Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Something exploded out of nothing.

Wrong. The theory states that the same amount of energy has been constant since "before" the big bang.

This continued for billions of years, against ALL odds and logical thought.

Back this statement up. Also, many events we don't understand tend to go against ALL odds and logical thought. We see no patterns in quantum mechanics but that still exists as fact.

Nothing created anything, it's all random chance.

Chance plays a role but evolution occurs based on environmental conditions, which is not chance.

Evolution has withstood EVERY piece of evidence thrown against it. The only valid arguments against the theory goes into areas that science has no current knowledge or understanding of. Another great aspect of science is its dynamic nature. As of now, scientists gather as much evidence as possible and make conclusions of what happened based on that evidence. If new evidence is presented the conclusions will change until a testable theory is formed and that is perfected from thousands of scientific tests.

[Pie]

Therefore, tw, you must logically extend that god 'cares' nothing for humanity, since 'caring' is an anthropomorphization.

So, why do we care about god?

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by Pie

Therefore, tw, you must logically extend that god 'cares' nothing for humanity, since 'caring' is an anthropomorphization.

So, why do we care about god?

People don't care about God, they care about themselves. Think about it; would any religious person you know consider their god to be important if it didn't care about what they did? There is always either a reward or a penalty associated with behavior or mindset, and without any sort of interaction or consequence from belief the god is pointless. The common concept of an acceptable god even rules out non-earthly concerns. God never needs help with something beyond what humans can do, god never gets angry at things beyond human actions.

It is no surprise that a more advanced view of what God should be leads to logical inconsistencies. It is religion, it never makes any sense.

[regular.joe]

Logical inconsistencies can also be found in observations of experiments conducted at the subatomic level, what we call quantum mechanics. I don't hear many physisists saying "It's just science, it never makes any sense."

My point is this, there are many things in religion that do make sense, and yes there are logical inconsistencies. These also exist in the scientific world as we are able to observe it. Using one or the other to discount one or the other is useless.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

Logical inconsistencies can also be found in observations of experiments conducted at the subatomic level, what we call quantum mechanics. I don't hear many physisists saying "It's just science, it never makes any sense."

Not true. Quantum mechanics can present confusing data and follow rules we don't fully understand. The interactions that go on may be counterintuitive but the discipline "makes sense"; scientists perform experiments, gather the data, and make theories and conclusions based on that data. Religion on the other hand makes theories and conclusions, fabricates data, and then forbid or decry experiments.

Suppose a scientist and a religious person were to observe something that appeared to be illogical, such as a chunk of metal hovering above the ground. The religious person could solve the illogical situation by concluding God did it, a conclusion that does not require evidence or a lot of effort. The scientist would have to study the situation in depth to see if it actually conformed to the principles he/she already knew about, just applied in an unexpected way. Failing that, they could add another principle to their knowledge. Just because seemingly illogical situations can occur in the world does not mean that everything is illogical, or that nothing can be illogical.

Perhaps I should explain my statement in more depth: "It is religion, it never makes any sense." A logically valid argument can be made for religion, just not a "sound" argument. The issue is that the premises of arguments for religion are either untrue, unproven, or impossible to prove. This is why religions are based on "faith", if anyone could provide sound premises to a logically valid argument for religion then it would be a science.

[regular.joe]

From a religious stand point, saving my everlasting soul from damnation is a fairly sound premise. I guess this only counts if I have a soul.

Quantum mechanics does present confusing data, there most certainly are rules that we don't understand. The observations of quantum mechanics are by nature counter intuitive. What we are left with are not concrete answers to the the nature of the universe. We are only left with our interpretation of the observations. In my mind we are left with a deeper appreciation of our lack of understanding, even as we think we understand more. It can and should be humbling.

Richard Feynman described it best when he compared our knowledge of the universe to a game of chess. We may know the rules, how the pieces move. But to watch two masters play we will be lost to the depth of their moves. What seems logical to one of them, will seem counter intuitive to me the novice on the side line. I liked that analogy.

We have such sophisticated notions of who we are in these modern ages. Based on mountains of scientific observation. We use this mountain of observation and our sophisticated notion of who we think we are to disprove the existence of God? I think this is laughable.

I do think I should qualify a few things now. I am only participating in this discussion honestly. I do not think that anyone should believe the same things I believe. Nor do I feel compelled to save anyones, including my own everlasting soul. (the lawyer on my shoulder made me put that last statement in)

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

From a religious stand point, saving my everlasting soul from damnation is a fairly sound premise. I guess this only counts if I have a soul.

I think you are confusing a conclusion with a premise. A premise is basically where you set up the ground rules for the argument. To steal an example, we have the argument: "Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal." The premises of the argument is that Socrates is a man, and that all men are mortal. This argument is both valid and sound.

Your conclusion is basically "Religion will save my everlasting soul from damnation." This requires many premises, one of which would be "I have an everlasting soul." Even one premise being false leads to the entire argument being unsound, and your conclusion is based on many extremely questionable premises.

Originally Posted by regular.joe

We have such sophisticated notions of who we are in these modern ages. Based on mountains of scientific observation. We use this mountain of observation and our sophisticated notion of who we think we are to disprove the existence of God? I think this is laughable.

Science does not try to disprove the existence of God; scientists are acutely aware of their lack of all-encompassing data. Science simply requires a logical reason or empirical observation to support a belief. What puts religion and science at odds is that science is so darn SUCCESSFUL! Look around you at all the things you are thankful for, and even those you don't usually consider. Your family is healthy, you have plenty of food and shelter, and you have all these nifty gadgets. None of that came about by someone kneeling and praying to a god, or beamed down like mana from heaven. All of that, every single scrap, came from people going out, looking at the world, and figuring out how it works so it would work for them. The process is painstaking and difficult but it WORKS. What has religion given us?

[regular.joe]

My conclusion is certainly not that religion will save my everlasting soul, please read me exactly. I stand by the statement that from a religious stand point, saving my everlasting soul is a sound place to start.

You are correct, science does not try to disprove God, people use science to back up their own beliefs. I don't think science supports the belief that God does not exist. I think that the sciences support the existence rather than the non-existence of God. That's just me. I can use science just as well as a non believer. I don't think scientific observation passes judgement on the matter. We do.

Your question about what religion has given us, is a good question. Religion is not God. I think there are some people within various religions who are, and aspire to be Godly, humble, unselfish, of service to their fellow man, quiet men and women. This is probably the best thing that religion has given us. The more important question in my mind, is what has God given us. To my thinking He has given us the desire, and ability to go out and make the nifty devices and live in the world by the various methods that we have, within the various social contexts that we have in the world.

I don't think that religion itself is a bad thing, though I'm not a religious man. Wars that people ascribe to religion more often then not have been power struggles. Power struggles between cultures, economies, societies. Religion has really been a motivating factor, or cover for the real reasons that wars have been fought.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

My conclusion is certainly not that religion will save my everlasting soul, please read me exactly. I stand by the statement that from a religious stand point, saving my everlasting soul is a sound place to start.

The idea behind making a premise is to choose something that the reader of the argument will agree is sound. Starting from a point too far into the argument where the reader does not agree with the premises does not mean the reader just has to respect your beliefs, it means you have a poorly crafted, unsound argument. As I said, your statement requires its own argument since it is not self-evident, and those premises should not be formed from whole cloth.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Only if you're selling something, or trying to convert someone, not if you're just stating personal beliefs and don't care if anyone agrees. Not everyone is combative.

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

The idea behind making a premise is to choose something that the reader of the argument will agree is sound. Starting from a point too far into the argument where the reader does not agree with the premises does not mean the reader just has to respect your beliefs, it means you have a poorly crafted, unsound argument. As I said, your statement requires its own argument since it is not self-evident, and those premises should not be formed from whole cloth.

I can only choose topics, put forth premises that you the reader think are sound?

I'm not trying to lead you anywhere. I'm not putting forth arguments that my premises will logically lead you to change your conclusions about anything.

I was thinking this was a friendly discussion of our beliefs and ideas about science and God. I understand that these ideas, beliefs and conclusions may be different based on life experiences.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Only if you're selling something, or trying to convert someone, not if you're just stating personal beliefs and don't care if anyone agrees. Not everyone is combative.

Or if you are trying to have a meaningful discussion. If you just want to post statements without soliciting replies you can do that with yourself and Notepad. Give yourself a high five whenever it is appropriate.

Originally Posted by regular.joe

I'm not trying to lead you anywhere. I'm not putting forth arguments that my premises will logically lead you to change your conclusions about anything.

I was thinking this was a friendly discussion of our beliefs and ideas about science and God.

Exactly. A discussion implies an exchange of ideas, informal debate, "consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc." You seem to think everyone showing up and making statements which are not open to exploration is a discussion. I don't think that leads to a rewarding thread; there is nothing to gain other than kudos from those who agree with you.

Besides, joining a conversation just to give your opinion and then getting defensive when questioned is a little rude. How would you like it if someone gave you their opinion and then was like "I don't have to justify myself to you!" when you asked them about it? What are you here for then, to talk at me rather than with me?

[regular.joe]

I don't see where we have strayed from the informal debate yet. I've justified myself just fine up til now, I'm not sure if you are still talking about me. You must be, since the majority of posts up til now have been ours. In short, I'm confused as to why you are posting this. Is there something you would like me to justify?

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

Is there something you would like me to justify?

No, the discussion began and continues to be about logic and your misunderstanding of premises IMO. I am not asking you to justify your beliefs, I am simply pointing out that it appears you don't understand *how* to justify beliefs. Part of the motivation for this is less selfish than you may first assume; this misunderstanding means that you don't understand how I justify my own beliefs. After all, you likened quantum mechanics to your own tenuous suppositions about your eternal soul.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

Besides, joining a conversation just to give your opinion and then getting defensive when questioned is a little rude. How would you like it if someone gave you their opinion and then was like "I don't have to justify myself to you!" when you asked them about it? What are you here for then, to talk at me rather than with me?

HA! :bites tongue

not at you, Joe. Just in general.