A solution to the creationism v. evolution debate

[Samirat]

As far as I'm concerned, atheists are essentially the same thing as those who are religious. Both believe in something, with no proof. In fact, I think there is more evidence towards the existence of God then to the opposite. For instance, what created the universe? The Big Bang is not a theory about the creation of the universe. Even before the Big Bang, there was something, some tiny point of matter, from which the universe sprang. So, what created that?

Clearly it was not a tiny point of matter. It was a point of energy. And, why did that have to have a creator. Arguing that everything must be created is not at all sensible or logical. Think of it this way; If god created the universe, then what created god, and what created that, and what created the creator of that...........and so on. You would need an infinite number of creators. Is it not much easier to believe that things just are. The key thing here is, intelligence, and consciousness are not needed to create things. So god, therefore, does not need to exist. He might, but their is no need for him.

No, it's not any more logical, or any easier, to assume this just are, both are ideas with no proof or evidence. Your argument wouldn't even be sensical to someone faithful in a supreme being, just as their argument wouldn't be sensical to you. I tend to think that what you say is true, but I'm not going to make assumptions with no basis of reason. My point is that believing in a god and believing in no god (the nonexistence of any god) are both baseless; they're matters of faith.

 

[Duke Machine]

Somehow i miss the point of arguments like this...in the end is anyone really going to sway the opinion of someone who holds the opposing view?

 

[ffxfriek]

You all know about it. The debate about How god created everything or it all started slowly creating itself from a giant explosion.

The thing is i think that the stuff that caused the big bang had to come from somewhere so there is the distinct possibility that this 'stuff' had to come from some form of higher creator.

However i have i theory that will satisfy both parties in this argument.

God created the building blocks for the universe and then guided the evolution of the universe to what it is today.

An equivalent in our lives is spore. Guiding games moulding the universe, constantly improving on his creations, adapting them to better suit their environments, also known as evolution , much like a kid in a sandbox.

Do you have a theory that would satisfy both sides and allow this debate to cease or is this a fairly decent one?

Spoiler: for the record

I'm an Agnostic. I'm open to the concept me religon but I have never been truly convinced by it.

im not going to bother reading all 4 pages of this so if i say anyone elses post im sorry. but heres how i see it. we OBVIOUSLY evolved over time look at the average lifespan of humans. AND God created us so there ya go

 

[black lincon]

You all know about it. The debate about How god created everything or it all started slowly creating itself from a giant explosion.

The thing is i think that the stuff that caused the big bang had to come from somewhere so there is the distinct possibility that this 'stuff' had to come from some form of higher creator.

However i have i theory that will satisfy both parties in this argument.

God created the building blocks for the universe and then guided the evolution of the universe to what it is today.

An equivalent in our lives is spore. Guiding games moulding the universe, constantly improving on his creations, adapting them to better suit their environments, also known as evolution , much like a kid in a sandbox.

Do you have a theory that would satisfy both sides and allow this debate to cease or is this a fairly decent one?

Spoiler: for the record

I'm an Agnostic. I'm open to the concept me religon but I have never been truly convinced by it.

that theory has a name its called clockwork Christianity. the only time i had heard of it before was when the pastor i don't listen to because she is a lunatic said it was a load of lies and creationism is correct. number one i don't believe in creationism note that the pastor mentioned above is a loony, however she did bring up the fact that it doesn't satisfy both sides for 2 reasons;
#1 it requires atheists to acknowledge god.
#2 it requires Christians who don't believe in evolution to start.

P.S. sorry if someone mentioned this before i didn't feel like reading four pages of comments.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Warning: Incoming quotewar

Like with most creationists, you are ignorant.

Actually, I believe wholeheartedly in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. I also believe wholeheartedly in common politeness, something it would appear your mother, in her infinite wisdom, failed to teach you.

Oh yes, it has helped people to hate each other more, to give excuses to oppress women, free-thinkers or pretty much anybody and spread terror throughout history. It has also given wonderful excuses for the elite to their claim to be the elite, so that the ignorant masses can work while the elite wank their egos. Oh, and it has given us good excuses for committing genocide and the Holocaust (look into Mein Kaft to see the true religion of Nazi's). It also helped foster and bloat immature fears of sexuality to be turned into blind, fanatic hatred, so those damn faqs ,that usually don't really want to be faqs, can suffer.

Perhaps religion has made a few people happy, but all I see troughout history, is that its a parasite to humanity that would be best removed.

Now firstly- a parasite is an organism that invades a host creature and uses it as part of it'ssurvival. Now, the flaw in your argument here is that earlier it was stated that man, in essence, created god. And if religion is a human creation, it cannot be a parasite, any more than an organ of our body is a parasite.

Secondly, if you argue the intervention of an outside force that created religion- you've just admitted the possibility of the existence of a supreme being.

Thirdly, it was earlier argued that it was people, and not religion, that was responsible for the various works of beauty that I mentioned. I won't state that it was you, because I can't remember, but logically: Either religion is responisble at once for Michalangelo's David and the myriad other works of beauty that adorn the Vatican (as an easy example) and the crusades, oppression and terror. Or alternately, it is responsible for none of it, it all being a facet of human nature that has attached itself to religion.

My opinion and abusiveness came from dealing with creationist and reading about them. Everything I have read about them and experienced with them is that they are cowards and liars, who would rather resort to violence than even consider their position to be wrong.

Furthermore, everyone has an opinion. Opinions don't matter, only facts.

The ideal sentiment for a man who professes himself as a partisan of 'The people'- opinions don't matter. So democracy is stupid. Let us all be ruled by scientists!

Like I said, everyone has an opinion and yours don't matter, especially to me. In fact, you are behaving predictably: your entire post is an ad hominem attack in the vain hope of credibility and trying to appeal politeness.

In case you don't get it: take your pretencious, centrist dick and shove it up your ass.
(SNIP)
You are pathetic.

I would respond rationally, but I'm too insulted and in too much of a rush (West Wing is starting) so I'll leave it at this: Give my regards to your mother.

How about lying, a repeated and insistent tactic of creationist, as well as violating the very laws of their country? The very first fucking amandent of their own country?

They are contravening theright to free speech, by making use of the right to free speech?

Your logic astounds me.

Biologists have fossils, DNA, several rainforests of repeated and well-documented cases that can be best and only explained by evolution, and the entire fucking zoology database. Oh, and almost every modern biology paper every made today.

Creationists have... a 2000 year old book that is essentially a collection of fables.

Agreed. That dosen't make you in any way a superior being to them.

I'll answer yours if you answer me this: Why should there even be a God? How God or gods nothing but a superstitious concept from the Bronze Age?

Why?

Creationist using underhanded, aggressive tactics in order to teach their bullshit is happening now and not just on the internet scale. There are many cases where it took a court of law to tell these fuckers to shut up and get out of public schools..

Please provide some form of evidence, Mr Dawkins.

The thing starts getting complicated when you want it to be taught in public schools, under science class. Then you and I have a problem.

Agreed. Teach it in RE.


And as a final blow, I shall point this out: Charles Darwin was a member and CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

I rest mine case.

 

[hypothetical fact]

Actually, I believe wholeheartedly in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. I also believe wholeheartedly in common politeness, something it would appear your mother, in her infinite wisdom, failed to teach you.

Politeness is irrelevant stick to the point!

Now firstly- a parasite is an organism that invades a host creature and uses it as part of it'ssurvival. Now, the flaw in your argument here is that earlier it was stated that man, in essence, created god. And if religion is a human creation, it cannot be a parasite, any more than an organ of our body is a parasite.

Secondly, if you argue the intervention of an outside force that created religion- you've just admitted the possibility of the existence of a supreme being.

Religion is more like a cancer; it started in the body, corrupts and grows off innocent naive red blood cells. The whole system will eventually die if science doesn't intervene and contain it.
Alternatively think of breeding a disease and injecting yourself with it, either way your parasite = god logic doesn't make sense.

Thirdly, it was earlier argued that it was people, and not religion, that was responsible for the various works of beauty that I mentioned. I won't state that it was you, because I can't remember, but logically: Either religion is responisble at once for Michalangelo's David and the myriad other works of beauty that adorn the Vatican (as an easy example) and the crusades, oppression and terror. Or alternately, it is responsible for none of it, it all being a facet of human nature that has attached itself to religion.

Is the beauty of the Vatican worth the countless deaths during the crusades? Besides Hubble has taken many beautiful photos of other galaxies and not one cost a single human life.

The ideal sentiment for a man who professes himself as a partisan of 'The people'- opinions don't matter. So democracy is stupid. Let us all be ruled by scientists!

Now you're talking my language, I get shivers of delight thinking of all the progress that could be made without primitive ethics.

I would respond rationally, but I'm too insulted and in too much of a rush (West Wing is starting) so I'll leave it at this: Give my regards to your mother.

No mother wants an anonymous poster's regards, it's creepy.

They are contravening theright to free speech, by making use of the right to free speech?

Your logic astounds me.

Free speech is perfectly fine until you start using it to push an agenda that will detrimentally affect scientific advancement. Guess we should destroy all these dinosaur bones that don't exist and ignore their remarkable similarieties to birds or ours to apes.

Agreed. That dosen't make you in any way a superior being to them.

Doesn't make him superior but it makes his information more accurate and reliable to yours, and that's what matters.

Please provide some form of evidence, Mr Dawkins.

From experience I know that the evidence won't change your mind since you don't want to be proven wrong. Want to prove me wrong? Go get some evidence of creationists losing court cases and I'll accept that you are capable of changing your opinion. However I do support

And as a final blow, I shall point this out: Charles Darwin was a member and CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

As a not so final blow if you feel like replying, Charles Darwin is irrelevant it is his theory that matters.

I rest mine case.

Case closed.

 

[klakkat]

As far as I'm concerned, atheists are essentially the same thing as those who are religious. Both believe in something, with no proof. In fact, I think there is more evidence towards the existence of God then to the opposite. For instance, what created the universe? The Big Bang is not a theory about the creation of the universe. Even before the Big Bang, there was something, some tiny point of matter, from which the universe sprang. So, what created that?

Except that atheism is the absence of belief in God, no more, no less. It's not belief in the nonexistance of God, although there are more than a few atheists who hold that view.

The Big Bang is a theory about how the universe as we know it began. As to where the Big Bang came from, we're still looking. The fact that we don't know where the Big Bang came from is not evidence that it was done by God.

Technically, Atheism is the belief that religious views are wrong, thus no god (literally speaking, synonymous with anti-theist, though that term normally implies a significantly more militant view over spreading atheism).

Agnosticism is the "I don't know" point of view; saying essentially that it's impossible to tell which religion, if any, is correct and leaving the rest to whatever deific presence does or does not exist.

I follow the agnostic point of view. My only arguments against religion is when it hurts people; typically though, those cases are people hurting others and then using religion to justify it; religion becomes their moral shield rather than the actual instigator (which is also a little wrong, but in that case religion isn't the root of the problem).

The problem I have with teaching creationism is that it isn't the only creation theory. In addition, it doesn't match up with experiment, so it doesn't provide students with a useful way of approaching physical problems. That isn't saying it's wrong, but it isn't useful to students, just as the Big Bang is of questionable usefulness; the math involved turned out to be a huge cluster-fuck. Creationism suffers a different problem: there are no attempts to quantify it into a useful worldview to mathematically describe the physical universe. So, since it can't be used in that fashion, teaching of it should be limited to areas where it is useful, philosophy, ethics, and sociology.

As for which is correct, why does either one have to be correct at the exclusion of the other? It is actually quite common for natural phenomenon to exist in a linear combination of two states. So why not both? That seems just as plausible as either one on its own. Scientific inquiry doesn't necessitate a distinction either; creationism doesn't predict future events, therefore it is not contradicted by scientific model.

 

[Saskwach]

Actually, I believe wholeheartedly in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. I also believe wholeheartedly in common politeness, something it would appear your mother, in her infinite wisdom, failed to teach you.

Politeness is irrelevant stick to the point!

If half your 'point' was to call Fondant ignorant, then he was staying on topic.

Now firstly- a parasite is an organism that invades a host creature and uses it as part of it'ssurvival. Now, the flaw in your argument here is that earlier it was stated that man, in essence, created god. And if religion is a human creation, it cannot be a parasite, any more than an organ of our body is a parasite.

Secondly, if you argue the intervention of an outside force that created religion- you've just admitted the possibility of the existence of a supreme being.

Religion is more like a cancer; it started in the body, corrupts and grows off innocent naive red blood cells. The whole system will eventually die if science doesn't intervene and contain it.
Alternatively think of breeding a disease and injecting yourself with it, either way your parasite = god logic doesn't make sense.

I think thousands of years of humanity getting on as it has under religion shows that we aren't incapable of surviving with this particular 'parasite'. Personally, I'm much more worried about those nifty scientific discoveries called nuclear bombs, in the hands of anyone, whether they be religious fundamentalists or - would you believe it? - politicians and world leaders, many of whom are likely atheist, and whose chief motives are much more secular than religious anyway.

They are contravening theright to free speech, by making use of the right to free speech?

Your logic astounds me.

Free speech is perfectly fine until you start using it to push an agenda that will detrimentally affect scientific advancement. Guess we should destroy all these dinosaur bones that don't exist and ignore their remarkable similarieties to birds or ours to apes.

I'm glad to know that free speech applies to everything but science. I'm not so glad, though, to see that you equate 'free speech' with destruction. That way lies every curtailment of free speech right there has ever been.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Hitler was Christian. .

A man who killed clergymen left, right and centre, suppressed both the Catholic and Protestant churches and occupied Rome was a Christian. Great logic there,ol' boy.

Words are not the same as actions. Just because he claimed to be a Christian (which I'm fairly sure he did not) does not remove the fact THAT HE SUPPRESSED AND TERRORISED THE CHURCH! LEARN HISTORY PLEASE, O SPOT-RIDDEN ONE!

*Calms down.* As Possum could tell you, I get very annoyed when people distort history. It offends me far more than rudenss, or, for any other matter, much else.

And if you want to start comparing, why not have a look how many people have died due to Religion.

Almost as many who died due to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, perhaps? Far less the people who died in every god-damned war, scuffle and skirmish since the Paeolithic age?

Every weapon is an invention of science. Every vaccine, is an invention of science.
Much as the Crusades were a result of religion. Just as was so much of the world's art.

There is no 'good' and 'evil' here. There's only humans-kind, loving, murderous, touchy, irrational, brilliant, tender, sadistic, stupid, brave, feeble, narrow-minded, passionate humans. Religion is neither 'good' or 'evil'. Neither is science. Neither is the North Pole.


We've had 4,000 years of religion, and so far we're fine. We've had the same 4,000years of science, and we're still fine.


Also: My proposal works.

 

[Rahnzan]

I recall Creation vs Evolution being moot.

First of all, no human being is immortal, in roughly 100 years give or take 20 we'll all find out who was right and who was wrong the hard way on our own times. Secondly, Evolution doesn't set out to explain the universe, just why we have thumbs. It's a completely seperate debate and somewhere along the line Creationists decided that Evolution denounces God.

It's a lesson in reproduction and survival of the fittest, which I can admit shamelessly that science has allowed me to avoid weeding out of the genetic pool on account of my poor vision and hearing that would otherwise make me dead in the water, NOT a lesson in where matter came from. Find a different theory to pick on. Shouldn't it be Creationism vs Big Bang Theory? If we just keep rewinding back in time, where did all this matter start? You can say God did it but then where did he come from. From that you can say 'well he's always been' then why is this answer not acceptable for matter? It had to have come from somewhere, or it has always been and we can leave it at that.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of dispute, in part because of apparently inconsistent statements made by and attributed to him

As said before: Actions speak louder than words.

From Hitler's promotion of declared atheists within his party and his use of Muslim fighters in his army, it can be concluded that Hitler in the public realm tolerated different religious opinions, ranging from atheist to Islam to Christianity, as long as those people professing these different creeds would support the Nazi regime

There goes your argument.


And when I want your forgiveness, sir, I'll ask for it. Keep it to yourself otherwise.

More argument:

The concept that the Christian Church is directly responsible for the Holocaust is as illogical than the argument that the inventors of gunpowder are. Yes, many of the ideas (Deicide) and influences of the the Church were used as both excuses and formative logic behind the genocide. But the fact is that the Church did not actively participate in the extermination of the Jews and at times helped to shelter Jews hunted by the SS. One has a greater logical backing for saying that Peter Paul Mauser was responsible for the murder of Jews, homosexuals, Slavs, Romany Gypsies and communists all across europe, because it was his armaments workshop that produced most of the rifles used to kill those people.


And I never said science was the cause of weaponsmakers. It was simply a means to an end. Much like religion is for warmongers- it can easily be twisted to evil ends. Infact, it may be argued that at least religion had good intentions at it's outset-weapons manufacturers have no such defence.

 

[Limasol]

As for Martin Luther King- a amn who beleived in God. As with nearly all great men. In fact, History's only two noticable atheists were.... Stalin, Lenin and Hitler.

Great company you've got there.

That's got to be the crappiest argument ever. This guy was atheist and evil so they ALL must be bad. Hitler and Stalin had Mustaches, maybe that's what made them evil.

Einstein was an atheist. "I do not believe in a personal god" is pretty conclusive. Also Newton merely said he was a Christian because i lived in an age where atheists were ostracised and hated.

Wait a minute, atheists were ostracised, hated and murdered for about 1400 years. Stalin was a drop in the ocean.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Einstein: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"


The theory of a 'personal god' is one where god actually gives two hoots about you. An impersonal god is one that is rather nihilistic.


Oh, and I forgot to mention the most murderous atheist of them all: Ladies and Gentlemen.....please give a big hand for the one, the only... Chairman Mao-Tze Tung!



Look, I'm not saying atheists are inherently evil. As an atheist myself, I would(hey, wait, I am inherently evil. But that's just me).

Okay, the idea that atheists are all evil is just stupid. As is the concept that persons of faith are all good. I was simply using those gentlemen as an example to point out that evil is inherent to human nature, not a result of religion, or, indeed, non-religion. My point is that blaming religion for the Crusades is rather like blaming Athesim for Stalin's purging the Jews, Muslims and Christians. Sure, it provided the pretext for both actions, but if you look closely enough, it becomes apparant that both are an immediate result of human nature.

Much as one might argue that all things of beauty are. The Sistine Chapel is religious in motivation, but the beauty behind it is created by human hand, and spirit.



My final conculsion: God Exists. If not in the 'smite-thee-with-thunderbolts' manner (that has yet to be concluded) then as at the very least, a motivating force. A Boffo, for fans of Terry Pratchett- a manifestation and driving force behind the human spirit. A mental cause and effect.

I could put it more fluently, but I'm currently awaiting the waves of denial, hatred and anger coming from the more rabid forum members who haven't seen the true, spectacular beauty that religion has helped create.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I think your avatar sucks. I, however, kept that opinion to myself, until you acted impolitely.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

I believe that there is a practical purpose in discovering what caused the Big Bang.

It might allow us to create our own universe, imagine all the energy we could harness!

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

My point is that blaming religion for the Crusades is rather like blaming Athesim for Stalin's purging the Jews, Muslims and Christians.

No really, as one is simply a universal epitaph for someone not doing something, and the other was at the time a uniform belief system with codified power, the capacity to mandate ethics/assume punishments for their violation and an overarching command structure.

But I mean, to say such a system may be inclined toward positive or negative activity is so obviously fallacious. I mean how crazy an arguement would it be to say dictatorships are inclined to oppression?

Also Newton merely said he was a Christian because i lived in an age where atheists were ostracised and hated.

So the fact he spend the later part of his life trying to find a secret code to the bible is no nevermind I guess.

I think your fishing for views.

Everyones thaught of this, and theres many differant possibilitys, fucking view whore.

You've been here like 70 posts what the hell are you so bitter about?

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Fondant, sorry, but your arguments are laden with logical errors; primarily of the "argument from authority" (so-and-so says so) and "non sequitor" (if grey is a colour and pink is a colour then pink is grey) varieties. They make a hash of your point, to the point that frankly I've lost track of what you're arguing.

My view on the issue is this; there's no way to reconcile the "creationist" and "naturalist" viewpoints. (As pointed out by others, the "Big Bang" theory has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution.) Creationist arguments don't lend themselves to scientific testing, and naturalist arguments can never conclusively prove the absence of Odin Marduk Vishnu Chiconahuiehecatl Gaia Yahweh supernatural influence to those who choose to believe. One camp is simply going to have to out-survive the other. (Personally, I'm rooting for the "naturalist" camp myself; fewer unprovable assumptions, simpler model.)

That doesn't stop both camps from having their fair share of assholes, sadly.

-- Steve

 

[Rolling Thunder]

(Too many long and complex words

That doesn't stop both camps from having their fair share of assholes, sadly.

-- Steve

Agreed, though I must politely beg to differ with you on the concept of theone out-surviving the other, given that within my personal experience I have found that most people enjoy having something to beleive in, and indeed that a beleif system is often neccesary as a means of social control.

 

[axia777]

Stop being militant assholes about either and just go on with life?

We Atheists/Agnostics would stop if only Religious/Christian people would stop trying to force religion in to PUBLIC schools. Creationism/Intelligent Design is NOT SCIENCE. It is Christian based theological philosophy. NOT SCIENCE. They need to stop trying to teach it to PUBLIC school kids as science. If a school receives Federal or State money then it is a PUBLIC school. That means separation of Church and State. They can teach all the Intelligent Design/Creationism to kids in private religious schools. That is their American/God(IF there is one) given right.

Once this stops it is all good. Until then, no, being a militant asshole is about the only way to get through to these people.

 

[Limasol]

My point is that blaming religion for the Crusades is rather like blaming Athesim for Stalin's purging the Jews, Muslims and Christians.

No really, as one is simply a universal epitaph for someone not doing something, and the other was at the time a uniform belief system with codified power, the capacity to mandate ethics/assume punishments for their violation and an overarching command structure.

But I mean, to say such a system may be inclined toward positive or negative activity is so obviously fallacious. I mean how crazy an arguement would it be to say dictatorships are inclined to oppression?

Also Newton merely said he was a Christian because i lived in an age where atheists were ostracised and hated.

So the fact he spend the later part of his life trying to find a secret code to the bible is no nevermind I guess.

I don't remember saying that first thing but on the point regardless. The pope said to every country in Europe, go take the holy land from those Vile Muslims who are abusing out brothers in the east. A few years later many, many,many people were dead, and a few years after hat everything that happened had been reversed. Not only religiously motivated and deliberate, also pointless.

On the second point, finding a code in the bible is like finding a needle in a haystack made of needles. Theres no need for religion in order to do this. After all there are computer programs that you can set to find patterns for you now. The bible code is bullshit anyway.