Creation VS. Evolution
Of all places, I found this ongoing debate about the 2 topics in a DotA forum.
And here's my post:
--------------------------------------------
Well, to put my 2 cents in, I believe that both evolution and creationism are [I]faiths[/I].
Faith, defined as:
- the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.
Yes, evolution has been shown to have "evidence" to support it.
Yes, most of the "evidence" is plausible.
But keep in mind that the evidence "uncovered" by evolution is far from complete. Evolution is still a theory. And yes, so is the Cell Theory, and other theories now accepted as "fact". But these theories are still theories because [i]they have not been fully proven[/i].
We see that to accept a theory as truth requires people to accept the present merits of the theory, ie. the evidence, as good enough to support the theory despite other questions still unanswered. This, to some degree, requires belief. And belief is a foundation for faith.
What I'm trying to say is that, looking at the debate, [i]both[/i] sides are making do with assumptions that theirs is the truth.
There's a phrase that describes it. Circular reasoning.
For example, arguments of evolutionists that use the "fact" that the universe has existed for billions of years.
To make the above statement as fact, the theory of evolution has to be assumed true. Therefore, there is no validity in an argument for something that uses "facts" which are supported, ironically, by the theory being argued for.
Therefore, a bit of faith is required to substantiate the theory of evolution.
Creationism.
However the case may be, creationism also touches on circular reasoning.
The main factor in the majority's dislike for creationism is the fact that it is based on the Bible. Of course, for people of different religions or agnostics and atheists, this one factor instantly proves that creationism is false.
But we can take this example and say that creationists assume the Bible to be true. Therefore, since the Bible is true, creationism is true. Wham Bam, there you go, the creationism equivalent to circular reasoning.
However, whatever people may think of the Bible, the fact stands that archaeological discoveries have supported some of the text written down in the book. And despite being considered by a lot of people as a book of myths, the fact stands that the Bible has not yet been proven wrong by overwhelming evidence.
"How can you say that? Evolution clearly disproves the Bible."
Yes, but evolution is a theory that must be taken with a grain of faith.
And so is creationism.
-------------------------------------
[QUOTE="DonExodus"]The fact that it made it to theory is a strong argument for its existence.[/QUOTE]
An argument, yes. Fact, no.
[QUOTE="DonExodus"]2) Common Sense. If you believe evolution, you must believe in the driving force behind it: Natural selection. Conversely, if you believe in Natural Selection, you must also believe in its net result: evolution.[/QUOTE]
Believe is the operative word here. Plus, a lot of things do not make sense. But are they any less real than things that make sense?
[QUOTE="DonExodus"]1) The Fossil Record. From Olduvai Gorge to the Leakeys, its all there. Millions of years of it, transitional species included. This also refutes the creationism theory that the earth was created thousands, not millions of years ago, as carbon dating has shown otherwise.[/QUOTE]
As carbon dating, [i]relative to evolutionary theory[/i] has shown otherwise.
[QUOTE="DonExodus"]3) There are no transitional fossils. This is garbage, and pure fabrication of the facts.[/QUOTE]
"Pure fabrication of the facts" can also be a description for some transitional fossils which turned out to be hoaxes. Do not mistake the previous statement as a generalization.
[QUOTE="DonExodus"]4) How can life originate? Its so complex, how could this have randomly happened? Theres a misunderstanding here. Im not debating evolution vs. intelligen design. However, thermodynamically speaking, every single reaction in our bodies is the physically expected result. If you put these molecules together repeatedly, this is what will happen every time. No thought is required, its a simple reaction. Furthermore, complex biological molecules have been synthesized in the lab from ancient earth conditions. You have the building blocks, all it takes is the perfect combination at the perfect time. In billions of years, its probable.[/QUOTE]
Again, the argument that uses the fact that the earth existed for billions of years. Yes, it might have [i]possibly[/i] existed for that long.
"How can life originate? Its so complex, how could this have randomly happened?"
There is no misunderstanding here. This is not about intelligent design. This argument is about the probabilities of successful mutation.
[quote="DonExodus"]You do realize by saying there was an Earth 540 million years ago youre assuming creationism is false before you make your first statement.[/quote]
You've said it yourself. Assumptions in no way make a theory true, or false. Assumptions are just that, assuming something to be true, or otherwise.
[QUOTE="mr44mag"]
[quote]and Mag, How could the time possibly be infinite? We live in a world of Finites. The only thing I can think of being infinite besides God, is the universe, and I'm not really sure the universe is infinite.[/quote]
Thinking in such human terms. There's no possible way you could know one way or the other. For some reason infinity seems logical to me but w/e.[/quote]
Thinking in such human terms means you assume that their is some higher being.
[QUOTE="mr44mag"]
[quote]As for RNA being formed of basic elements...true, but could it spontaneously form from the base chemicals without living material there, and become a living being? No.[/quote]
???
I think you need more biology lessons. I'm no teacher but basically the RNA can form with only basic elements with the right temperature and environment. All you have to do is hit the right code for it to produce for of itself. Viola! You have ogranic matter that can become a living organism. Life is a organic machine, its possible to form it through a fluke of nature.[/quote]
3 words. Fluke of nature. Fluke meaning that it is not in the scheme of nature.
[QUOTE]It's been show that it is possible to create amino acids by passing a few sparks in a jar with the neccessary elements decads ago.[/QUOTE]
As anyone can tell you, amino acids are, in no way, alive.
[QUOTE="BlueisIMBA"]
However, creationism does not challenge this sort of evolution. Macroevolution, the theory that entire species evolve into completely different ones, has yet to be satisfactorily proven to me. Sure, you can prove that those finches evolved into many different kinds of finches with different beaks. However, you can't prove that these finches evolved into say, a penguin or even a sparrow, let alone a fish or squirrel or something drastically different like that. Dogs may have evolved into many species of dog. But you'll never see anyone claiming that dogs could have evolved into anteaters.
There IS a difference between these two kinds of evolution - one is rather widely accepted and the other is far from proven. The only true fallacy in my opinion is thinking that one proves the other.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this, and i feel that this is a valid point to be raised.
[QUOTE]WHere did the idea of creationsim come from? I mean until a few years ago i had never heard of it, and from my knowledge its only taugh in america and only in the religiously dominated areas and even in some of those areas its stronly debated. So where did it come from?
Oh im for evolution.[/QUOTE]
See this post? This is exactly the reason why creationist diehards are clamoring for a change in the way evolution is taught in schools. For a subject as controversial as the theory of evolution, it is not right to jsut spoonfeed it into the minds of children without even acknowledging the fact that it is, at its roots, a theory.
[QUOTE="DonExodus"]It came from the bible. Some people were gullible enough to take it literally, and would actually have it taught to our students over evolution. **COUGH COUGH CHURCH AND STATE COUGH**[/QUOTE]
I disagree with the obvious bias of this statement, but I do agree that creationism shouldn't be taught as fact in schools, just as evolution shouldn't have been taught as fact. At best, although this will never happen, both should be taught as theories.
[QUOTE]This still doesn't explain to me the fact of how the eye was "assembled" in evolution.
I guess the main point i am trying to make is that the eye is made up of many different parts (cornea, lens, pupil, etc.). I know for a fact that not all these parts evolved at the same period in time.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
That's exactly the theory. The cornea, the lens, the pupil each have individual benefits. (Or whatever came first has it's own). I haven't studied the specific example of the evolution of the eye; it'll take some research. However, I know that scientists claim that eyesight has evolved *independently* many times (don't ask me to explain it right now, I need to look it up)!
..contnued...
They're not independent. The retina is the most critical component for vision. The other parts *improve* visual sensing by the retina.
And if it's advantageous (i.e. "greater than the sum of the parts"), it would make sense to evolve interdependence between the parts of the eyes.[/QUOTE]
Circular reasoning. The rebuttals assume that evolution "knows" which comes first.
And lookit the reply of the other guy..
[QUOTE]
Way to contradict yourself. Well I now have to question the validity of every arguement you make from now on.[/QUOTE]
I'm not the only one who noticed the contradictions here.
[QUOTE]
Religion is religion, and Science is science. Although Science might not entirely agree with works like the Bible, that doesn't mean that it's "wrong".[/QUOTE]
And vice-versa. Due to obvious bias, you forgot to put that one line in.
[QUOTE]Science has "proven" many things before proving them wrong.[/QUOTE]
'Nuff said.
[QUOTE]
I find it amusing that so many pro-evolution arguments today are so adamant about making it clear that they do not deal with the origins of life. I get the feeling that this line of arguments has been dropped because they realize it is increasingly difficult to come up with a reasonable scientific explanation. At any rate, if origin of life issues are removed from evolutionist arguments, why are you picking a fight with creationism? Creationism by definition, is a theory about the origins of life, namely through its creation by God. If you refuse to debate over the origins of life, you've removed the majority if not all of the debate.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I guess I just don't understand how christians can not believe in the existence of evolution, and yet in doing so place their faith in such things like this. I find it harder to believe, looking at the myriad of living thngs on earth today and the breath of the universe, and the sheer complexity of life, that it all came about through a massive grand plan of an unknown greater entity rather than chance and evolution.[/QUOTE]
The former post followed by the latter's reply to the former says it all. Both sides have made their assumptions. Both sides, in their own minds, have won.
-----------------------------------
To sum it up, both sides have assumed they are correct. Both sides believe their theory to be viable. Due to the assumptions and beliefs made, the debate is irreconcilable.
Because both have become things of faith.
-----------------------------------
By the way, I am a Christian. I believe in creationism, (as if that wasn't obvious by the way I posted.) LOL.
And here's my post:
--------------------------------------------
Well, to put my 2 cents in, I believe that both evolution and creationism are [I]faiths[/I].
Faith, defined as:
- the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.
Yes, evolution has been shown to have "evidence" to support it.
Yes, most of the "evidence" is plausible.
But keep in mind that the evidence "uncovered" by evolution is far from complete. Evolution is still a theory. And yes, so is the Cell Theory, and other theories now accepted as "fact". But these theories are still theories because [i]they have not been fully proven[/i].
We see that to accept a theory as truth requires people to accept the present merits of the theory, ie. the evidence, as good enough to support the theory despite other questions still unanswered. This, to some degree, requires belief. And belief is a foundation for faith.
What I'm trying to say is that, looking at the debate, [i]both[/i] sides are making do with assumptions that theirs is the truth.
There's a phrase that describes it. Circular reasoning.
For example, arguments of evolutionists that use the "fact" that the universe has existed for billions of years.
To make the above statement as fact, the theory of evolution has to be assumed true. Therefore, there is no validity in an argument for something that uses "facts" which are supported, ironically, by the theory being argued for.
Therefore, a bit of faith is required to substantiate the theory of evolution.
Creationism.
However the case may be, creationism also touches on circular reasoning.
The main factor in the majority's dislike for creationism is the fact that it is based on the Bible. Of course, for people of different religions or agnostics and atheists, this one factor instantly proves that creationism is false.
But we can take this example and say that creationists assume the Bible to be true. Therefore, since the Bible is true, creationism is true. Wham Bam, there you go, the creationism equivalent to circular reasoning.
However, whatever people may think of the Bible, the fact stands that archaeological discoveries have supported some of the text written down in the book. And despite being considered by a lot of people as a book of myths, the fact stands that the Bible has not yet been proven wrong by overwhelming evidence.
"How can you say that? Evolution clearly disproves the Bible."
Yes, but evolution is a theory that must be taken with a grain of faith.
And so is creationism.
-------------------------------------
[QUOTE="DonExodus"]The fact that it made it to theory is a strong argument for its existence.[/QUOTE]
An argument, yes. Fact, no.
[QUOTE="DonExodus"]2) Common Sense. If you believe evolution, you must believe in the driving force behind it: Natural selection. Conversely, if you believe in Natural Selection, you must also believe in its net result: evolution.[/QUOTE]
Believe is the operative word here. Plus, a lot of things do not make sense. But are they any less real than things that make sense?
[QUOTE="DonExodus"]1) The Fossil Record. From Olduvai Gorge to the Leakeys, its all there. Millions of years of it, transitional species included. This also refutes the creationism theory that the earth was created thousands, not millions of years ago, as carbon dating has shown otherwise.[/QUOTE]
As carbon dating, [i]relative to evolutionary theory[/i] has shown otherwise.
[QUOTE="DonExodus"]3) There are no transitional fossils. This is garbage, and pure fabrication of the facts.[/QUOTE]
"Pure fabrication of the facts" can also be a description for some transitional fossils which turned out to be hoaxes. Do not mistake the previous statement as a generalization.
[QUOTE="DonExodus"]4) How can life originate? Its so complex, how could this have randomly happened? Theres a misunderstanding here. Im not debating evolution vs. intelligen design. However, thermodynamically speaking, every single reaction in our bodies is the physically expected result. If you put these molecules together repeatedly, this is what will happen every time. No thought is required, its a simple reaction. Furthermore, complex biological molecules have been synthesized in the lab from ancient earth conditions. You have the building blocks, all it takes is the perfect combination at the perfect time. In billions of years, its probable.[/QUOTE]
Again, the argument that uses the fact that the earth existed for billions of years. Yes, it might have [i]possibly[/i] existed for that long.
"How can life originate? Its so complex, how could this have randomly happened?"
There is no misunderstanding here. This is not about intelligent design. This argument is about the probabilities of successful mutation.
[quote="DonExodus"]You do realize by saying there was an Earth 540 million years ago youre assuming creationism is false before you make your first statement.[/quote]
You've said it yourself. Assumptions in no way make a theory true, or false. Assumptions are just that, assuming something to be true, or otherwise.
[QUOTE="mr44mag"]
[quote]and Mag, How could the time possibly be infinite? We live in a world of Finites. The only thing I can think of being infinite besides God, is the universe, and I'm not really sure the universe is infinite.[/quote]
Thinking in such human terms. There's no possible way you could know one way or the other. For some reason infinity seems logical to me but w/e.[/quote]
Thinking in such human terms means you assume that their is some higher being.
[QUOTE="mr44mag"]
[quote]As for RNA being formed of basic elements...true, but could it spontaneously form from the base chemicals without living material there, and become a living being? No.[/quote]
???
I think you need more biology lessons. I'm no teacher but basically the RNA can form with only basic elements with the right temperature and environment. All you have to do is hit the right code for it to produce for of itself. Viola! You have ogranic matter that can become a living organism. Life is a organic machine, its possible to form it through a fluke of nature.[/quote]
3 words. Fluke of nature. Fluke meaning that it is not in the scheme of nature.
[QUOTE]It's been show that it is possible to create amino acids by passing a few sparks in a jar with the neccessary elements decads ago.[/QUOTE]
As anyone can tell you, amino acids are, in no way, alive.
[QUOTE="BlueisIMBA"]
However, creationism does not challenge this sort of evolution. Macroevolution, the theory that entire species evolve into completely different ones, has yet to be satisfactorily proven to me. Sure, you can prove that those finches evolved into many different kinds of finches with different beaks. However, you can't prove that these finches evolved into say, a penguin or even a sparrow, let alone a fish or squirrel or something drastically different like that. Dogs may have evolved into many species of dog. But you'll never see anyone claiming that dogs could have evolved into anteaters.
There IS a difference between these two kinds of evolution - one is rather widely accepted and the other is far from proven. The only true fallacy in my opinion is thinking that one proves the other.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this, and i feel that this is a valid point to be raised.
[QUOTE]WHere did the idea of creationsim come from? I mean until a few years ago i had never heard of it, and from my knowledge its only taugh in america and only in the religiously dominated areas and even in some of those areas its stronly debated. So where did it come from?
Oh im for evolution.[/QUOTE]
See this post? This is exactly the reason why creationist diehards are clamoring for a change in the way evolution is taught in schools. For a subject as controversial as the theory of evolution, it is not right to jsut spoonfeed it into the minds of children without even acknowledging the fact that it is, at its roots, a theory.
[QUOTE="DonExodus"]It came from the bible. Some people were gullible enough to take it literally, and would actually have it taught to our students over evolution. **COUGH COUGH CHURCH AND STATE COUGH**[/QUOTE]
I disagree with the obvious bias of this statement, but I do agree that creationism shouldn't be taught as fact in schools, just as evolution shouldn't have been taught as fact. At best, although this will never happen, both should be taught as theories.
[QUOTE]This still doesn't explain to me the fact of how the eye was "assembled" in evolution.
I guess the main point i am trying to make is that the eye is made up of many different parts (cornea, lens, pupil, etc.). I know for a fact that not all these parts evolved at the same period in time.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
That's exactly the theory. The cornea, the lens, the pupil each have individual benefits. (Or whatever came first has it's own). I haven't studied the specific example of the evolution of the eye; it'll take some research. However, I know that scientists claim that eyesight has evolved *independently* many times (don't ask me to explain it right now, I need to look it up)!
..contnued...
They're not independent. The retina is the most critical component for vision. The other parts *improve* visual sensing by the retina.
And if it's advantageous (i.e. "greater than the sum of the parts"), it would make sense to evolve interdependence between the parts of the eyes.[/QUOTE]
Circular reasoning. The rebuttals assume that evolution "knows" which comes first.
And lookit the reply of the other guy..
[QUOTE]
Way to contradict yourself. Well I now have to question the validity of every arguement you make from now on.[/QUOTE]
I'm not the only one who noticed the contradictions here.
[QUOTE]
Religion is religion, and Science is science. Although Science might not entirely agree with works like the Bible, that doesn't mean that it's "wrong".[/QUOTE]
And vice-versa. Due to obvious bias, you forgot to put that one line in.
[QUOTE]Science has "proven" many things before proving them wrong.[/QUOTE]
'Nuff said.
[QUOTE]
I find it amusing that so many pro-evolution arguments today are so adamant about making it clear that they do not deal with the origins of life. I get the feeling that this line of arguments has been dropped because they realize it is increasingly difficult to come up with a reasonable scientific explanation. At any rate, if origin of life issues are removed from evolutionist arguments, why are you picking a fight with creationism? Creationism by definition, is a theory about the origins of life, namely through its creation by God. If you refuse to debate over the origins of life, you've removed the majority if not all of the debate.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I guess I just don't understand how christians can not believe in the existence of evolution, and yet in doing so place their faith in such things like this. I find it harder to believe, looking at the myriad of living thngs on earth today and the breath of the universe, and the sheer complexity of life, that it all came about through a massive grand plan of an unknown greater entity rather than chance and evolution.[/QUOTE]
The former post followed by the latter's reply to the former says it all. Both sides have made their assumptions. Both sides, in their own minds, have won.
-----------------------------------
To sum it up, both sides have assumed they are correct. Both sides believe their theory to be viable. Due to the assumptions and beliefs made, the debate is irreconcilable.
Because both have become things of faith.
-----------------------------------
By the way, I am a Christian. I believe in creationism, (as if that wasn't obvious by the way I posted.) LOL.
posted by Unknown at 10:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home