong it is unscientific as in it can not be tested or disproved. Neutrinos are bad...huh? Philosophy does entail logic, however it also entails morality which is purely a subjective study that should never be involved with the objective study of the sciences.

Quote by: leegao Science just explains it as survival and reproduction. Of course this may not apply to humans as much.

The relevance of life being the meaning of life.

Quote by: leegao This however does not apply to this topic since creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive.

That's what I was trying to say.

[gallo]

Quote by: Michael Raizer Only the ignorant and naive take the superstitious beliefs of religion into account.

That's actually not true.

I don't think that philosophy is very scientific in regards to ethics and morality.

But ethics and morality are not questions of science. Neither is philosophy. So how on earth can any thinking person state that philosophy isn't scientific when it comes to ethics and morality. Let me draw you a picture:

philosophy = not scientific
ethics = not scientific
morality = not scientific

Do you actually have any idea of what science is and how it works?

Whenever you say something is right or wrong it is unscientific as in it can not be tested or disproved.

But the point of science is that the hypotheses and theories are testable. Moreover, they have been tested.

Neutrinos are bad...huh?

I have no idea of what that means. Neutrinos exist. What does it mean to claim that they are bad? Who ever made such a claim? What does "bad" mean? Do you think that they consort with whores?

Philosophy does entail logic, however it also entails morality

No it doesn't.

which is purely a subjective study that should never be involved with the objective study of the sciences.

But philosophy isn't subjective. Where did you study your philosophy?

The relevance of life being the meaning of life.

What relevance and meaning is that?

That's what I was trying to say.

You fooled me.

[Michael Raizer]

Quote by: gallo That's actually not true. But ethics and morality are not questions of science. Neither is philosophy. So how on earth can any thinking person state that philosophy isn't scientific when it comes to ethics and morality. Let me draw you a picture: philosophy = not scientific ethics = not scientific morality = not scientific Do you actually have any idea of what science is and how it works? But the point of science is that the hypotheses and theories are testable. Moreover, they have been tested. I have no idea of what that means. Neutrinos exist. What does it mean to claim that they are bad? Who ever made such a claim? What does "bad" mean? Do you think that they consort with whores? No it doesn't. But philosophy isn't subjective. Where did you study your philosophy? What relevance and meaning is that? You fooled me.

I don't think you read my original post because you're arguing the same point as me. My point was philosophy is not scientific and should not be viewed that way. The comment about neutrinos being bad was me pointing out how ridiculous it would be to use philosophy (religion), to evaluate scientific processes. Philosophy is subjective, subjective to the individual. I can have my own views on morality and ethics, therefore my philosophical views are subjective based upon my opinions and beliefs. I was clarifying my original post when I was referring to the relevance of life. We have the same basic agreement on this topic, you just jumped into my response with someone else and misunderstood my stance. Read my original post.

[leegao]

Quote by: Michael Raizer Only the ignorant and naive take the superstitious beliefs of religion into account. I don't think that philosophy is very scientific in regards to ethics and morality. Whenever you say something is right or wrong it is unscientific as in it can not be tested or disproved. Neutrinos are bad...huh? Philosophy does entail logic, however it also entails morality which is purely a subjective study that should never be involved with the objective study of the sciences.

By superstitious beliefs I mean supernatural explanations. Remember, the whole purpose of creationism is to explain the creation of mankind through supernatural ways. Also remember, philosophy is not scientific, yet science can be philosophical.

Now with regards to ethics. True, it is an integral part of many religions yet by itself morality is not often explained supernaturally. Rational explanations still dominate moral justifications.

Quote by: Michael Raizer The relevance of life being the meaning of life.

Meaning of life = explanation of why we live.

Quote by: Michael Raizer That's what I was trying to say.

Pas exactement, due to the mutually exclusive nature of the topic, each side upholding different grounds, the 2 can not coexist therefore the 2 could not be at peace.

[leegao]

Quote by: Michael Raizer I don't think you read my original post because you're arguing the same point as me. My point was philosophy is not scientific and should not be viewed that way. The comment about neutrinos being bad was me pointing out how ridiculous it would be to use philosophy (religion), to evaluate scientific processes. Philosophy is subjective, subjective to the individual. I can have my own views on morality and ethics, therefore my philosophical views are subjective based upon my opinions and beliefs. I was clarifying my original post when I was referring to the relevance of life. We have the same basic agreement on this topic, you just jumped into my response with someone else and misunderstood my stance. Read my original post.

A basic flaw here, Philosophy and Religion are 2 separate and entirely different things.

Religion is not scientific
Religion is not philosophical even if it does contain some philosophical parts
Philosophy is not scientific
Science however could be philosophical
Morality is not scientific
Philosophy is neither moral nor immoral
Philosophy is rational
Philosophy can use rationalism to determine moral justification