Evolution vs Creation, Youtube series

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by SpartanNinja

Just going to point a few things out...

1) Although the way Science works is that the more people you can convince of your view (with evidence of course, and usually sufficient evidence), just because "almost every scientist believes it" does not mean it is true (as shown with Newton and Gravity). If every scientist believed that... because 2+2=4 and 2x2=4 then that must mean 2/2=4 and 2-2=4... does it make it correct? No, obviously not (What scientist would believe that? But I'm using a simple example)...

Fact is that Science is not definite like Math, if every scientist believed in Creationism, and you still had all of your evidence, would you believe yourself or the scientists?

Your question is hard to answer because it's very Orwellian. If every scientist in our modern US society believed in creationism, then I would believe the scientists. If we were living in North Korea and Kim Jong Ill said that every scientist was a creationist, then I would know that is probably suspect. Creationists are welcome to present evidence for their beliefs. They are not, however, welcome to throw a fit and call for a witch hunt when their theory is proven wrong.

Newton did great work. When he was corrected, it wasn't as if Einstein discovered that instead of gravity it was magic (which is what the Creationists are saying). Newton was on the right path, and he did the best he could do considering he was dealing with the Model-T version of modern science.

This is nearly the equivalent of saying, "Most scientists used to be the Earth was flat!" Science even now is only a few hundred years old, and half that time was spent before modern technology was around, much less computers. Yet, it's still the best way to examine the world. When scientists are wrong these days, it's never some drastic change where they say, "We thought the world was ~13,700,000,000 years old, but it turns out that it's only 6,000 years old."

Abomination, I don't have a problem with you believing whatever you want to believe. From what I've seen, parents seem to tell their children, "the world is 6000 years old and humans lived with dinos" and they never seem ready to finish that statement and say, "But that's our faith. The experts have a completely different opinion." Most of that is probably due to the fact that many fundamentalists are not aware of how much evidence there is for evolution.

White Noise:
What do you want to know? It's all going to be answered here. List of Creationist Claims.

Skyknight, I'm not going to disagree that we can get snarky from time to time (just like the creationists). We're not the ones telling nearly all the scientists in the world that they're wrong. Scientists have mountains of evidence. They've done the work. Nothing proves it wrong. On the other side, we have people with no evidence for their claims. They want to claim science, but they don't want to play by the rules of science. They ask questions like "What about the Cambrian Explosion?" but they never seem to be willing to do a simple Google search to see if the scientists have a reasonable, plausible explanation. It's sad that there's such mistrust because even though every person in the world has the capacity to lie, scientists are one of the few groups in the world whose job description involves actively trying to prove themselves wrong for the sake of the harsh truth.

"An atheist's desire to be right"? I feel just as passionate about evolution as others feel about their religion. Evolution is the way I learn more about who I am and where I came from. And the best part is that it's the best candidate for being the truth, so I can base my personal discovery on facts rather than faith.

[SpartanNinja]

Originally Posted by Gulp

If every scientist in our modern US society believed in creationism, then I would believe the scientists.

So what you're saying is that the evidence doesn't matter to you? You wouldn't attempt to "revolutionize" the way scientists think? That all you are is a sheep?

I know that's not really what you intended to say...

Originally Posted by Gulp

Newton did great work. When he was corrected, it wasn't as if Einstein discovered that instead of gravity it was magic (which is what the Creationists are saying). Newton was on the right path, and he did the best he could do considering he was dealing with the Model-T version of modern science.

This is nearly the equivalent of saying, "Most scientists used to be the Earth was flat!" Science even now is only a few hundred years old, and half that time was spent before modern technology was around, much less computers. Yet, it's still the best way to examine the world. When scientists are wrong these days, it's never some drastic change where they say, "We thought the world was ~13,700,000,000 years old, but it turns out that it's only 6,000 years old."

I don't know where any Creationist said anything of this sort at all...

This is all true (except for the bolded part, that's more than questionable). Science is much more advanced than it has ever been, and is advancing exponentially. But this does not mean that Science cannot be wrong, usually scientists are very good at fixing mistakes in their theories quite quickly. Does this mean that it is impossible to have made a big mistake? No. To err is human. Like I pointed out in the remainder of my previous post, there are enough logical holes in the Theory of Evolution that call its basis into question, alongside every piece of evidence that corroborates it.

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by SpartanNinja

So what you're saying is that the evidence doesn't matter to you? You wouldn't attempt to "revolutionize" the way scientists think? That all you are is a sheep?

I know that's not really what you intended to say...

Before I start a revolution, I would assume that if I'm at odds with all the scientists in the world, then maybe it's ME that is incorrect. I don't have a degree in biology or evolution or any of the other related fields. Ultimately, I HAVE to trust the scientists. Considering I am not qualified to do the research, and I don't have access to the equipment or the resources, the best I can do is read what the scientists have published. If all the other scientists (who can financially gain from proving someone wrong) look at the evidence and conclude that they don't have an argument against it, then I am really in an awkward spot if I declare all of them wrong, without actually truly understanding their evidence on a deep, molecular level.

If they have evidence, then that's what matters.

Originally Posted by SpartanNinja

I don't know where any Creationist said anything of this sort at all...

This is all true (except for the bolded part, that's more than questionable). Science is much more advanced than it has ever been, and is advancing exponentially. But this does not mean that Science cannot be wrong, usually scientists are very good at fixing mistakes in their theories quite quickly. Does this mean that it is impossible to have made a big mistake? No. To err is human. Like I pointed out in the remainder of my previous post, there are enough logical holes in the Theory of Evolution that call its basis into question, alongside every piece of evidence that corroborates it.

My point about the bold part is that if it turns out that evolution is incorrect, then the the right answer is not going to be creationism. If anything it would be something like, it turns out that evolution is not driven by the genes but instead by the brain's adaptive capacity to affect the hypothalamus and regulate the body.

The problem with your hole hypothesis is that it doesn't actually amount to enough to propel that questioning forward. To start that forward progression ID/creationism proponents are going to need more than just pointing to areas of evolution that have not yet been funded for research. This is the problem with ID proponent Michael Behe (who was the main witness for the ID side in the Dover trial). A few years ago he made a list of 10 areas that evolution cannot explain. Within 2-3 years scientists had explained 5 of the 10 'unexplainables'. At this point, Behe should have said, "Wow, I was apparently wrong. Based on this, it's likely that the other 5 will eventually be explained." But he didn't.

It takes more than just pointing out areas that need to be researched to see if they follow the theory of evolution. You need to have actual positive irrefutable evidence for your position or you need to have evidence that contradicts evolution. The Theory of Evolution has been around for 150 years. At times it has been wrong about specific points, but the newly corrected aspect never contradicts evolution. It just clarifies it with better evidence.

[ProtoFury]

Originally Posted by Gulp

Newton did great work. When he was corrected, it wasn't as if Einstein discovered that instead of gravity it was magic (which is what the Creationists are saying).

No one is saying that magic did it. We believe a Creator set up the universe and all of its rules. However He chose to work in this universe, whether by creation or evolution, is another story. It's His universe, and He created the rules. That doesn't mean He always has to play by them--the greatest rule-breakage? The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Gulp

Yet, it's still the best way to examine the world.

I agree, as far as non-biased opinions go. However, it's nigh impossible to get an unbiased point of view on things. Scientists who are looking for evidence specifically for something will find the "evidence" to suport their claims. Creationist scientists looking for evidence of creation will find plenty of "evidence". Svcientists looking for evolutionary evidence will find their "evidence as well. Scientists looking for evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality will find their"evidence." Back in times of slavery, there was the popular braqnch of science called phrenology, which was used to "prove" white people were superior to black people based upon brain size and skull structure--and they had plenty of "evidence" as well.

Evidence that everyboy doesn't agree on can't be called evidence, although it often is, from a biased perspective. When someone takes evidence that everybody does agree on and attributes it to something, that's totally different. It's a fact that the galaxies move away from each other aster than the speed of light, and the only explanation science has to offer is that, somehow, new spac is being created between them that pushes them even faster than they're moving. Now if someone wants to attribute that solid fact as evidence of a Creator (as I do), I'm okay with that.

But "evidence" gathered from a biased perspective cannot be trustd, if everyone doesn't agree on it.

Originally Posted by Gulp

From what I've seen, parents seem to tell their children, "the world is 6000 years old and humans lived with dinos" and they never seem ready to finish that statement and say, "But that's our faith. The experts have a completely different opinion." Most of that is probably due to the fact that many fundamentalists are not aware of how much evidence there is for evolution.

One--not all experts agree on that. In fact, many top experts do not agree, but they are silenced by their peers, and the media (not just the "liberal media," but all media). In fact, a recent poll showed that around 2/3 of the world's leading scientists are religious in some way or another, in their beliefs and practices.

Two--while there is much evidence for evolution, there is also quite a lot that evolution doesn't explain. Darwin himself noted that if there was ever any inconsistancies in the branching out of species, his own theories would be incorrect. Look up the Precambrian Explosion--that's something Darwin also noted would be a problem if we couldn't sort it out. We still haven't been able to. There's not enough evidence in the fossil record to prove that evolution was responsible for it.

Originally Posted by Gulp

We're not the onestelling nearly all the scientists in the world that they're wrong. Scientists have mountains of evidence. They've done the work. Nothing proves it wrong. On the other side, we have people with no evidence for their claims. They want to claim science, but they don't want to play by the rules of science. They ask questions like "What about the Cambrian Explosion?" but they never seem to be willing to do a simple Google search to see if the scientists have a reasonable, plausible explanation. It's sad that there's such mistrust because even though every person in the world has the capacity to lie, scientists are one of the few groups in the world whose job description involves actively trying to prove themselves wrong for the sake of the harsh truth.

First of all, I was going to bold certain sections of this and answer them in order, and then ended up bolding most everything.

To begin with, not all scientists agree, so we're not telling "nearly all the scientists in the world" that they're wrong. See my earlier response. And in fact, just becuse someone is an evolutionist doesn't mean that they on't think there's a Creator behind all of it--so just saying someone's an evolutionist doesn't mean they aren't Christian, or another religion.

Scientists have mountains of evidence. They've done the work. Nothing proves it wrong." I don't think I need to say much here again, because it just goes to back to the whole "evidence you were trying to find" versus "evidence you attribute to something" point. And, some evidence is doctored and hand-picked--for instance, the "evidence" of similar origins in embryos.

Ernst Haeckle's drawings of embryonic development did not represent random samplings of embryonic development--rather, he hand-picked ones that looked similar to use as his "evidence." On top of that, there are some inconsistencies with his drawings that arise because he altered thm slightly to look even more similar. But then again, this is just me attempting not to argue with "no evience," as you so courteously put it.

Originally Posted by Gulp

"An atheist's desire to be right"? I feel just as passionate about evolution as others feel about their religion. Evolution is the way I learn more about who I am and where I came from. And the best part is that it's the best candidate for being the truth, so I can base my personal discovery on facts rather than faith.

If you are searching for the truth, the bet way to find oiut the truthis to look into both sides of the argument. If you're really dedicated to finding the truth, then I'm going to call you out. I challenge you to read the book The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel. It's not an evangelical book or a book dissuading people from evolution, but rather, the approach of one journalist (who was a firm evolutionist) who went around interviewing top creationist scientists to see heir point of view. I'm not trying o convert you, just seeing if you're willing to consider other sides of the argument. If you're really searching for the truth, what do you have to lose?

And I'll close by saying this--something that a friend once told me, when similar arguments came up.

If you're right, and evolution is actually what happened, and there is no Creator, no God, no Heaven or Hell, and this existance is all that there is--then none of this mattered anyway, I've live my life the way I chose to believe, and even though you'd be right, neither of us would be better or worse because of it. You'd gan nothing for it, and I'd lose nothing.

But if I'm right in believing in Jesus Christ, and the fact that however God chose to create life, he did--then you stand to lose everything.

I gues we'll just have to see who's right and who's wrong at the end.

[Hal0fan117]

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

If you're right, and evolution is actually what happened, and there is no Creator, no God, no Heaven or Hell, and this existance is all that there is--then none of this mattered anyway, I've live my life the way I chose to believe, and even though you'd be right, neither of us would be better or worse because of it. You'd gan nothing for it, and I'd lose nothing.

But if I'm right in believing in Jesus Christ, and the fact that however God chose to create life, he did--then you stand to lose everything.

I gues we'll just have to see who's right and who's wrong at the end.

I always hated this argument. It's just using fear to convince atheists and agnostics to join your faith. It's true: We do stand to lose everything. But I know that I wouldn't care, heaven or hell.

Consider this, either way your doomed to a life of boredom. the way I've heard hell described, it sounds alright. Your nerve endings burn away pretty quickly, you don't have any thoughts at all either. Sounds nice, eternal peace.

In heaven, your mind becomes one with the creator, you lose all sense of self. Sounds worse than hell, a death without dying.

I prefer an atheists belief, worm-food.

[White Noise]

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

Consider this, either way your doomed to a life of boredom. the way I've heard hell described, it sounds alright. Your nerve endings burn away pretty quickly, you don't have any thoughts at all either. Sounds nice, eternal peace.

In heaven, your mind becomes one with the creator, you lose all sense of self. Sounds worse than hell, a death without dying.

And where, exactly, have you heard this? Quite a few people would argue the "nerve endings burning away" and "becoming one with your creator" bits...

[Hal0fan117]

I've read the bible through once, but I don't claim to have gotten it from there, although I didn't see anything against it when reading.

The 2 main ideas for heaven I've heard in church and from my uuber christian friend are as follows.

Theory 1)
You go to heaven, and there are pearly gates, and dogs with wings flying around, and your family is there and you all play volleyball and eat cake, and transform into bubbles and God is there and he plays halo with you. Basically the "All Dogs go to Heaven" version.

Theory 2)
The other Heaven I've heard of is the one where you become one with God, infinite wisdom and insight. I wouldn't like this either. This would destroy all of my ideals and personal interests. I would literally become one with God, and become Him. I would lose my self-identity, and go on living in heaven as a husk. God's zombie-slave.

I've heard of several different hells.

Dante's inferno hell, where everybody has their own special place to be tortured. In Dantes Inferno, you have infinite knowledge of the past and future. Satan's joke though, is that in Hell you only even live in the present, so there is no past or future. hah so funny, lol. In other words, you wouldn't even know why your being tortured. This also applies to Purgatory, the afterlife version of "Time-out" for people who would get into heaven, after they sit and think about it. But if that's in hell, then they wouldn't know what to sit and think ABOUT. But Dante's Inferno was filled with holes, so I shouldn't even use it as an example.

I've heard that originally hell was a trench, and instead of a grave, people would throw anyone who broke the law into a hell when they died.

There's the Greek version, which is cool I think. I wouldn't have the coin to cross Styx though XD

And the version I'm talking about is the one where you sit in an eternal pit of fire and exist. But eventually, you would get used to the pain, just like in heaven, you would get used to having everything you wanted. It would lose it's meaning, and at that point you might as well be dead.

Sorry if this was written poorly, I'm sort of also on the phone XD

[White Noise]

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

Theory 1)
You go to heaven, and there are pearly gates, and dogs with wings flying around, and your family is there and you all play volleyball and eat cake, and transform into bubbles and God is there and he plays halo 'Scape with you. Basically the "All Dogs go to Heaven" version.

Fixed.

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

Theory 2)
The other Heaven I've heard of is the one where you become one with God, infinite wisdom and insight. I wouldn't like this either. This would destroy all of my ideals and personal interests. I would literally become one with God, and become Him. I would lose my self-identity, and go on living in heaven as a husk. God's zombie-slave.

I don't know where you heard this, but it sounds like Hinduism... definitely not Biblical.

The Bible is a tad vauge with its descriptions of heaven, I'm afraid. Some say that's because it's so great it's beyond our current level of comprehesion. I honestly don't know what it's supposed to be like for certain, and if I found out I wouldn't be able to tell you.

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

Dante's inferno hell, where everybody has their own special place to be tortured. In Dantes Inferno, you have infinite knowledge of the past and future. Satan's joke though, is that in Hell you only even live in the present, so there is no past or future. hah so funny, lol. In other words, you wouldn't even know why your being tortured. This also applies to Purgatory, the afterlife version of "Time-out" for people who would get into heaven, after they sit and think about it. But if that's in hell, then they wouldn't know what to sit and think ABOUT. But Dante's Inferno was filled with holes, so I shouldn't even use it as an example.

I've heard that originally hell was a trench, and instead of a grave, people would throw anyone who broke the law into a hell when they died.

There's the Greek version, which is cool I think. I wouldn't have the coin to cross Styx though XD

And the version I'm talking about is the one where you sit in an eternal pit of fire and exist. But eventually, you would get used to the pain, just like in heaven, you would get used to having everything you wanted. It would lose it's meaning, and at that point you might as well be dead.

As for the trench thing, it was compared to a trench where people threw their garbage and cults raped young children. Supposedly it's a place of eternal pain, suffering, and discust. The Dante's Inferno version, though, puts Satan in the position of torturer, which is wrong. He's supposed to be condemned there to suffer just like everybody else.

[Bonecrusher]

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

If you're right, and evolution is actually what happened, and there is no Creator, no God, no Heaven or Hell, and this existance is all that there is--then none of this mattered anyway, I've live my life the way I chose to believe, and even though you'd be right, neither of us would be better or worse because of it. You'd gan nothing for it, and I'd lose nothing.

But if I'm right in believing in Jesus Christ, and the fact that however God chose to create life, he did--then you stand to lose everything.

I gues we'll just have to see who's right and who's wrong at the end.

That is just a simplified version of Pascal's Wager.

Besides, why did I need to be taught to believe in God by other people? I should see God, like Moses or something. If he is ubiquitous it isn't like it is a problem for him.

But, as I read wikipedia,

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

I realized there are too many holes in both sides.

What I do think is twofold:
Regardless of whether or not you believe in God, it shouldn't/won't affect whether or not you get into heaven.
As a result of the previous statement, regardless of whether or not you believe in God, it shouldn't change the way you live your life.

Spoiler Alert!

I am a sucker for that wikipedia series. I also encourage you to read them all.