• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution Vs. Creation, why are threads so popular?

martha

Active Member
I have noticed of late that these threads are the most viewed and the most posted to. Why is that? It seems to my uneducated mind that the scientiststs among you have the most supposed evidence. I on the other hand can only view life from my limited education and my own evidence of a Creator. Experience, which I will not go into here, for it will sidetract the thread.

Perhaps my view is limited, and extremely simplistic, but I wonder if any would consider the following. .....God or an untitled being has a desire to create. This being begins to create within it's own abilities. The creation that is formed, begins to change it's form over time, to adapt to it's environment due to certain outside influences, that by the way , the original creator had also created. Now this creation has to change or evolve just to survive, and so it does. Why is that? What makes the smallest creature evolve to survive. We can't say that that does not happen, can we. No, it is a reality. Evolution is reality.

Is this not the basis upon which scientists begin to explore? Do they not sometimes create a thesis, or physical experiment? Have we not cloned life?

Why do you both seem to butt heads? Why can't you agree that something had originally had a thought of creation and then started it? Why do you think that our creator is any different than we are. We create, and our ideas and creations evolve, no? Science has given us many answers to the causes of certain diseases, and with time, has eradicated them. Each one moving and evolving, with study and experiment, to it's present reality. Why would some say that there is no intelligent thought behind it? Is that theory any more rediculous than a big bang. How can one think that a gigantic explosion of particles would father all of the awesome life forms on this planet and in the universe as we understand it at this moment. How can we be so adament?

I know that my presentation of this question is simplistic and perhaps even childish in it's wording. There is no doubt in my mind, that those of you with more on the ball than I , will be able to understand my question and respond to it.
I compliment you all for your conviction of your beliefs and your mastery of the scientific world. It must be so wonderful to understand all of those scientific formulas in regards to existance. I personally cannot conceive the existance of this universe without some form of intellegence behind it. Of course, my dears, this is only my humble and simplistic opinion.
What do you think. Do you scientists really believe that all of the wonderous things you behold are just happenstance?

Frankly I am hesitant to hit the submit new thread button, for I fear that some might ridicule me. On the other hand, WHAT THE HECK! Who knows, maybe some one will find a way to convince me of their beliefs, or perhaps confirm my own. Oh well, here goes nothing!
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
Martha your post was neither simple or childish in its veiws. I am a firm believer in evolution, but at no time have I ever said that the Divine had not started it all in motion with the intent for it to go the way it has. I believe that the two sides can co-exist, it is only the exact spark of beginning that most will debate to. While there are some that hold to Genesis word for word, I believe that evolution has so been shown that one cannot debate its existence without falling on literal translations of Genesis.

Your points are valid, have no fear of ever hitting that submit thread button dear. I think that what we call the "Big Bang" may have very well been the spark of the Divine that put everything in motion to begin with. Anything is possible.
 

almifkhar

Active Member
i think that these get the most attention simply becuase the question of the existance of god is the most important unanswered question that man has. man has wrestled with this question for many years and still cannot prove with out doubt that god does or does not exist. i think too that in reality if you are a believer in evolution or a believer in god that fact is that neither side can with out a doubt close the case on this the most ultimate question as of yet. i hate to say it cause a statement like this buggs me, but perhaps some questions are not for us to know for what ever reason. perhaps we are all thinking too small.
 

LoPar

Member
the question of the existance of god is the most important unanswered question that man has
I think there are two most important questions, the one listed above and....'Are there other intelligent life forms on other planets with an idea of a God figure?'
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Hello martha,

You asked:

>"Why can't you agree that something had originally had a thought of creation and then started it?"<

Simple, really.

I find no compelling evidence to suggest - "beyond a reasonable doubt" - that "something" was a "Creator" (or "instigator") of the cosmos.

I (as an atheist) offer no claims of "reason" or "purpose" to the cosmos, or to human existence (beyond what we may ascribe/ascertain for ourselves).

Claimants of a cosmological "Creator-something" typically seek to assign a specified set of "reasons/purpose" for both the cosmos, and for a personalized existence. It's very difficult to adequately or satisfactorily reconcile such divergent views.

[Note: It is my position that evolution (theory) does not preclude/dismiss the possibility of a "Creator-something". It's just that evolution or Big Bang (theory) does not REQUIRE a supernatural entity/cause as explanation for the cosmos (or human existence) - and therein, for many, lies the rub of contentious debate].

You asked:
>"Why do you think that our creator is any different than we are. We create, and our ideas and creations evolve, no? Science has given us many answers to the causes of certain diseases, and with time, has eradicated them. Each one moving and evolving, with study and experiment, to it's present reality. Why would some say that there is no intelligent thought behind it?"<

Some (like myself) would say that there's no compelling evidence to support/suggest that some supernatural "intelligence" impels science (or scientists) to discovery; or again, that such is necessary explanation of said same.

Is (a) god "proof" of human intelligence/evolution/discovery, or is human intelligence/evolution/discovery proof of a "god" - or perhaps (*gasp*)...neither?

>"Is that theory any more rediculous than a big bang. How can one think that a gigantic explosion of particles would father all of the awesome life forms on this planet and in the universe as we understand it at this moment. How can we be so adament?"<

Simple, really.

You pose an argument from incredulity (not to be "mean-spirited" in highlighting such - just illustrative).

In essence, you posit that you can not fathom an explanation than does not suggest a "Creator-something". You suggest that nonacceptance of such a position is equivalent to "adamance", or erstwhile inflexibility of perspective. Your stated position does not allow for the possibility of inaccuracy, error, or alternate explanation. Basically, by stating/inquiring "If NOT 'God', then what?" - the question itself assumes that "God" is an evidentiary/factually supported option/choice (which is, "debatable", as evidenced by this very forum) - and also presupposes an inferred "either/or" conclusion (of demonstrable proof).

In other words, if "science" can not (or will not) "disprove" a supernatural "cause" of the cosmos...THEN..."God" MUST be the "cause". Just because "science" may not provide absolute certitude in answer, this shouldn't suggest that "God" is the only remaining, or "best" answer to the "what" and "how" of the cosmos.

Big Bang theory (as far as cosmological origin explanations are concerned) is not "ridiculous" because there is compelling evidence to support it. A "God theory" (of creation/cosmological origins) certainly has many differing adherents, but such adherence is predicated upon the same rationale that you offer - as well as basic religious "faith". Whether or not adherence to unevidenced and unprovable (or ultimately unfalsifiable) concepts is "ridiculous", I leave for ascribed adherents to discern for themselves.

And let's be honest. Belief in a "god" (or His/it's/their works) is not a "theory". You either believe (with associative claims) that a "god(s)" (spirit/entity/force) exists, or you don't. Personal faith (and adherent dogmatic practice), in my understanding, is not "theoretical".


>"...I personally cannot conceive the existance of this universe without some form of intellegence behind it."<

Again, this is an argument (a qualified statement, actually) from incredulity, and...that's OK...as a testimony of faith. But...it's not scientific, nor does it falsify/challenge Big Bang theory in any way.

I suppose that you could say that I (and others) *can* conceive of the existence of the cosmos (and ourselves) absent an attributable "intelligence" of "supreme/divine/supernatural" causation. And perhaps...that's why threads like these are so popular. ;-)

>"What do you think. Do you scientists really believe that all of the wonderous things you behold are just happenstance?"<

I've shared what I think (as layperson, not "scientist"). I assure you that wonder of the cosmos is not the exclusive domain of religious adherents to a "god" or "intelligent design/reason/purpose". If you'll permit, I too share equal wonder and awe of the cosmos on a daily basis (being as I am an avid astronomer and general space exploration geek).

But what IF (no, really)...the cosmos IS "happenstance"? What then? I can assure that I am not directionless, or lacking in any ascribed reason or purpose in existence. How would such a realization or acceptance of a "happenstance" cosmos effect your perspective? Would existence truly have no "meaning" for you? MUST a "divine" someone/something else be veritable and true for you to wonder at the night sky, or validate your love for someone special? Is the cosmos truly "unfathomable" absent a god/intelligent instigator?

For the record, my participation within this forum is not to disabuse you of what you believe, or to persuade/convince you that my perspective is superior/preferable to your own. My "motivation" (such as it may be) is to question/confront "believers" as to the "why" of "what" they believe as/are claimed existential "truth(s)" (and secondarily, to clarify/debunk misconceptions/mischaracterizations of what evidential/scientific/empirical "facts" suggest as objective understanding/explanation of virtually anything otherwise attributed to supernatural cause/effect explanations/beliefs).
 

CaptainXeroid

Following Christ
martha said:
Evolution Vs. Creation, why are threads so popular?
IMHO, the reason is that many people on each 'side' see the debate as a 'zero sum game' in which the goal to to silence the other side by conclusively proving them wrong.:banghead3 Since belief in God is a matter of faith, neither side will achieve its goal, but that doesn't stop them from trying.
 

Pah

Uber all member
CaptainXeroid said:
IMHO, the reason is that many people on each 'side' see the debate as a 'zero sum game' in which the goal to to silence the other side by conclusively proving them wrong.:banghead3 Since belief in God is a matter of faith, neither side will achieve its goal, but that doesn't stop them from trying.
To me it is not the faith in and of itself expressed in these threads - it is the damage that will be done in our schools should those faiths be implemented as school policy. I will continue to rail about ignorance and pseudo science in the hopes that other readers might understand.
 

meogi

Well-Known Member
CaptainXeroid said:
This is exactly what I was talking about, and thank you for demonstrating what I was talking about.
I can't exactly be sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but in the event that you are: Under what circumstance do you credit things like ID and Creationism to not be ignorant and pseudo-scientific?

There is no 'zero-sum game'... it's either science or it isn't. Things that are not science should not be taught in public school science classes.
 

Hazel

Member
I think, as someone has already stated, they are so popular because the question of God's existence is so contraversial. I am a creationist. There is such a vast difference between evolution and creation that it is extremely difficult not to butt heads over the issue.

I want to encourage you to post if you feel like it. Believe me there are many people on the forums who will listen to what you say despite their views.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Draka said:
Martha your post was neither simple or childish in its veiws. I am a firm believer in evolution, but at no time have I ever said that the Divine had not started it all in motion with the intent for it to go the way it has. I believe that the two sides can co-exist, it is only the exact spark of beginning that most will debate to. While there are some that hold to Genesis word for word, I believe that evolution has so been shown that one cannot debate its existence without falling on literal translations of Genesis.

Your points are valid, have no fear of ever hitting that submit thread button dear. I think that what we call the "Big Bang" may have very well been the spark of the Divine that put everything in motion to begin with. Anything is possible.
Bravo! I couldn't possibly have said it better. I have no problem whatsoever with evolution, provided God is at the controls (which I believe He is). Let's face it... There is so much we don't understand about God's works and so much scientists have yet to discover. Someday, we will all come to realize that science and religion, creationism and evolution do not contradict each other -- at all! But until that time, I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over what some people see as some kind of faith-destroying dilemma.

Kathryn
 

Uncertaindrummer

Active Member
The arguments are popular because...

Well becasue people have this strange idea that they preclude one another. Darwin was a creationist. He didn't say eveolution created the universe (it couldn't have--nothing can come out of nothing) and yet people continue pitting them against each other. Silly, in my opinion.

I mean, sure I am a creationist. I don't see how an atheist can be an atheist (How did the universe start? Where did the first molecule come from? how did it create more out of nothing? Why bother living if life means nothing?), but I am also rather convinced that at some level, we (or at least some sort of animal or plant on Earth) have evolved. And as long as it is all attributed to God, to heck with this debate, dangit.
 

meogi

Well-Known Member
How did the universe start? Where did the first molecule come from? how did it create more out of nothing? Why bother living if life means nothing?
With arguments like these, it is a wonder anyone is atheist!
 

Uncertaindrummer

Active Member
meogi said:
With arguments like these, it is a wonder anyone is atheist!
Yeah cuz I was really doing a detailed analyisis of the atheits'theist argument.

Either way I bet you couldn't answer the questions.
 

meogi

Well-Known Member
Either way I bet you couldn't answer the questions.
If you want to start another thread about how an atheist can be an atheist, even with those arguments, go ahead. I will answer your questions there. ;)
 
First of all: martha, your thread is neither naive nor childish. You bring up some very good points.

I think these threads are so popular because we have a sizable minority in the United States who are trying to get religious beliefs and pseudoscience incorporated into public school science education. Whether a supernatural "something" created the universe, how, and whether anything can be known about this supernatural "something" is one matter; but whether these questions belong in the realm of science is another entirely.
 

Uncertaindrummer

Active Member
meogi said:
If you want to start another thread about how an atheist can be an atheist, even with those arguments, go ahead. I will answer your questions there. ;)
No I really don't have any will to. I was not trying to debunk atheism but simply say that while I don't get atheists, blah blah blah.

Thousands upon thousands of books have been written arguing agaisnt atheism, most of them far better at explaining the dilemna the atheist faces than I am. If you really care enough, go read one of them. If not, I don't care either, so we can just let it pass. :cool:
 

Uncertaindrummer

Active Member
Mr_Spinkles said:
First of all: martha, your thread is neither naive nor childish. You bring up some very good points.

I think these threads are so popular because we have a sizable minority in the United States who are trying to get religious beliefs and pseudoscience incorporated into public school science education. Whether a supernatural "something" created the universe, how, and whether anything can be known about this supernatural "something" is one matter; but whether these questions belong in the realm of science is another entirely.
I think they very well could. There is nothing unscientific about God as a theory. The truth is, there are TONS of theories out there, none of them provable. The existance of a God is definitely a viable argument. Now, in science class we shouldn't be saying there IS a God, only that there could be. But we also shouldn't be saying there can't be, and that we were all created by... uh... well, science doesn't really have an answer for that one.
 
Uncertaindrummer said:
I think they very well could. There is nothing unscientific about God as a theory.
Well, that depends. What is your "god" theory, and what falsifiable predictions does it make?

Uncertaindrummer said:
The existance of a God is definitely a viable argument. Now, in science class we shouldn't be saying there IS a God, only that there could be.
The Abrahamic god is not the only supernatural being that *could* exist. Should science teachers tell children that ghosts, spirits, Rah, Thor, Gaia, Brahman, demons, and vampires could exist, too?

Uncertaindrummer said:
But we also shouldn't be saying there can't be ...
I completely agree with you there.

Uncertaindrummer said:
... and that we were all created by... uh... well, science doesn't really have an answer for that one.
In my opinion, no answer is better than a made-up one.
 

meogi

Well-Known Member
Thousands upon thousands of books have been written arguing agaisnt atheism, most of them far better at explaining the dilemna the atheist faces than I am. If you really care enough, go read one of them.
If you can come up with even say... ones (I was gonna say tens... but... that seems a bit large to me too) of thousands of books that have been written arguing against atheism, I'd be quite, quite impressed. I do care, but... consider me ignorant. What titles should I be looking for? And does it really matter if I read them? (Are they not the same arguments?) I told you I'd answer your questions, just not in this thread (it'd be a little off topic).
I was not trying to debunk atheism but simply say that while I don't get atheists, blah blah blah.
If you're not trying to, why exactly are you boasting about this plethora of books? Especially since it's a a veiled argument of authority?
No I really don't have any will to.
Well now... isn't that convenient. :/
 
Top