The perceived conflict between science and religion is mostly a modern invention and illusion. It is a false dichotomy to assume that only one can be correct and therefore the other is false, science and religion are not at war with each other. They simply address different questions about reality through different means. Science seeks to understand natural phenomena by gathering evidence through observation and experimentation; but it is limited in that it can only make factual claims about the physical world, if something cannot be measured or observed scientific method won't be applicable. Science cannot prioritize our values or instruct proper moral conduct.
While religion addresses more abstract and philosophical subject matter. It offers insight into the human experience, and provides guidance through value judgements and moral directives; however, it cannot be used to research cures for a specific disease or build a more efficient combustion engine. Religion and science should be understood as different methods that can be used in conjunction in our overall search for truth.
Evolution as we understand it, is a means by which life adapts and develops, it does not explain how life itself was created or why. Perhaps evolution is just a method by which God (or higher intelligence, or divine creator or whatever you may choose to call it) allows life to develop and propagate? To be clear: evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, only that we share a common ancestor; therefore, I don't see it contradicting or being incompatible with intelligent design.
Much of the conflict between religious and scientific proponents occur when literal interpretations of religious texts are attempted and asserted as scientific doctrine. The book of Genesis is frequently taken out of context in this manner and is one of the major points of debate and controversy between these two spheres, as a story of the world being created in six days does not align with our modern scientific understanding. Genesis was written in Hebrew, using the phenomenal language of the day in a somewhat poetic and metaphorical prose; therefore, to interpret it literally in opposition to modern scientific understanding would be rash and likely against the intentions of the original author. Additionally, the six days of creation is probably meant to set up a framework as opposed to representing an actual week. Consider that we base a day off the 24-hour rotation of the Earth, which would be meaningless if God had not yet created the Earth and sent it and all other planetary bodies into motion until the third day. Also, the Hebrew word "yom" used for 'day' in the original text can refer to an extended period of time, not necessarily a 24-hour day; consider in Chaldean, Hindu, and other cosmologies, a single day to God (who being omnipresent, would exist outside of time and space as we understand it) can last millions of years of subjective time on our time scales which would align this story to our current scientific understanding in a much better way.
In conclusion, I would say that evolution does not disprove the existence of God or negate intelligent design in any way; and instead of viewing religion and science in opposition with each other, we see them both as methods for discerning truth in the world around us and improving our lives as a whole. Let's keep an open mind and not get so caught up in the details that we ignore the timeless lessons that we have been taught through the vehicles of science and religion alike!
I'm not religious and I don't believe in God, but it wouldn't necessarily mean God doesn't exist. It would just mean the Seven Days of Creation myth and The Garden of Eden myths don't exist (which most sane people already can admit). Religion already doesn't care about scientific facts anyway, so why would this change anything?
It would mean there is no intelligent creator because we naturally look this way. It wasn’t picked out by anyone
I always found human ears to look really bizarre and weird. But I also couldn't think of Yahweh having a c*ck. Let alone, what size it'd have to be. God couldn't have a baby dick under 7", but if it was too big, what would that mean? That human women couldn't handle His girth? What if God was female? Would she have a big ol' pair of 34DD's? Or would She be as flat as a board? God couldn't be a B-cup! That's Biblically Unbelievable! Then, we have to think, why would God need human limbs anyway?
The human body is flawed in many other ways, as well. We can't produce our own Vitamin C and our upper body strength is pathetic. Our eyes and ears also suck really bad, too. Sure, an Intelligent Designer could do better than the C- that is modern homo sapiens.
I have Christian beliefs and I think lots of biblical
stories are allegorical. I also don’t believe that science and faith are at odds. Science is a deeper examination of Gods creation.
Anyway yes it true we are very genetically similar to primates. But my issue of evolving from them is two fold:
1). If we evolved from monkeys than why do monkeys still exist?
2). There is an incredible intelligence gulf between monkeys and humans. Do monkeys invent the wheel? Did they learn how to start fires? Did they learn to read and write? Did they invent electricity, airplanes, automobiles, space travel, etc? They have a personal
code of ethics (stealing wrong, murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc).
Yes primates are very intelligent in the animal kingdom. But when you can’t compare them to humans. Even cavemen were much more intellectually advanced than primates. We are a different creation in of our own and I do NOT believe that is random chance.
@globetrotter22
I don't think we literally evolved from monkeys. But rather, an ape-like predecessor to cro-magnon and neanderthals. And actual monkeys, chimps, and gorillas use tools all the time. Hell, gorillas are intelligent enough to communicate with us via sign language and have the equal intelligence of a four year old human child (which is an IQ of 75).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqJf1mB5PjQ
And yes; not only do gorillas and chimps have "ethics," but so do elephants and dolphins, which are also highly intelligent animals. And frankly, looking at Twitter and TikTok, I think you're severely over-estimating humans intelligence. 99% of people survive based on the inventions and discoveries of geniuses far more intelligent than them. Everyone has a smartphone, but almost no one knows how they actually work.
But yeah; TL;DR: We didn't literally evolve from monkeys. Just a simian-like predecessor
I do think the Neanderthal humans were more ape like. But still though the intellectual gulf cannot be compared when it comes to humans vs primates. I know there is this weird semi politically correct zeitgeist nowadays to “respect” animals or something.
But really there is no animal on earth that has the deep intellectual capacity like a healthy human. Just the truth. I just don’t see that coming from evolution and random change. We are way too advanced.
Now if we get in contact with actual intelligent extra terrestrial life that’s a different story. I do belief life exists outside our planet (maybe bacteria). But we do not have any solid rock hard proof that ET exists.
@globetrotter22 I'm actually glad you brought your points up. Not because I intend to make fun of you or anything, but because it's a subject I study in my free time.
Evolution is a tricky thing. You question why monkeys still exist if we evolved from them. The simple answer is that a species doesn't go extinct just because one branch evolved. One of my favorite examples is Daspletosaurus Torosus, which is widely accepted to be the direct ancestor of T-Rex. Daspletosaurus continued to exist even after T-Rex was already around. Thus this is partly why humans and Bonobo Chimps are very close relatives, but, as you stated, different in appearance and intellect.
As for intellect, think of it in terms of survival. Survival of the fittest. With with hominids physical appearance changing, our ancestors had to adapt both physically and mentally. You get the first hominids using tools then passing along the knowledge collectively to their offspring and families. And then that continues on for about 6 million years till you eventually get to us. We didn't get this way over night. It takes ages. Survival of the fittest in our evolutionary terms is survival of the smartest.
I don't believe there is A god. I believe there could be a higher power out there, one that couldn't care less about making us in their image, I mean why would they? Why now vs 14 billion years ago when the known universe came in to being? Why now vs 250 million years ago when dinosaurs started evolving?
I don’t automatically dismiss atheistic viewpoints. From a lógical perspective i too have had these thoughts before.
But believing that life exists particularly very intelligent life (humans) by random chance is like having lightning strike a rock and the result of it being a perfectly constructed wrist watch. It’s imposible by random chanc. The way I see it humans are just too advancef to evolve from chimpanzee like primates let alone a primordial life form that came into existence millions of years ago. Also from a cosmological perspective I do not believe that time is finite. If it was infinite we would of never arrived to the moment we are right now. I believe there is a higher power that exists outside of time
Again I don’t believe that science and an existence of God are at odds. I believe the study of science is a deeper examination of his divine creation.
Anyway I can respect your viewpoint about wanting to find truth. That used to be the mainstream approach with atheism. But nowadays I’ve seen it taken a turn for a worse. People are identifying as atheist because it’s “hip” and religion is supposedly poison to humanity. I do have a serious issue with ANTItheists. That in itself is another deep debate though.
This gorilla is really cute. I think I fell in love with him. 😊
Sorry to tell you he is extinct and doesn’t exist anymore lol
Opinion
98Opinion
To the contrary. Before Charles Darwin was an apple in his mother's eye, St. Augustine was writing about evolution - and as a proof of God's existence, no less.
The Roman Catholic Church has never objected to the theory of evolution. Only to the idea that it was disconnected and random. Arguing that an evolutionary process, in order to work, requires a directing intelligence. I. e, an intelligence or force that could produce the rational outcomes we see.
Evolution, in order to work, requires order. Otherwise it is simply a random process and could not produce consistent outcomes.
In fact, evolution is basically 100% proven. (To the extent that anything in science can be.) What is at issue is whether or not it was simply a random process that by pure luck and happenstance resulted in human beings and all that has followed.
To bring order out of chaos requires an intelligence. Here is where the nexus of evolution and God takes place.
@OddBeMe Good to see you, as well. As to your point, explain how randomness and chaos become order. (Take "luck" out of it. The series of lucky episodes you would need over the course of the history of the universe to get to this reality is absurdly beyond any statistical chance.)
Does chaos spontaneously and consistently produce order? For illustrative purposes, in the narrower context of life on Earth, could a three bedroom home create itself, or does it require the application of the human mind to identify the necessary materials, to determine how they might be employed and to develop the skills to build it?
Does something just happen over and over and over again, consistently and uniformly, without something driving it?
The point being that - on a cosmic scale - the "divine" identifies the intelligence (and the power) necessary to turn randomness into a consistent and reliable patterns. Indeed, even human beings speak of the "laws" of nature. Are laws a spontaneous thing, or are they the construct of the human mind?
Bottom line, anything that "just happens" would not conduce to consistent "laws of nature." Indeed, one day something that just happened would not "just happen" again the next day or the day after that. Each day would, in effect, be de novo, and what came before it would not endure.
Randomness is inconsistent with order and order is the product of a reasoned mind. On a human scale, it allows you to build a house. On a cosmic scale, that logically points to a supreme intelligence, i. e. God.
P. S. Check out the writings of Aquinas. (I wrote Augustine above. That was a type-o. I meant Aquinas.)
I’m sure you heard the Douglas Adams puddle story. You’re seeing three bedroom houses everywhere when in fact the water just fills in the hole. The hole wasn’t designed for the puddle even though it fits every nook and cranny perfectly.
Life happened here because it could. Earth was just far away enough from the sun to provide just enough heat for chemicals to react. I guess it could have a “chance” element if we knew about other universes.
But how can you possibly get odds from just one universe? We’d need to check other universes, wouldn’t we?
@OddBeMe On your last point, not sure how we would check out other universes. We exist within our own and that confines our vision, so to speak.
As to your first point, you are thinking too narrowly. In chaos, any outcome and all outcomes would be possible ON ANY GIVEN DAY AT ANY GIVEN SECOND. (Emphasis added.) The point is that not every outcome does happen, but only one outcome with consistency.
Again, how does chaos produce order and consistently so? The puddle may form, in your analogy, but the fact that it does so consistently is the point.
The flaw in your argument is that it takes for granted that because a thing can happen it will. In a universe absent order - i. e., one of total chaos - it would not produce the same outcome. (Further, you narrow your vision to the Earth. Remember there is a whole universe out there. One governed by the laws - there is that word again - of gravity, inertia, and much else.
You cannot get specific outcomes just because you can. A structure must exist to make that possible. For chaos to produce order consistently, some structure must exist and structure - see also houses - requires not just raw materials, but intention and design.
Sure. Order or chaos... perhaps in human logic it could be either or.
But to jump from that to God seems to be taken for granted. I'm saying water forms in puddles because it does. Gravity draws objects toward larger objects.
If anything, the lack of any consist "order" is absence of evidence. Like if I told you I had a $50 bill in my pocket and you search me, only to not find one. Absence is evidence.
@OddBeMe You are not asking the more elemental question. Why does water form puddles? Why does it do so consistently?
Again, get to the most elemental level. You see these consistent patterns and just take them as a given. Yet in a universe absent order water would never act the same way one day to the next or one minute to the next or even one second to the next.
Predictability identifies order and order is NOT a product of chaos. Rather something exists to impose order on chaos. That something being - at the most fundamental level - God.
@OddBeMe Order is something specific. It is the routine, consistent and predictable functioning of a system - be it legal or material. Chaos is randomness, inconsistency from one moment to the next. It is unpredictability.
If chaos becomes order, then it is not chaos. Somehow, from an array of random atoms - and even moreso subatomic particles - with nothing to guide them (in your view) they just up and perform consistently and predictably such that they result in the whole universe.
You say water responds to gravity. Well, why? For that matter, what causes gravity. For that matter, who said that water and gravity had to be in that consistent relationship to one another.
Bottom line, as I said in my initial opening, what you are left with is merely an act of faith. Things just work out that way because they do.
It defies reason and of course offers no explanation of anything. You use the absence of reason as a substitute for reason and then call it reason. That is a presumption - and a problem - for atheism.
You just hit it. You guys keep asking "Why?" And insist there needs to be something behind the "Why".
No actually. There could be nothing behind the why. And just because we don't know... doesn't mean you can point to a creator.
Order is natural. You're saying its supernatural. Gotta prove that.
@OddBeMe No, asking "why" is actually the basis of science. Take your argument to its logical conclusion and you become merely a creature unaware of his own surroundings.
Man asked why there was disease, and medicine was born. Why there was lightening, and meteorology was born, and so on.
It is an odd position to take. Take away the "why," and man is little more than a beast. It is in man's nature - and man's nature alone (the deer does not ask why he is standing in the snow, it lacks awareness of environment and self) - to ask "why."
@OddBeMe Actually I addressed the second point earlier. To create order out of chaos, there must be something outside the chaos to create the order. Again, to do so requires intellect and reason. Chaos does NOT spontaneously create order.
Thus there must be something outside the natural to create the natural. Hence, in fact, the root of the word, "supernatural." To prove this beyond logical inference is, to some extent, problematic to be sure. To assess the origins of the natural requires that you stand outside the natural, which humans cannot do.
So what man has done, and what I have illustrated here. We discern order in the universe and then draw logical inferences from whence that universe came. We discern the order and its roots from what we see in nature.
This has its obvious limits. Yet here is the funny part. As intellectual history shows. Belief in a deity gave birth to science. Religion, in effect, taught us that there was a universe that was rational and thus understandable by the human mind. Thus science was born to discern that universe.
It was, ironically, belief in God that led to the birth of science. Indeed, fun fact. One of the world's most famous astronomical observatories is based in Vatican City. Care to guess why that might be?
@OddBeMe No, actually, Aquinas addressed this question by asking the question, "What is the first cause?" You say it is quite weak to ask that question, but your answer is a shrug of the shoulders and it "just is."
As to your second point, how do you get order something to create order. Is the spontaneous result of chaos, order? Did medicine just happen? Did the automobile just show up?
These things are on the smaller scale of man. Now apply the same question on a universal/cosmic scale. Again recalling that chaos precludes consistency and therefore order.
P. S. Consider this quote from G. K. Chesterton: “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
@OddBeMe Actually, again, you are ignoring much intellectual history. Try out Aquinas, specifically his proofs of God. At this point, though, you are just falling back on the bald assertion.
The theist - not only Christian - argues that the fact of existence is the proof of God. Again, the one question you don't answer is how order spontaneously arose from disorder, absent an intelligence with the power to so arrange it.
THAT is the fundamental proof of God. You say, "Eh, it just happened." Yes it did, but who does that leave falling back on faith?
Again I’ll say, no one knows how the universe began. That doesn’t mean you can make stuff up. How can there be a ”first cause” at the beginning of the universe without time? Planck time breaks down the moments before the Big Bang. So there can’t be a “first”. Time is cause and effect.
And I think I told you this before…you’re hoisting Aquinas and others up in a fallacy of authority. It’d be like me saying “Einstein believed in Spinoza’s god and he was the smartest man in history.”
@OddBeMe No one does know how the universe began, but we know that it did begin. So then you must begin to ask yourself the logical questions of how it got here and follow where that logically follows.
Again, to have order out of chaos is not spontaneous - and even the spontaneous requires a cause. You simply shrug and say "Oh well." That answer interestingly not only precludes theology, it precludes science. Both of which began because primitive man looked up at the stars and asked, in so many words, "How'd we get here? Why are things as they are?"
Had we started with your premise, we would probably still be in caves scratching for food from the bushes. You have managed to build an intellectual construct with a great big hole in the middle.
It’s not “oh well”. It’s “I don’t know until there’s evidence.” And until then I won’t make presuppositions. That’s science. No astrophysicist will write theory based on “feel facts”.
I just can’t wrap my head around your absolute belief that some supernatural sky man created everything. But hey, most people in the world believe that. :)
@OddBeMe The problem is that you stop short of asking the most fundamental questions. An astrophysicist, to be an astrophysicist, has to know that there is something to know out there. Else he stops his investigation before getting to the root of what he studies.
You offer explanations that don't explain. They merely describe - and this is where you end up falling short. You become - and here your dismissal of the likes of Aquinas as "fallacies of authority" is relevant - a "self-made man who worships his creator." You fail to realize that you "stand on the shoulders of giants" and that the application of reason, properly understood, goes beyond that which we can see.
So again, answer the question. How does chaos become order absent something to cause order? Apply your reason and do not answer the question by offering a solution that describes without explaining.
P. S. As to "fallacies of authority," you do realize that I cite figures whose thinking laid the foundation for Western civilization and modern science, right?
Cite their ideas…. not their “authority”. We can appreciate their contribution to civilization. But you’re expecting no debate based solely on their names. Scientists never should be afraid to challenge “giants” despite the shoulders they stand on. In fact, the older the giant, the least likely their ideas are true.
“Something” can cause order without it being sentient or having reason. In fact that something could be the universe itself. One hypothesis says every implosion causes the next Big Bang. If that’s true there’s no “outside force” needed.
@OddBeMe Well, I am suggesting them for the arguments that they make. They are well reasoned and based in historical experience. I am not merely citing them for their names, but rather for their relevance to the discussion.
Now to your last point, how do we get an ordered universe with definable and consistent properties and "laws" absent something to impose that order. To phrase it another way, is order the consistent and predictable result of chaos, or is something needed to construct that order?
@OddBeMe The proof of the supernatural is inferred from the fact that in the natural order, order is NOT spontaneous. It is the product of the application of the intellect with the power to give effect to that intellect.
Nothing that exists within the universe could have that power or that intellect. If they did, suffice to say, the universe - and human relations - would be quite interesting. Thus we infer that something exists outside the natural - hence the term, supernatural - to give order that, to repeat, is not spontaneous.
Existence - an ordered universe - is the evidence, at a most elemental level - that you seek. Indeed, the irony is that your insistence on only what we can see in the material world leaves you relying on an act of faith. The difference being that yours' is an act of faith unsupported by evidence.
Indeed, you end up ignoring the immaterial things that help drive the universe. Emotions, for example. (Love pops to mind.) For these there is NO material evidence. Rather we assume them based on their effects.
So too the inference in the existence of God.
Inference isn’t evidence. It’s commentary. Every scientific study has inferences at the end that’s solely their opinion on the facts. That part isn’t fact or evidence.
What evidence is there that any order is “created”? Yeah humans build 3 room houses. But we didn’t create gravity or evolution. And because we build houses isn’t evidence that gravity or evolution was created. Like the puddle, it “could” just happen.
If earth-like planets were everywhere, per se, with no natural reasoning behind it- that would be evidence that there’s something outside the natural order causing it.
@OddBeMe Inference is not evidence. So when Einstein looked at the universe and inferred from it the theory of relativity, he had material proof?
You might want to check that one. Inference is what we do with the material observations we make. Again, you cannot prove the theory of relativity, you can only infer it from the observations we make about the universe around us.
By the way, I used the house example to show how humans impose order. Again, you have to step out and look at the whole universe. That we did NOT create. The laws and rules - gravity and the like - that we employ to impose order are themselves a product of something else with the intellect and power to create them. Absent that order, those tools could not be replied upon or may not even exist.
As to your last point, yup. We are finite beings observing - and inferring (ooops) certain observations about reality from what we observe. Something must exist beyond the finite universe if that universe is to have an order that we from the inside can discern and observe.
@OddBeMe Really? So tell me then how that works. Show an example of where if you throw a pile of bricks and nails and wood together, a house spontaneously results. Indeed, build a house absent a plan before the fact.
You are a good man - and I mean that sincerely - but at this point you are grasping at intellectual straws.
As to your latter point, you end up making a distinction without a difference. Einstein looked at how light and gravity interacted. He looked at the evidence and from that extrapolated a theory. Further investigation of the same and similar phenomena confirmed the theory.
Einstein did not dream up his theory out of whole cloth. He employed what he already knew about the physical universe and from that data (evidence) developed his theory.
You’re doing what every Christian does in this position: lash out. But you caught yourself. You’re a good guy too.
1) Can an inference be corrected? Yes. Thus it’s not fact.
2) Now, the watchmaker argument…(sigh). Here’s a list of philosophers you quote think about it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Criticism
A house is designed for humans, size of the doors, windows, etc. Our galaxy has no design for humans. As Hawkins said, “If the galaxy is designed, it’s designed for black holes.” 99.99% of the galaxy isn’t made for humans. The.01% is on earth because that’s where life COULD grow.
@OddBeMe So what created those particles? How did they come to be and how do they retain their properties consistent over time? Why don't their properties change every second?
Yes, inferences can be corrected. Do you have a better hypothesis? What, in your scientific analysis, exists inside the universe that explains what created the universe?
Oh, I am not a watchmaker guy. Though that is one hypothesis. That said, if you accept the watchmaker, you have just taken the step into belief in God. Not sure of your point on that one.
Finally, I used the house example to illustrate the point at a human level. You have the raw materials, why do they not spontaneously become a house if there is no need for planning and construction and such. Should that not all just happen.
Take that out to a universal level. Create wood and stone and the other raw materials. The human starts with wood to build the house. However, he did not create the wood. It was already there. So tell me, how do you create wood. We get wood from trees made of wood. Now go further back, what created the trees that make the wood that man they harvests for his own use?
More to the point, why does wood consistently maintain the physical properties of wood? In a chaotic universe, there would be no order and thus wood would one minute be like wood, then maybe the next like stone, then maybe the next like liquid and so on?
There is a high "take it for granted" quotient in your argument that you seem not to recognize.
Your house analogy is the watchmaker argument which I linked several criticisms to. The basic fact is we don’t know how the universe was made. You’re saying god did it, even though you never drop a noun into your “inferences”.
The best part about atheism is that we don’t make claims. We just say “I don’t know”. Could be a god, there could not be a god. We believe on evidence. Facts. Not inferences.
@OddBeMe Yes, we don't know. However, what we do know allows us to draw certain conclusions.
We do know that order does not spontaneously conduce to order. There is no example at a lower level of existence where we see chaos spontaneously conduce to order absent some intelligence to impose that order.
Yet in the larger universe we see chaos that somehow, mutatis mutandis, becomes order. So either you postulate what the difference is and why that difference exists, or you infer that something is at work that replicates on a larger scale what humans do at a smaller scale.
Atheism purports to speak as science. Yet that was my concluding point on my opening statement. It purports to speak as science, yet dismisses those scientific principles that we do know when those principles conflict with the conclusion that it has already drawn.
As I said, that is a presumption - and a problem - for atheism.
Oops, you let it slip. “There is no example”…argument of incredulity. Gotta love those logical fallacies. You are saying because we don’t know (or don’t have any example of…) that’s evidence for god. NOPE.
And no, Atheism doesn’t purport anything except “I don’t know if there’s a god, but I don’t believe what you’re selling.” Nothing more.
This is a big problem for your side actually. All you religionists are contempt to beleive in god because you don’t know any other solution to these “”logical issues”. Well what happens if when we enter another galaxy and able to see order creating itself…or whatever you said? I feel you guys won’t go “oops, we were wrong.”
@OddBeMe On point one, then provide an example where that house spontaneously built itself. Not sure of your point here. I pointed to a lower level to apply it on a human scale. On a universal scale, human beings did not make atoms.
For the latter part, I offer the evidence of a universe where chaos becomes order as POSITIVE proof of the existence of God. To repeat - again - chaos does NOT spontaneously conduce to order. If there is chaos and it becomes order, that requires an intelligence to so construct it. On a human level, the wood becomes a house when man applies his intellect and power to the task. On a universal scale, that requires God.
Then you offer not even science, but mere nihilism. That has not worked very well on a human scale. Nice that you are skeptical, but apply that principle on a social scale - to use that example - the results have historically been very bad. To quote Chesterton again, “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.” (See also the secular religions of Communism, Fascism and National Socialism for recent historical examples.)
As to science, if you begin and end at skepticism, science dies. There is nothing to explore, therefore you stop exploring.
As to your last point, not sure of your point. You do understand that when we speak of God, we speak of the totality of existence. We extrapolate the existence of God by the same logical method that Einstein, to use that example, extrapolated the theory of relativity. Indeed, the basis on which all science operates.
P. S. Just as an extra point. Yours is a rather interesting idea. "I don't know, therefore it must not exist." If we stop in the absence of our immediate knowledge, we stop not all science, but the working of the mind and culture at all.
If this is what atheism is, i. e. mere skepticism absent the weighing of what we know epistemologically, then it really is mere nihilism tarted up with the patina of science.
Science doesn’t stop when it says, “I don’t know.” Admitting you don't know, stops you from presupposing an answer. As you’re doing.
You keep asking me for an example of “order creating itself” or whatever. The fact that I can’t provide an example is not evidence for your god. That’s the logical fallacy of incredulity. “If you don’t know then that means god.” Again…NOPE.
It’s not nihilism it’s pure unadulterated logic. You’re so fogged in by faith (which is belief in absence of evidence) that you’re comparing illogical arguments like “chaos doesn’t become order by itself” to Einstein hypothesizing about relativity. Relativity wasn’t a fact the moment he thought it up. He had to prove it with facts. Numbers, equations. Evidence. In fact, lots of his ideas he wrote about he thought he was wrong. Only recently have they been PROVEN correct when scientists got the data. The numbers. The facts. The evidence.
And you’re twisting my words. It’s “I don’t know…but I’m not gonna believe in your cockamamie without evidence.” Atheism doesn’t make any truth claim. We don’t believe there are NO gods. That’s a claim. We say “I don’t know.”
And
You offer evidence of a universe where chaos becomes order as POSITIVE proof of the existence of God. That’s NOT proof. You don’t know how the order became order. You only believe to know.
It could be Stephen King’s universe where a giant turtle shat out the universe. And that’s your creator. We have no evidence to confirm a turtle or god.
And we could toss in chaos theory. Where there are actually underlying patterns in the atoms and whatever dark matter is thus it was always order thus no need for a god. :)
@OddBeMe Sorry pal, this one will have to be brief. Daddy duty today don't ya know.
My point was that chaos becoming order requires an intelligence. By a logical extrapolation, on a cosmic scale, that means God. It is evidence of the existence of God. To which your counter is "search me."
Oh, and yes, science requires a spirit of inquiry. An openness to the potentialities. If it is a mere, "I don't know," it has little left to investigate.
Indeed, historically speaking, science was born from religion. When the universe was seen as random and unintelligible, there was no science. It was only - beginning in ancient Greece, for example - when man began to discern that there was an order and that sense could be made of the universe that science took off.
To repeat again, to this day Vatican City has one of the world's most prominent astronomical observatories. Because the universe could be made sense of, it was worth exploring. The rest, as they say, as history.
Anyhow, pal, sorry to cut this short, but I have three little people who expect a visit from the "Tickle Monster" and God said he better show up.
A logical extrapolation isn’t proof. I could logically extrapolate a shatting turtle is the creator. And you know that.
And the spirit of inquiry doesn’t require being open to anything. It requires being open to actual facts. Evidence. That’s the problem with your side,
Anyway good luck with little ones!
@OddBeMe Thanks. I love my little Munchkins and we all had a good family day.
As to your point, yes, you are right. Extrapolation is not evidence. It is what we do with the data and evidence we have. It is how Einstein developed the "Theory of Relativity."
As to the spirit of inquiry. You simply shrug and say, "I don't know, but it can't be "x" answer. Well, if it can't, why bother looking further?
A spirit of inquiry that STARTS with what things cannot be probably won't go very far.
And I love our discussions. I think we extrapolated a lot about our sides. Which is really the point.
But I think the issue here is level of "proof". Religionists are cool with faith + "hey, we can't explain how the universe started" so obviously our idea of a creator fits.
My side is a bit harder to please. We ask for straight facts. And we're ok with not knowing how the universe was created.
Well anyway. Big shoot for me tomorrow. Good night my man!
@OddBeMe On the first, thanks. I have a two boys - ages 10 and 9 - and my little princess is 7. Also, I have a 14 year old from a previous relationship. He does not live with me, but we see him often.
Anyhow, as you can tell, I am the biggest milksop of a dad on the planet.
As to our conversation, I too have enjoyed it. However, I think you are missing a point here.
You say the "religionist" take the easier path. I think not. Recall the Chesterton quote above - "an admittedly unbelievable God." Our requires a more complex epistemology that science asks of itself.
Indeed, note again, I ask you how order can spontaneously emerge from chaos. Your answer is - "I don't know."
Well, where does that leave you? There is a big giant hole in the middle of your understanding of the universe and because you cannot look beyond the universe, you essentially say, "Oh well."
That is easy to do. It does not demand that you test - as religionists must constantly test - their underlying assumptions.
For my part, I was raised Catholic, then walked away from my faith for a number of years and then came back to it when I started dealing in some of the questions we have been discussing here. I could have stopped at, "I don't know."
However, had I done so, every other assumption in science would have been rendered null and void. Science is predicated on the idea that there is order to be discerned in the universe. That we can learn how things work and why they work.
If the answer is that they work because they work, then we are not left with much of an answer.
Anyhow, pleasure chatting. Back to work for now. Best of luck today.
No no…again…. we don’t stop at “I don’t know.” We just don’t insert "an admittedly unbelievable God." We wait for more facts.
I do think theists go down the easier path. It may seem like you’re taking on questions that science and the skeptical don’t want to touch. But you’re not. You’re simply inferring more with less evidence.
Chaos becoming order without a creator…that must mean god! No. That just means we need more facts. As I mentioned, it could be that there was always order and we just see chaos.
@OddBeMe On the second point, oh yeah, it can be exhausting. However, I gotta tell ya, I would not miss a minute of it.
As to your first, you cannot have an explanation. You can explain the parts - maybe - but not the whole. You can explain what you see as chaos becomes order, but you cannot go beyond explaining that it does.
So yes, you do wait. You do not ask the most fundamental questions because you limit the application of your logic and your reason to only what you can see. Thus for you, the universe offers evidence, but it cannot be explained.
Further, there is much you can see but you cannot quantify. Think of love, hate and the other emotions. Real things that you can even go so far as to chart them on a brain scan. You can see them, but you cannot explain them.
You may find this book to be of interest: www.amazon.com/.../0732268761
@OddBeMe Did Einstein take the universe into the lab with him when he developed his theory? How about quantum physics?
Again, you cannot forget the most existential question: How does a predictable order spontaneously and consistently arise out of chaos? What lab would be big enough to answer that question?
I get that. Let’s pretend you and I are in a lab trying to figure out that question. Yeah, we’d need access to multiple universes to conduct testing, we’d need to know every chemical compound of dark matter and understand every part of universe inflation, Planck time- crap, we have none of that.
Now you say, “Well we see houses being built by creators. What if there’s a creator for the universe.”
“Interesting, Night,” I say. “What evidence do we have to support that hypothesis?”
“Well, like I said, we see it here on earth everywhere.”
“Yeah…but the universe ain’t here.”
“True, but we can infer that’s how it was created,”
“We could, but that would be assuming a lot of things, wouldn’t it, Night?”
“Yeah, but what else are we gonna do? We have to find a solution.”
“We don’t have to at this very moment. I say we should wait for more evidence. But keep on looking into that universe creator stuff. Hey! It’s beer-thirty!”
“I gotta get home to the kids.”
“You never make time for me, Nightdrot.”
@OddBeMe Here. the problem with your scenario. You have no way of addressing the question. You cannot know - because there is no experiment that you can apply - the answer to the question. So you dismiss it as irrelevant.
The point being that science, properly understood, does not limit itself to the testable. Rather it infers from the evidence it sees possible hypothesis. It's how Einstein did it. Indeed, get into the realm of quantum physics and all the rest and it becomes even more speculative.
So back to the question, what experiment do you conduct to prove that chaos naturally and spontaneously conduces to a consistent and predictable order absent something with an intellect to order it?
How many debate you in novel fiction format? :)
Firstly…NO: “The point being that science, properly understood, does not limit itself to the testable. Rather it infers from the evidence it sees possible hypothesis.”
Science does limit discoveries to the testable and re-testable by peers.
If it’s not testable, it’s not science. Hypothesizing is just day dreaming. Which is one of humanity’s greatest traits. Einstein imagined himself riding a motorcycle through the universe when hypothesizing relativity on an Austrian bus. You can call that part of the scientific method, but the only the initial stages.
What I think the issue is you think dreaming and hypothesizing ideas is science, whereas I think it’s just the warmup. Science is the collection of facts to PROVE the daydream. If you can’t do that for any reason, like not getting past the Planck Time…you’re out of luck. But keep at it, or course.
@OddBeMe Okay then, so how does order arise from chaos? Science accepts that there is a testable reality, how did it get there?
Again, you give an unscientific shrug. Alternatively, you say that love and hate and other things that drive the human experience don't exist. They are merely electro-chemical impulses.
Okay, so what made those impulses?
Bottom line is that, for all the pretentions to science, what you call science is a doughnut with a big fat hole in the middle. Actions produce reactions. That science. The only problem is that science cannot tell us how and why they produce reactions.
The evidence shows that they do. Experimentation confirms it - though not quite as decisively as you suggest. (See also quantum physics.) Yet it illustrates without explaining.
The belief in God is, in fact, consistent with scientific principle. In the totality of things, something must exist outside reality to shape reality - else all you will get is chaos. This because, as science tells us, chaos does not become order absent something to shape order.
Science can show us that every action creates a reaction. It just cannot explain how and why. Yet the answer is implicit in the principle, God was the action - the "first cause" as Aquinas called it - from which the reality followed.
Seems like we’re going in circles. Ultimately I don’t know, and neither do scientists, how “order” was created at the beginning of the universe. And I don’t think we’ll ever have 100% knowledge on this.
It’s not unscientific to shrug. It’s unscientific to say “god did it”. Because there’s no proof of the supernatural.
Love and hate are emotions in our brain. I don’t think they “exist”. Anymore than a Word document. Evolution by natural selection is why our brains currently have emotions. Talk to a biologist about how we developed it from Neanderthals.
The real Big Fat Doughnut is your belief in god. You have no foundation to believe in him. And you and William Craig know that, so you smoke screen with “first cause” BS. Sorry but it’s bs. There can be an infinite regress as quantum theorists hypothesize an infinite amount of universes. So there doesn’t “have” to be a first cause.
My bottom line: you keep falling into the fallacy of incredulity or causal fallacy. You don’t know so you point to presuppositions.
@OddBeMe So in the end, the whole of science - as conceived by you (and honestly, I think you are giving science a short shrift) is based on a guess.
All the order we see coming out of chaos cannot be explained scientifically. Thus everything is a happy accident - and what are the odds of that, scientifically speaking.
Then as to emotions, we see effect, but we cannot ascribe cause. They do not exist, though we can see they have effects. They are a phenomenon, but science shrugs and walks away.
Einstein saw certain phenomena in the universe and deduced a cause. He did not SEE the cause, rather he inferred it.
My point being, at this point, that even your conception of science is too narrow. Science does not operate in quite the way you assume and there is more to it. Try that book I suggested, you'll begin to see what I mean.
Hope this finds you well.
@OddBeMe On point one - the question goes to you. Science should tell us how the universe began, no? In my argument, there is a Being with the intellect to impose order on chaos and create the universe. I don't pretend to know how He did it.
On the second point, Einstein's equations are no more valid than the paper they were printed on. The question is from whence did he derive those equations?
As to peer review, so polls judge reality? (Kidding on that one.)
Anyhow pal, I am sorry again for the short reply. I have a work project with a deadline of next Monday and I am a bit behind. I am really enjoying the discussion, but I am sorry that I have to be so brief.
No worries on timing. I’ll keep replying and checking in as well.
So, if we take all the science books and papers and burn them, we’d be able to rewrite them because it’s fact, right?
If we took all the Bible’s and quorans and burned them, they’d be gone forever. That’s my point. Einstein’s inferences didn’t matter until facts proved them.
@OddBeMe Yes, but the point is, why did Einstein believe there was something to find? Newtonian principles - also assuming order to the universe - had been long established.
That last point being my point. You can point to E=MCsquared and show evidence that it is correct. However, what you cannot do is explain why, in a chaotic universe, we can discern such "laws."
Science show us how things work. It does not show us why we they work. Thus ending in an infinite regress. Besides, as I have asked before, why does chaos become order?
You look at the symptoms but you steer away from the causes.
This discussion will only go in circles until you address that fundamental question: Why does chaos become order? Why should we look at all the evidence of order in the universe - see also Einstein and company - but NOT ask why there is order in the universe?
By the way, I offer two famous quotes from Einstein:
"I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
Sorry, again, to be so brief.
No, I look at the evidence and stay away from the assumptions.
Until we know more about the beginning of the universe you or I are just grasping at straws. But seems strange that it took 8 billion years for God to create earth after the Big Bang and then another 4 billion to create humans.
@OddBeMe Yet it does NOT seem strange that we get order spontaneously and consistently from chaos.
Pick your mystery.
Also, if we make no assumptions, then we cannot proceed even in science. If you do not assume that the laws of gravity apply, then all the assumptions that flow from that collapse.
Indeed, at the very most basic level, you start from the assumption that certain laws of nature apply and then if tested, you begin to change your assumptions. Thus did we move from a universe based on Newtonian laws to one based on Einstein and now science is moving beyond that.
So even below the most basic question - how do we get order from chaos? - we start science with certain assumptions.
@OddBeMe Nope. Modern science, however, because man looked up at the stars and asked "Why and how." The difference between us is that you preclude those aspects of reality - I cited others aside from God, such as love, etc. - that you can't put under a microscope.
My argument is that your sense of science is strong, but that science is only one aspect of reality. It being demonstrable that you cannot place all reality under a microscope.
Oh, and again, answer the question: "How does chaos spontaneously conduce to order?"
@OddBeMe Surely, though, science can hypothesize based on the data, no? Alternatively, perhaps science does NOT encapsulate the totality of reality and cannot? Perhaps?
My point to you is that you fall back on science as your "go to." However, we know that reality is more complicated and complex and that science - theoretical and practical - can only address a portion of it.
As far as believing in God. It is a plausible analysis based on what we do know of reality, i. e, that chaos does not become order without some intellect with the power to impose that order.
Thus I offer a plausible theory while you offer a shrug.
No, no no, no no.
Science is the only game in town that can produce predictable results. So it my trust in it is higher than say a tarot card reader.
But as a logical person, I follow the best option for me in whatever choice I have to make. I imagine you do too. If it’s a vaccine for instance, the scientists have a say. Cool. Registered. The non scientists have a say. Ok. Best bet: go with the science.
@OddBeMe Nope. Sorry. Reality offers predictable results. Science merely observes them. It explains what it sees, but that only captures an aspect of reality.
Einstein made certain observations about the way gravity and light worked, and deduced a theory. At that point he displaced the Newtonian theories that had dominated to that point and were based on the same reality.
All I am doing is merely applying the same model. Observe reality and deduce from it based on what we do know - chaos does not become order absent an intelligence to order it, a plausible theory.
Woah, you have it backwards.
Science is the only tool that can predict things. A geologist can look at the ground and predict where to find the most fossils based on evidence of water levels, etc. Even name the type of fossils we’ll find there based on previous plant life. That’s prediction.
@OddBeMe Point one, there has to be something to predict. Science is merely observing that.
Point two - about Einstein, you make a distinction without a difference. He used that watch and deduced from his observations the nature of reality.
Anyhow, pal, I got up this early to do some work before the kids get up. Weekends are Daddy-time, don't ya know. So if you reply, I may be a bit before I am able to get back to you. Apologies in advance, but the kids have to come before grand discussions of the nature of the universe.
Evolution is 100% correct.
There's really no theory behind it that is necessary because it is a simple natural physical process - as simple as arithmetic.
It occurs everywhere all the time.
Basically, it works like this:
Whenever a copy of something is made, errors in the copy are going to occur. When you keep making copies of copies, sooner or later, what you have resembles very little what you originally had.
The Game of Telephone exemplifies this. In the game, one person whispers a message to another person, who then whispers to another person, and so on. The final person then says what they believe the message is. That message is then compared to the message that the original person said. Almost always, it is considerably different. This video shows how it works.
So, why is the final message so different from the initial message? Memory is not flawless, so, when the next speaker says the message from memory, they often introduce one or more errors into their copy of the message. With every copy from each person, more errors are introduced.
Biological evolution is the same except that "memory" is the genes in our cells. So, when the genes are duplicated, errors occur.
In fact, this is why we die of old age... Sooner or later, your cells become defective having been copied so many times that, gradually, you are just a mass of defective cells and eventually you don't have enough good cells to stay alive.
A belief in God does not preclude evolution. An all-powerful being could certainly have created the conditions that would lead to evolution, right?
Even if you believe in the Bible, it's understood to have a multiple-generation translation of stories that were passed down via oral storytelling for hundreds of years before being written down, and that men of many eras have decided what was true or important to record and what wasn't. There is absolutely no way that what is written in a modern Bible is the exact same thing that was being taught 6000 years ago. The big concepts are likely the same, but the fine details have zero chance of being accurate.
In any case, evolution should not be seen as the enemy of God. Modern science began during The Enlightenment, but the goal of those early scientists was to better understand the world so as to better understand God. If a God could create an entire universe, why couldn't it create the conditions that led to what we call Evolution?
It's not going to be proven because it's false.
The more you look into it, the more obvious is becomes. I used to believe in evolution - being a scientist I was convinced it was true for most of my life... and that's because it was presented to me as a fact and I never bothered to hear the other side. I just assumed that I know better and only allowed myself to hear opinions that aligned with my viewpoint.
Evolutionists don't have the monopoly on science but they like to riddicule opposing opinions without properly addressing them. Their strategy is to make the other side seem crazy but never address the scientific evidence against what they're trying to sell. Similar to how globalists do with other science related topics nowadays.
And to those that say that evolution has been proven beyond doubt - no, it hasn't. It's still just a theory that is being presented to us as a fact, we're being gas lighted. It's became popular to believe in it rather than to question it.
Keep an open mind, always. I thought I did, but my arrogance blinded me.
Their strategy is to make the other side be crazy, well yeah that's kinda hard not to do to Flat earthers and people with beliefs alike. Science has proven time and time again evolution exists and if you don't think it does, explain how Bactria adapts then?
Ya know the very core of life? that adapts 24/7 thanks to evolution.
"If evolution is ever proven 100% real and we discovered for a fact that we came from monkeys...", absolutely nothing about the god debate changes. Inverting that line of thinking, you get "if evolution is 100% false, then the Book of Genesis is basically a historical account of the inception of man". That is not true either. Though there are some people who believe in New Earth Creationism, and there's plenty of "evidence" that both supports and rebuts that position, both worldviews require some element of post-hoc reasoning to explain the unexplainable; it's simply the degree to which such rationalization is needed that determines the degree of plausibility--hence, Occam's razor.
However, both of these presuppositions are missing the bigger picture: just like how the Bible is meant to be a warning against the hubris of man, the idea that science can definitely prove the absence of a divine being is equally egotistical. We are not the center of the universe--literally or figuratively--and shouldn't pretend that we are. At best, we can only achieve approximations of knowledge, contingent on our capacity to comprehend the results of our findings and overcome our innate limitations. There will never come a point where supernaturality will be completely proven or debunked by the scientific method. You cannot outmaneuver the metaphysical, using methods that are constrained by natural law.
After all, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Evolution has already been proven to be 100% correct.
When people say "we aren't sure how something evolved" they are talking about genetic relationships from species that died out more than 50,000 years ago, because DNA usually doesn't last much longer than that in any readable sense.
You can prove evolution using living animals though, the easiest way being with dog breeds, and the second easiest way being looking at humans and seeing how they compare to their parents and grandparents.
Human evolution only becomes grey when looking at how our species evolved, because while we can 100% prove our genetic relations to our primate cousins using a DNA test, we are also victim to the issue that remains of other human species, and remains of other homonid species, are scarce.
So it's like trying to piece together a puzzle when you are missing 99% of the peices.
Basically we don't know how many branches there were, but we do know we are apes, and that apes evolved from monkeys, and monkeys from lemur type mammals, and that bats are the closest living relatives to primates.
As for God, you can already prove a god can't exist, because omnipotence and creationism are self contradictory. More specifically, opposites make it impossible to be omnipotent, and the universe had to have always existed because gaining something from nothingness is impossible.
The same thing could be said about aliens and Bigfoot.
What would their existence do to the world's religions who preach that man was made in God's image?
An off world being like a Gray? Short but lanky, big head, huge eyes, flies light years in a spacecraft more advanced than Science Fiction can fathom?
And what about Bigfoot/Sasquatch? Any change in thinking and theology there?
Whether God is real or not is never the question. The question concerns faith. An unwavering belief in the unseen and untested.
If aliens popped up, or Bigfoot were confirmed as the missing link in the evolutionary chain, NOTHING would change about God. Faith however... would take a major hit.
Here they believed, had faith in, all that was written and taught, only to have the rug ripped out from under them, thus tearing their foundation away. Those that believed, that had faith, would be lost.
I'm not sure what humanity's need is to have something to worship that's bigger than them. A standard to live up to maybe? A set of rules to govern themselves by that transcends time? Is that what every religious book is for? A book of stories to live by? Examples? Standards? Aesop's Fables with morals? Words of wisdom? Words to live by? Written by someone or something that MUST be supreme to man to write those wise words, and if so, it must have a face and a name, so well call him/her/it God?
None of us will ever know, and debating it does nothing, but cause problems.
it is a fairy tale invented by satan
for GOD Christ drowned the army of pharaoh under the earth sea
let the chariots declare his glory
for the snake of outer darkness shows the judgement of those who reject Christ
they shall circle the earth in pain and torture,
LET THE HOLY SPIRIT BE YOUR TEACHER
for GOD knows all things
for evolution is foolishness
for the holy spirit reveals many things to me
for my GOD drowned the giants in the flood
and their bodies cover the earth
there's a huge flaw with your question. you're assuming the bible in the way god made you humans was correct which i can 100% assure you it wasn't. humans come from different species of animals and humans were made by aliens and those aliens were given orders by a higher power to create you humans which was part of God's intricate design. The reptilians wanted the greys to create humans because the greys can not reproduce by themselves which was an original flaw on the reptilians parts when they designed the greys. second the reptilians want to enslave you humans but the galactic federation has been preventing this and letting humans evolve on their own which is also part of God's plan. Sometimes God needs/wants evil to kick start something and let good take over from there. look at the movie spawn you'll see my point. spawn gets his powers from the devil and one of god's angels helps spawn become a hero. same with ghostrider his powers came from evil but are used for good. kind of shitty analogies but you get why you humans exist now
I'm a Christian and evolution is real.
God made the word in 7 days, right? God create the big bang and cause things to go into motion. In those 7 days were was the big bang and the stars and the Galaxy was made and the Earth was made. (Not going into deep detail you get the concept and the Bible) When God was perfecting everything and the animals he made us, Adam and Eve. Adam first then took half of Adam's rib cage to make Eve, the first man and woman his children. And we know how the story goes and his they got kicked out of the Garden of Eden and gave us his only son Jesus Christ to forgive for our sin.
God will show you the truth and his teachings in time. Everything has a purpose even if you don't understand.
Well god as in an almighty man living in a kingdom in the skies does not exist, it's regardless of evolution, all holy books are written by people no one has ever seem proof of god it's just a well written book that insists we should belive without proof.
That being said I do believe there is a creator behind the universe, we are too well made for it to be some coincidence but the creator is a complete mystery.
So even if evolution is proven to be 100% correct it still doesn't answer the question: what was here before us? And where did we come from?
Do you know that have to stuff that our scientists have stated about anything and everything to be true did they are only maybe 5% right on everything that they have ever stated everything that we believe that we know to be true every 10 years 5 years year changes because they didn't have it right and I'm going to have to agree with this it's not right until I know for 100% for sure the one most powerful thing in this world if we got when we were born it is the most powerful word it's called choice we get to choose we want to be by the things we say and do now sometimes in this world something are made to look like something else and we get to choose what we want to believe
We’re seeing it now… as religions pushed aside we see less morality and less people caring about others. I personally don’t believe in god in the usual sense. I believe the books in religion were road maps to understanding morality and god was a creation of man to strike fear and awe into them enforcing the law of morality. I also believe places like heaven and hell and the alternates are simply ways to describe or express the world through our moral decisions. If we promote morality the world becomes heavenly whereas if we abandon morality for hedonism we find hell due to societal breakdown and a lack of restriction to direct society.
God is God (for those who believe this to be true). Considering that he is and if you believe the Bible is God's word, then It's not about whether or not evolution exists. It in a way comes down to Evolution vs. Creation with God as the creator. We're not evolved, we were created (once again this all depends on belief. Who God us. What your faith is or whether you believe in any of these things at all). Good question, It's really tough and overwhelming when there's so many things that many of us don't understand or have all the answers to.
God was never proven to exist, so no, it wouldn’t. Also, a scientific theory is entirely different from a hypothesis, in that a theory can be demonstrated over and over to be a reliable description of a phenomenon, in this case evolution. Darwinian evolution describes how traits in a species change over time in response to the environment in the WILD. It does not prescribe a way to choose for the “best” traits, just how a species changes over time. This is why social darwinism, which Darwin realized his research might be used for and made very clear that such an ideology would be awful for humanity, is pseudoscience and not scientific fact.
Honestly, I don’t think it matters whether a god exists, as scientists have done fine with describing reality without the need for a god. Believe what you want, it’s your birthright, but please don’t fall for pseudoscience.
To be honest I don't see any contradiction between the evolution which can be seen clearly when looking carefully around, and the existence of a God. It's first of all a matter of correctly interpreting Holy Scripts. Depending on one's convictions, our universe has been created in seven days (!) or evolved from an original Big Bang. What contradiction is there actually if one considers the seven days being a symbolic way to tell the story? Can't we call God all about the universe we can't explain at the moment?
I mean this only as an example to tell that it's perfectly possible to believe in God while accepting humbly what science discovers and explains. All this does not diminish the philosophic value of Holy Scripts.
I remember an episode of Stargate, where on another planet a scientist, who deeply believes in God, says that even if he discovered the proof of the non existence of God, he would still be happy to have progressed in knowledge and wisdom.
Hasn't it already been proven 100% correct? To within a very small rounding error, at least? You'll get people insisting that there has to have been intelligence to create intelligence, but where did that intelligence come from? And why would it worry about what you do in your bedroom?
There's literally no concrete evidence for a god, but there's huge amounts of evidence for lying, not just in humans, but animals as well.
Just because religion created space for people to think without having to worry about feeding themselves doesn't mean religion created science, it just means science evolved by being fitter than religion.
The question is false because didn't evolve from monkeys. 20 to 30 million years ago, we evolved from common ancestors that no longer exist. Evoluation cannot be proved, even the law of gravity cannot be proved because you cannot prove that if you drop a penny it will fall. However, just like evolution, you cannot fine any examples where it is not true. That is why evolution is accepted as fact by almost all scientific people.
With current knowledge, the existance of God cannot be proved nor disproved. However, there are many questions we are unable to answer that might make someone question, "How could that be, if their is no God?"
Why are we looking to "Science" to prove if a Sky-Daddy exists or not?
You'd think the Sky-Wizard would have the balls to come down here and settle the debate once and for all, instead, he lets all these thousands of spiritual believers squabble in ignorance and darkness about which Sky-Faerie Religion is the correct one. If there is a god (or gods / goddesses) then he (or they, or she, or it, etc..) is not a BENEVOLENT one. The Gnostics would be more closer to the truth that the god who created this 3D realm is a sadistic evil bastard.
They found that evolution was a lie. All the skulls and homosapiens stuff was all a hoax.
There was no such thing as evolution. Science is a cult. History was hidden away from society. The true Bible was hidden away. The real 10-commandments from Moses was hidden. Noah’s Ark destroyed. They’ve also found that there was never a meteor that killed the dinosaurs. The so-called dinosaurs were mutated monsters created for war and chaos. The world-flood killed the dinosaurs because God killed them all. The IceAge also killed the dinosaurs. Before the flood the world in every map for every country and nation of every language “was flat” inside of a dome. NASA photoshops all of earths pictures. No picture of earth is real. They’ve hidden extra land beyond the ice walls. People knew of American-Continents in the age of Noah.
God is 100% Real. 100%
You're trolling, right? I sure hope so.
@JamesRandiDebates do your own research
No. I mean there’s people who still think a god exist and think that evolution is true.
I mean there’s plenty of evidence for it. You can’t prove anything with absolute certainty (I mean you’ve always got to assume something and that assumption might be wrong). So to determine whether something is right or not, firstly our idea needs to be able to be explain previous results, predict new results, and be resilient in experiments that seeks to disprove it, all of which the theory of evolution does satisfy.
As to if this is gong to impact society in a bad way, I don’t think so. I’d be genuinely concerned about society right now if the only thing stopping them from killing each other is just because of a belief of someone watching them.
I personally dont see anything regarding specifics in the Bible. Im not sure why everyones so hung up on it.
The Bible is not a science book detailing everything with math and formulas. Even Noahs ark gives some dimensions but is quite vague and thats ok. The Bible was never meant to be a book to use to design a fleet of vessels or anything. Thus why modern researchers can't fully agree how it was. Many good guesses and ideas but the intention was never to rebuild the boat or else God would have included an engineering diagram or would send an angel down if one was trying to build it and could not.
How about we reverse that. If God was proved 100% to exist, would anyone change their views of God or discount evolution? Would anyone change their ways?
So far there is zero evidence of a God and a buttload of evidence of evolution.
@supercutebutt That wasn't the question.
Your question is hypothetical and my post is stating facts.
@supercutebutt Facts by what you believe. That is not what all believe.
... because they ignore facts. :)
It's more comforting to believe you will live forever on a cloud with a magic baby.
@supercutebutt bye bye heathen.
Evolution was accepted as a scientific fact back in the 1870s.
Darwin himself had empirical evidence and real life observations validating his theory of evolution.
People who claim evolution is not real are brainless religitards who haven't got a clue about the topic.
No. There is no such thing as "proof" in science, so your supposition is wrong flat on its face. Evolution will NEVER be proven 100% correct. That is unscientific. It is merely the best explanation science has come up with so far. Science is an unending, ever evolving, continuous process. Even things like gravity are not true 100% of the time. That's why whenever someone tells you, "Just believe the science!" you know they're full of slimy, smelly, slippery, regurgitated dog shit, because no self respecting scientist would ever believe anything that was not repeatedly demonstrated and peer reviewed. "The science is settled" is also the call of a cult member, because science is never settled.
but then again who created the gorillas that we evolved from?
till then I think I finally found someone that can proof me wrong behind this meme
If I created something I would want it to be able to adapt to an environment that changes because it would allow for the best chance of surviving. There is so much we don't know and may never know. We will always have questions and we will continue to search for answers let's just learn to have a little fun and be good to each other while we search.
Let me give you a reasoning which incorporates both:
"I (god) made the Essence of life on this planet and to ensure that my subjects would turn out much better than I had created, I made them face challenges, teaching them the skill of adaptability and adjusting in the ever changing world, to not lose their faith in me for I am the creator and it's my duty to help my children grow"
Evolution is a transformative process, and any religion that doesn't embrace change as an ecological constant, is pure fantasy. And not good fantasy, either. But bad fantasy, like a bird and bee conceiving a human child together, (there are people who actually believe this nonsense) and storks that run baby delivery services, because real ladies never give birth too become mothers 😆🤣😂
It's already proven. And while it proves the bible and other creation beliefs to be lies it don't prove a God it's self couldn't exist because a God could of made the evolution process in the first place.
The proof of no God comes from Black holes Hawkings look into his words on that.
I had an argument with someone about this a long time ago.
The way I see it, saying life happened here "just cuz" would be like saying if I went to the beach and started throwing sand around for eternity, I should expect to eventually see a neat sand castle.
Obviously that will never happen. I think life was designed by God to evolve.
Evolution is true from my side and it doesn't have anythings to do with god but it happens on it's own due to the way it is scientifically created but if we see who started the world, how was the rock which we call earth even formed, from where did life came and all then it seems like a power exists who started all this. I don't believe in god whom we created but the true power who created the world but after that it's all evolution. This is my belief only so don't get offended.
They are not mutually exclusive, who's to say that god didn't actually use evolution to create life. People often get stuck on this magic POOF factor but perhaps time is not a issue for him, if you take time out of the picture and there is no time then things get real interesting.
First off its pretty much already is proven fact that we evolved from primates... not moneys. No it does not prove or disprove anything about god. It say it took 6 days to create life on earth... but what's a day in the life of god.
But if we were not it would change nothing and impact would be unoticable.
That’s simply ignorant, proof of inability to Reason, and indoctrinated person or Bot or whatever you are.
EVOLUTION is an EFFECT. What caused Evolution from Nothing ⁉️ Even Something can not create or start/combust itself. SO, that’s a NO on spontaneous generation… AND that’s a NO on Big Bang unless you can tell me how BB effect was caused.
ILLOGICAL indoctrinated Idiocy.
It will just prove that basically all religions are lies, but you should have figured that out sooner then it takes to prove evolution. It doesn't eliminate a creation process in theory but in practice there is no room for a chicken and a egg problem. Which always comes with deities. Where did the creator come from?
I mean, would it be that huge of a stretch to say that he created man by sowing the seeds of evolution and manipulating our world to accommodate that growth?
In the bible, it says "7 days" but that was also before the sun was created which is how WE track days, so what is a day to a god? I'm pretty sure that's how most scientists who are religious interpret it.
The simple fact human child birth is painful, requires assistance and until recent years was the main cause of female death. All due to the shape of the pelvis proves that God does not exist as no designers would be so stupid or so callous to let the fault continue.
I don't believe anything can ever truly be 100% correct. But if we treated it as if it were 100% correct, I don't believe it would have a significant impact on human societies. I believe religious ideology will continue to exist. It will simply morph. In this case, people would probably twist it to be deeply intertwined with evolution.
As God requires faith (as such a being is impossible to prove or disprove) for those who believe 100%, it will change nothing in the long term, they will either ignore it or adapt it into their understanding of their faith. In terms of impacting society, again, very little change as religious leaning has no bearing on morality. There are many selfless atheists as well as many self serving theists responsible for heinous atrocities.
Not at all- simply that the literal interpretation of creationism was incorrect. I mean, the standard models of global warming are incorrect, since Miami is demonstrably not under fifteen feet of water- that doesn't mean anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist.
It doesn’t really matter if evolution is proven or if god was proven.. Humans opinions will always differ. I mean take anti-vacsers. Even though a vacation has been proven successful, people with fears will always find a reason to keep ahold of their norm. It is part of being a human..
We didn’t come from monkeys. Humans and monkeys come from a common ancestor.
I actually do believe in intelligent design. That just means that an intelligent being created the mechanism of evolution and occasionally tinkers with it when necessary. There is no way to prove or disprove this. It’s just something you believe.
@JamesRandiDebates let’s debate. Why do you disagree with me?
I agree with sentences 1, 2, 5, and 6 of your post.
@JamesRandiDebates cool. Thanks 😊
Science will never be able to prove that a God doesn't exist, since science and the idea of a God is so split all together. There are already so many proven things in science that dismissed the existence of a God, religion just becomes craftier as science progresses.
Faith and logic isn't comparable
Your assertion is skewed. Evolution is a matter of development - not origins. Evolution can never explain origins - nor is that it's purpose.
The matter of God is outside the purview of science. Mainly as science can only deal with the knowable and quantifiable, Not the metaphysical and moral.
Prove and science don’t exist together. Science doesn’t aim to prove things. It exists to learn and discover things. We already have established evolution in our education system. At this point, the more we learn is actually hurting the evolutionary theory.
I don't understand what you're saying in that last sentence. What science has been doing is testing evolution for over 150 years. At this point, it's as established a fact as gravity.
The fact that the precise mecanisms are still being investigated doesn't change the fact that things fall down, planets orbit suns, and all life on Earth has evolved from some very basic chemistry.
@goaded Gravity is not a theory. That’s a basic scientific concept used in physics and math. We can see it today. It’s measurable and constant. Evolution is a theory. It’s none of those things gravity is. Our biggest evidence of evolution is fossils. We don’t have accurate or constant data to support the evidence. It’s constantly changing and evolving. We are always learning new things. In 1990 we thought the age of our universe was 3-5 billion. Now we think it’s around 8-10 billion. We don’t know. It’s not proven at all.
"It’s constantly changing and evolving" C:
Gravity is a theory. Newton's was close, Einstein's was closer. There'a always something more to learn, but "things with mass attract each other" and "all life on Earth has evolved from some very basic chemistry" are quite similar, in that they're based on centuries of observations and been bolstered by new technologies to prove them that would have been unimaginable just decades ago. We're measuring gravity waves, now, and identifying the effect of quantum tunnelling on DNA duplication.
@goaded You are so completely wrong to compare gravity to evolution. They aren’t comparable at all. Remove your biases. Gravity is literally measurable. You don’t get complex organisms from “basic chemistry”. That’s why evolution is a theory. It’s not measurable. It’s not repeatable. Evolution is something that requires billions to trillions of years. It’s all guessing. You think we have the answers and solid facts to evolution when we haven’t even fully explored our oceans and barely traveling outside earth.
Sooo, you think life evolved elsewhere?
Gravity is indeed measurable, but we can also break down and measure DNA, RNA, etc., and they work according to chemical (and quantum) principles. And when that's done, you find very few differences from the family trees established by observing things like bone structures.
How do you suggest we repeat the formation of the solar system? That happened due to gravity, after all.
Uh, no, that's not true at all. The DNA family tree closely matches the body structure tree, but where there's a discrepancy, the DNA takes precedence. That last part is ludicrous.
We share a large part of our DNA with every other living thing, because that's what's needed to produce cells and proteins, etc. But human DNA is far closer to other mammals than any plant or even other vertebrates.
@goaded we closely share DNA with bananas, corn, chicken, and fruit flies. DNA is only useful for finding relatives and solving crime using DNA. It isn’t useful for relationship of species. If it was, we wouldn’t be using the Animal Kingdom Nomenclature we use now to separate species. The fossil record is the bible of Evolution, and the fossil record is constantly changing and being updated.
No, we distantly share DNA with those things. What our DNA shares is the ability to build things like cells, which pretty much all living things are made up of. They didn't throw out the old names for everything when the gained the ability to read DNA because it's only very rarely that creatures were found not to match the family tree. (Hippos and whales are surprisingly relatively closely related, for example*.)
"the fossil record is constantly changing and being updated. "
It's being added to, nothing gets removed from it. Does a jigsaw puzzle get closer of further away from a complete picture as you add pieces?
* https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07776
The theory of evolution to date is the most credible one since it is based on objective facts. The theory is a coherent explanation of the observed facts. So far the theory of the origin of the species is the only one that explains what it is, while it is 100% sure that the theories based on religion are false. The mere fact of thinking about the existence of a divinity without proving its existence denies the existence of any of its acts.
We did not come from monkeys, we share a common ancestor. And you can't ever prove a scientific theroy 100% true thats not how science works. It would impact society in a similar way it has already impacted christian nations where evoulution is accepted.
Considering religion can't give any evidence for the existence of their imaginary friend, I don't see why we have to prove anything to them. Either way no proof can undo brainwashing.
1) evolution is fact, in that scientists all over have observed evolution in the animal kingdom. Darwin’s natural selection is part of the factual theory that helps explain it.
2) nothing could disprove god. It’s unfalsifiable which is partly why it’s ridiculous to believe in it.
Evolution has for all intents and purposes been proven, the only thing debatable anymore is the precise mechanisms of the biology involved. Its completely apart from the question of whether there is some intelligence or will behind the creation of existence.
the Bible proves science!!! I can point you to verses over and over that are pure science before the science came. Science and the Bible are one and the same IF you understand the real meaning and stop worshipping some prophet named Jesus who told us he wasn't the son of god. If you really understand science you would know how dumb that sounds
You realize the guy that popularized the idea of evolution went to school to study theology and be devout to God, then traveled to world documenting traits of animals and writing about the theory of evolution, before he returned to Europe and got interested in the occult and started attending seances in high society as he desperately tried to communicate with ghosts right? Even the guy that wrote the book on it, believed in God, religion, and the afterlife.
Darwin had no interest in the occult. He accepted invitations to two seances. At the first he got bored before the show began and excused himself from the proceeding. He later referred to it as rubbish and imposture. At the second seance, he declared the medium a hoaxter.
@JamesRandiDebates Very convincing argument you have there... He was so uninterested that he attended. Then since he was so uninterested, he decided to repeat that behavior again. You sound like a gay guy that's in the closet. He goes to a truck stop glory hole to suck cock, but claims he doesn't like it it's just not for him he's totally straight. Then he gets caught doing it again.
Occultism was extremely popular for a short while. It was the in thing to do. Most people who attended seances did so only out of curiosity.
@JamesRandiDebates And that's why you give truck stop blow jobs too right? Totally straight... Let me guess, you're married with kids therefore you can't be gay. It's just the thing to do right? That and use odd pronouns.
Sounds like you;'re the gay guy here. You seem to know all the lingo and all the places to go. Enjoy.
@JamesRandiDebates The classic gay in the closet response... Not surprising. Gay people like you always project your gayness onto others as wishful thinking because you don't want to feel alone. I used an allegory to drive a point home. Rather than comprehend what was going on, you got insecure about that one time at band camp and struck out at me because you know you've lost the fight.
Yes, sorry to say but as science keeps progressing, the more God doesn't seem to exist. True, there are some things we can't scientifically prove right now but that doesn't necessarily mean divinity of it all. For example, to a caveman an LCD TV or a smartphone would be divinity...
I said it a hundred times Darwin was theist.
Evolution is a fact... and it has nothing to do with debunking creation.
Unless you choose to put your belief against evolution than huh! what a fucked up belief that is.
What you are describing is that biblical god
Christianity is a joke in my opinion
I believe in science and god at the same time so evolution does not invalidate an intelligent higher power…at least not for me
We didn't come from monkeys, we came from God. So did apes. I think God threw that monkeywrench in to test man and his beliefs in Him. Scientists can insist on the evolution theory all they want. It doesn't make sense to me, and never will.
well no in fact who created the monkey and where did it come from?
it did not fall from the sky? all animals come from somewhere even humans but life is about what you as a person believe. God can still exist even if we did not come directly from him or what he created.
We DON'T come from monkeys. We share a common ancestor and have a lot of DNA in common. And evolution is a fact, though the details are disputable. It can be seen today.
As far as God existing, that is unrelated.
Here’s the thing..
I don’t believe in god or anything religious.
I do believe in evolution, I think the fact it has been proven for a number of species such as finches and horses, that I do believe in it.
I don’t believe in aliens 👽 however I think it is a bit idiotic to think we are the only living thing is the universe. There must be other signs of it on other planets just not green goblin things.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions