Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Where did you get the quote from Nick? Cause it's very true, makes alot of sence.


For Example; If we were in some kind of matrix, where our realty is really just an advanced computer simulation. Therefore, what we believe, whether is be that there is some supreme being that created us, or evidence of evolution, is meaningless, as it's is just a result of the computer simulation.

Ergo, the only way to truly be right is just to not believe in anything...

but then that’s just boring.

[Black Heart]

lol jay kay, theres nothing in evolution as hocus pocus as the supposed details of noahs ark.

the fact is there aren't 2 options. currently theres 2 popular ideas. and to be totally honest both suck. theres thousands if not millions of 'options'

to beleive in one or the other simply because theres nothing that seems better is just as silly as beleiving the idea thats least appealing. i really fail to see why people cling to an idea as an answer that in itself isn't any answer at all. a pro for evolution is the fact it can continue to develop. religion has an enormous flaw. People have ALWAYS had a religion... only recently did it become what we call christianity, and most of its traditions and rules are borrowed from previously popular religions, which errodes its authenticity.

[- NicK -]

Where did you get the quote from Nick?

I wrote it myself. I've wanted to write what I believe for a long time but it's not the easiest thing to put together. My previous post is perhaps an over-simplification of what has been plaguing my mind for years. The phrase "all fact is faith" came up in one of the frequent discussions I have with my sister (she being a Christian) and I found it explained my view brilliantly.

[laurasaur]

JayKay here again. Forgive the length of this. I'm basically replying to all the posts made in response to mine.

I see most of you tend to the mindset that "nothing is provable, therefore I'll sit on the fence and believe nothing". But after discussion with friends who hold that same view, the only people who hold that view are those who deep down have already accepted that evolution is most probably true (even if they deny it). This is because only by belief in "life by chance" can one really have the security in the believe that "it doesn't matter what we believe, or if we have a belief at all".

Aargh the creation=religion and evolution=science statement really gets me worked up. You cannot claim that I am trying to discredit practical science when I try to discredit the hypothesis of evolution. Practical workable science (eg "man to the moon" science) is not by any means dependant on whether or not evolution took place. Indeed, as well as there being ardent creationists on the very team that sent the first men to the moon, the fact that Newton, Faraday, Mendel, Pasteur to name a very few, plus nobel prize winners, thousands of science PhD holders, prominent researchers etc are and were all ardent creationists shows that idea to be a great fallacy. [And remember, Evolution is not a new idea, it was well known during the time of even Newton, and even more popular during the lives of the latter three; Darwin himself took over his Grandfather in his work on the idea. Mendel published his still standing findings on genetics the same time as Darwin published his Origin of species, but remained an ardent creationist. It by no means affected Mendel's very scientific work.Infact Mendel's work proved some of Darwin's original "wishful thinking" theories very wrong.]

For sure, evolution is the hypothesis of the world's beginnings using any possibility that excludes the supernatural. This falls under the catergory of Naturalism , but because one can't presume that there is probably no supernatural (unless we have already presumed evolution to be fact), it is in fact excluding a possibility. Creation is scientific (but not Naturalistic), if it holds up to testable science, which creationists believe it does.

I clearly stated that I know neither theory is provable or unprovable. But we can still make a judgement based on probabilities. Hell, I can't even prove that I just picked my nose (it may have been an illusion) and yet based on probabilities based on evidence I'll choose to believe that I just did. Every thing we choose as being reality is based on probabilities. And as evolution is so unsubstantiated and so full of irrefutable holes and impossibilities (regardless of mans uttermost wishes to the contrary), so I believe that we aren't here by chance and therefore finding out the "Truth" does matter to me.

And no, so far there are no other viable alternatives. No other religion can be held up against workable science. Eg, based on probabilities, we are fairly certain the earth isn't held up on the back of elephants, so that rules out Hinduism. Believe it or not , the fossil record, the inability of genes to increase their information pool, the variation within animal kinds yet distinct seperation between animal kinds (both now and in the fossil record), and the gealogic record fit in very well with what we would expect to find if the world was created less than 10,000 years ago, followed by a cataclysmic event such as a world wide covering of water and its after events. But I seriously doubt anyone on this forum has bothered to read a single book of note that has given any evidence either for this, or indeed, even against evolution (and there are plenty). I have studied both sides, so I guess that gives me an advantage.

For sure, I agree that the normal traditional image of the Christian church is just like any other religion. It pisses me off no end. But I can also guarantee that your understanding as to what a Christian believes is very different to what I believe. Claiming that what I believe now is merely based on a collective bunch of ancient religions, is a statement made out of huge assumptions, on which we could debate forever. For now I'll have to just disagree with you, and leave it at that.

What Christianity (as you percieve it) may or may not have to offer you is completely irrelevant to what may or may not be true. If we found out that there was a supernatural being whose will it was for us to all participate in gay orgies every 5 past 3 each Sunday afternoon, and that in 15 years and 2 days he was going to personally chop our left balls off in retaliation, our preferences to the contrary would do nothing to alter what the truth is.

No one had anything to say about my refutations re the intermediary fish etc. It was ignored and instead statements were made to the effect that it wasn't worth discussing as either "we already know that evolution is true" or "we can't possibly know the truth so why bother". It would seem that the evidence is less important than our preferences.

[Arnifix]

Fuck this thread. Creationism and modern christianity is bullshit. So sorry, but it's true.

Anybody who believes otherwise, let's see what you believe when you don't end up in heaven.

This entire thread should stfu and die before I self combust.

[Steady]

No other religion can be held up against workable science. Eg, based on probabilities, we are fairly certain the earth isn't held up on the back of elephants, so that rules out Hinduism.

Yeah...umm they probably don't believe that anymore ay, or do Christians still think the world is flat? And the only reason Christianity can (doubtfully) hold up against workable science is because they change they're beliefs all the time, ie the sun doesn't orbit the earth. It's not very nice to belittle other religions so you can put Christianity on a pedestal. I don't actually think how everything was created is that important. I mean if someone found out for sure and could prove it that would be awesome. But I'm not one for mere speculation.

And the only thing I've got faith in is myself and the people I trust. And the fact that EA is gonna be cheap with Battlefield 2142  :cussing:

[Zarkov]

Please excuse me if something along these lines has already be posted, I never did read through this whole thread.

That's a "I give up it's too tough view."

People should have the humility to admit it when they don't understand something.

And the courage to live with the uncertainty that it brings.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

No other religion can be held up against workable science. Eg, based on probabilities, we are fairly certain the earth isn't held up on the back of elephants, so that rules out Hinduism.

How do you know the world isn't flat and held up my elephants? Have you even been in a space shuttle and looked at the Earth from space, or sailed around the planet in a boat?

I don't think so, which means that you can only belive the would is round by what you read in books and what people tell you.

Which means you can't prove anything, and you just have to live with the fact that realty may be different then what perceive, and what we believe could be wrong.

[Zarkov]

Space Monkeys are perfect examples of evolution imo.

[Arnifix]

IIRC, and I'm severely paraphrasing here, but a few years back the Dali Lama made what was possibly the most awesome comment on the various different religions. It went something along the lines of...

We believe this. It works for us. If we die and get up to heaven and there's a big Buddha sitting there laughing at us, we'll believe in Buddha. We know we're man enough to admit our mistakes.

Once again, I can't remember, I'm fairly certain it was the Dali Lama who said it. Fucking great quote though.

No other religion can be held up against workable science

You got that one a bit wrong. No religion can be held up against workable science. Water to wine? 2 of every animal in the ark? Parting a sea? Sounds a little like Lord of the Rings, but with less hobbits. Actually, no, Tolkien would never write about a ship that contains 2 of every kind of animal, because that's so freaking impossible it would require suicide.

The theory of evolution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Jesus, you can go to Antarctica and watch the penguins evolve if you want.

I see no reason why christianity, or any other religion, cant coexist peacefully with evolution. Then again, I also don't think that creationism or scientology should be taught in schools, so maybe I'm just a fucking rebel.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get a spoon out of the bottom of an ice cream container full of jelly.

[Arnifix]

Space Monkeys are perfect examples of evolution imo.

Put a monkey in space and his skin begins to exude a spacesuit-like material. We can't show you intermediary steps, because if the monkey doesn't secrete the suit, he explodes.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

You got that one a bit wrong. No religion can be held up against workable science. Water to wine? 2 of every animal in the ark? Parting a sea? Sounds a little like Lord of the Rings, but with less hobbits. Actually, no, Tolkien would never write about a ship that contains 2 of every kind of animal, because that's so freaking impossible it would require suicide.

I believe the bible shouldn't be taken at face value, therefore here's what I think happened concerning the ark.

The people at the time didn't know how big the world was, let alone that it was round, to them, all their world was as far as the horizon. Therefore, A flood which would of covered all their land that they could see, would in effect be covering their entire known world.

The same thing applies to the animals, all the animals on Earth wouldn't be in the area where Noah lived, so he would only know of a few of them, which he could fit on the ark, but to him, it would be all the animals he knew existed.

He would of told this to his children, and they would of told it to there children, and so the story begins.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get a spoon out of the bottom of an ice cream container full of jelly.

There is no spoon.

[Arnifix]

There is no spoon.

There fucking is! I can see it through the jelly!

And yeah, that makes sense, there's enough evidence of a catastophic flood in the area surrounding the mediterranian sea, that's for sure.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Space Monkeys are perfect examples of evolution imo.

As I have mentioned before, us space monkeys, and all monkeys for that matter, are not part of your "evolution".

We are from the planet Primus, in the Omicron sector.

We are systematically invading your planet, while the ground monkeys are infiltrating the highest levels of your countries governments, we space monkey direct them from aboard our powerful command ships hidden behind your planets moon.

The time is near when you humans shall bow down to us monkeys.

[Arnifix]

Well I'm a monkeys uncle.

I, for one, welcome our new simian mind-controlling overlords.

[Black Heart]

its ironic that the geological evidence that proves a flood for noahs story, is loved and adored by creationist-christians, and then those same methods and sciences are whole heartedly refuted when they show the earth to be well and truly over 10,000 years old.

Jay Kay you also allude we're all disbeleivers because we don't want to be accountable in the afterlife. Which is sad, because the inverse is that you choose your beleif out of fear. Which revitalises my ascertation that if god does exist, it is the embodiment of the most powerful evil to ever have existed and has created us solely as slaves and prisoners of biology. A true enemy of freedom. and satan was absolutely correct to oppose him and is a hero to all humanity and all life. Satan must have rebelled knowing full well that he could not suceed, but chose to do what was truly noble.

[Zarkov]

That's a "I give up it's too tough view."

People should have the humility to admit it when they don't understand something.

And the courage to live with the uncertainty that it brings.

.

[Arnifix]

its ironic that the geological evidence that proves a flood for noahs story, is loved and adored by creationist-christians, and then those same methods and sciences are whole heartedly refuted when they show the earth to be well and truly over 10,000 years old.

Jay Kay you also allude we're all disbeleivers because we don't want to be accountable in the afterlife. Which is sad, because the inverse is that you choose your beleif out of fear. Which revitalises my ascertation that if god does exist, it is the embodiment of the most powerful evil to ever have existed and has created us solely as slaves and prisoners of biology. A true enemy of freedom. and satan was absolutely correct to oppose him and is a hero to all humanity and all life. Satan must have rebelled knowing full well that he could not suceed, but chose to do what was truly noble.

Creationism has a tendancy to do ignore the evidence. Rather good way to describe the entire belief really.

And "god" can hold me accountable for whatever he likes. If he proves to be real, then I'll tip my hat, say "Ok, you win," and have a beer with him. Though I feel that when I die I'm far more likely to be greeted by a smiling Buddha who's laughing as the christians run around going "OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT!"

Seriously, live for life, not so you can attain eternal peace in the afterworld. I'm all for having faith, but I like to have faith in shit that EXISTS!

[dirtyape]

Jaykay, if you do not agree with my posts then please respond to them factually and with references so that we may investigate your concerns. No one wants to hear personal views or opinions as that would surely lead to arguements.

We are not children and are quite capable of drawing our own conclusions based upoun the material at hand.

Oh, and keep it concise. A entire page of writing will generally go unread.

[Steady]

Creationism has a tendancy to do ignore the evidence. Rather good way to describe the entire belief really.

And "god" can hold me accountable for whatever he likes. If he proves to be real, then I'll tip my hat, say "Ok, you win," and have a beer with him. Though I feel that when I die I'm far more likely to be greeted by a smiling Buddha who's laughing as the christians run around going "OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT!"

Seriously, live for life, not so you can attain eternal peace in the afterworld. I'm all for having faith, but I like to have faith in shit that EXISTS!

Exactly bro, theres no point arguing over whos got the biggest, toughest, imaginary friend.  :disappoin

[laurasaur]

Fuck this thread. Creationism and modern christianity is bullshit. So sorry, but it's true.

Nice line of logic Arnifix!?! Remember, your understanding of creationism and christianity is that its bullshit; And without further research and the willingness to investigate further, you no doiubt will always thinks so.

Steady, you need to update your creationist vs evolution arguments. Even the most prominent ardent defendants of evolution admit that the "Christians tried to defend the flat earth, and then the earth centred solar system" argument is actually incorrect. In more than one place in the Bible the earth is referred to by the Hebrew word for "sphere"!
In addition, Galileo himself, who first suggested that the sun was the centre of the solar system was a creationist. And regardless, evolution is a very changeable and plastic theory. Infact, just about every idea Darwin came up with have since been debunked by evolutionists, hence the modern term of "neo-darwinism". Evolutionists are constantly correcting themselves; therefore you have to allow creationists to as well.

And yes, I can belittle other religions if they make less sense, or fail when tested with testable science. You are belittling Christianity for crying out loud because in your opinion it doesn't stack up.

How do you know the world isn't flat and held up my elephants? Have you even been in a space shuttle and looked at the Earth from space, or sailed around the planet in a boat?

Space monkey you are correct; however it all comes down to probability. If from the evidence it is very very very probable that I picked my nose, then I make an informed assumption. You can't prove that the food you eat for dinner tonight isn't infact disguised shit. But you make an informed assumption, and live by it by eating your dinner. And so it is with the earth held up by elephants idea. So you see, if you come across evidence that destroys the probability of evolution, and greatly strengthens that of supernatural creation, saying "we can't prove anything" is merely a cop out because you can't be bothered. What I believe may be wrong, but I doubt it at this stage, just as at this stage you doubt your dinner is disguised shit.

Arnifix, when I say testable to workable science, unfortunately you have to leave out the specific supernatural events, as obviously they fall outside the laws of science! Notice that these events clearly state that these were supernatural events; if however they were depicted as natural events, then they would fail against testable science. In addition, an ocean liner sized floating device with the dimensions clearly outlined in Genesis would contain more than enough space for a pair of each animal kind, with plenty of space for food storage etc. But I doubt you have ever looked into the detail. Studies have been done showing the feasibility of the event, if your interested.

Even taking into account the largest of dinosaurs (although theres no reason as to why they didn't take non-adults of any or all of these species-heh you hadn't thought of that had you), there would have been plently of space for pairs of all known animal kinds. Remember, only one example pair of each type of animal would have been necessary, For example, one dog type, which would have (at the time) enough information in its gene pool to be the original ancestor of all dog/fox/wolf types. (Notice, this wouldn't entail subsequent "evolution", but merely a sorting and isolation of the information already contained within those original genes, by means of natural selection, breeding, etc, which are not the one and the same as "evolution". Surprise me someone by telling me why.)

And no, you can't watch penquins evolve if you want to. You can often see species change within the boundaries of their current gene pool, but you will not be able to give me an example of any animal or organism that has increased its genetic information (which is what evolution relies on).

I agree, there was no way the majority of the people living 4000 years ago new that the world was round. Which make the Bibles depiction of the earth as spherical all the more amazing.

Noah had 100 years to collect the animals by the way. But again, you didn't bother to even read the account did you. Your also presuming he had no technology, which if you take into account their supremely more intelligent brains and long lives, (a result a far kinder enviroment and far less degenerate gene pool as suggested in the account) they must have done. Western civilisation has gone from tribal communities to the present in 1100 years, with relatively short lives, and the use of well less than 100% of our brains! Imagine how much faster we would have got to this point if we were still using 100% of our brains, and lived 500 plus years! You assume they were primitive people, based on your evolutionary assumptions. I don't.

Black heart, the interpretation of the evidence whicht you have been exposed to (and which most people are exposed to) leads you to believe that the idea of a young earth has been refuted. But again, have you bothered to get a book out that shows the discrepencies and unexplainable problems for the evolutionary model that are found in the gealogical evidence? And most of it comes down to ones interpretation of the evidence. For example, the effect of a little flow of water over a very long time, generally has the same effect as a lot of water over a very little amount of time. And this can be applied to gealogic evidence all over the world. But evolutionists will presume the first possibility is true because they have already presumed that the world is billions of years old. I am currently reading a fantastic book by well recognized paleantologist Duane Gish which although mainly covers the fossil evidence, inevitably covers geological evidence as well.

And no the inverse of my allusion (which you kind of exaggerate, but anyway) does not need to be true. Sure, many people investigate the Bible out of a rational fear of the possibility of an afterlife. But once you have a good understanding of what the Bible actually entails, the overwhelming feeling I have is one of loyalty to my maker, in response to his love shown to me. NOTE: I do not expect you to understand this, as you have currently have an outsiders understanding of my relationship. So I expect your cynicsm and sarcasm.

In fact it is the by the very freedom that God has given us that we us to keep ourselves seperate from him. We have the freedom to stay loyal to him, although he could have taken that freedom from us by "programming" us like robots to be loyal to him. He even gave his non earthly lifeforms (Satan etc) the freedom to rebel from him if they so chose. It is this very "godlike" freedom of freewill that makes us "in his image", as it states in Genesis.

Arnifix, on the contrary, I propose that Evolutionism has a tendancy to ignore the evidence. The original refutations I made in my first post are examples of evolutionists choosing to ignore certain evidence and put it into the too hard basket. I asure you, intelligent creation scientists realise they are up against very many intelligent evolutionists, and therefore go out of the way to investigate evolutionary theory and evidence. However most evolutionists take for granted that evolution is true because "the majority believes it to be true", and therefore don't even have a good understanding of what creation scientists believe. But "what the majority believes" has never been a good reason to base your beliefs on! Go ask any minority political party supporter if they have been proven wrong because their party didn't win the election!

[laurasaur]

Oops sorry dirtyape I was writing when you posted your suggestions. Its hard to reply concisely, and yet contain all the logic necessary to reply to everyone else (it is after all me vs everyone else). I presume that if anyone is really interested, they will read the whole post; if not, then I'm not really directing my arguments to them.

I would far prefer to debate the evidence with you, rather than debate with everyone else as to whether or not  creation is even worth debating, which is all I have been doing so far!

[Simon_NZ]

awwww man

I have to read all that and then shoot it down?

Sigh

[KiLL3r]

god you write so much i cant even be bothered reading it all

[BerG]

Even I cant be bothered reading all that.

Summarize please.