Evolution v. Creationism: Just a long-winded debate?

[alissowack]

I will always live by therory in which I have proven time and time again to be right. If I can't show evidence of its exsistance then the chances of it being real is still yet to be determined. We can prove evolution, we can't prove the exsistance of God or any deity for that matter. A lot of stories in the bible including the story of Christ himself have been found in other ancient texts pre-dated hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, yet we still claim that all material in the Bible is true and original. Most theologians would say that just because hard evidence isn't proven doesn't mean that it isn't true. Yet there is no other therory out in the world said to be fact without any hard evidence as proof except for religion. Who base all of their understanding on life and life as we know it on faith, which is something that can never be proven, yet instead must be believed by the one who made the claim in order for it to be true. No other field of study can even attempt to use that method except for religion, not because it's right, but because it is a time honored tradition that will never be questioned by the masses out of fear of possibly going to hell in the event that one actually exists. So I can become a pastor or priest, open a church, and I can tell the embers of the church that it was okay to snort coke, because God said so. If I can manipulate text in order to support my claim, people who believe in God would not question it because I can back up my personal claim with a book that has been changed and re-written multiple times.

The issue isn't so much about the evidence the evolution presents. It is whether it is right for some who accept evolution as true to exclude any other theories and such that gives an alternate reason for the origin of life? If is fair to scientist that may have theories that may not get heard?

 

[alissowack]

Evolution's only objective, is to show that there might not be a God with emphasis on might, since it has never ever ever attempted to prove God doesn't exist.

It don't think the theory itself is the culprit. It's the people who support it. Things evolve and we can't deny it. It is when people use it as a means to explain "everything", even down to God's Existence, that it becomes a problem. It's to the point that even evolution is much a religion than Christianity. It's just, in the person's view, surrounded by science.

 

[Skeratch]

Exactly. Without the help, or commanding or work, of our dear God. Come on now, don't respond if you're not going to keep it 100!

So in your mind science = seeking explanations for the world that don't involve God?

Science doesn't preclude the existence of God and scientific inquiry can neither prove or disprove the existence and handiwork of God. Just because something has a natural explanation does not mean that your God is not responsible for this natural occurrence.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

It is when people use it as a means to explain "everything", even down to God's Existence, that it becomes a problem.

Why is it a problem?

 

[kevmic]

FACT: Jesus Christ existed.

FACT: God sent Jesus Christ to earth *through a virgin womb, never before exposed to sperm* to show his power, that he knew no man no wizard no witch no sorcerer no Devil no Satan no magician, would ever be able to match throughout the World's future.

You're doing exactly what I mentioned. You put fact in front of your statement with absolutley no evidence to back up the claim. There is no proof what so ever about a woman who gave birth to a child without being exposed to sperm. Nor is there proof of angels coming down from heaven to speak to 3 wise men to tell the that the son of God has been born to a virgin mother.Fact:Christmas has absolutley nothing to do with December 25th or the birth of Christ, yet we treat it like a Christian holiday.

 

[alissowack]

Why is it a problem?

Take into consideration the scientists that just might have an alternate theory and not just the religious fanatics. Science can shut that down and have a certain right to that. What if the reasons why other theories are unheard of has nothing to do with it being "unscientific"?

 

[ThaChozenWun]

I don't understand how there is even a debate on this.

It's absolutely clear that evolution has taken place. I think a proper argument against Creationism would rather be the Big Bang Theory.

If there weren't Creationists then Evolution would be considered a law and not a theory by now, however it's still up in the air on when the organisms that we evolved from came into existence and where the rocks, water, gases, organisms etc.. came from at the moment of the big bang.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Take into consideration the scientists that just might have an alternate theory and not just the religious fanatics. Science can shut that down and have a certain right to that. What if the reasons why other theories are unheard of has nothing to do with it being "unscientific"?

I don't really understand this post, especially how it relates to "using it to explain everything, including god's existence"

 

[ThaChozenWun]

Take into consideration the scientists that just might have an alternate theory and not just the religious fanatics. Science can shut that down and have a certain right to that. What if the reasons why other theories are unheard of has nothing to do with it being "unscientific"?

They don't just shut down every other theory. Never have with anything and never will. Science is constantly adding and subtracting to laws and theories because it's all based on research.

Evolution is pretty solid though, so if someone would come up and say anything that doesn't involve creatures evolving physically then yes you would have to take it with a grain of salt but they won't automatically discount it unless it's easily not provable.

 

[alissowack]

I don't really understand this post, especially how it relates to "using it to explain everything, including god's existence"

 

[alissowack]

They don't just shut down every other theory. Never have with anything and never will. Science is constantly adding and subtracting to laws and theories because it's all based on research.

Evolution is pretty solid though, so if someone would come up and say anything that doesn't involve creatures evolving physically then yes you would have to take it with a grain of salt but they won't automatically discount it unless it's easily not provable.

Maybe in the spirit of good science it is done correctly, but what is really going on? Just like in the spirit of religion, it's suppose to gives us a better understanding of ourselves, but what is really going on? It's a lot more obvious now to see the foolishness of religious people, but we hardly see what dirty deeds that scientists may do.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

I mean it to say that there are those who treat evolution as something more than just facts. Evolution has become a way of life; a religion to some. Those people are not willing to accept anything else just as Creationists are not willing to do so. Both parties are not looking at science or religion in the light it is suppose to be in and it becomes a debate that goes nowhere.

If evolution is a fact, why wouldn't it become a way of life?

Especially if evolution is the next level of understanding about humanities origins. Before it was religion and its teaching because we didn't know, we didn't have the means to understand the world around us. Then came science to slowly study our world and make conclusions based on the data and widened our understanding. If science is the successor to religion, it seems only natural it would be the new 'religion'. And I still am not understanding the problem.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

Maybe in the spirit of good science it is done correctly, but what is really going on? Just like in the spirit of religion, it's suppose to gives us a better understanding of ourselves, but what is really going on? It's a lot more obvious now to see the foolishness of religious people, but we hardly see what dirty deeds that scientists may do.

So you think science gives out bad information and just about every scientist agrees with it because they have issues with religion?

 

[alissowack]

If evolution is a fact, why wouldn't it become a way of life?

Especially if evolution is the next level of understanding about humanities origins. Before it was religion and its teaching because we didn't know, we didn't have the means to understand the world around us. Then came science to slowly study our world and make conclusions based on the data and widened our understanding. If science is the successor to religion, it seems only natural it would be the new 'religion'. And I still am not understanding the problem.

Take into consideration the Intelligent Design theory. Since it made it's debut, the Evolutionists (and I'm not saying scientists) were seeing it as an attempt by the Creationists to put religion back in schools and Creationists saw it as a powerplay to disprove evolution as a whole and get Evolutionists to feel like God is the only choice for why things exists...none of which sound like a constuctive reason to accept or reject it. The problem I was addressing is the pre-existing views we have and how they influence how we debate the issues of evolution and creationism.

 

[alissowack]

So you think science gives out bad information and just about every scientist agrees with it because they have issues with religion?

I'm not questioning science...just the people in it. Who knows though? There's the good and the bad. I just think scientists, if they wanted to, can get away with a lot of malpractice because science has been established as a non-biased institution and under that umbrella, even the most "sinful" scientists can be seen as a saint to the world.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

I'm not questioning science...just the people in it. Who knows though? There's the good and the bad. I just think scientists, if they wanted to, can get away with a lot of malpractice because science has been established as a non-biased institution and under that umbrella, even the most "sinful" scientists can be seen as a saint to the world.

Right, there's no doubt some don't do it right. That's usually because of someone paying them though. But when it happens you usually see the other thousands of experts in those fields saying it's wrong.
It would be very hard for a scientist to say something wrong on purpose and not be called out by so many others in that same field.

That's why I choose science over religion. In religion if people don't agree you have hundreds of different "types" of Christians, Muslims, w/e. And every group has followers believing it's right and thats fine amongst the holy people.

In science if a theory is wrong, then no one accepts it or changes it. They may present different theories, but nothing is put out and accepted until mostly everyone agrees and the findings all match up.

 

[alissowack]

Right, there's no doubt some don't do it right. That's usually because of someone paying them though. But when it happens you usually see the other thousands of experts in those fields saying it's wrong.

It would be very hard for a scientist to say something wrong on purpose and not be called out by so many others in that same field.

That's why I choose science over religion. In religion if people don't agree you have hundreds of different "types" of Christians, Muslims, w/e. And every group has followers believing it's right and thats fine amongst the holy people.

In science if a theory is wrong, then no one accepts it or changes it. They may present different theories, but nothing is put out and accepted until mostly everyone agrees and the findings all match up.

Oh, you got "experts" in religion, too. But I see your point.

 

[kevmic]

There is absolute evidence of the claim, although I have no control over you refusing to believe the evidences and facts which have existed for thousands of years.

There is absolute evidence of the claim, although I have no control over you refusing to believe the evidences and facts which have existed for thousands of years.

Not true. Please if you have a link or a book beside the Bible to back that claim I would go and look it up for myself. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong. But to have someone tell me I just have to believe and have faith is not proof of a claim, nor is quoting verses from a book that's been re-written by multiple men with alterior motives at the time of making certain changes.

 

[janklow]

It's absolutely clear that evolution has taken place. I think a proper argument against Creationism would rather be the Big Bang Theory.

eh, then we just say "maybe god created the Big Bang" and go from there