Creation VS Evolution

[xparasite9]

and genetic failures resulting in the problems and diseases we face today.

people tend to forget that part.


and @Sardines; either way you look at it, there's presuppositions formed. And the reason I found it fairly profound was the fact that it can apply to countless other scenarios.

[Sardines]

people tend to forget that part. and Sardines; either way you look at it, there's presuppositions formed. And the reason I found it fairly profound was the fact that it can apply to countless other scenarios.

Can you restate this, I don't understand your point with respect to the debate, evolution, or the creation of the earth.

[xparasite9]

Can you restate this, I don't understand your point with respect to the debate, evolution, or the creation of the earth.

there is no point in that respect. I'm just saying that it's a pretty profound statement that applies to a lot of things.
The same facts are present; the same evidence is present. Whatever conclusions are formed thereafter are up to interpretation. And that interpretation is immensely influenced by presuppositions. There are no impartial judges.

[KhainiWest]

I've been watching a lot on Lawrence Krauss



Although this one has nothing to do with the subject it was a good debate imo

[Lozmaster]

You don't see scientists knocking over churches but you see religious teachers ruining education

Totally would do if it meant more lab space . Actually, on that thought, my university owns a church and uses it as teaching space now.


People who disbelieve all the evidence from experiments that evolution occurs/the earth is ridiculously old/whatever based on blind faith aren't worth the time to debate it with anyway. They base ideas on complete ignorance of what is actually happening and would be incredibly hard to convince otherwise.

But still entertaining. I liked how Ken Ham brought up the point that even though scientists claim that the Earth is so sold, yet they have never dated anything to that age that specifically was from Earth [ oldest things dated were apparently meteorites] I dont know how much truth is in this statement.

The oldest things used to date the solar system are meteorites, which have been used to give a maximum age of the earth (4.5billion years or so) but there have been things found on the earth nearly that old. Specifically, zircon in Australia and uranium 238 (might have been 236, can't quite remember) have been found to be over 4 billion years old

[KhainiWest]

Totally would do if it meant more lab space . Actually, on that thought, my university owns a church and uses it as teaching space now.


People who disbelieve all the evidence from experiments that evolution occurs/the earth is ridiculously old/whatever based on blind faith aren't worth the time to debate it with anyway. They base ideas on complete ignorance of what is actually happening and would be incredibly hard to convince otherwise.



The oldest things used to date the solar system are meteorites, which have been used to give a maximum age of the earth (4.5billion years or so) but there have been things found on the earth nearly that old. Specifically, zircon in Australia and uranium 238 (might have been 236, can't quite remember) have been found to be over 4 billion years old

SILLY LOZMASTER DIDN'T YOU HEAR THE DEBATE, NONE OF THOSE METHOD ARE ACCURATE

praisejesus

[moore4me]

[xparasite9]

*young-earth creationist

[Steveio]

Creationism is a thing that is totally real because a book said so.

The book also says that humans are inherently evil because a talking snake convinced a rib bone clone woman to eat an apple from a tree.

[Moonlapse]

A big part of the problem is we have fundamentalists (and sometimes atheists) making the claim that "evolution disproves God", when really all that is disproven is a literal interpretation of Genesis. This causes alot of hysterical fear mongering. Most scientists are not on some quixotic crusade to destroy all religion. For the time I have been in science, in fact, no one has even asked me about my religion.

People who disbelieve all the evidence from experiments that evolution occurs/the earth is ridiculously old/whatever based on blind faith aren't worth the time to debate it with anyway. They base ideas on complete ignorance of what is actually happening and would be incredibly hard to convince otherwise.

Pretty much my stance. Ham's arguments are absurd and he'd have to know nothing about science to not see that.

[Razmos]

I think it's very possible for science and religion to go hand in hand.

Science-minded people who don't believe in god can think everything can be answered through science.
Religion-minded people can believe god created everything, and that science is a way of understanding the universe he created.

Unfortunately it's the people who take the bible too literally who make things messy.

[Niernen]

My problem is, which creation theory do you use? There are obviously many different theories between different religion, so how can you choose one over the other? It would not be feasible to teach every one in school, nor would it make sense to. What makes the Bible's stance better than any other religion? Ham goes on and on about how the Bible is the word of God, but his is not the only religion with a creation theory.

[PirateIzzy]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progres...tacks-ken-ham/
Pat Robertson disagrees with Ken Ham.

[Sardines]

This post has been edited out. Reason: I jumped the gun and the bullet hit me in the back.

[Satellite]

There really is no debate. You can only change mind of someone who is open to reality.

The difference here is quite frankly this:

Science: Here's a bunch of theories. Let's see which one we can find the most evidence for...

Religion: Here is the one and only ultimate truth. Let's see what we can make up to support this ultimate truth.

[Jazeon]

Christian (hence creationist) and Microbiologist here. At most the only thing a debate like this will encourage is more thought on the matter and solidifying whatever views are currently held if you are are indeed an intellectual. If not, as others have said, it will cause the people who are unsure and looking for answers a biased view based on whoever is deemed the "victor" in their eyes. Don't get me wrong i'm all for debates but most people who go into debates already have their mind set on one side or another.

As for the whole "how can you practice science and hold to it's values while still believing in creation"....pretty easily to be honest. Any true scientist knows there is a whole lot we have yet to understand, a dishonest scientist will try to tell you "we have the answers based on our evidence and without a doubt, this is how it is fullstop". That being said anyone who understands science and the scientific method at it's core, knows it's finding an observable correlation between action and reaction and then saying so far this holds true and has yet to be disproven or fail, and in most fields we all know there are almost always anomalies in a theory. But that is the part that people who hold science as the end-all should really think about the "observable" part. As scientist we can only base what we know on what can be observed in some form or fashion. Given the vastness of the universe(scientifically proven lol) and regular every occurrences that are unexplainable (though in error can be attributed to theory that seems to fit) can you really say that the we as humans with our limited scope of senses and equipment, that we can say we have all the answers. For me personally no, I simply view science and as means to explain the observable, but given all the advances throughout history, and how often once again throughout history alot of what we once thought was impossible is now possible, it would be silly for me to sit back and say pfft that's impossible.

Touching on my views on creation and science converging, I would say God set up the machine called life, down to DNA, base pairs, RNA strands you name it and set it on it's way, and from that we have micro-evolution, (still not finding the evidence to support full on we came from apes thing, too many plausible solutions) degeneration, mutations etc. To me it's simple, definitely not trying to change anyone's opinion or get into a huge debate, been there done that on multiple forums over the years, just dropping my two cents on the matter.
Forgive any errors i'm at work.

[KhainiWest]

Lawrence Krauss pretty much has proven that the universe came from nothing, that nothing is something outside the general definition. When Gravity is involved in empty space, matter spontaneously creates because it's so unstable when gravity is involved. That's at least what I could gather from his explanation. In fact when theists argue against this they decide to argue the semantics of what "nothing" actually is.

In my opinion if there is a god, he's more of a curator, not a creator.

[xparasite9]

Lawrence Krauss pretty much has proven that the universe came from nothing, that nothing is something outside the general definition. When Gravity is involved in empty space, matter spontaneously creates because it's so unstable when gravity is involved. That's at least what I could gather from his explanation. In fact when theists argue against this they decide to argue the semantics of what "nothing" actually is.

peach, we don't even really understand gravity.

[KhainiWest]

peach, we don't even really understand gravity.

That's like saying we don't understand anything about water but we still know that boiling water freezes faster than cold water.

[Lozmaster]

That's like saying we don't understand anything about water but we still know that boiling water freezes faster than cold water.

No, we really don't know much about gravity.

And the only reason we don't have an explanation for the Mpemba effect is because no-one gives enough pomegranates about it to find out, vs gravity where being the person to find some serious proof of antigravity/gravitons/antigravitons are all but guaranteed a nobel prize in physics.