Poll: Do you support evolution?
- Thread starter Matthew Jabour
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I fixed your post.Phrostbit3n said:
But seriously, why would there have to be a higher power? Why is the notion that there probably isn't one ridiculous? I dun geddit.
Everything has a beginning. There has to have been a point where itself didn't exist. And sense you can't make matter out of nothing by natural means, the origin of the universe must be supernatural.someonehairy-ish said:
So...the title we started with before we got pages of people bitching how inaccurate it was?Strazdas said:
This is the OP right now. This is what you people do to him.
This is kind of inaccurate, and regardless of if it was accurate you appear to be stating you have the answer based on a lack of evidence. Simply put that's illogical. Something unexplained like how the universe got here remains that, unexplained.Shadowstar38 said:
It's one of the most desperate attempts of biblical literalists. And very absurd and confusing sometime.Shadowstar38 said:
But don't listen to me, listen to creation "scientist" and last of the wolfmen Ken Ham:
<youtube=3qjHtyKq3yc>
Or go directly to the Creation Museum in Kentucky to witness it for yourself:
<youtube=YyGHsMeIjGs>
Also,
Vacuum energy is literally particles out of nothing.Shadowstar38 said:
EDIT: Matter can come from nothing.Shadowstar38 said:
Found this vid that discusses it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr70QJb2BUk
But even if that weren't the case, and the origin of the universe 'must' be supernatural, why assume that this supernatural cause has to be a particular god? Why not a collective of powerful beings, for example? Why assume that this god still exists? Why assume that it's aware of humans, cares about humans, that it even created the universe on purpose?
Even if you feel that there must be a supernatural origin to the universe, what causes you to leap from that to the conclusion that this same supernatural thing takes enough of an interest in life on Earth to guide evolution for a specific purpose?
Just a quick question...
Is there any conflict about evolution vs creation in any other country in the world kept for the USA? (i mean in this magnitude?)
Guess there was a reason why all those religious christian minorities left europe as soon as america was discovered Oo
Is there any conflict about evolution vs creation in any other country in the world kept for the USA? (i mean in this magnitude?)
Guess there was a reason why all those religious christian minorities left europe as soon as america was discovered Oo
so where is the option: "God made science, so it would be blasphemy to ignore scientific progress, so yes i support evolution"Matthew Jabour said:
you know...the CORRECT choice/
I don't really think it's a very large proportion of people that do try though, it's just that they're quite vocal. That said, we did actually learn about different theories like intelligent design and Lamarckism (it's been a few years, forgive me if I've misspelled that) in GCSE biology, but from a historical point of view rather than as serious alternatives.Vilealbaniandwarf said:
I'm sure you're going to be quoted to hell and back over this, so sorry in advance (but I'm still doing it).Shadowstar38 said:
If everything has a beginning, surely the higher power must also have a beginning? And just because we can't understand how something may have happened yet, does that mean that we must automatically assume the supernatural? There's a lot that we can't yet explain, I think it's safer to just say 'we don't know' until we actually find evidence for these things rather than assume the supernatural (which to my knowledge, has no evidence to support it besides your logic, which I personally disagree with).
Not according to quantum mechanics, where matter and antimatter are pretty much popping up at random the whole time to wave their privates in the face of physicist's understandings of reality.Shadowstar38 said:
And however it happened the universe would have begun on the quantum level. So scientifically, that argument is quite weak - it doesn't fit observed data.
Even aside from that when it comes to philosophy there are quite a few problems with this argument.
First, there is no need to assume it is in fact your conception of a godlike being. This particular argument has been in Western philosophy from the ancient Greeks, and has been used to argue for a variety of very different religions, which shows it doesn't actually tell you anything about the first cause.
In fact one doesn't even have much of a reason to think such a first cause would be eternal, or sentient thus taking it being a god right out of it.
Further "From whence God" - if everything has to be caused, then that goes for God too, unless you make an exception for God, in which case not everything has to be caused and the logical thread of the argument falls to pieces.
A far more logical outcome, one that is consistent with observation on a quantum level is that the basic premise "Nothing comes of nothing" does not actually hold true.
You mean it shows no evidence either way.Silvanus said:
And that's not a question, that's a statement.
You can't draw a scientifically accurate conclusion when no evidence for either one exist, especially when dealing with the metaphysical.
Not really. The null hypothesis is the default possession on anything, and in this case the null hypothesis states there is no supernatural. There is no connection unless you prove there is. Scientifically speaking unless you can prove there is a god, there isn't one. In science absence of evidence is evidence of absence.Jegsimmons said:
Here is a nice video explaining it better then I could.
even if i didn't it wouldn't matter, evolution marches on whether i believe in it or not. it happens and we can actually see it happen.
Example: over the last 60 years Caucasians have lost their wisdom teeth, most of my generation have impacted wisdom teeth and most millenials don't have them at all. this coincides with a massive dietary shift that sees westerners eating more meat and our mouths have adapted to that diet.
Example: over the last 60 years Caucasians have lost their wisdom teeth, most of my generation have impacted wisdom teeth and most millenials don't have them at all. this coincides with a massive dietary shift that sees westerners eating more meat and our mouths have adapted to that diet.
Precisely what Eddie said.Jegsimmons said:
"There is no god" is a negative statement; it is the logical default. The null hypothesis does not require evidence if there is no reason to believe otherwise.
For example; I do not require positive evidence that Freddy Krueger does not exist. The only logical default position is that he does not exist, because there is not a shred of evidence to say he does. A deity has the same amount of evidence as does Mr. Krueger.