“The universe is a billion card deck and our planet happened to be dealt the ace of spades.” O.K. who dealt the cards?
I am sorry that I don’t perport to know anything about evolution. I guess that is my problem. That said, yes I believe that the universe was created. I also believe that the vast majority of people believe in evolution in some form or another. (at least as evidenced by the posts on this board). Now, that being said, do I not have the right to believe anything that I want to believe, whether or not it goes along with the mainstream?
As I said, I am not a scientist. As for the big bang, the thing that I find hardest to believe in, as far as my feeble mind goes, is that something had to be there to explode. My questions are, what was it and where did it come from? I am not arguing that the universe is not expanding. I know that it is. But that, in and of itself, to me, does not proove a big bang.
No, I have NO idea what a scientific theory is. I said I am not a scientist. I did not go to college and I barely passed history and science in high school. But I also did not just jump off the turnip truck. I CAN read. Admittedly, I haven’t read all that much about evolution to be honest. But, what I have read, just makes no sense to me. Maybe I have it all jumbled up. Maybe man did not come from monkeys. Maybe evolution is actually the way it happened. Maybe the universe was created. I can’t prove either thing, and neither can scientists. After all, none of us was there at the time, were we? The best that anybody can come up with is theory. If someone can point to absolute concrete proof of evolution, I will accept it as fact. I don’t mean a scientist’s theory on the subject.
Just because I don’t find evolution plausable, does that make me wrong? What is proof to me, may not be proof to you, and vise versa.
To me, creation makes more sense, if for no other reason than the universe, or at least our solar system, is orderly. I just can’t see how that could be “just chance”.
I have to say that if evolution operated the way you seem to think it does, cheezit, I would have a difficult time accepting it as well.
However, it does not.
This is perhaps one of the greatest misconceptions that people who know nothing about evolution have about evolution. Evolution does not produce ladders or chains; it produces trees. By this, I mean that it is not the case that single-celled animals evolved into fish, which evolved into amphibians, which evolved into reptiles, which evolved into monkeys, which evolved into Man.
The ‘truth’ is a good deal more complicated than that. However, in simple terms, Man and apes share a common ancestor; one did not evovle from the other. Apes and monkeys share a common ancestor. Monkeys, apes and Man all make up a group called Primates. Going back far enough, Primates share a common ancestor with all other mammals. Mammals, in turn, if one goes back even further, share a common ancestor with reptiles, etc. Evolution produces branching geneologies, not ladders where A “evolves into” B.
Another misconception. The fundamental observation behind evolution is that any organism’s descendents will be slightly different from itself; your children would (do?) look slightly different from you, yet there would also be a resemblance. This is called “descent with modification” and, really, cannot be denied. This is a fact; it describes what we see.
The theory of evolution (or, more properly, theories, since there are more than one) deals with the mechanisms behind the modification. That is, how does evolution work?
I will absolutely agree with you here. However, see above for an explanation as to why.
The simple answers to these questions are: it is, it didn’t, and no.
Evolution, specifically speciation, still occurs. See here for some examples. Also note that these examples also show that evolution hasn’t “stopped.”
No one said you can’t believe what want to believe. However, you descibed evolution as unlikely and not plausible, although you admitedly know very little about it. You have to see that this isn’t fair. Your conclusion is based on an incomplete (and likely misleading) set of data.
If you ask this in GQ, you’ll probably get a better answer, but I’ll give it a shot. It didn’t come from anywhere. The Big Bang happened at the beginning of time and there was nothing before it. Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the north pole. Scientifically, the question has no meaning. Even if there was something before the Big Bang, we wouldn’t have any way to observe it. The Big Bang would have desrtoyed all the evidence.
The universe is expanding so if you extrapolate backwards you would expect that in the past the matter of the universe was very close together. Take it back further and you might guess that it was all at a single point. Not proof of the Big Bang theory, just evidence that supports it.
Neither is Rocket88 but he/she gave a good explanation of what a scientific theory is. Essentially, a theory is an explanation that fits the evidence. A theory is also able to predict where you could find new evidence. It is a collection of confirmed hypotheses that has new explanatory power.
Perhaps. Do you have any specific questions? You can probably find a lot of answers at www.talkorigins.org.
All of science is based on theory. Nothing can be proven conclusively because so much of science is based on induction. The sun might not rise tomarrow and that would shoot to hell Newton’s laws of motion. (BTW, a scientific law is different from a scientific theory only in that a law can be expressed succinctly). There won’t be any proof forth coming, I’m afraid. Science doesn’t deal in proof, only evidence.
But if we were to answer that question, the fact is that an all-powerful God could have done it, or it could have come about by chance. Science does not answer the former; it only says that the latter is possible.
**
You have a right to believe anything you wish!
But answer me this: Say I believed that Satan was the good guy in the Bible, that following Satan’s path was the way to go and that all people who follow Christ are deluded.
Then I said: “I am sorry that I don’t proport to know anything about the Bible. I guess that is my problem. That said, yes I believe that Satan is the good guy and Christ is an asshole. I also believe that the vast majority of people believe the opposite. (at least as evidenced by historical viewspoints). Now, that being said, do I not have the right to believe anything that I want to believe, whether or not it goes along with the mainstream?”
The issue is not what I CHOOSE to believe. The issue is me saying the Bible is full of shit when I never read the book.
You “know” the universe is expanding. How? You said yourself you’re not a scientist. You obviously didn’t do studies on this, and you cannot observe such a thing. So how do you know this while at the same time, you don’t “know” that this piece of evidence - combined with other data and observations - do show enough evidence for the Big Bang that it’s a valid theory recognized as such by most of the mainstream scientific community?
**
Neither am I, but I know what a Scientific Theory is. When I don’t know something, I look it up. Or I’ll ask it here. Until I know about it, I won’t be acting like I do, however. And barging in and saying, “It’s ONLY a theory” proves that you have no idea what you’re talking about. So why say it?
**
So just because something is beyond your comprehension that makes it false?
I don’t understand the game of Cricket. It still exists, I think.
**
Science is not about “proving” anything. Science is about learning, gathering evidence and data, observing and experimenting, and using previously gathered evidence and data to interpret the new information that comes in.
Science shows evidence that things are as they are. Sometimes, this evidence is indirect. We have not seen dinosaurs, but we have seen bones and eggs and footprints. As such, we say dinosaurs once roamed the earth. We can say this without ever having seen a dinosaur roam the earth. Is this understood?
**
Right. It’s far more likely that God did it.
Do you even have proof of your God? There is a ton - a MOUNTAIN - of evidence for the Big Bang, for abiogenesis, for evolution.
Where is the evidence of God?
Now, I happen to believe in God. But I also believe that not using the brains he gave us is, if not a sin, certainly a waste of His gifts.
The evidence says millions of years to evolve. I say God did it that way. Why are you limiting Him? Can you limit God? You are doing that when you say that He couldn’t have done something, you know.
**
Hey, if you want to believe in the Divine Weasel, nobody will tell you that you are wrong. Really.
But when you sprout off total ignorance of a subject which is not a matter of belief but of simply educating yourself, and act as if you know enough to make any kind of decision based upon your knowledge, then yes, people are going to call you on it.
**
I could answer that one too. You going to read it? Actually try and learn? or are you so set in your mind that none of this will add up to anything that you will remain willfully ignorant of the universe around you?
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, two weeks, three days, 17 hours, 45 minutes and 48 seconds.
8029 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,003.70.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 5 minutes.
Look guys, I didn’t intend this to become yet another evolution vs. creationism thread. I would really like to hear from some creationists who demand “absolute proof” of evolution. And I’d like them to explain to me why they accept so many other beliefs without absolute proof. Yes, I know all about the psychological ramifications of thinking inside the closed system of many religions. But I’d like to hear from someone within such a system, and have him examine the reasons behind his beliefs.
panache45, you might be interested in “Finding Darwin’s God” by Ken Miller. A lot of it is dedicated to debunking “creation science” and Intelligent Design; but a lotr of it is dedicated to explain his Christian religous convictions. I think those convictions allow him to understand the “creation scientists” better than those who do not share those convictions. As he describes the aftermath of a debagte with Henry Morris in Tampa:
" As luck would have it, the organizers of this event had booked rooms for both Dr. Morris and myself in a local motel. When I walked into the coffee shop the next morning, I noticed Morris at a table by himself fin shing breakfast. Flushed with confidence from the debate, I asked if I might join him. The elderly Morris was a bit shaken, but he agreed. I rdered a nice breakfast, and then got right to the point. “Do you actually believe all this stuff?
I suppose I might have expected a wink and a nod. We had both been paid for our debate appearances, and perhaps I expected him to knowledge that he made a pretty good living from the creation business. He did nothing of the sort. Henry Morris made it clear to me that he believed everything he had said the night before “But Dr. Morris, so much of what you argued is wrong, starting with the age of the earth!” Morris had been unable to answer the geological data on the earth’s age I had presented the night before, and it had badly damaged his credibility with the audience. Nonetheless, he looked me straight in the eyes. “Ken, you’re intelligent, you’re well-meaning, and you’re energetic. But you are also young, and you don’t realize what’s at stake. In a question of such importance, scientific data aren’t the ultimate authority. Even you know that science is wrong sometimes.”
Indeed I did. Morris continued so that I could get a feeling for what that ultimate authority was. “Scripture tells us what the right conclusion is. And if science, momentarily, doesn’t agree with it, then we have to keep working until we get the right answer. But I have no doubts as to what that answer will be.” Morris then excused himself, and I was left to ponder what he had said. I had sat down thinking the man a charlatan, but I left appreciating the depth, the power, and the sincerity of his convictions. Nonetheless, however one might admire Morris’s strength of character, convictions that allow science to be bent beyond recognition are not merely unjustified - they are dangerous in the intellectual and even in the moral sense, because they corrupt and compromise the integrity of human reason.
My impromptu breakfast with Henry Morris taught me an important lesson - the appeal of creationism is emotional, not scientific. I might be able to lay out graphs and charts and diagrams, to cite laboratory experiments and field observations, to describe the details of one evolutionary sequence after another, but to the true believers of creationism, these would all be sound and fury, signifying nothing. The truth would always be somewhere else.”
I think that’s the main problem here. You admit that you don’t know anything on the subject, yet you felt it necessary to respond and tell us how you can’t possibly believe it. This does not do wonders for your image.
It would be like me saying, “I think that movie was stupid and sucked! What’s that? Well, no, I didn’t actually watch it. Why? Is that important?”
Satan said
“Hey, if you want to believe in the Divine Weasel, nobody will tell you that you are wrong. Really”.
Isn’t that what most everybody is, in fact, doing? I say I don’t believe in evolution. I say I do believe in creation. I’m told I’m wrong.
I admitted that I am no scientist. I admitted that I don’t have the answers. I said that evolution is not plausable to me. I did point out a few things that don’t make sense to me. And with all that is written above, it still doesn’t, for the most part. For instance, the big bang theory. I asked how it happened. The answer was, basically that before the big bang there was nothing. My question is still, what blew up? A simple question: How can nothing blow up?
I can’t prove creation. period. Nevertheless, I choose to believe in it. If everybody wants to ridicule me for that, go ahead. I’m done with this thread. I should never have gotten involved in it in the first place. I knew better.
Its on the topic, and it sends me into hysterical fits. If ANYONE believes this … In the name of decorum i shall not continue.
I cant believe that creationism is still taught anywhere.
You dismiss things you don’t understand and cling to ignorance because it comforts you. You have every right to do so. I even wish you the best in your belief. But you are still wrong.
Man evolved. Man continues to evolve, though a case can be made that the selective pressures driving the process have altered radically in the last 20,000 years.
The evidence for this is overwhelming. You are free to disbelieve the evidence. You are also free to believe th eEarth is the fixed center of the Universe around which all heavenly bodies orbit. If you do, you would be wrong.
There is no shame in being wrong. Everyone has been wrong at one time or another. Everyone will be wrong again, should they live long enough. There might be shame in clinging to a wrong opinion in the face of compelling evidence, but that really depends upon the company you keep.
You ask “what blew up”. The answer is: a quantum singularity, but it didn’t exactly “blow up”. That’s just a metaphor. Somehow, I doubt you will find this answer satisfactory. Fair enough. There is a solution to that, too. Education. Reading. Seeking answers (which is not necessarily synonymous with asking questions). But there really are no shortcuts. You are asking deep questions, whether you realize it or not. Any easy answer is unlikely to be correct.
I am more and more convinced that ‘creationism’ based on a literal reading of the Bible is being used as a straw man to make it easier for evolutionists to argue against the existence of a God or any divine factor in the development of the universe and earth. How about approaching evolution and the big bang as the tools that the Divine used? Yes, a merging of the two belief systems that many advocate.
Sure, and the next time you need surgery, why not get a surgeon and a witch doctor, and let them “merge” their medical belief systems while you’re on the table?
See, this is what I meant. Evolution is being used to insult religion and spiritality. And you wonder why is it being rejected out of hand by those who are devoutly religious or spiritual? Your insulting spiritual-based belief systems do not help your cause at all.
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, two weeks, four days, 4 hours, 47 minutes and 50 seconds.
8047 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,006.00.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 6 days, 22 hours, 35 minutes.
JonF, I am deeply indebted to you for that reference and I will seek out Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God” asap.
I’m actually quite prepared to accept Douglas Adam’s view that humans are only the third most intelligent life form on the planet.
Creationists will argue that evolution is only one reproduceable experiment from being consigned to the dust bin.
Converely an unbroken stream of verifications and enhancements since the Rennaisance carry no weight. The fundamental creationist view is “don’t confuse the issue with facts, this is a matter of faith”.
From the OP, the basis of the two propositions are “proof” and “faith”. Ergo, apart from a war of attrition, ne’er the twain shall meet.
First off, I’m going to say that I do believe in God, and that he (or she) created this universe.
::Lazlo ducks and covers::
But only a true fool ignores the obvious.
While I can’t say that the theory of evolution is perfect, it is the best guess we have as to how life on this planet came about. There’s plenty of proof, and I do believe it.
Believing that God created us and that we evolved from lower life forms does not have to be mutually exclusive. I fail to see why it always is. I have no problems believing both. Of course, I may just be wierd.
In short, I basically agree with what capacitor suggested.
Hey Lazlo! You believe in God and Evolution??? How dare you!!!
IMHO, I think the problem with most die-hard creationists is that they interpret the Bible too literally. Who’s to say that Adam and Eve aren’t really symbolism for Darwin’s amoeba??? (sp?) amoebae??
BTW, I’m a practicing Catholic and believe in Evolution…shhhhhhh…don’t tell my bible school teacher!
