The inevitable evolution debate thread

[LonBon]

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).

Ah, but then again you can't disprove the existence of God either. Think about... you really can't prove with 100% certainty that ANY type of supreme being CANNOT exist. For all we know, God or a god could have created everything then completely dis-involved himself/herself from the known universe. I'm not claiming to be right just because I don't think you can prove me wrong, just pointing out the you can't absolutely prove God exists one way or the other. You can look at the evidence logically, decide what it points to, and then fill in the gaps with reasonably thought out faith. In my mind, to believe God does not exist takes just as much faith as believing God does exist, and since I happen to believe in God, it is also my opinion that it takes MORE faith to be an Atheist than a Theist. But, that is beside the argument.

EDIT: dang Widow I just looked at what you posted, and it'll take a few days to go through that.

 

[codanostra]

the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. It's ridiculous to say 'you can't prove it doesn't exist'.

 

[ORBOTRON]

Let's not fall into a sound bite war. The old tired one liners could be recited again with nothing accomplished but raised tempers.

If this is to be a real, thoughtful debate, there should be more of what WM has done, not less. It took me a couple days to get through it all, but I appreciate the time he took to read and respond intelligently to each part of the material. He was specific and quoted respected scientists to back his ideas.

A few pages back, Coda did the same thing when responding to Thunder, allowing the reader to see exactly what's being argued, I think that's the best way to debate in a forum like this.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

If this is to be a real, thoughtful debate, there should be more of what WM has done, not less. It took me a couple days to get through it all, but I appreciate the time he took to read and respond intelligently to each part of the material. He was specific and quoted respected scientists to back his ideas.

I haven't been through it all or had the chance to dissect it, much less reply in detail, but I agree wholeheartedly with Orbo... what WM wrote is well-thought out, with quotes from eminent personages, except for the stuff from "trueorigin.org" I mean, seriously. You can believe anything you want ......If you're going to use such sophomoric terms to describe someone else's ideas, let's at least have a decent argument along with it......
---ORBOTRON

 

[LonBon]

the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. It's ridiculous to say 'you can't prove it doesn't exist'.

"I'm not claiming to be right just because I don't think you can prove me wrong..."
I shall try to clarify myself, since that's not the impression I was trying to make. What I'm saying is that since each view has equal provability, they both have equal burdens of proof, even though neither can be proved. Consider this: assuming that evolution and such is 100% true does nothing to disprove God's existence. Assuming the opposite does nothing to prove his existence either. If you come at the argument from an open-mined position like this, you will see that one side does not have a greater burden of proof than the other. However, if you put on your anti-anything supernatural goggles, it is easier to think that believers have a greater burden of proof.

 

[LonBon]

There's actually a lot of science that can support Creationism. The Intelligent Design (what I believe to be the science of Creationism) aspect of this about how the universe is best explained by a purposeful creator is very science-oriented. The faith part of who and what God is though is just that, faith. I think Widow's already covered all of this, but I'll keep reading his stuff in case he missed something. Here's some scientific and philosophical thoughts on the subject: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/science.php

 

[corcovado]

I read through some intelligent design websites and it really does not seem scientific to me. It uses the unknown to prove its hypothesis rather than using measurable data, which is a philosophical approach not a scientific one. In fact, no where on the site you linked is there any scientific data at all. Here is a site that offers a counterargument to Irreducible complexity (Intelligent Designs strongest argument) http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html.

 

[WidowMakers]

the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. It's ridiculous to say 'you can't prove it doesn't exist'.

I would assume that you (by believing that there is no god and that evolution is true) make the claim that non-living matter somehow turned into life.
Since the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.
I would like you scientific proof that abiogenesis is real.

The backbone of naturalistic evolution REQUIRED abiogenesis to be real.
Please show me how.
The burden of proof lies with your camp on this one.

 

[LonBon]

I read through some intelligent design websites and it really does not seem scientific to me. It uses the unknown to prove its hypothesis rather than using measurable data, which is a philosophical approach not a scientific one. In fact, no where on the site you linked is there any scientific data at all. Here is a site that offers a counterargument to Irreducible complexity (Intelligent Designs strongest argument) http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html.

You're right, I should probably read what I post instead of just looking at the header. Since I don't really have to to do any extensive reading, I cannot speak authoritatively on the subject as of right now, but maybe you can ask Wids, who seems to have no problem with reading lol.

 

[Shepherd]

wow, I'm surprised not only that this thread continues to rage on, but that the discussion is actually getting more thoughtful. Usually by now a topic like this reduces people to name calling and beliefs-baiting.

It would be one thing is this was simply theory vs. theory, and evidence vs. evidence, but it's not. This is personal. If you believe in God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic sense, to say that Creation is bunk is an affront to your world view. If you don't believe in said God, Creationism arguments threaten your world view. Trying to talk either side out of their beliefs here is like trying to talk a heroine addict out of his next fix; you feel righteous because you know you're on the correct side, but it's ultimately unproductive.

Studies have already shown that amino acids -necessary for life - can be created from non-organic materials. The processes of abiogenesis will continue to be demonstrated by scientists, but we can't recreate the conditions that created the earth and then let it simmer for a few billion years to watch life form. Just because you can't provide enough irrefutable proof to convince somebody of something does make it untrue: if this were the case nobody would believe in much of anything beyond our own hunger, pain, and that poops comes out of our asses.

 

[ORBOTRON]

I gotta say I'm really proud of how we've managed to keep this thread open and rolling forward, kudos to all you who have spoken your mind in a mature way.

Shep, you hit on a crucial concept here about the argument being more between world views than anything else. It's a bit like a court case as well, in that both sides all have the same evidence to work with, simply interpreting it according to their own preconceived notions. I think it's a safe bet to say most people come at this debate with their world view fairly established and then choose to interpret evidence and ascribe to a theory based on that world view. Of course there are those people who after conducting more detailed study actually allow the evidence to change their beliefs, but I think these are in the minority. In most cases, I think a debate like this simply gives people a chance to deepen their understanding of the evidence and solidify the beliefs they already hold.

I'm going to stay as impartial/objective as possible on this last point. I think it illustrates perfectly the fact that faith is needed on both sides of this issue. A good description of faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Our world views, our faith, is based on what we hope is the case, what we think the evidence points towards. The fact that amino acids can be created from non-organic matter is intriguing to me, but I'd like some more in depth info on the subject. Such as, how it's created, is it with lightning, volcanoes, etc.? Even then, my point is, it's a BIG leap of faith to assume the simple passage of time will allow this process to develop life as we know it. Now to some people, this leap of faith is less, even to the point of not seeming like faith at all, but a simple statement of fact, while they see intelligent design as a HUGE leap of faith. Of course on the other side, the roles are reversed, with people thinking abiogenesis is as ludicrous as creation seems to the opposition. This is where we run into problems. People will never be able to gain a deeper understanding of their own world view if they can't set aside the knee jerk instinct to call everything coming from the other side rubbish. The key to a deeper understanding, is to look at the difficult evidence, the stuff that on it's face points away from your own preconceived notions. If all you ever look at and argue is the low hanging fruit of facts that support your claim, all you will have is a shallow understanding of your own beliefs.

So, all that to say, I encourage everyone to fully engage, set aside your prejudice to the extent that you can tolerate looking at ALL the evidence. This might even mean looking at evidence you don't think is evidence, what's the harm?

I'm off to research the amino acid topic

 

[LonBon]

Studies have already shown that amino acids -necessary for life - can be created from non-organic materials. The processes of abiogenesis will continue to be demonstrated by scientists, but we can't recreate the conditions that created the earth and then let it simmer for a few billion years to watch life form. Just because you can't provide enough irrefutable proof to convince somebody of something does make it untrue: if this were the case nobody would believe in much of anything beyond our own hunger, pain, and that poops comes out of our asses.

This post was creation vs. evolution, but I think this is heading towards God vs not God... which come to think about ties into the argument very well. Again, I don't know enough about abiogenisis right now to give a good answer, but the easy question is where did the materials to come from, in the beginning? I think that whether you believe in God or not, you still have to wrap your head around a beginning on an infinite scale of time.

 

[LonBon]

"Studies have already shown that amino acids -necessary for life - can be created from non-organic materials. The processes of abiogenesis will continue to be demonstrated by scientists..."
Not to belittle your viewpoint here, but I would really be interested in some specifics from you Shep and from Wid. Also, what do you guys think about this? I think it adequately expresses my frustrations with accepting the big bang: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-b...old-boy-genius-sets-out-to-disprove-big-bang/

 

[Shepherd]

Also, what do you guys think about this? I think it adequately expresses my frustrations with accepting the big bang: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-b...old-boy-genius-sets-out-to-disprove-big-bang/

I think it's a fact-free, quasi-news story about an autistic twelve year old kid with a questionable education on a conservative website founded by Glen Beck. The news source has a clear agenda and only selects news that supports its agenda, so anything you find via that site should be considered accordingly. And I'm not some Fox News-hating liberal: everybody has some kind of agenda. But just because the kid can talk circles around Glen Beck doesn't mean he understands the big bang theory better than people who have spent years studying it.

I don't pretend to understand the big bang theory. I'm not trying to convince anybody of it. My point was simply that 1) just because something can't be replicated doesn't make it untrue, and 2) even if there was proof that the big bang happened it wouldn't shake anybody's belief in God, so the argument is pointless.

And I'm not taking sides in this debate, but LonBon asked about this... again, if you don't care for the basic theory there are plenty of ways to shoot holes in this. If you want to waste your time doing so be my guest.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html

NASA also has an agenda: the more they promote science their own science more funding they'll get, so you'll have to consider the source with this article as well.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2002/02_33AR.html

 

[Badorties]

his IQ is higher than Einstein’s

Einstein never took an IQ test. Fail.

 

[LonBon]

Crap, I honestly didn't see it was from Glenn Beck... anyway, that answered my question then for my "source" lol. I do agree with your statements about the big bang. I promise to look through all of the stuff from now on before I post it... it's 3:00 in the morning here, and I'm getting kinda lazy with it.

 

[ORBOTRON]

Crap, I honestly didn't see it was from Glenn Beck... anyway, that answered my question then for my "source" lol. I do agree with your statements about the big bang. I promise to look through all of the stuff from now on before I post it... it's 3:00 in the morning here, and I'm getting kinda lazy with it.

That's a surefire way to get flamed in a debate like this, and one of the only reasons I would allow it to a degree, lol. It's a really good idea to at least read what you're referring to, if not fully understanding it.

 

[LonBon]

Yeah I realize that I can't even defend my viewpoint if I don't pay attention to my sources.

 

[WidowMakers]

Wido, how old do you believe the earth is? Science generally accepts the earth to be around 4.5 billion years with pretty solid evidence that it is at least 3.8 billion years. Here is a link that explains how science came up with that number http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold. If you do not believe earth is that old then can you please explain how old you think it is and why.

I have not forgotten about this post corcovado. Just been busy. Will reply soon. And it will not be as long as the last post I made

 

[WidowMakers]

Wido, how old do you believe the earth is? Science generally accepts the earth to be around 4.5 billion years with pretty solid evidence that it is at least 3.8 billion years. Here is a link that explains how science came up with that number http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold. If you do not believe earth is that old then can you please explain how old you think it is and why.

Well I had this big write up and then I realized people don't always want to read this much stuff and that all of this is already available to read (some presented in better ways that others on both sides of the fence) on the internet.

But before I give you an answer I am going to tell you this, my previous beliefs and viewpoints on evolution are NOT dependent on the age of the universe/earth/etc.
What I mean specifically by that is that whether the earth is old, medium, young or whatever I still believe there is a God and that all things where made possible though Him.

I do currently hold the belief that the universe and earth an all things in it are NOT billions of years old but much much younger (Thousands).
I can see that there are areas on both sides that make good arguments. After making this claim I know there are people out there who would write me off as a fool or idiot and so be it.
But they might make that judgement for the wrong reason.

You see many people hold perspectives of these two viewpoint like this...

OLD View point (billions of years) = science, reason, rational, educated, evolution
YOUNG View Point (thousands of years) = ignorant, foolish, religious, unreasonable, un-rational, GOD​

I do not hold those views, here is my perspective on both sides

OLD View point (billions of years) = science, reason, rational, educated, GOD DID IT
YOUNG View Point (thousands of years) = science, reason, rational, educated, GOD DID IT​

People come to different conclusions with the same set of data (like I said before).
People who hold either view are not REQUIRED to be irrational or stupid or ignorant (though some are on both sides) .
It requires reason and rationality and study to come to both sides.

My biggest issue with the OLD Age View is that it is build, generally, on the theory of evolution.
It is modeled on the "facts" that evolution (stellar, planetary, chemical, organic, biological) are all proven true or are the only possibility and must be accepted. People of faith, who have attempted to fit the idea of God into the billions of years, IMO have let bad science be the guide (I talked about how naturalistic evolution is not science but faith previously - i.e. believe in a unknown, un testable, un-repeatable process = faith)

When most people viewing OLD vs YOUNG they ignore the YOUNG aspect because the YOUNG view automatically discredits the evolution timescale. And if people refuse to believe in the possibility of GOD and refuse to see that it might be a possibility, they are automatically required to ignore anything that would hurt that position.

It is really hard , if not impossible, for any evolutionary scientist, who holds there is no GOD and that naturalism is the answer to our questions to give any credibility to any YOUNG viewpoint. NOT because the science is not sound and not because the OLD AGE view has the answers either, but because admitting that there could be some credibility in a YOUNG view automatically destroyers the possibility of a no GOD universe and possilbe destroys the theory of naturalisitc evolution.

When a person makes a claim that the earth is 10,000 years old, and educated and rational response is, "let me see your data and why you feel this way". An inappropriate response is " You are wrong because evolution is true and you are just being irrational."

I don't know how many times I have heard that young earth is not possible because fossils are millions of years old. But do the people making the claim of million years old fossils really know they are millions of years old? Those millions of years dates (before radiometeric dating which does have flaws) were based on the assumption of evolution. The location was based on rock layers. The layers were dated by the fossils in them. And teh fossils were dated by the rock layers. Then radiometric dating came along and things were adjusted, data ignored and everytign realigned to make the data fit where it supported billions of years. So the prior idea that evolution is true drove the requirement for fossil to be old. It is circular reasoning and just one example of a prior requirement of evolution allowing distrotion of the data to support a view.

So I do believe the universe and earth are thousands of years old. We can go over examples and situations that, I feel, support the view point if you wish .
But I do admit that I could be wrong and that it might be billions of years old. But that view does NOT eliminate my belief on GOD at all either.
Both view could allow GOD and still do REQUIRE God, I just think YOUNG view is the best now from all things I see and know (much outside of natural science)

Again I believe there is GOD in our universe not solely or primarily on scientific studies but on other aspects we can see (absolute truth, the mind, ethics, etc)
Hope this helps, not sure if you got what you wanted.