The inevitable evolution debate thread

[Marauder]

Correct, neither science nor religion can answer the true question with 100% certainty. However, one of those claims too.

And that is why I consider myself Agnostic. Without certainty on our beginning, you can not say there is not a God either.

 

[Badorties]

Well you need faith to believe in god. In order to not believe in god, you just have to look at all the fucked shit around you.

 

[WidowMakers]

Correct, neither science nor religion can answer the true question with 100% certainty. However, one of those claims too.

Most of the many posts that say evolution is a fact and true seem to be claiming with 100% certainty.
So even though no side can know for certain, science claims to know.

That seems like an accurate statement so far.
No one can know for sure, but regardless science claims to have the answers.

Thanks Bado.

 

[Marauder]

In order to not believe in god, you just have to look at all the fucked shit around you.

LOL, true enough. If you ever are looking at a hilarious view on the origins of religion, check out the movie The Invention of Lying. My favorite line is, "This man in the sky seems like a real prick!"

 

[WidowMakers]

Well you need faith to believe in god. In order to not believe in god, you just have to look at all the fucked shit around you.

Messed up world is not a reason there is no god.
I beleive in God and there are still messed up things.

Why would the existence of God depend on the problems with the world around us?
Argument: There is Too Much Evil and Suffering For God to Exist

1.God is all-powerful, loving, and perfect.
2.A perfect, loving God would create a universe that was perfect (e.g., no evil and suffering).
3.The universe is not perfect but contains evil and suffering.​

Therefore, God does not exist. Wrong.

The inherent problem with this argument is that it assumes God and evil are mutually exclusive or incompatible. It assumes that it is impossible for evil and God to exist.
Why make that assumption? There is no logical issue with both evil and God existing at the same time.
Why evil things happen is another discussion but not a reason to say there is no God.

So…
1. God and evil are not mutially exclusive
2. They then can both exist
3. The calim that God cannot exist along with evil is thus false.

EDIT: and card I am reading and writing up a post for your link you sent. I have not forgotten. There is just a lot more in that link than most of these combined. Lots of differnt areas to explore and discuss.

 

[Jewmowrestler]

what we call "evil" is merely an absence of God, in the same way that cold is an absence of heat, or shadow an absence of light. it is not so much a wicked or despicable thing, so much as imperfection.
EDIT: i do not mean to say at all that agnostics or atheists are evil or wicked or imperfect. i could care less what you religious affiliation is, and i am in no why trying to preach or convert anyone. i am only hoping to clarify the argument from a catholic point of view.

 

[codanostra]

How did this turn into A god argument?

You wanna know how i know god doesnt exist? For the same reason i know unicorns, leprechauns, etc. don't exist. There is literally as much evidence supporting Gods existence as there is any mythical creature (which is absolutely 0).

 

[WidowMakers]

How did this turn into A god argument?

You wanna know how i know god doesnt exist? For the same reason i know unicorns, leprechauns, etc. don't exist. There is literally as much evidence supporting Gods existence as there is any mythical creature (which is absolutely 0).

I was simply responding to the posts others had about God.
But the whole atheistic evolution side is in contrast to the creation side. SO if one is too properly look at one and the assumptions, and evidence used, one must look at the other contrasting view as well.

Plus there is plenty of stuff that points to the possibility of a creator, you just choose to ignore it (a creator) with the assumption that the supernatural does not exist and only materialistic things do.
You presuppose the impossibility of God without looking to see if that view might fit the data better (logic, morality, ethics, nature, universal development etc)

 

[Shepherd]

In order to not believe in god, you just have to look at all the fucked shit around you.

As somebody who is solidly agnostic (not atheist), I don't see how god and fucked up shit are mutually exclusive. Plenty of evil has been perpetrated in the name of one god or another, and there's a god deal of evil done by the judeo-christian god himself in the bible. Plagues and floods killing thousands of innocents? Killing all first born-sons because one pharaoh is being a jack-ass? Shebears killing children for calling a guy bald? If we're going to take the bible literally (which I don't suggest we do), God is a serial killer.

So maybe god does exist and he has an evil, twisted streak. Perhaps he's watches us from a cloud and thinks that this is all just hilarious. It's nice to think that he is a caring and compassionate god, but who are we to claim to know what god truly wants?

Maybe Shiva is the one true god?

 

[codanostra]

I was simply responding to the posts others had about God.
But the whole atheistic evolution side is in contrast to the creation side. SO if one is too properly look at one and the assumptions, and evidence used, one must look at the other contrasting view as well.

Plus there is plenty of stuff that points to the possibility of a creator, you just choose to ignore it (a creator) with the assumption that the supernatural does not exist and only materialistic things do.
You presuppose the impossibility of God without looking to see if that view might fit the data better (logic, morality, ethics, nature, universal development etc)

Actually, i admit that their may be a god, but if he does exist, he is not supernatural. You are right, i do not believe in the supernatural because supernatural assumes beyond scientific reason. I do believe that every entity and being in the universe and beyond can be explained, measured, and observed (through some method, not necessarily observed by the means we assume today). This is why i consider myself an Atheist. There may be 'higher' being(s) but that doesn't mean they exist outside of physical nature and rational explanation.

 

[codanostra]

As somebody who is solidly agnostic (not atheist), I don't see how god and fucked up shit are mutually exclusive. Plenty of evil has been perpetrated in the name of one god or another, and there's a god deal of evil done by the judeo-christian god himself in the bible. Plagues and floods killing thousands of innocents? Killing all first born-sons because one pharaoh is being a jack-ass? Shebears killing children for calling a guy bald? If we're going to take the bible literally (which I don't suggest we do), God is a serial killer.

So maybe god does exist and he has an evil, twisted streak. Perhaps he's watches us from a cloud and thinks that this is all just hilarious. It's nice to think that he is a caring and compassionate god, but who are we to claim to know what god truly wants?

Maybe Shiva is the one true god?

I think Bado may have been referring to the Abrahamic definition of God, but i'm not 100%

 

[ORBOTRON]

Ok, as Coda alluded to, we're straying a bit far from the topic here. We have established that everyone here is committed to their position as either
1)Atheist
2)Agnostic
3)Christian

I think we can avoid a protracted theological discussion (another thread perhaps) if everyone limits their comments on religion or a lack thereof, to the topic at hand.
Rather than making a case for/against God on the basis of present day conditions or somewhat abstract personal feelings, let's really dig into the science of how the earth specifically was created and history since then.

 

[Shepherd]

I think Bado may have been referring to the Abrahamic definition of God, but i'm not 100%

Yeah, so was I.

 

[WidowMakers]

Actually, i admit that their may be a god, but if he does exist, he is not supernatural. You are right, i do not believe in the supernatural because supernatural assumes beyond scientific reason. I do believe that every entity and being in the universe and beyond can be explained, measured, and observed (through some method, not necessarily observed by the means we assume today). This is why i consider myself an Atheist. There may be 'higher' being(s) but that doesn't mean they exist outside of physical nature and rational explanation.

Thanks for the reply Coda. I am glad to have read your perspective and think there is more to add to this in the discussion.

When you assume that nothing exists beyond scientific reasoning then please explain:
1) How can you claim to know that everything that exists anywhere and everywhere can be made known and understood by science? What scientific evidence do you have that supports that assumption?

Your statement here.....

"i do not believe in the supernatural because supernatural assumes beyond scientific reason.
I do believe that every entity and being in the universe and beyond can be explained, measured, and observed"

.....is NOT a scientific statement.
What proof do you have to make it scientifically?
Just because the tools you have do not measure something, does not mean that something is not there at all.
Plus if a God did create everything, that God would be beyond the creation he made and thus cannot be expected to be measurable by that creation in the first place.

2) Please explain feelings. What is love, joy, happiness, sorrow, emotional pain? What are these things. Do they exist only in the DNA and electrical paths of our brains? Does a person steal, tell jokes, lie, love, murder only because they have a certain chemical makeup that they cannot control.

If all there is that exists can be explained by science and all is material and nothing beyond, then every person actions, thoughts, reactions, choices and behaviors can be broken down to chemical formals and reactions. And if it is just a chemical imbalance or error, a person cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Please explain all these things above that you experience and feel on a daily basis that cannot be explained with science.

----------------------------------------------------

But as you pointed out earlier, this thread is not about who or what God is. I this not about whether God is good or bad, nice or just or anything related.
The thread started out with the discussion about creationism and atheistic evolution and how they compare and relate to what wee see, observe and can reason about our universe.

If people want to start a new thread about the nature of God then that is fine but this one should stick the initial topic.

 

[codanostra]

Thanks for the reply Coda. I am glad to have read your perspective and think there is more to add to this in the discussion.

When you assume that nothing exists beyond scientific reasoning then please explain:
1) How can you claim to know that everything that exists anywhere and everywhere can be made known and understood by science? What scientific evidence do you have that supports that assumption?

I do not claim to know. You are arguing semantics. How can one be 100% sure of anything? I'm not suggesting human science will ever be able to explain all phenomena, but i do believe everything can be explained, including higher beings. Perhaps God is simply an advanced multi dimensional creature? Would such a being appear super natural to us 3 dimensional beings? I believe so. Would we be able to specifically measure and observe such a being? No. Does that mean it's impossible? Of course not, just beyond human capability.

Your statement here.....
.....is NOT a scientific statement.
What proof do you have to make it scientifically?
Just because the tools you have do not measure something, does not mean that something is not there at all.
Plus if a God did create everything, that God would be beyond the creation he made and thus cannot be expected to be measurable by that creation in the first place.

This leads to the question, what created God? Is he an infinite creation who possibly created himself? Possibly. Does that mean the process he used to create himself could not be explained? I believe it could. As for the scientific reasoning for this belief well... as humans have progressed technologically and scientifically we've come to understand things i'm sure humans never would have imagined understanding (electricity being a prime example.). It's a logical course of reasoning to believe that just because we can't fathom the science does not mean it's not there. Every day we humans understand better and better the world around us and we lead further into understanding all of it. In every instance throughout human history of observable phenomena where it was believed science would never find an answer, science has found an answer. This absolute consistency is why i believe what i do. Of course there is no concrete evidence, just statistics, and the statistics say we will find a scientific understanding. (i feel like i could have worded this sentiment better, but i'm sure you get what i'm driving at).

2) Please explain feelings. What is love, joy, happiness, sorrow, emotional pain? What are these things. Do they exist only in the DNA and electrical paths of our brains? Does a person steal, tell jokes, lie, love, murder only because they have a certain chemical makeup that they cannot control.

If all there is that exists can be explained by science and all is material and nothing beyond, then every person actions, thoughts, reactions, choices and behaviors can be broken down to chemical formals and reactions. And if it is just a chemical imbalance or error, a person cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Please explain all these things above that you experience and feel on a daily basis that cannot be explained with science.

This assumes science does not have any room for random, but of course we all know it does. Statistics being a great example. You can explain something scientifically and still have an uncertain outcome. But this is a great point of discussion, and i believe a huge splitting idea for a lot of scientifically minded individuals; one group believes that with ultimate understanding you would in fact, be able to predict a person's actions, etc. The other group believes that uncertainty will always be a part of the equation.

As for emotions, well, we are already starting to understand better the chemical processes causing emotions. The brain is still a mystery box, but we are beginning to peel back the layers. A great example would be the chemical inbalances that lead to depression and ADHD. We don't fully understand them, mind you, but they are measurable and counterable. I do believe that all emotional responses are a result of chemical reactions in the body.

Responsibility is what sets us apart from animals. Many people believe that pedophilia is not a person's 'life choice' but a result of their DNA. If this turns out to be true, should a pedophile still be held accountable if he touches a small child in a sexual fashion? Of course. Judge's rule based on the circumstances, not including the emotional state of mind (the large majority of the time, things like temporary insanity are of course, the exception).

A human's ability to limit the effect his emotions has on his actions is exactly the evolutionary factor that has allowed us to reach the point we have. But this leads to the question of how far these chemical processes have on our consciousness, which is something we know extremely little about.

But as you pointed out earlier, this thread is not about who or what God is. I this not about whether God is good or bad, nice or just or anything related.
The thread started out with the discussion about creationism and atheistic evolution and how they compare and relate to what wee see, observe and can reason about our universe.

If people want to start a new thread about the nature of God then that is fine but this one should stick the initial topic.

Agreed, but is it any wonder it turned into this discussion? It's the natural evolution of the discussion. There are really three camps when it comes to the origin debate. Those who believe in evolution without the God factor, those who believe God set the process of evolution into motion, and those who believe evolution is just not real and God made everything. Naturally this will turn into the legitimacy of the God figure itself.

-----------

I should tack on to this that when i talk about my 'beliefs' they are not akin to spiritual assurance. 'I believe based on the evidence that currently exists without 100% assurance.' It should be assumed. Just like we 'believe' gravity keeps the Earth moving around the Sun.

 

[codanostra]

To get back on topic, here's a point i brought up a while back that was never addressed.

Assuming you do not believe humans came into being as a process of evolution, do you believe evolution as a whole simply does not happen? And if you do, why?

 

[WidowMakers]

To get back on topic, here's a point i brought up a while back that was never addressed.

Assuming you do not believe humans came into being as a process of evolution, do you believe evolution as a whole simply does not happen? And if you do, why?

Thanks again coda.
I am in the process of responding to cards original post related back to this link

Evolution as Fact and Theory
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

It basically says that evolution (mam from molecules is fact) and that we should accept it, so on and so forth.
I am replying to the writers opinions and challenging some of the assumption he makes.

SO to briefly state my view (which I will go into greater detail in later response) is that MACRO evolution did not, cannot and is not capable of taking a single cell bacteria and over millions of years making a variety of increased complexity creatures.

But I do agree that variation within a species MICRO evolution can take place. Variation of birds, dogs, cats, people, etc does take place but the evolutionary process never crossed or will cross any of them over into a new species.

 

[codanostra]

SO to briefly state my view (which I will go into greater detail in later response) is that MACRO evolution did not, cannot and is not capable of taking a single cell bacteria and over millions of years making a variety of increased complexity creatures.

pretty interesting article i came across a few days ago, i feel it's somewhat relevant

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ke-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html

 

[WidowMakers]

pretty interesting article i came across a few days ago, i feel it's somewhat relevant

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ke-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html

This seems very interesting as well.

Quote from article (underlined for emphasis)

"I bet that yeast, having once been multicellular, never lost it completely," says Neil Blackstone, an evolutionary biologist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. "I don't think if you took something that had never been multicellular you would get it so quickly."

Even so, much of evolution proceeds by co-opting existing traits for new uses - and that's exactly what Ratcliff's yeast do. "I wouldn't expect these things to all pop up de novo, but for the cell to have many of the elements already present for other reasons," says Kerr.

Plus it is still yeast.

 

[Thunderous]

First of all in answer to codas question i do belive there is a FORM of evolution on a small scale. For example, over the past few hunded years we are on average taller than the people before us (ive heard the really old pubs in england had very small cellings due to them being smaller to us modern couter parts. Evolution on a large scale though, i do not belive.

I have a few questions for people out there who belive in macro evolution and we evolved from bacterium (or what it was).

1)Where are all the middle bits in the evolution process? Like, apparently we evolved from apes, how come there are no half man, half apes walking around? or any half man, half ape remains? Surely there were not apes, then they randomly gave birth to human, and here we are. that question goes for all of evolution process, like why are there no fish horses walking/swimming around or snail lizards on earth? it seem we are left with the whole version of each step, but missing bits in the middle. For example, if Barceria were Version 1.0 of creatures, then some others (i dont know the process) Apes were version 9.0 of creatures and humans where Version 10.0 . where are the versions 9.1, 9.3, 9.3 and so on,where are all the bits inbetween. IF we evolved over millions of years, surely there would have been half man, half ape creatures. Either dead or still alive, yet we have none.

2)Why do we still have all the other creatures on earth if we apparently evolved. If Humans evolved from Apes, then why do we still have Apes on earth? Why didn't they all evolve (shouldn't they have evolved as well)? Were there just some that evolved? or just one that evolved(and how did that one produce off-spring)? What made that one or group of apes so special that they evolved, but there brothers and sisters did not?

2.5) lol (kinda a combination of question 1 and 2) Why then, if we still have Apes, aren't some of them evolving slowly into humans. Shouldn't we have some of them evolving into humans, stuck in the middle of the evolutionary process, on the slow trek to humanhood?