Evolution vs. Creationism

Satya said:
There is a big difference between science which forms tentative explanations based on observable phenomena and theology which asserts absolute explanations based on supernatural phenomena.

That difference can be summed up in one word.

Progress!

Virtually everything you own, from the kind of food you eat, to the roof over your head, has been the result of a scientific process of trial and error, experimentation, and the formation of better explanations. Theology has offered the opposite. It has stood in the way of progress time and time again by asserting it already holds all the answers.

The theory of evolution may be imperfect, but it is no way equal (or inferior) to creationism. It is based an objective, data gathering process, not on a subjective, faith based process.
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you! That is a great point. :)
Theology can often be used as a barrier that impedes progress, and why? Because it is a powerful tool that can be twisted for personal gain, to be used to control and repress people... but does theology itself harm? That I have not seen proof as of yet.

And I agree. The theory of evolution is not equal or even inferior to the theory of creation. In fact, can they even be compared? They are not even from the same playing field. Science cannot disprove anything that is not part of the natural world. That is the only field science can play in. To use scientific arguments against creationism is impossible, because creationism relies centrally on something supernatural.

All I wanted to point out is...
They both have holes in their argument and, logically, to prove evolution does not by any means disprove creationism. And in order to prove creationism... one can only rely on afterdeath. Unfortunately, if you die and meet God and find out creationism is right, it's not like you can jump from your casket and tell everyone.

So either way, the argument between these two theories can continue on indefinitely without either side winning until...earth is destroyed by a random meteor? LOL
 
poofgrl said:
Yes, thank you! That is a great point. :)
Theology can often be used as a barrier that impedes progress, and why? Because it is a powerful tool that can be twisted for personal gain, to be used to control and repress people... but does theology itself harm? That I have not seen proof as of yet.
Click to expand...

What is "theology itself"? If you define theology as completely separate of the actions of the people who believe and follow it, then how can it still be considered theology?

And I agree. The theory of evolution is not equal or even inferior to the theory of creation. In fact, can they even be compared? They are not even from the same playing field. Science cannot disprove anything that is not part of the natural world. That is the only field science can play in. To use scientific arguments against creationism is impossible, because creationism relies centrally on something supernatural.
Click to expand...

I agree.

All I wanted to point out is...
They both have holes in their argument and, logically, to prove evolution does not by any means disprove creationism. And in order to prove creationism... one can only rely on afterdeath. Unfortunately, if you die and meet God and find out creationism is right, it's not like you can jump from your casket and tell everyone.
Click to expand...

I think they are mutually exclusive by their inherent arguments. Evolution holds that all life on this planet formed over a long period of time as a result of natural processes, whereas Creationism argues that all life on this planet was originally created instantaneously by a supernatural being. Regardless of the fact that they can't disprove each other, they both can't be true.

So either way, the argument between these two theories can continue on indefinitely without either side winning until...earth is destroyed by a random meteor? LOL
Click to expand...

Or flying horsemen as the case may be.
 
Can someone explain the absence of the proof of evolution in the fossils we have to look at, please?
 
Jesus dug up all the proof and then hid it somewhere.
 
I am going to olny chime in once:

Evolution, as far as I am concered, has been proven by science. Debate ended.
 
gloomy-optimist said:
I actually kind of believe that all religions are interconnected, somehow. A lot of ancient religions have some very surprising similarities.
Click to expand...

Yes they are all interconnected, they were all created by man to scratch the same psychological itch. Their common root is in the human mind.
 
Satya said:
Can someone explain to me why this is even an issue anymore? Why do some schools still want to teach that the world was created in 7 days about 5,000 years ago? Why do people still dismiss objective/scientific evidence for their own subjective/intuitive evidence?
Click to expand...
Prove to me that reality even exists, then we'll talk. :3

Edit:
Quinlan said:
Yes they are all interconnected, they were all created by man to scratch the same psychological itch. Their common root is in the human mind.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of the God of Gaps? It's an idea that we use God to fill the gaps in knowledge. What is lightning? We used to think it was just God on a menstrual rage.
Now, we know it's built up electricity in the clouds that causes heat and light.

Now, tell me what was the universe created by?
Yeh, you don't know.
To fill the gap: There's God. The explainer of the unexplainable.

But who are you to say that God doesn't exist? What viewpoint do you have that really says "Yeah. I know God isn't real." That's just pretentious to say that. You still have to put faith into the fact that there is no God. Not knocking your beliefs but I'm just saying it's almost just as unfounded as the ideal that God created everything.

And, no, I'm not a theist; however I believe there is a "Wholeness"... It's just not sentient.
 
Last edited:
PsilocinProject said:
Prove to me that reality even exists, then we'll talk. :3

Edit:

Ever heard of the God of Gaps? It's an idea that we use God to fill the gaps in knowledge. What is lightning? We used to think it was just God on a menstrual rage.
Now, we know it's built up electricity in the clouds that causes heat and light.

Now, tell me what was the universe created by?
Yeh, you don't know.
To fill the gap: There's God. The explainer of the unexplainable.

But who are you to say that God doesn't exist? What viewpoint do you have that really says "Yeah. I know God isn't real." That's just pretentious to say that. You still have to put faith into the fact that there is no God. Not knocking your beliefs but I'm just saying it's almost just as unfounded as the ideal that God created everything.

And, no, I'm not a theist; however I believe there is a "Wholeness"... It's just not sentient.
Click to expand...

I don't understand Atheists all that much either, I don't really see much reason to believe deeply one way or the other but "I don't know" just doesn't seem acceptable to most people, things have to be decided. Why must everything have an explanation? what is so bad about temporary gaps in knowledge?

Why is "I don't know" such a hard thing for man to say?
 
Oh. These threads make me so sad. Why must people always debate science/religion? I'm just keeping to myself :|. Nothng I say is going to convince anyone of anything anyway. All that happens usually is that religious people feel attacked and scientific people feel like they're talking to a brick wall and everyone gets frustrated.

debate makes me sick inside :|
 
It's not debate, it's exploration.
 
InnerFlame00 said:
Oh. These threads make me so sad. Why must people always debate science/religion? I'm just keeping to myself :|. Nothng I say is going to convince anyone of anything anyway. All that happens usually is that religious people feel attacked and scientific people feel like they're talking to a brick wall and everyone gets frustrated.

debate makes me sick inside :|
Click to expand...
Chill.

It's all about friendly debate. No point in getting all emotionally worked-up when nobody has attacked anyone. Nobody should be attacked; even if they believe a pink elephant wearing a tu-tu danced across nothingness to accidentally create reality by crushing it all together. That's right. The elephant crushed together nothing to create something.
THAT'S MY BELIEF AND I'M STICKING TO IT
 
Blasphemer! the Elephant was blue!


Forgive him oh trunked one, he knows not what he says. :hail:
 
Satya said:
I think therefore I am.

Your move.
Click to expand...
One can only prove to themselves that they exist. You can't be positively sure about the reality around. For all you know, I could be an automated response.

This 'reality' could actually just be you in a deep, catatonic state- The reality you're creating due to loneliness.

"I think; therefor I am" only applies to "I". That's what that phrase is actually trying to say: Your consciousness is the only existence you can truly be sure of.

Your move.
 
Last edited:
PsilocinProject said:
One can only prove to themselves that they exist. You can't be positively sure about the reality around. For all you know, I could be an automated response.

This 'reality' could actually just be you in a deep, catatonic state- The reality you're creating due to loneliness.

"I think; therefor I am" only applies to "I". That's what that phrase is actually trying to say: Your consciousness is the only existence you can truly be sure of.

Your move.
Click to expand...

Postmodernist junkie!

That is stalemate. To prove that reality is objective outside of human perception would require a tool I simply do not have. It is just as easy to disprove a nihilistic delusion as it is to disprove God.

However, as the belief that all things are unreal would require the greatest number of assumptions and would make no difference to that which is observable, I can use Occam's Razor to substantiate my position as the most probable.
 
Satya said:
Postmodernist junkie!

That is stalemate. To prove that reality is objective outside of human perception would require a tool I simply do not have. It is just as easy to disprove a nihilistic delusion as it is to disprove God.

However, as the belief that all things are unreal would require the greatest number of assumptions and would make no difference to that which is observable, I can use Occam's Razor to substantiate my position as the most probable.
Click to expand...
Hey babe, just because coming to that conclusion requires more assumptions doesn't mean it isn't entirely plausible or possible.

My point in this argument is that the existence of God is just as plausible as the lack thereof; thus my stance of weak agnosticism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top