Your thoughts!?

[Jeremiah]

Theres nothing really wrong with putting creationism along side evolution as they are both just theories to how things were. True creationism isnt exactly strong at points, but parts of it are just as strong as evolution.

Oh, and just so you know, theres not really any point in putting up evolution to be proved by science, and then saying that science is fact. Parts of evolution are strongly supported by science, and other parts, which are still taught to be true, have been disproven by science. It's as messy as teaching creationism or any other theory. People like to hold Evolution up to be as factual as 2+2 = 4 but its no where close to being able to be accepted as fact.

And Toht touched on a big point which evolution cant explain, that of the Cambrian explosion. Life appears from no where, in a short space of time (with respect to the age of the world). Now I'm not naive enough to hold this up and say "Look, look, this means a God exists", but its a pretty good argument in it's favour =)

If you are interested enough, have a read of Wikipedia's Creationism page. It describes all the different creationist groups. The ones in the US are probably the hard-core Young-Earth ones who ignore the findings of even nice science people like Geologists and Astronomers when it comes to describing the history of the earth. They hold a rather weak view, and are probably best ignored =)

 

[DocWolfe]

But one can't, by any means, say that it's a 100% certain that there was NO higher being/creature who pushed evolution in a certain direction.

What was it, 50 million years that nothing happened on this planet, just bacteria and stuff hanging about, doing nothing, then suddenly things just -start- to grow? Hardly.

So saying that creationism is TOTAL crock, is a bit close-minded and as "unreasonable" as the 100% creationism people.

"bacteria and stuff" ... just there you just said what happened before 50 million years ago.

Evolution doesn't just happen on a multicellular level like you are infering... it happens to all molecular creatures.

e.g. an single celled creature evolves, to maybe form a creature withy two cells, but maybe the another original single celled creatures of the same species evolves to be larger.

As it turns out having two cells is better than having one big cell so the big single celled species dies out, and so on. Until you get multicelled plankton... which evolve into fish... into bigger fish... into dinosaurs, mamals.

You're not very widely scientifically read seal. The way I describe it isn't to be taken as fact however there are lots of other parts to it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

More beleiveable then a magical guy watching from the sky who created the world all in 7 days? And then fucked off to let the people he 'loves' to suffer? God moves in mysterous ways, yada yada; people don't. Some people like to have something to believe in to feel secure and religion offers an answer in that respect. For the same reason people plan ahead in life etc, security.

Well i don't think the "bearded bloke did it in 7 days" either, which i think most people assume as soon as you say you're religious(naughty naughty), but i do believe some sort of higher being(higher level of technology as an example, to us) came and nudged us in the right direction.

"bacteria an*snip*her parts to it.

I said it better in the other post after that, that in 50 million years NOTHING happened(which was "proven" by some scientist again). No evolution, nooooothing. Then suddenly, after 50 million years of just lurking about, doing nothing, hanging on this rock, one cell goes..."This place is boring, I think i'll split", and in a cosmic joke he LITERALLY does. And no scientist can explain why.

I've read stuff, from various science thingies, all my life, you just missed the point in that particular area and brought in a truckload of others.

EDIT: Also, higher being doesn't necessarily mean a bearded hippy on a cloud or a fat guy in orange robes.

 

[Lakih]

Dunno... maybe it takes bacteria 50 million or so years to realise they are bored?
As for a higher might... dunno, evolution - yes, adam & eve - no, but i do think someone put us here for a reson... the question is why.

 

[Mojo]

1: Assuming i wouldn't give some other issue the same opinion, is not cool. Don't assume you know how i would feel on other matters. As it is, you're making no counterpoint to what i said. .

Fair comment.

2: I'm not saying a "god" fills the cap, i'm saying it's not impossible for a higher being to do so. Be it aliens, gods, whatnot. .

Not it’s not “impossible” nothing is Impossible really speaking but given what we know it is incredibly unlikely, so why argue the case for something that is so incredibly unlikely given what we know at this point in time? And going back to your first comments “Assuming I wouldn't give some other issue the same opinion” Ok lets assume form this that you give credibility to anything and everything that cannot be proven or disproved 100% would you actually argue the toss on pretty much everything with everyone because no one can actually prove or disprove anything 100%?

3: Again, not saying it's dumb to believe in evolution instead of creationism, i'm saying it's dumb to say it's 100% proof, no doubt proven ABSOLUTELY fact that there is no such thing as creationism/god. .

It is pretty reasonable to assume that given our current knowledge that there is a fact is no such thing as creationism/god However it would be pretty dumb to discount any future evidence and to counter any evidence the future may present with a weak bullshit faith based argument (which is what religions do)

4: Yet you've offered no proof that it is TOTAL crock. My point up there. Just like UFOs, ghosts, or teapots around saturn arn't proven as total crock. Prove it and i'll believe you a 100%, can't? Ofcourse you can't. Just like UFO's, ghosts and teapots around Saturn can't be proven a 100% true. .

Burden of proof as has been mentioned.

Stop assuming and reading the simple fact i'm saying "It's possible" as "Oh no! Evolution is wrong! Creationism is the only way!!" .

Possible but incredibly improbable based on what we currently know.

Also, on saying religion is stupid, well, don't have to fight on that matter as I don't need to call other peoples opinions/beliefs stupid to discuss a matter. .

Neither do I as a rule but these faiths affect my way of life, government policy in many many countries are made by people who believe in Sky Gods

People who oppose religion always say it's dumb/ignorant/whatnot, yet most often, those who believe let those who don't wish to believe, believe in that in all peace.

When allies of my country, my country or any other country go to war in “The name of God” or make “Faith based decisions” leading to war you think that is letting little old Mr Atheist Me believe (or rather disbelieve) in peace?

 

[Mojo]

And Toht touched on a big point which evolution cant explain, that of the Cambrian explosion. Life appears from no where, in a short space of time (with respect to the age of the world). Now I'm not naive enough to hold this up and say "Look, look, this means a God exists", but its a pretty good argument in it's favour =)

I picked this out because I am curious to know why this is a big argument in favour of God, why is God a good default alternative explanation?

Why is it not a good argument for something we are yet to figure out? or proof only of the fact that we need to study more?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Mojo, i believe we can settle our "argument" with a simple line:

You believe that it's not possible(relying heavily on science) to be such a thing as "higher beings" involved in our planet evolution(be it UFOs, pots around saturn or some bearded fella), i say it's possible.

We can't really change that set of mind on either.

Just don't think i'm a "defender of THE God" or something.

Not christian, fully bible believing, nutty preacher type a guy.

But one thing i can discuss, and that's the "100% not proven/proof" thing, no, i don't give any matter a 100% proof guarantee. But that's mainly 'cause, well as an example, things like atoms and such; Haven't really seen anything else "proof" about them except what some white coated other humans say.

And as almost daily i hear "Well, we were wrong last week, this week we realized it's actually midiclorians that are the building blocks and that the sound of fart is twice as fast as light...", only proves the age old, nothing is proven without a doubt.

 

[tris-]

why not just teach a class for religious education and 3 classes for the 3 different sciences? it worked at our school, and i left knowing science is true and religion is false because i could make my own mind up.

 

[Mojo]

You believe that it's not possible(relying heavily on science) to be such a thing as "higher beings" involved in our planet evolution(be it UFOs, pots around saturn or some bearded fella), i say it's possible.
.

No, like you said everything is "possible" I just don't think we can go through life using it as an argument and argument which must be considered all of the time. I also don't think that organisations wielding huge control and power should ultimately come back to this and denying the responsability of burden of proof.

If a man was up on a murder charge with 10 witnesses who said he did it the possibility that they were all mistaken due to some event no one could detect or prove would not be a reasonable defence even as like you said "it could be possible" this luxury is only afforded to religion on mass.

 

[old.Tohtori]

why not just teach a class for religious education and 3 classes for the 3 different sciences? it worked at our school, and i left knowing science is true and religion is false because i could make my own mind up.

Actually they should teach all the religions too, especially add the whole Muslim thing for good measure and education, THEN kids could make up their minds.

No, like *snip* on mass.

But i think you're basing your "shouldn't give religion this argument" argument based on the fact some religions/groups use it as an excuse for war/death/oppression. Which i think most "religion haters" do too.

But it's certainly not the case for the majority.

People believe in different ways, for different reasons, and if i, for example, believed in the "Great Kablowie that came and started the first FPS of single celled organisms to evolve them", without imposing it to others, but making my life better for having this belief in and the belief in afterlife, belief in someone watching over me, it shouldn't be called stupid simply because others say only science can be proven.

 

[Mojo]

And as almost daily i hear "Well, we were wrong last week, this week we realized it's actually midiclorians that are the building blocks and that the sound of fart is twice as fast as light...", only proves the age old, nothing is proven without a doubt.

Yes I agree, it fantastic. Science will evolve on an almost weekly basis, people throw their hands up and say "we found something new" "we were wrong" "lets go back and look at that again" Science has been doing it since it started.

Now do you know any religions that are so willing to learn, change and evolve with new evidence? As I see them they just pick out the holes in the science and add nothing to it, they will deny and discount ignore and fill any holes with GOD.

 

[Olgaline]

arguing for the existence of a god or higher being, isnt the same as arguing for creationism or denying evolution. creationism has no basis in fact "what so ever" however it is a means for people who need to interpret the bible as literary.

also if you look at thier arguments, and you'll even find the tendancy here, that people in favor of creationism, wont offer you any argument for why thier version is plausible, rather they nip and pick and attempt to discredit evolution. creationism is in my mind nothing more than a religios properganda tool. and if they cant explain it, then you'll meet the "get out of jail" devine being "free card"

altho it's not my personal belife, I'm more willing to accept god as working though and alongside evolution, but i'll never accept that creationism is plausible, the simple fact that the eath should only be 6000 years old, blows me away.

 

[fl3a]

Actually they should teach all the religions too, especially add the whole Muslim thing for good measure and education, THEN kids could make up their minds.

and you think those in power actually want that?

 

[Chronictank]

I see no problem in discussing alternatives in theory, its up to a student to work out what they believe in and what they dont.
It was said here (cba to sift though), that it is brainwashing, but what exactly is teaching evolution as the only solution? Ah yes, the same thing.

What i dont agree with is the fact only creationism in christianity as we know it (although it doesnt make me popular but i think christianity today isnt what it used to be for reasons i have highlighted before) is covered, they should really cover all the major religions if they wanted to give a legitamate cause for doing it

The only closed minded people are the ones who refuse to look out the box to be frank.

As for does god exist? *shrug* there are loads of threads about this.
One thing however does make me laugh, the people denying it are often the most ignorant on such matters because they cba to actually do some research to come up with a argument to the same old points (in all fairness Mojo is probably one of the few on here who did bother, so i am not pointing at you )

 

[Mojo]

arguing for the existence of a god or higher being, isn't the same as arguing for creationism or denying evolution.

If you argue away the existence of the creator, you argue away creationisms and if you believe in a creator you have to deny evolution.

 

[Levin]

I agree with Toh that it is not "impossible" that some higher being had a hand in nudging evolution on earth in the right direction. I think that's all he is saying too, so we can agree there.

But.

If we go along with the above hypothesis - what helped these higher beings evolve in the first place? How were they created? If you trace it all back to the beginning... something must have evolved without a nudging hand from someone else.

With that in mind, I believe it is more likely that isolated systems of life can appear out of seemingly "nowhere" due to chemical reactions of inorganic matter. This is probably a rather long process which takes astronomical amounts of time. 50 million years doesn't seem like a very long time in that perspective.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Now do you know any religions that are so willing to learn, change and evolve with new evidence? As I see them they just pick out the holes in the science and add nothing to it, they will deny and discount ignore and fill any holes with GOD.

Actually, as an example; viking beliefs evolved too, every time they learned from visitors, travellers, trips to other lands. The basics stayed the same, gods, ground beliefs(much like in science), but if someone taught them in a way that they believed(like in science), they would accept it.

One of the most misunderstood... well there was "some" little "fighting"...*cough*...religions of all time. Though the fighting had little to do with religion.


Also not all lack of science is filled with god by ALL people, which is generalizing, and that always leads into trouble.

arguing for the existence of a god or higher being, isnt the same as arguing for creationism or denying evolution. creationism has no basis in fact "what so ever" however it is a means for people who need to interpret the bible as literary.

Arguing that ANY one thing is the absolute truth and nothing can disprove it, is always extremism and as such, a dangerous road. Also saying something is 100% crock(within reason ofcourse), is a flipside of that coin and also not a preferred way to go.

and you think those in power actually want that?

Certainly not, 'cause that might mean we understand where others are coming from, and that would make starting wars and getting scapegoats a helluva lot harder.

If we go along with the above hypothesis - what helped these higher beings evolve in the first place? How were they created? If you trace it all back to the beginning... something must have evolved without a nudging hand from someone else.

Well in science they say that "You don't have to prove something doesn't exist, but do have to prove it does."(which ahs been said here a many times), but infact, isn't that just a cop-out in the same fashion as "Well...god did it.".

If you look at science in the same context, as a religion, as you do at religious beliefs.

Think about it a moment and it actually has sense in it.

 

[Olgaline]

cronic. there's a big difference between teaching, creationism and other religiouse versions within the context of religion, and teaching it as a science,
surely you see the differrence ?

I strongly support teaching theologi, and as broadbased as posible,

 

[tris-]

Actually they should teach all the religions too, especially add the whole Muslim thing for good measure and education, THEN kids could make up their minds.

they did teach that to us at school. i did religious studies for 5 years in secondary school and we learnt about all the main stream religions. well 3 years was just normal teaching we all get then 2 years GCSE. also did all the 3 sciences (seperatley) in GCSE too.

in primary and junior school, religion was slightly forced on us and i wasnt buying into it from as young as 6. when everyone was praying in assembly i was sat there looking about thinking "i dont have to do this".

 

[Chronictank]

cronic. there's a big difference between teaching, creationism and other religiouse versions within the context of religion, and teaching it as a science,
surely you see the differrence ?

I strongly support teaching theologi, and as broadbased as posible,

ah yeah, i misread the initial post as them not teaching it originally
my bad

 

[Jeremiah]

I picked this out because I am curious to know why this is a big argument in favour of God, why is God a good default alternative explanation?

Why is it not a good argument for something we are yet to figure out? or proof only of the fact that we need to study more?

It is a good argument for what we are yet to figure out, I agree with you.

But since research is in the buisness of making predictions based on the current evidence we have, I believe this is one step in the direction of a creator being or entity. It doesnt need to be what we all believe to be God, just that something external to our environment was working at that period of time =)

And I'm well aware that something may turn up tommorow which explains this period, at which point I'll adjust my views =) I'm a scientist at heart, as well as being a Christian. A lot of what I believe comes from what I see, rather than what I have been told. One day science (as in the real science!) may discover how we came to be, without any creator, at which point it would be silly of me to argue for a creator =)

The creationism being taught in the US is a bit crazy and I wouldnt defend it. Theres excellent research and reasons to believe our world is millions of years old, and I hold that belief too =)

 

[Olgaline]

Arguing that ANY one thing is the absolute truth and nothing can disprove it, is always extremism and as such, a dangerous road. Also saying something is 100% crock(within reason ofcourse), is a flipside of that coin and also not a preferred way to go.

there's a Huge! gap between what I've saying and that!
in all sitiuations and questions you need to consider the evidance and from that draw the most likely conclusion, you wont find anyone within the scientific comunitity who'll tell you that evolution is the only one truth, However they will tell you that it's the Most likely truth, since science is willing to be wrong in the persuit of knolage, and is willing to adapt with newfound evidence. thats a far cry from what creationism offers.

see the difference ?

futher more i can only agree with cronic that, why only the christian teaching of creationism then ?
if you bring creationsism into the science class, then why not also the other creation theories ?

 

[Mojo]

Well in science they say that "You don't have to prove something doesn't exist, but do have to prove it does."(which ahs been said here a many times), but infact, isn't that just a cop-out in the same fashion as "Well...god did it.".

Science however can rely on "Theories" science starts of as theory someone has a crazy idea and they can offer it up to others try to prove or disprove, and then the findings get scrutinised. If a theory cannot be proven or dis proven it remains as a theory and it can be revisited. But theories have no foundation in what we call fact. What cannot be explained is never put down to some randomness like gods, aliens or magic, it is typically stated that we just don't know, we think this or think that but we just don't know and no answer is given, just theories/ideas that can be changed altered and reviewed.

The main religions as a theory should have no basis in fact as it stands because it can neither be proven or as you and other said dis proven. But yet many are treated as fact and law by millions, again they are awarded a special place in society.

 

[old.Tohtori]

there's*snip*theories ?

Well i didn't say you were saying was exactly what i said(though you should stop treating my sayings as christian already too), but you saying "no truth in creationism whatsoever" is extremist.

It's a simple fact, as it implies you're NOT willing to accept that creationism might have some truth.

Also, if a science/religion sayes it's willing to admit they are wrong, is no basis for saying they are more likely to be right.

The main religions as a theory should have no basis in fact as it stands because it can neither be proven or as you and other said dis proven. But yet many are treated as fact and law by millions, again they are awarded a special place in society.

The main problem is to try and compare science and religion at ALL. Like talking about fire and water. And i don't believe religion is offered any special place in society, again, not christian, so let's not assume it.

On the issue at hand, not taking any "chosen beliefs" into account, if a government, that is HIGHLY religious, wants to teach their kids this religion as fact, who are other nations to dispute their choices? It's like saying "We should stop muslims from teaching this and that to their kids 'cause we believe otherwise." And that is wrong.

 

[Olgaline]

hmm think I'll just shadup, mojo is waay better at this than I am,

 

[Olgaline]

Well i didn't say you were saying was exactly what i said(though you should stop treating my sayings as christian already too), but you saying "no truth in creationism whatsoever" is extremist.

It's a simple fact, as it implies you're NOT willing to accept that creationism might have some truth.

Also, if a science/religion sayes it's willing to admit they are wrong, is no basis for saying they are more likely to be right.

huh!?

 

[old.Tohtori]

huh!?

You say "There is no truth in creationism whatsoever", that is a bit closeminded and extremist. Is it not?

You say, "Science is most likely right because they are willing to admit they are wrong." Which, is no basis to take a stand of "being right".

Stop treating my views as christian.

In simpler terms.

 

[Jeremiah]

The main religions as a theory should have no basis in fact as it stands because it can neither be proven or as you and other said dis proven. But yet many are treated as fact and law by millions, again they are awarded a special place in society.

You've just highlighted which religion and science should be kept apart. Not because they contradict each other (which they sometimes do, but they dont intrinsically contradict) but because its easy to get fact and faith mixed up. They start from oposite ends.

Religion would start from the top down - "I believe in a(ny) God -> its easy for me to believe the world was created".

Science starts from the bottom up - "Heres what we know -> what we know doesnt give us 100% confidence the world was created -> we can only theorise".

What happens tho is that the end product of the science approach is treated as FACT when it shouldnt. Equally people treat their faith as FACT, when again they shouldnt - or more correctly, treat it as an objective truth. Both should be treated as "we dont know" and just teach what we do know, rather than having the extremists bore us all to death =)

 

[Olgaline]

You say "There is no truth in creationism whatsoever", that is a bit closeminded and extremist. Is it not?

actually thats incorrect, i said it's not plausible, thats not the same. also i think your missing my origional point, if you notice, I never said: dont teach creationism. there's a big difference between teaching creationism, and teaching creationism as a science.

You say, "Science is most likely right because they are willing to admit they are wrong." Which, is no basis to take a stand of "being right".

thats a so called "automatic tie" argument so i wont comment on it,

Stop treating my views as christian.

In simpler terms.

again huh !?

 

[Mojo]

The main problem is to try and compare science and religion at ALL. Like talking about fire and water. And i don't believe religion is offered any special place in society, again, not christian, so let's not assume it.

On the issue at hand, not taking any "chosen beliefs" into account, if a government, that is HIGHLY religious, wants to teach their kids this religion as fact, who are other nations to dispute their choices? It's like saying "We should stop muslims from teaching this and that to their kids 'cause we believe otherwise." And that is wrong.

But religion is afforded a very special place in society, the religion card is a huge get out of jail free card, it's the biggest card there is and it kicks the race card into touch with its huge power and it it becoming the most played card in the game of life. You can comment on nearly anything but not religion as an atheist I am open to all sorts of scrutiny from various religions and their beliefs, hell most of the main religions would have me put to death already which is fine but dare I say anything back? See anyone publicly criticising Muslims? even the moderate dare not go on camera condemning terrorism due to fear of reprisals, man you cannot even print a cartoon about Mohamed with a religious group taking out ofcontext adding other images (that the got from random of the web) and actively perusing a campaign or propaganda and mis information and causing riots in how many countries? That whole thing was based in bullshit and even so when the truth comes out no one dare mention it. And I am not assuming anything about your beliefs creationisms is Christianity based so that what were are talking about for the most part. (except the Islam example I gave above)

Atheist are on of the most persecuted groups in the US, even given the current climate you are better of being a Muslim in the US than an Atheist.

And as far as other countries go and their right to teach what they like, well creationisms is coming the the UK sand Europe and it is being funded by wealthy Americans so hell yeah I have a right to have an opinion on what the hell they are doing, just like Muslims have a right to be pissed of at their foreign policy right now. I don't want this crap being taught in schools that my children attend I don't want it to spread to public schools keep it the churches. The west is the most un religious part of the planet and I for one would like it to stay that way.