Help
This topic is locked
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=cSbDUCCjrE4
simple, yet well said
the longer version (70 min)
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=qR_z85O0P2M
Creation Vs Evolution
#322
stone monkey 
- I'm the baddest man alive and I don't plan to die...
-
- Group: (COPPA) Users Awaiting Moderatio
- Posts: 2,369
- Joined: 28-July 03
- Location:The Rainy City
Posted 30 January 2007 - 06:54 PM
Ivan the terrible;149518 said:
Specifically science/atheism Vs Creationism/religion but no seems to mention that they are quite compatible; one of my philosophy lecturers is a Catholic priest who just taught a course on evolution. Just thought i would mention it as this thread seems to become an exchange of ridicules
I was raised as a Catholic in the 70s, so I do know that, post-Vatican 2, the RC church went in for both Evolution and the Big Bang Theory in a big way - the logic was "God made the Universe and this does appear to be the way He chose to do it.." I suspect that the Jesuits had something to with that.
The problem is that if you want to read the OT as a literal document, which BTW, is a very modern way of doing it (the OT had previously been read as allegory for most of it's existence, until Enlightenment thinking led people to the conclusion that to believe in the utility of it's ideas, you actually had to believe in the literal truth of those ideas), you can't deal with anything that works as a more logically consistent way of explaining our presence in the universe. In that respect the two things absolutely do not go together.
If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. … So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants. Bertrand Russell
#323
D Man
- High Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 468
- Joined: 26-April 06
Posted 30 January 2007 - 07:02 PM
"the OT had previously been read as allegory for most of it's existence, until Enlightenment thinking led people to the conclusion that to believe in the utility of it's ideas, you actually had to believe in the literal truth of those ideas"
I didnt know that. Thanks mate.
I didnt know that. Thanks mate.
#324
stone monkey
- I'm the baddest man alive and I don't plan to die...
-
- Group: (COPPA) Users Awaiting Moderatio
- Posts: 2,369
- Joined: 28-July 03
- Location:The Rainy City
Posted 12 February 2007 - 02:41 PM
Just a passing thought here; as our fundamentalist brethren are so insistent on evolution being taught in science classes as "merely a theory and not proven" and their own dogma being taught alongside it with equal weighting, shouldn't their position actually be referred to as a "theory of god" with an equal amount of emphasis being placed on that being "merely a theory and not proven" too.
Or perhaps that kind of equality would be exactly what they don't want....
Or perhaps that kind of equality would be exactly what they don't want....
If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. … So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants. Bertrand Russell
#325
Cause
- Elder God
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 5,811
- Joined: 25-December 03
- Location:NYC
Posted 12 February 2007 - 03:44 PM
No I think we should put the theory of evolution up against the theory of gravity to show them that a theory is at top notch as it gets. Than we can put this up against the belief of god and compare. Religeon does not have what it takes to be a theory
#326 Guest_potsherds_*
Posted 12 February 2007 - 07:21 PM
Pffft! Cause, stop being so reasonable. You know that's a sign of your moral failings.
#328 Guest_potsherds_*
Posted 12 February 2007 - 10:37 PM
Oh damn. I'm just not very good at being an apologetic Christian, am I Cause. 
#331 Guest_potsherds_*
Posted 13 February 2007 - 12:45 PM
Obviously, if we're talking a scientific theory of god, this theory is indeed one which would be evaluated based on its merits as science.
#332
stone monkey
- I'm the baddest man alive and I don't plan to die...
-
- Group: (COPPA) Users Awaiting Moderatio
- Posts: 2,369
- Joined: 28-July 03
- Location:The Rainy City
Posted 13 February 2007 - 12:56 PM
It would have to be but I suspect that because religious belief tends to come from the point of view that holds God's existence as one of it's axioms, a truly scientific theory of God (Applied Theology, if you will) would actually be impossible to formulate.
Science allows (encourages, even) you to doubt everything, religion doesn't.
Science allows (encourages, even) you to doubt everything, religion doesn't.
If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. … So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants. Bertrand Russell
#333 Guest_Monk_*
Posted 13 February 2007 - 07:15 PM
Assertion: the non-existence of God can never be proven. The existence of evolution does not at all negate the existence of God. At most, it might alter the meaning of Christian religious texts, and require a new understanding of scripture and nature, and possibly alter theological beliefs such as Original Sin. Evolutionary theories which do not require God to be in the picture still are not enough to prove God's non-existence.
I'm also pretty sure that no one can prove the existence of God. I imagine people believe in the existence of God either because a) they were raised and taught that he exists they've had experiential encounters with God (or at least think they have) or c) their examination of the world leads them to believe that he exists.
People probably disbelieve in the existence of God for the same reasons: a) they were raised and taught that he does not exist
they've had no experiential encounters with him (or at least think they haven't) or c) their examination of the world leads them to believe that he doesn't exist.
I'll also say that at the moment I'm leaning more towards the idea that evolution is true. And, this changes very little for me. It doesn't change what is central to Christianity: Christ. I used to have this sort of fear about evolution that if it was true, Christianity was false. I think that the idea of evolution being true still makes me a little nervous just because it isn't what I've been taught, and because of what I wrote above: it requires change. But, if this change is shifting towards what is more true, then that's nothing to fear. If evolution is true, I don't see any change in how I live my life.
Not to mention, evolution doesn't necessarily mean God did not create the world. If I do end up believing in evolution, it will almost certainly be as a method by which God chose to create the world. I generally stay out of Evolution/Creation debates because for one thing I'm not a scientist and have little scientific training and because in the end it doesn't change a whole lot for me.
I'm also pretty sure that no one can prove the existence of God. I imagine people believe in the existence of God either because a) they were raised and taught that he exists
they've had experiential encounters with God (or at least think they have) or c) their examination of the world leads them to believe that he exists. People probably disbelieve in the existence of God for the same reasons: a) they were raised and taught that he does not exist
they've had no experiential encounters with him (or at least think they haven't) or c) their examination of the world leads them to believe that he doesn't exist.I'll also say that at the moment I'm leaning more towards the idea that evolution is true. And, this changes very little for me. It doesn't change what is central to Christianity: Christ. I used to have this sort of fear about evolution that if it was true, Christianity was false. I think that the idea of evolution being true still makes me a little nervous just because it isn't what I've been taught, and because of what I wrote above: it requires change. But, if this change is shifting towards what is more true, then that's nothing to fear. If evolution is true, I don't see any change in how I live my life.
Not to mention, evolution doesn't necessarily mean God did not create the world. If I do end up believing in evolution, it will almost certainly be as a method by which God chose to create the world. I generally stay out of Evolution/Creation debates because for one thing I'm not a scientist and have little scientific training and because in the end it doesn't change a whole lot for me.
#334
rlfcl
- High Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 365
- Joined: 22-July 04
Posted 13 February 2007 - 07:23 PM
i disbelieve in seven headed purple and green trolls living in the sewers under calgary, even though i've never been there. disbelieving in god due to lack of evidence is not the same as believing in god due to lack of evidence.
it's my view that to accept evolution, you must accept that it is based upon fact and empirical evidence, while neither of these exist for God. to accept evolution is to, at a basic level, refuse the idea of God and the lines of reasoning which would lead one to believe in God. so while you can believe in christ as a man, while believing in evolution; in my view, believing in evolution PLUS a supernatural entity is an excercise in doublethink.
it's my view that to accept evolution, you must accept that it is based upon fact and empirical evidence, while neither of these exist for God. to accept evolution is to, at a basic level, refuse the idea of God and the lines of reasoning which would lead one to believe in God. so while you can believe in christ as a man, while believing in evolution; in my view, believing in evolution PLUS a supernatural entity is an excercise in doublethink.
#335
caladanbrood
- Ugly on the Inside
-
- Group: Team Quick Ben
- Posts: 10,819
- Joined: 07-January 03
- Location:Manchester, UK
Posted 13 February 2007 - 07:38 PM
Not at all. The existence of god does not preclude the truth of evolution, and evolution does not disprove god.
It disproves creationism, which is an entirely different matter - not many religious folk are creationists:)
It disproves creationism, which is an entirely different matter - not many religious folk are creationists:)
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde; keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.
#337
caladanbrood
- Ugly on the Inside
-
- Group: Team Quick Ben
- Posts: 10,819
- Joined: 07-January 03
- Location:Manchester, UK
Posted 13 February 2007 - 07:48 PM
No. But I'm not deluded to the point where I think I'm actually right about any of this stuff
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde; keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.
#338
D Man
- High Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 468
- Joined: 26-April 06
Posted 13 February 2007 - 07:49 PM
I agree with rlfcl: you cant have your cake and eat it.
If you accept evolution you have to accept its basis: research and experiment. Thats what lead us there. Fundamentally, its falsification. Its coming up with an idea, a model, then trying to prove it wrong and connecting different pieces of informaiton to support it.
If you believe in a God then you accept a fundamentally unfalsifiable idea and invite the supernatural into the natural world. But you can make falsifiable ideas about the natural world, or not. Not both. Thats a contradiction.
So if you accept whatever science says but also believe in religious mythology and teachings then you have a problem, because the methods of investigation and thought behind that science are in direct contradiction with the methods of thinking behind religion. The two clearly can coexist in the same mind, but not without doublethinking yourself into a limbo between the two, or partitioning one off while you practice the other.
If you accept evolution you have to accept its basis: research and experiment. Thats what lead us there. Fundamentally, its falsification. Its coming up with an idea, a model, then trying to prove it wrong and connecting different pieces of informaiton to support it.
If you believe in a God then you accept a fundamentally unfalsifiable idea and invite the supernatural into the natural world. But you can make falsifiable ideas about the natural world, or not. Not both. Thats a contradiction.
So if you accept whatever science says but also believe in religious mythology and teachings then you have a problem, because the methods of investigation and thought behind that science are in direct contradiction with the methods of thinking behind religion. The two clearly can coexist in the same mind, but not without doublethinking yourself into a limbo between the two, or partitioning one off while you practice the other.
#339
Folken
- Never throw your life away so easily
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 2,908
- Joined: 11-September 04
- Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posted 13 February 2007 - 07:56 PM
http://www.thothweb.com/modules.php?name=G...s&vid_watch=153
have fun.
It's an hour long so watch it when you have some time.
have fun.
It's an hour long so watch it when you have some time.
<div align='center'>You must always strive to be the best, but you must never believe that you are - Juan Manuel Fangio</div>
#340 Guest_potsherds_*
Posted 13 February 2007 - 09:02 PM
Oh for the love of complex algebra...
Not another one.
Ok, who among us wants to dredge through that hour long --thing-- and debunk it? I say we roll for it.
Alternatively: "NOT IT!!!!"
Not it, not it, not it. No way. I browsed it. "Life's too complex for it NOT to be designed" Blah blah blah. Who designed the designer?!?!?! Gah! This gets sooooo old.
Jen, I can tell you it does NOT disprove evolution. Maybe it casts doubt, but probably not, judging by the one argument I recognized when skimming through it. Most 'arguments' against evolution are based on logically flawed ideas and a lack of any real understanding of the theory.
Not another one.
Ok, who among us wants to dredge through that hour long --thing-- and debunk it? I say we roll for it.
Alternatively: "NOT IT!!!!"
Not it, not it, not it. No way. I browsed it. "Life's too complex for it NOT to be designed" Blah blah blah. Who designed the designer?!?!?! Gah! This gets sooooo old.
Jen, I can tell you it does NOT disprove evolution. Maybe it casts doubt, but probably not, judging by the one argument I recognized when skimming through it. Most 'arguments' against evolution are based on logically flawed ideas and a lack of any real understanding of the theory.
