|
Your Worldview?? (Poll) (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
your missing the point entirely. u cant be one or the other. as you said yourself, god(any god) has nothing to do with evolution. evolution doesnt believe in a creator god. if there is no creator god, there is no god, hence, u cant believe in a god and evolution at the same time.
if u think evolution is science, and u believe in science whole-heartedly, then u know mainstream science does not recognize a god of any kind. or any deity. so i dont know why you think belief in both a god and evolution at the same time is a plausible notion. |
Who is this Mr Evolution?!
Anyway - the sun is a God, I believe in the sun, and I believe in the theory of evolution
Until you can convince me that only one of evolution or the sun exists, then STFU!!! |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
evolution doesnt believe in a creator god. |
The theory of evolution says nothing about the possible existence of Gods nor does it say anything about the origin or creation of life. You, like a number of fundamentalist Christians, seem to be very confused about what evolution actually is (your personification of the theory of evolution as something that "believes" in certain concepts gives me a pretty good indication of that) and therefore what it is you're arguing against.
Although I would consider God an unnecessary plurality with regards to the emergence and gradual speciation of life on this planet, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that necessitates that:
1) God does not exist.
2) God did not create the universe.
3) God did not create the life on this planet.
4) God did not directly influence the speciational evolution of life on this planet.
The reason for this is simple: God is a scientifically untestable hypothesis and therefore cannot be included in scientific theories such as those of evolution and natural selection. This is not to say that the evolutionary theory precludes any possibility of God existing (though it does render him, in certain capacities, as unnecessary) or that the theory of evolution and the theories of God are mutually exclusive (that is, they are in direct contradiction so logic dictates that you can only believe in one or the other), just that God does not fall under the scope of the scientific method and cannot, therefore, be included in any scientific discussion about the origin and nature of life on this planet.
Ya dig? |
|
|
| Chris Larkin |
TvD, evolution and God are certainly not incompatible. Many Christians (I'm only using them as an example because I'm familiar with many of them, and I can refence to their holy text with some knowledge) believe that Genesis is simply an allegory of evolution. They think that God started things cooking, and then let the universe run its course. Until physics advances so that we can work out what happened in the first quarter second of the universe (and before), then God cannot be totally ruled out.
Also, how did life first begin? We haven't managed to synthesise organic life even in laboratories yet, but when we do, the way we do it will need to have been doable naturally when in the conditions before life on earth. Otherwise, we may start having to reconsider God as getting the life started, even if he's not doing much now. Of course, he may have repeated this process on countless other planets, but this doesn't have much to do with it...
So, although evolution, with our current level of understanding does not require any gods, one would certainly be rather useful to it, and is, as ever, a possibility.
I myself have always been a commited atheist, but, I am not totally ruling out the possibilty of a God who helped things get going, but now sits around doing sod all, letting things happen. What I don't like is the possibility of a God who 'loves' me. Any God that really loved me wouldn't make the world such a difficult place. I'm of the thinking that the Chrisitian God is a comfort zone, for desperate people worried about dying, but that a God could exist. If that makes sense. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chris Larkin
Also, how did life first begin? We haven't managed to synthesise organic life even in laboratories yet, but when we do, the way we do it will need to have been doable naturally when in the conditions before life on earth. Otherwise, we may start having to reconsider God as getting the life started, even if he's not doing much now. |
We haven't been able to generate life in under laboratory conditions that replicate the atmosphere of early Earth, but we have been able to create organic monomers (amnimo acids etc.) that are, quite literally, the building blocks necessary for the emergence of life:
| quote: | | Monomers combine chemically with each other to form long complex chains of molecules (polymers) that are used to build living cells. Oparin hypothesized that on the early earth, in the absense of oxygen, abiological physical processes would produce simple carbon-containing compounds. This hypothesis was tested in 1953 by a very famous experiment performed by Stanley Miller in the laboratory of Harold Urey, an expert on the early composition of the earth's atmosphere. Using a combination of gasses thought to represent the early atmosphere, in a glass refluxing system, they created a minerature ocean-atmosphere system energized with an electrical spark. The reaction of the gasses in the sparking chamber produced a number of simple amino acids when the water “ocean” was later analyzed. |
http://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/2.html
The chemical synthesis of these monomers (over the course of millions of years) would have given rise to polymers which are very complex molecules that could, given time, synthesise to give rise to single-celled organisims.
However, the criticism that we cannot, at the moment anyway, create life in a laboratory under the conditions that existed in early Earth is probably unfair. The most important factor in the development from monomers (which we can create) to polymers, to life itself is the factor of time. The emergence of monomers to the emergence of polymers may have taken hundreds of millions of years. The transition of polymers into complex, living single-celled organisms may have taken hundreds of millions of years more. The evolution of single-celled organisms into multicellular life did, based on the fossil evidence, take hundreds of millions of years. Put simply, the immense amount of time required to replicate abiogenesis cannot be produced under laboratory conditions, so I'm not sure why the "synthesis of organic life in laboratories", as you put it, would be necessary to demonstrate the possibility or likelihood of life emerging without interference from a deity.
In any case, as I've always maintained, the emergence of something as chemically quantifiable as life from chemicals that were and are common on Earth is much easier to justify logically than the emergence of something as complex and powerful as God from nothing. God just isn't an adequate explanation for the emergence of life on Earth - it's an inherently more complex, convoluted theory than that of scientific abiogenesis. If theists try to tell me that the emergence of life from nothing (which isn't actualy true - as I said, all the chemical elements were already there) is less believable than the emergence of an omniscient, omnipotent being from nothing, who then, using magic that cannot be explained or in any way quantified scientifically, created life on a back-water planet for his own amusement, then I can only laugh. God is an unnecessary plurality that poses more questions than it solves. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The theory of evolution says nothing about the possible existence of Gods nor does it say anything about the origin or creation of life. You, like a number of fundamentalist Christians, seem to be very confused about what evolution actually is (your personification of the theory of evolution as something that "believes" in certain concepts gives me a pretty good indication of that) and therefore what it is you're arguing against.
Although I would consider God an unnecessary plurality with regards to the emergence and gradual speciation of life on this planet, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that necessitates that:
1) God does not exist.
2) God did not create the universe.
3) God did not create the life on this planet.
4) God did not directly influence the speciational evolution of life on this planet.
The reason for this is simple: God is a scientifically untestable hypothesis and therefore cannot be included in scientific theories such as those of evolution and natural selection. This is not to say that the evolutionary theory precludes any possibility of God existing (though it does render him, in certain capacities, as unnecessary) or that the theory of evolution and the theories of God are mutually exclusive (that is, they are in direct contradiction so logic dictates that you can only believe in one or the other), just that God does not fall under the scope of the scientific method and cannot, therefore, be included in any scientific discussion about the origin and nature of life on this planet.
Ya dig? |
Please read this thorougly, :TranceVanDyk:. We've been over this again and again. What is your deal here? You pop up every few months with the same regurgitation as if we have never covered this topic before. Why have you not at least attempted to understand the most basic simple underlying concept that Renegade here has outlined?
Once again you are stating that naturalism = evolution = atheism, which we have gone over and over and ing over again so many times in the past it makes our heads spin. Get it through your head, alright? Why the hell are you so damn threatened by science?
I'm truly sorry if for some reason the concept of evolution threatens your literal interpretation of Biblical history, but please cease attempting to corner evolution as the ing beezlebub to your literal beliefs that hold no merit in the classroom.
Evolution gives two s about a God in the EXACT same manner that math or physics or the ing science of basket weaving gives two s about God. It only involves the natural because it only can test and validate the natural. Until God or any other supernatural being can successfully show up in the natural for validation, it and any other science on the block will continue to be unconcerned with the supernatural. And as Renegade points out yet again, that DOES NOT eliminate the possibility of the supernatural - it just simply means it cannot test it.
Therefore they can coexist, but perhaps not in the manner of your literal fundamentalist beliefs. So rather than attack evolution or any other science that's unconcerned with God, do you not think it's time to maybe question your literal fundamental beliefs? Do you not think it's time to perhaps hold them under the same microscope that you continue to put evolution under again and again?
And please make sure to clean the lense when you finally decide to do that.
This is ing getting old. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheNobleEu
Not saying TvD is a Creationist |
Well, he is a creationist...
| quote: | | but this is the way evolution-deniers always operate on usenet -- they make their claims, then disappear, refusing to respond to mountains of evidence |
...although, in fairness, he usually responds to criticisms of his posts and sticks around for the majority of the debate...
| quote: | | or reappear at random times saying the same, tired old things. |
...even if he does just rehash the same old Biblical literalist apologetics time and time again. |
|
|
| TheNobleEu |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Well, he is a creationist... |
My point was to post the links, not label TvD -- I don't know him or his posting habits, so I couldn't so didn't say whether he was a Creationist. ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Words are very unnecessary: they can only do harm. |
DM4Eva!
-N |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
well, yea i do believe in creationism.
but what u guys are saying as i understand it to be is this::
evolution niether supports or denies the existance of a god.
correct me if im wrong.
guys im just defending what i believe. im not "attacking evolution" as some of you are saying. i may not be as knowledgable about physical/life science as some of you may be, but i do have an above average knowledge about it. if im wrong, go ahead and argue, your arguements just dont brush right over my head. i do think long and hard sometimes. ive spent hours sometimes working on one single post in a debate, though i no longer have the time to do so.
concerning the amino acids made the laboratory, i can recall that they were non-essential, or were incapable of supporting any type of life??
and basically, the original arguement that got going was my statement that it is not feasable to believe in both evolution and a god. unless you invent some new psuedo-god, when many people refer to god starting evolution, they are refering to the christian god, and for that assumption, they are already wrong. as creationism and evolution are pretty much christian vs. secular camps. genesis was written in hebrew, and the hebrew word used for "day" literally meant a 24 hour time period as it is used other times in the old testament to refer to a 24 hour time period. night and day do not last thousands or millions of years.
anywho, i started the poll as my mind was curious of what the numbers were of everyone's general worldview. |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
| who here is the pantheist?:p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
well, yea i do believe in creationism.
but what u guys are saying as i understand it to be is this::
evolution niether supports or denies the existance of a god. |
that is correct. theres an obvious relationship, but there is nothing in evolutionary theory that argues one way or the other. stephen hawking (a brief history of time) discusses the existance of god a bit. interesting. though prob more interesting for ppl smarter than me ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
and basically, the original arguement that got going was my statement that it is not feasable to believe in both evolution and a god. |
this is not a matter of opinion, you are very wrong on this count. read above posts or read what various scientists say on the mysteries of the universe. there are plenty of bible-toting scientists. einstein said that the more he studied the universe the more he believed in a higher power.
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
genesis was written in hebrew, and the hebrew word used for \"day\" literally meant a 24 hour time period as it is used other times in the old testament to refer to a 24 hour time period. night and day do not last thousands or millions of years. |
i hate to break this to you, but genesis was written in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, mainly thumbing its nose at other religious doctrine of its time. for instance in (roman, greek?) mythology the various gods would battle the 'sea monsters' for control. in genesis it mentions god creating the sea monsters.
i think its hugely problematic to rely on an ancient text where the context of the time it was written in has disappeared. imagine if 1000 years from now people were looking at GW Bush's speeches as an idea for how the world existed for us ;)
back to the point though, it is normally christians that rule out evolution because of god, rather than scientists ruling out god because of evolutionary theory. the two can quite easily co-exist, until scientists discover a means of disproving/proving god's existence ;) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
evolution niether supports or denies the existance of a god. |
Correct
| quote: | | and basically, the original arguement that got going was my statement that it is not feasable to believe in both evolution and a god. unless you invent some new psuedo-god |
I asked earlier so I'll ask again anyway...is it possible to believe in the Sun and the theory of evolution?
| quote: | | as creationism and evolution are pretty much christian vs. secular camps. |
As I pointed out above, why do you think secularism = aetheism? Secularism simply means a separation of the state from religion.
| quote: | | genesis was written in hebrew, and the hebrew word used for "day" literally meant a 24 hour time period as it is used other times in the old testament to refer to a 24 hour time period. night and day do not last thousands or millions of years. |
You wanna discuss whats written in the Bible?! Again?! Bring it on! :D |
|
|
|
|
