Hovering messages

[El Duque]

Moff, isn't faith a believing in something without proof?

 

[CanadianSteve]

"Thirdly, "Creation science" is not a plausible idea in its common form. Because it relys on a divine force that cannot be proven to not exist, it is totally unscientific." The divine force cannot be proven NOT to exist either. Creation science is based on the observation of the world and seeing evidence of design in it. From there you extrapolate that there must have been a designer, an intelligence behind the design. Real science is based on observable, repeatable things. Evolution can't do this because you can't go back and recreate the beginning of life or the universe. It is based on speculation, starting with the presupposition that there is no God. Creation beliefs start with the presupposition that there is a God. One is not more "scientific" than the other. And those that believe in Creation simply think it is more plausible than the theory of evolution. I am just throwing out random thoughts here as I haven't done reading on this in a long while. Another point that comes to mind is that the first evolutionists didn't think the earth was billions of years old. They kept lengthening the age of the earth to suit their ideas of species evolving into other species, hoping that billions of years would somehow explain how it all happened. I believe in species evolving over time, such as horses being bigger, etc. but there is no credible evidence (IMO) that one species ever evolved into another.

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

El, there is probably a more technical explanation to it, but yeh, thats pretty much what id say faith is. As i have said, there is little/no proof that Jesus/God ever existed. The most ardent followers of christianity would struggle NOT to admit that. I just have faith that this is what happened.

Once again, Steve mate, you are putting up some good points. Its the sort of topic where none of us will ever be able to come to conclusion, or at least convince the other side that they are right.

Moffo

 

[Willow]

Steve: "Real science is based on observable, repeatable things. Evolution can't do this because you can't go back and recreate the beginning of life or the universe. It is based on speculation, starting with the presupposition that there is no God."

Actually, the splitting of the atom is a damn good example of re-creating the beginning of the universe. The universe also exists within... some feel that exploring the structure of small matter is more important than building bigger and better telescopes.

In any case, isnt God just speculation? I mean you may have no doubt but a great many people simply discard God as being the stuff that fairy tales are made of.

Lets all become Pagans... at least those folk knew how to look after nature.

 

[Gav-bt]

"Lets all become Pagans... at least those folk knew how to look after nature. "

Oh no they didn't! Most of Britain's forests disappeared during 'pagan times'.

 

[Willow]

Did they? Are you sure it wasnt the Frogs?

 

[Gav-bt]

Frogs? Do you mean those green things, or those amphibians from across the channel?

 

[Willow]

Just Norman and his mates. They were always the trouble makers.

 

[CanadianSteve]

MFC: "As i have said, there is little/no proof that Jesus/God ever existed. The most ardent followers of christianity would struggle NOT to admit that. I just have faith that this is what happened."

MFC, I differ with you here. There is a lot of written evidence that Jesus existed. There are many more copies of the 4 gospels than there are, say, of the writings of and about Julius Caesar. Yet no one doubts that Caesar existed. As well, Jesus was mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, who lived I believe in the first century AD.

Willow: You don't like the analogy of the bag of watch parts, but you don't say why. The point of it is that evolution is by definition a random process, as opposed to the concept of intelligent design. And the creation of the universe and life is a lot more intricate than putting a watch together. To creationists, then, it makes more sense that an inrelligent force, God, created the universe instead of a series of random occurrences with no intelligence behind it.

Here's another one for you. I have read this in more than one place so I believe it to be true. (I am paraphrasing the story from memory.) The scientist Isaac Newton, who you may have heard of, believed in creation. He had a model of the solar system on his desk at his university. A colleague who was an evolutionist came in, saw it, and said something like "what a magnificent model, who made it?" Newton replied, "no one." The other scientist said, "what do you mean no one made it!" and went on about how intricate and well-designed it was. Newton said something like how can you say that someone had to have made this model and yet believe that the actual universe, far more complex and amazing, was not made by a creator.

I don't want this most potentially heated of all topics to cause any terrible personal disagreements here. But I do want to make clear that I don't agree with the notion that Christians hold their beliefs based only on fairy tales or illogical thinking, and that only evolutionists and atheists hold the "scientific" truth.I feel there are reasoned arguments and evidence in favour of Creation, God's existence, the authenticity of the Bible, etc., and that intelligent people can hold this view of the world.

 

[Edwahu]

Biological evolution doesnt need to talk about the beginning of the universe or the initial creation of life and it never has aimed to, because they are outside of its scope.
Evolution deals with explaining the changes in species over time, not with the initial appearance of life but instead with how life can be transformed into new forms of life.

Cosmologists and physicists haveverified a theory to cover the birth of this universe, quantum cosmologists and physicists have a number of working models to cover the time prior to that, although none which would come close to been a verifed model.
The sudy into the initial creation of life on the earth is calledabiogenesis and biochemists are working in this field. Its a seperate endevour to evolutionary science and I dont see the need to confuse them.

I personally believe that more then ample evidence exists to validate Evolution as a scientific model. The hypothesis is tested at every archeological dig and geological survey site not to mention the thousands of hours of lab based experiments.

If you dont trust these sources or feel that they have been discredited, thats fine, but I dont see it that way. Thats not to say thatEvolution might not be proven wrong in the future or that I believe that it is an undeniable fact, no scientific model can be called that.

I have to say I dont have a problem with ideas of creationism in general, its only young earth creationism (i.e the earth is 6000 years old)or the literal interpretation on the Bible that I see as ridiculous.

I agree with Moff, we will never convince each other either way. There is plenty of information available from both sides and its up to everyone to come to their own conclusions or alternatively and probably more sensibly, not give rats about the whole thing.

 

[Willow]

CS: "Willow: You don't like the analogy of the bag of watch parts, but you don't say why. "
YesI did. Its in the same post.

"The scientist Isaac Newton, who you may have heard of, believed in creation..."
Ah yes Steve, I have heard of Sir Isaac.
It may have been because the apple falling on the head caused more damage than was first thought... but its far more likely he just a man of his time... back then, in the 1600s, the Church controlled everything.

But seeing you brought him up, did you know that he had his reputation tainted on more than one occassion for copying the work of other scientists? There's been plenty written that has cast Newton as an old coot who used to plagarise other people's work in an effort to keep himself in favour with his sponsor, the King.

Give me Descartes any day of the week... he did a far better job of describing the Universe than Newton ever did. Even Newton admitted to this. In all fairness though,Sir Isaac appears to have come up with the Theory of Gravity - the only problem I have is that he always had trouble expanding the theory into 'whys and hows'. Others have been far more successful then Newton in formulating solid opinion on this theory.

Btw Steve.. its not my intention to change your mind or make out that you believe in fairy tales. I'm sorry if thats how it came across. Just because I believe it to be fiction, doesnt mean that you have to.

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

lol, its one of the oldest arguments in the world. I could just imagine it, 5000 years ago, 5-10 people sitting on rocks, arguing the same thing. I guess some things will never change. The only thing that has changed is that we are now arguing it on a computer, instead of face to face, spear in one hand and a beer in the other

Moffo

 

[Willow]

" ...its one of the oldest arguments in the world. I could just imagine it, 5000 years ago..."
Firstly, its probably been the subject of debate for over 100,000 years... that being people first started burying their dead... just a few eons before Christianity and Islam came into being.

Moffo, it may be an old argument but the difference now is that we can debate with fear of being arrested or driven out of the village. It wasnt that long ago that such talk was verboten

I think Edwahu touched on it earlier regarding the movement in the USA to have evolution removed from the school cirriculum. It all has the stench of dark ages about it.

 

[CanadianSteve]

"Btw Steve.. its not my intention to change your mind or make out that you believe in fairy tales. I'm sorry if thats how it came across. Just because I believe it to be fiction, doesnt mean that you have to."

Fair enough Willow. I wasn't accusing you of that, just stating my view of things.

I'm not familiar with the stuff you said about Newton. I'm more interested in the point of the anecdote, that the universe is too complex to have been created by chance, that it required an intelligent designer.

 

[Willow]

Steve: No worries mate.
If you get a chance, read up on Descartes. I'm sure his quotes on religion and creationare all over the internet.