Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

#1
turambar85

turambar85

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
1,636
Likes
1,810
#1
It seems as if the religious discussion thread has rocked back and forth between discussion primarily theological (or atheological!) issues and with the scientific validity of evolution and its deranged :crazy: cousin creationism. It might be nice to separate the two a bit, especially as theology doesn't stand or fall on evolutionary theory.

A quick starter: does anybody actually buy the "natural processes couldn't have caused life, as you can't take inorganic matter and create living matter" argument? It is very similar in claims to the "you cant have consciousness without a soul' argument ... or at least they both seem equally silly to me.
 
#2
#2
turambar85 said:
It seems as if the religious discussion thread has rocked back and forth between discussion primarily theological (or atheological!) issues and with the scientific validity of evolution and its deranged :crazy: cousin creationism. It might be nice to separate the two a bit, especially as theology doesn't stand or fall on evolutionary theory.

A quick starter: does anybody actually buy the "natural processes couldn't have caused life, as you can't take inorganic matter and create living matter" argument? It is very similar in claims to the "you cant have consciousness without a soul' argument ... or at least they both seem equally silly to me.
Click to expand...

So you've loaded the debate automatically by stating"deranged :crazy: cousin creationism."

Here you go! Take this hand full of nothing I'm giving you and then send it back to me when it becomes something. Which ones supposed to be derainged?:crazy:
 
#3
#3
Oldvol75 said:
So you've loaded the debate automatically by stating"deranged :crazy: cousin creationism."

Here you go! Take this hand full of nothing I'm giving you and then send it back to me when it becomes something. Which ones supposed to be derainged?:crazy:
Click to expand...

LoL - it is only loading the debate if there is one! And, pray, where does anybody respectable say something came from nothing? And, also, please research the difference in cosmology and evolution. Evolution is on Earth, Cosmology is forming Earth.

One...

Two...

Three...

DUH!
 
#4
#4
turambar85 said:
LoL - it is only loading the debate if there is one! And, pray, where does anybody respectable say something came from nothing? And, also, please research the difference in cosmology and evolution. Evolution is on Earth, Cosmology is forming Earth.

One...

Two...

Three...

DUH!
Click to expand...

Duh! Without Cosmology forming the earth, you couldn't ever come up with evolution! In simplier terms, you can't have one without the other! You're trying to split hairs there my friend!
 
#5
#5
the Universe, including our little blue-green planet, is billions of years old, at least by whatever limited standard the human mind can grasp as the passage of time.
 
#6
#6
Oldvol75 said:
Duh! Without Cosmology forming the earth, you couldn't ever come up with evolution! In simplier terms, you can't have one without the other! You're trying to split hairs there my friend!
Click to expand...

Can we have cancer without the formation of the Earth? No. Do we say, then, that science should abandon cancer research until it has an adequate cosmology? If you say so, lol.

The two areas of research are wholly distinct. One tries to determine how life got to where it is, the other tries to see how inorganic matter got to be where it is. Many Christians buy evolutionary theory. Many agnostics do as well. This is because ignorance in one subject shouldn't keep us from trying to understand another. Hell, for that matter, ignorance in a subject shouldn't keep us from investigating that subject! It is the very impetus for doing so.

The universe could have formed in any number of ways, from any number of space gods, to any number of natural causes. None of them are substitute questions or answers, though, for how life developed...or even how life came to be from inorganic matter.

If we adopted your policy, we could look at anything, throw up our hands, and say "god did it". Some of us, though, like living life outside of the dark ages.
 
#7
#7
As far as im concerned
Evolution - is a fact
abiogenesis - difficult, but I currently accept it
cosmology- i accept all observed theories, but theories dealing with the very begining i have no idea.
 
#8
#8
turambar85 said:
It seems as if the religious discussion thread has rocked back and forth between discussion primarily theological (or atheological!) issues and with the scientific validity of evolution and its deranged :crazy: cousin creationism. It might be nice to separate the two a bit, especially as theology doesn't stand or fall on evolutionary theory.

A quick starter: does anybody actually buy the "natural processes couldn't have caused life, as you can't take inorganic matter and create living matter" argument? It is very similar in claims to the "you cant have consciousness without a soul' argument ... or at least they both seem equally silly to me.
Click to expand...

Is this thread just for the sake of arguing why the 2 disagree?

Not sure there are that many more angles that could be covered.
 
#9
#9
BeecherVol said:
Is this thread just for the sake of arguing why the 2 disagree?

Not sure there are that many more angles that could be covered.
Click to expand...

Not really. First, I think it is at least close to being the case that completely disbelieving in evolution is in the theological minority. Second, it is assuming that this is a matter in the intersection of science and religion, rather than completely science. And, third, you are assuming there aren't arguments outside of "god is good and did it" or "god did not!" that can be convincing to some people.
 
#10
#10
turambar85 said:
Can we have cancer without the formation of the Earth? No. Do we say, then, that science should abandon cancer research until it has an adequate cosmology? If you say so, lol.

The two areas of research are wholly distinct. One tries to determine how life got to where it is, the other tries to see how inorganic matter got to be where it is. Many Christians buy evolutionary theory. Many agnostics do as well. This is because ignorance in one subject shouldn't keep us from trying to understand another. Hell, for that matter, ignorance in a subject shouldn't keep us from investigating that subject! It is the very impetus for doing so.

The universe could have formed in any number of ways, from any number of space gods, to any number of natural causes. None of them are substitute questions or answers, though, for how life developed...or even how life came to be from inorganic matter.

If we adopted your policy, we could look at anything, throw up our hands, and say "god did it". Some of us, though, like living life outside of the dark ages.
Click to expand...

Look 85, you read way tooooooooooo much into things. Slow down and take a breath! Gee! Without a series of events happening you could not have something else happen. Step 1: Earth had to form someway! Step 2: After the earth was created from this someway, life had to form on it. Trying to create your indepth break downs of each of these two steps, doesn't change the order of how they happened. For the heck of it, lets just say the earth was here always, how did everything get here? Was there several "organisms" that evolved into different creatures? Where exactly did these "organisms" come from?
 
#11
#11
turambar85 said:
Not really. First, I think it is at least close to being the case that completely disbelieving in evolution is in the theological minority. Second, it is assuming that this is a matter in the intersection of science and religion, rather than completely science. And, third, you are assuming there aren't arguments outside of "god is good and did it" or "god did not!" that can be convincing to some people.
Click to expand...

Kinda like saying,"Science says so" right?
 
#12
#12
Oldvol75 said:
Look 85, you read way tooooooooooo much into things. Slow down and take a breath! Gee! Without a series of events happening you could not have something else happen. Step 1: Earth had to form someway! Step 2: After the earth was created from this someway, life had to form on it. Trying to create your indepth break downs of each of these two steps, doesn't change the order of how they happened. For the heck of it, lets just say the earth was here always, how did everything get here? Was there several "organisms" that evolved into different creatures? Where exactly did these "organisms" come from?
Click to expand...

Wow. Did you even read my reply? You're 'sequential argument' is equally applicable to cancer research as it is to evolution. If we can't study evolution without this answer, or if a lack of answer to this question is a problem for evolution, it is equally a problem for cancer research. That is just the way things are. If you want a cosmology thread, create one. Biological evolution doesn't care one bit how inorganic matter got here. That is an entirely different discipline. Evolution can be true with God creating the universe. Any cosmological answer is compatible with evolution. It's truth or falsity stands on its own.
 
#13
#13
Oldvol75 said:
Kinda like saying,"Science says so" right?
Click to expand...

Uhm. No, it isn't kinda like saying that. It is kinda like asking "science says it is so. Is science right?" The questions are about the science of evolution, which is distinct from any theology.
 
#14
#14
turambar85 said:
Not really. First, I think it is at least close to being the case that completely disbelieving in evolution is in the theological minority. Second, it is assuming that this is a matter in the intersection of science and religion, rather than completely science. And, third, you are assuming there aren't arguments outside of "god is good and did it" or "god did not!" that can be convincing to some people.
Click to expand...

I agree with that.

I asked in another thread why the atheist cares what I believe, if you have the background you claim to have, you understand why I care what you believe.
 
#15
#15
turambar85 said:
Wow. Did you even read my reply? You're 'sequential argument' is equally applicable to cancer research as it is to evolution. If we can't study evolution without this answer, or if a lack of answer to this question is a problem for evolution, it is equally a problem for cancer research. That is just the way things are. If you want a cosmology thread, create one. Biological evolution doesn't care one bit how inorganic matter got here. That is an entirely different discipline. Evolution can be true with God creating the universe. Any cosmological answer is compatible with evolution. It's truth or falsity stands on its own.
Click to expand...

I really don't think that you are even slowing down enough to read mine either. In order for a base to be established you must have a beginning. Since we can't agree on this base, lets just start from where you want to start. We have a void earth. Now fill it in!
 
#16
#16
BeecherVol said:
I agree with that.

I asked in another thread why the atheist cares what I believe, if you have the background you claim to have, you understand why I care what you believe.
Click to expand...

Although this fits better in the other thread...I care only because I care about truth, and about propagating truth. Most importantly, religion is very ... replicable. You can guarantee a kid will be religious at 5, can almost guarantee 10, and have an exceptionally good chance at 15. The idea of people not having a choice but in believing a life-changing falsehood is problematic...of course. But, I'm also not much of a proselytizer. I just like to argue, and possibly learn.
 
#17
#17
Oldvol75 said:
I really don't think that you are even slowing down enough to read mine either. In order for a base to be established you must have a beginning. Since we can't agree on this base, lets just start from where you want to start. We have a void earth. Now fill it in!
Click to expand...

An inorganic, abiotic Earth. That is...as far as you can stretch it...conceivably in the realm of biological evolution.

I read yours - you just kept wanting to put biology as the next step in cosmological study. But...it isn't. Now, why is moving from inorganic matter to organic matter difficult? After all....all cell life is built on non-life...
 
#18
#18
turambar85 said:
Although this fits better in the other thread...I care only because I care about truth, and about propagating truth. Most importantly, religion is very ... replicable. You can guarantee a kid will be religious at 5, can almost guarantee 10, and have an exceptionally good chance at 15. The idea of people not having a choice but in believing a life-changing falsehood is problematic...of course. But, I'm also not much of a proselytizer. I just like to argue, and possibly learn.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree with this statement.
 
#19
#19
turambar85 said:
Although this fits better in the other thread...I care only because I care about truth, and about propagating truth. Most importantly, religion is very ... replicable. You can guarantee a kid will be religious at 5, can almost guarantee 10, and have an exceptionally good chance at 15. The idea of people not having a choice but in believing a life-changing falsehood is problematic...of course. But, I'm also not much of a proselytizer. I just like to argue, and possibly learn.
Click to expand...

Just where do I fit in your theory then? I didn't go to church as a youth. My Sundays were filled with hunting, fishing and what ever else I could get into. I didn't start attending church until I was in my mid 20's. Trying to lump all Christians as people who have been brought up in "the way" does not hold water. You need to meet a preacher friend of mine who was an atheists for the first 52 years of his life. Tell him how his "life-changing falsehood" is problematic. It really shows that even though you think you know all about Christians, you really don't have a clue.
 
#20
#20
Oldvol75 said:
Just where do I fit in your theory then? I didn't go to church as a youth. My Sundays were filled with hunting, fishing and what ever else I could get into. I didn't start attending church until I was in my mid 20's. Trying to lump all Christians as people who have been brought up in "the way" does not hold water. You need to meet a preacher friend of mine who was an atheists for the first 52 years of his life. Tell him how his "life-changing falsehood" is problematic. It really shows that even though you think you know all about Christians, you really don't have a clue.
Click to expand...

WOW. See, again, that is not at all what I said. What I said what that you could, depending on how raised, almost guarantee that a child will be a Christian. What I DIDN'T say is that any kid who is a Christian was raised this way. Geez.

You're never too old(vol) to go back to school and work on reading comprehension or logic.
 
#21
#21
turambar85 said:
An inorganic, abiotic Earth. That is...as far as you can stretch it...conceivably in the realm of biological evolution.

I read yours - you just kept wanting to put biology as the next step in cosmological study. But...it isn't. Now, why is moving from inorganic matter to organic matter difficult? After all....all cell life is built on non-life...
Click to expand...

Its difficult because you first have to tell where the inorganic matter came from.
 
#23
#23
turambar85 said:
WOW. See, again, that is not at all what I said. What I said what that you could, depending on how raised, almost guarantee that a child will be a Christian. What I DIDN'T say is that any kid who is a Christian was raised this way. Geez.

You're never too old(vol) to go back to school and work on reading comprehension or logic.
Click to expand...

I thought that was what you meant. But don't agree with that either.

When you believed what you did, at the time you did. What made you a "believer" or a christian in your mind?
 
#24
#24
turambar85 said:
Although this fits better in the other thread...I care only because I care about truth, and about propagating truth. Most importantly, religion is very ... replicable. You can guarantee a kid will be religious at 5, can almost guarantee 10, and have an exceptionally good chance at 15. The idea of people not having a choice but in believing a life-changing falsehood is problematic...of course. But, I'm also not much of a proselytizer. I just like to argue, and possibly learn.
Click to expand...

turambar85 said:
WOW. See, again, that is not at all what I said. What I said what that you could, depending on how raised, almost guarantee that a child will be a Christian. What I DIDN'T say is that any kid who is a Christian was raised this way. Geez.

You're never too old(vol) to go back to school and work on reading comprehension or logic.
Click to expand...

But that is exactly what you meant. Your whole assumption is that kids who are raised Christian would remain Christian. Is that correct?
 
#25
#25
Oldvol75 said:
But that is exactly what you meant. Your whole assumption is that kids who are raised Christian would remain Christian. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

Again, differentiation is good. I said if a kid is raised in a certain way, you can almost guarantee they will be christians. I did not say that if a person is christian, they were raised a certain way. My claim only logically pertains (and conversationally pertains) to a particular subset of Christians.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top