+- Online Degrees and CLEP and DSST Exam Prep Discussion (https://www.degreeforum.net/mybb)
+-- Forum: Miscellaneous (https://www.degreeforum.net/mybb/Forum-Miscellaneous)
+--- Forum: Off Topic (https://www.degreeforum.net/mybb/Forum-Off-Topic)
+--- Thread: Evolution? (/Thread-Evolution)
Evolution? - Leebo - 06-21-2014
If I remember correctly, there isn't a "place" where the big bang occurred. Since the big bang was the expansion of all space, it occurred "everywhere." Every point in the universe appears to be the center from its own perspective, because everything else is expanding away from it.
Evolution? - swf - 09-08-2014
https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation/
Evolution Vs. God Movie - YouTube
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271648691/watch-the-creationism-vs-evolution-debate-bill-nye-and-ken-ham
Evolution? - LaterBloomer - 09-08-2014
Do you believe in Zeus and Chaos? Do you believe in Atum and Num? Do you believe in no entity and qi? As Richard Dawkins said, "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
As an agnostic, I am not sure whether there is or isn't a god, pantheon of gods, whatever, and pretty much don't care. And I don't care if others choose to believe. That's where agnostics differ, I suppose. You've never seen an army fighting under a question mark, but you have seen them fighting under a cross, the Star of David, the Star and Crescent, and even the hammer and sickle. (The irony of two oposing armies fighting under the same symbol isn't lost on me.)
What I think is that the biblical creationist theory espoused by some is no more valid than what the Mayans, ancient Greeks, native Americans or any other group believed. If I cared to "believe" in any theory of creation, it would be that proposed by scientists, but I don't get heartburn if you want to believe something else.
Evolution? - mrs.b - 09-10-2014
As to the original question: I don't know.
As to the evolved debate...
Westerner; 169447 Wrote:Because nobody was there, both need to be taken by faith.
That statement speaks to me on all sorts of levels. There is no definitive proof that God (or Allah, or any other diety) absolutely, positively, with no uncertainty remaining, created Heaven and Earth. Similarly, there is no absolute and definitive proof that God does not and never did exist, and Big Bang followed by evolution and all the other scientific theories came into being without direction. Both require a leap of faith to some degree.
Leebo Wrote:Do you accept that it's possible for police to solve crimes they didn't witness, or do you reject the entire idea as having to be accepted on faith?
I believe police (and scientists) do their best and get it right most of the time. I've also seen ample stories of the wrong person being imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. Just like there are scientific theories held true for long periods of time, but as our ability to observe, measure, calculate, and deduce has advanced, so too must our assumptions. See Spontaneous Generation as just one example.
Sometimes, science gets it wrong even though all the evidence at the moment demonstrates truth. Theories are held true so long as they cannot be proven untrue. Sometimes, technology simply has not yet advanced enough to make the necessary observations to highlight the fallacy. Also, there is always a chance for miscalculation because we're all human and prone to mistakes, whether from ignorance or arrogance.
That goes for both arguments, for and against religion in all its forms.
cookderosa Wrote:Also, science and religion fit nicely together absent the presumption of certainty. I'm sure the ant in my yard feels certain he's seen the whole world.
Cook, you're my hero.
publius2k4 Wrote:Ah, but that is the problem of it...religion purports certainty. By contrast, the scientific community thrives on uncertainty. In religion, if you say "god did it" then you have no reason to seek the truth any further. In science, the idea is to change the phrase from "we don't know" to "we know."
Correction: Some individuals who claim to be religious purport certainty, in that they claim a complete and total understanding of all that God is and can do, and function as if our finite understanding can define Him. Plenty more realize our understanding is infinitesimal of the world and universe around us, and even smaller in comparison to a being that could create it all. The same can be said for scientists; there are plenty that readily admit that their understanding is limited due to limited ability to observe, measure, and so forth. But, there are more than a few that will claim they know something as absolute fact, whether through arrogance or not having seen otherwise. Both brands of certainty muddy our perceptions. Judging religion based upon vocal zealots is a mistake, just like disregarding science and all it offers because some people have certain ideas that might feel disagreeable is a mistake.
Evolution? - publius2k4 - 09-10-2014
mrs.b Wrote:Correction: Some individuals who claim to be religious purport certainty, in that they claim a complete and total understanding of all that God is and can do, and function as if our finite understanding can define Him. Plenty more realize our understanding is infinitesimal of the world and universe around us, and even smaller in comparison to a being that could create it all. The same can be said for scientists; there are plenty that readily admit that their understanding is limited due to limited ability to observe, measure, and so forth. But, there are more than a few that will claim they know something as absolute fact, whether through arrogance or not having seen otherwise. Both brands of certainty muddy our perceptions. Judging religion based upon vocal zealots is a mistake, just like disregarding science and all it offers because some people have certain ideas that might feel disagreeable is a mistake.
No, no....I didn't say that religious individuals purport certainty. I said that religion (primarily christianity, for the sake of the creation debate) purports certainty. Genesis clearly explains that the universe was created in 7 days. That is a statement of certainty.
Now, some would say that the creation story is simply a metaphor. But, this leaves a bit of a dilemma, because now we have to go about the business of figuring out what parts of the bible are metaphorical, and what parts are literal. For example,when the bible says in Leviticus 25:44-46;
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."
Is the bible speaking literally, or metaphorically?
Or how about John 15:7, when Jesus says "If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you" Is Jesus talking in metaphor here when he says he will do whatever you want him to do?
Evolution? - mrs.b - 09-11-2014
publius2k4 Wrote:No, no....I didn't say that religious individuals purport certainty. I said that religion (primarily christianity, for the sake of the creation debate) purports certainty. Genesis clearly explains that the universe was created in 7 days. That is a statement of certainty.
Now, some would say that the creation story is simply a metaphor. But, this leaves a bit of a dilemma, because now we have to go about the business of figuring out what parts of the bible are metaphorical, and what parts are literal.
That is the issue. You cannot lump all Christians into the same category. Some Christians believe the Bible must be taken literally, passage for passage. Some Christians believe some parts of the Bible are written in metaphor, while other parts are literal. Some Christians believe that certain parts applied until the coming of Christ, then the older passages became merely historical record but no longer guideline, where there is then further split as to whether the passages pertaining to after Christ's coming should be taken literally or metaphorically. Some Christians believe the entire Bible is metaphor and should be used as guidelines for behavior only. Still other Christians believe in Christ but feel the Bible has been translated so many times and books hand-picked by men centuries after their writing with other parts discarded that the Bible is not all that useful at this point. Then there are several combinations of the above. The broad label of Christian merely means someone believes in God and Christ. The methods of pursuing that belief differ radically after that point.
Just because it makes the counter-argument neater and tidier does not make such generalizations right, and that is where debates such as this break down. There are atheists that do not believe in God (hence, atheist) but believe in aliens and the possibility that an extraterrestrial host seeded the Earth. Using the same generalization logic, would I be accurate in assuming that all atheists believe aliens brought life to Earth? Not remotely.
The actual point to my statement, however, was that not all Christians claim to know everything (i.e., "I know God did it, so will look no further"). Just like not all atheist scientists claim to know everything. There are minority sections of each group that claim that brand of omnipotence, but it does not mean all do. Insisting that is the case will merely turn the others away that do not fit the generalization, because pursuing the conversation further is like asking someone to justify their deeply-held beliefs to someone likely to just make fun in the end.
Evolution? - swf - 09-11-2014
Because nobody was there, both need to be taken by faith. -Westerner
Good Point!
Evolution? - swf - 09-11-2014
[quote=Leebo]You managed to take something this topic supposedly isn't about and phrase it in such a way that I feel obligated to comment on it. The Big Bang is not taken on faith. It is the consequence of the fact that we can currently observe that the universe is expanding. If you look at where everything is moving and move backwards from there, you end up with a situation where everything was concentrated in a single point. There is a great deal of evidence that can be observed today to support this model of the universe. That's the opposite of faith. Do you accept that it's possible for police to solve crimes they didn't witness, or do you reject the entire idea as having to be accepted on faith?
The evolutionist and the creationist both say that they have scientific evidence to prove their world view - would they not be considered beliefs? you must choose to believe one or the other? Just wondering!
Evolution? - publius2k4 - 09-11-2014
mrs.b Wrote:That is the issue. You cannot lump all Christians into the same category. Some Christians believe the Bible must be taken literally, passage for passage. Some Christians believe some parts of the Bible are written in metaphor, while other parts are literal. Some Christians believe that certain parts applied until the coming of Christ, then the older passages became merely historical record but no longer guideline, where there is then further split as to whether the passages pertaining to after Christ's coming should be taken literally or metaphorically. Some Christians believe the entire Bible is metaphor and should be used as guidelines for behavior only. Still other Christians believe in Christ but feel the Bible has been translated so many times and books hand-picked by men centuries after their writing with other parts discarded that the Bible is not all that useful at this point. Then there are several combinations of the above. The broad label of Christian merely means someone believes in God and Christ. The methods of pursuing that belief differ radically after that point.
But this is exactly my point; If a person cannot make heads or tails of whether or not the bible is even relevant, how can a person base their entire belief system on it? And if so many groups of people are claiming different beliefs about what the bible says, how do you know who to believe?
mrs.b Wrote:Just because it makes the counter-argument neater and tidier does not make such generalizations right, and that is where debates such as this break down. There are atheists that do not believe in God (hence, atheist) but believe in aliens and the possibility that an extraterrestrial host seeded the Earth. Using the same generalization logic, would I be accurate in assuming that all atheists believe aliens brought life to Earth? Not remotely.
I disagree. I think a generalized group label is justified.
If all atheists shared the same sacred text, as all Christians seem to do (plus or minus a book or two, depending on whether or not you consider mormons to be christians.....which, they believe in God and Christ, so they clearly fit into your definition) and the common sacred text shared among atheists made a claim about abiogenesis being extraterrestrial in origin, then I believe that a generalized group label would be justified in that case as well.
Of course, these are just my opinions. I do enjoy a lively debate, but please don't think me as being disrespectful or making fun of your beliefs.
Evolution? - publius2k4 - 09-11-2014
swf Wrote:The evolutionist and the creationist both say that they have scientific evidence to prove their world view - would they not be considered beliefs? you must choose to believe one or the other? Just wondering!
No.....belief is not a choice. You cannot choose to believe anything. Belief is the point you come to after reviewing whatever evidence you have available and coming to your own conclusion.