Religious debate (split from main board)

[Oldvol75]

There is plenty of data out there with regards to fossil records and genetic science that qualifies as observation. Sure, this doesn't fit into the whole "God did it" mantra, and of course such thinking forces one to highlight the problems with the observable evolutionary evidence while disregarding the mountains of other evidence.

The simple fact remains though, the extreme basic parts of evolutionary theory are almost considered fact at this point...it is the finer points and intracacies how it happened where there is much debate.

All due respect, I do find it hard to believe you teach this stuff without knowing that difference.

Thus my point, I've always heard that "almost" only counts in horeshoes and hand granades!

 

[IPorange]

We're just coming from really different places, Oldvol. I am inclined to just let it lay there. I apologize for the comments about you quitting your job. I obviously feel very strongly on the matter and it does bother me that you give a "disclaimer" before covering something when you wouldn't do so for, say, Mendelian genetics, but that was a bit ridiculous on my part.


BeecherVol, can you elaborate? I don't really follow what you are asking. If you are asking who I believe since people are fallible, I just do the best I can to look at the facts as they are presented (including research.) It's people's fallibility that also works against there being some sort of elaborate hoax or conspiracy regarding evolution. I just don't think it could be pulled off so masterfully or totally.

If it all were a hoax, and was all wrong, it would certainly make a difference. I am not so sure that it would automatically lead me to believe that creationists had it right all along, though. It's really the difference between living by faith or living by fact. Not that the two are mutually exclusive. But one must over-ride the other when the rubber meets the road.

Does that address your post? If it doesn't, let me know.

 

[Oldvol75]

Please do, where did all the posts go or was it in another thread?

He's alittle under the weather as we speak so I don't know if he would want to join a discussion at the present. I believe this was the thread but we may have to chalk it up to Board Nazi's!

 

[rjd970]

Thus my point, I've always heard that "almost" only counts in horeshoes and hand granades!

Weak.

The theory certainly isn't as flimsy as you are portraying it. Certainty and absolutes are very rare in science, you should know that. So "almost" counts in more than you think.

 

[Oldvol75]

We're just coming from really different places, Oldvol. I am inclined to just let it lay there. I apologize for the comments about you quitting your job. I obviously feel very strongly on the matter and it does bother me that you give a "disclaimer" before covering something when you wouldn't do so for, say, Mendelian genetics, but that was a bit ridiculous on my part.


BeecherVol, can you elaborate? I don't really follow what you are asking. If you are asking who I believe since people are fallible, I just do the best I can to look at the facts as they are presented (including research.) It's people's fallibility that also works against there being some sort of elaborate hoax or conspiracy regarding evolution. I just don't think it could be pulled off so masterfully or totally.

If it all were a hoax, and was all wrong, it would certainly make a difference. I am not so sure that it would automatically lead me to believe that creationists had it right all along, though. It's really the difference between living by faith or living by fact. Not that the two are mutually exclusive. But one must over-ride the other when the rubber meets the road.

Does that address your post? If it doesn't, let me know.

No problem IP, I accept. Mendelain genetics is usually not a topic in 8th or 9th grade science where evolution is generally taught.

As to my disclaimer, My students already know that I pastor a church. The majority of students that I teach also attend churches and have questions concerning. Its the one topic that I dread every year, but the main thing you should know is that I do teach it as it is required.

 

[IPorange]

He's alittle under the weather as we speak so I don't know if he would want to join a discussion at the present. I believe this was the thread but we may have to chalk it up to Board Nazi's!

I kind of wish we still had an "anything goes" subforum that wouldn't get trimmed of posts. I like complex conversations as much as I do linear ones.

 

[Oldvol75]

Weak.

The theory certainly isn't as flimsy as you are portraying it. Certainty and absolutes are very rare in science, you should know that. So "almost" counts in more than you think.

Not weak at all. "Almost" is not quite there, its close. Thats my whole problem with it. Its not absolute enough for me to be considered fact. Yes I understand there are not many absolutes in science, again there lies the problem. Science should always be open for questioning. There are things in science that are fact and can be proven, just off the top of my head, water, we know what its chemical composition is.

Where the fossil record of most things are not complete. There are gaps and these gaps have been filled by speculation. Just like the shows they run on dinosaurs on Nat Geo and the History Channel, its all speculation as to excatly how these creatures behaved. No one was there to observe them and how they really behaved. Yet they present their views as absolute fact in their TV productions.

 

[Oldvol75]

I kind of wish we still had an "anything goes" subforum that wouldn't get trimmed of posts. I like complex conversations as much as I do linear ones.

Me too. I really enjoy these conversations that I have with you and some others. We may not see eye-to-eye, but it least we can have a honest discussion.:hi:

 

[rjd970]

Not weak at all. "Almost" is not quite there, its close. Thats my whole problem with it. Its not absolute enough for me to be considered fact. Yes I understand there are not many absolutes in science, again there lies the problem. Science should always be open for questioning. There are things in science that are fact and can be proven, just off the top of my head, water, we know what its chemical composition is.

Where the fossil record of most things are not complete. There are gaps and these gaps have been filled by speculation. Just like the shows they run on dinosaurs on Nat Geo and the History Channel, its all speculation as to excatly how these creatures behaved. No one was there to observe them and how they really behaved. Yet they present their views as absolute fact in their TV productions.

But what is absolute certain fact? Your religious view of how life got to where it is today? Come on now, really. Put them side by side, and the basics of evolution are far more credible than any theological explanation.

Besides, this is just what I am talking about with the nonsense of focusing on every unknown with the theory as a basis for discrediting it. Let's focus on gaps in fossils, instead of saying "Hey, look at this mountain of evidence over here, that is why we accept these fossil gaps as an accepted unknown right now". If you want to discuss the specifics of punctuated gradualism and phyletic gradualism that is one thing, but simply pointing to fossil records and declaring because evolutionary theory is incomplete as evidence against it...that is not only intellectually dishonest, but it borders on downright absurdity in the scientific community.

Spin it anyway you want but evolution, despite all its flaws you champion, is by far the best explanation right now.

 

[Oldvol75]

But what is absolute certain fact? Your religious view of how life got to where it is today? Come on now, really. Put them side by side, and the basics of evolution are far more credible than any theological explanation.

Besides, this is just what I am talking about with the nonsense of focusing on every unknown with the theory as a basis for discrediting it. Let's focus on gaps in fossils, instead of saying "Hey, look at this mountain of evidence over here, that is why we accept these fossil gaps as an accepted unknown right now". If you want to discuss the specifics of punctuated gradualism and phyletic gradualism that is one thing, but simply pointing to fossil records and declaring because evolutionary theory is incomplete as evidence against it...that is not only intellectually dishonest, but it borders on downright absurdity in the scientific community.

Spin it anyway you want but evolution, despite all its flaws you champion, is by far the best explanation right now.

If you want to be statisfied by it, thats your choice. I'm the type of person like likes to see things laid out completely, and you or anyone else can not provide that information. It may can statify you and that fine but not me.

Lets see with religious views. Your view begins with nothing. A big Bang takes place and then we have what we have today. Things go from nothing, to a "soup", plant life, animals, inscects, birds, to finally humans. All have to come from this beginning of nothing. Of course this is the nutshell version. Alot had to go perfectly for all this to happen, correct?

Mine, In the beginning God created....

Now I believe that there is a God, so naturally I lean there. You don't believe in God, so you lean there. Thereby we have an impass.

To see with my own eyes the complexity of this world, to look at what had to happen, the way science teaches, it easier for me to believe that God created.

 

[IPorange]

Both world views have the same origins issue (e.g. Where did god come from?).
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[rjd970]

I just love how all discussions about evolution inevitably gravitate towards the beginning of the universe questions by the religious crowd, even though evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to do with it, or even with the origin of life itself.

And all this "in the beginning" and "nothingness" silliness is crazy talk anyway. Here we are talking about the "formation" of time itself and you automatically assume a "beginning" even happened.

 

[Oldvol75]

I just love how all discussions about evolution inevitably gravitate towards the beginning of the universe questions by the religious crowd, even though evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to do with it, or even with the origin of life itself.

And all this "in the beginning" and "nothingness" silliness is crazy talk anyway. Here we are talking about the "formation" of time itself and you automatically assume a "beginning" even happened.

Well if time was formed, did it not have to have a beginning? If there was not a beginning, wouldn't that mean that everything was preexisting?

By your saying that the evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to do with the process, do you mean that all life sprang up at the same time? I thought it went from the Big Bang, to single cells, then evolved from that to what we have now. (nutshell again)

If "in the beginning" and "nothingness" is crazy talk, why do we even have a evolutionary theory? If it was from nothing, then it had to have a beginning.

 

[IPorange]

The Big Bang and the origins of life don't have anything to do with each other as theories. Evolution has nothing to do with the Big bang, either. I suppose the origins of life have a little to do with evolution, but in a prebiotic way.

Remember, according to everything we know, the Earth had no life up until 2 billion years ago. So Earth was a dead world for 2 billion years. And the Universe was ticking for something like 11 billion years before that. I know you don't believe those numbers, but I am saying for the sake of context, the theories are separate.

 

[rjd970]

Well if time was formed, did it not have to have a beginning? If there was not a beginning, wouldn't that mean that everything was preexisting?

By your saying that the evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to do with the process, do you mean that all life sprang up at the same time? I thought it went from the Big Bang, to single cells, then evolved from that to what we have now. (nutshell again)

If "in the beginning" and "nothingness" is crazy talk, why do we even have a evolutionary theory? If it was from nothing, then it had to have a beginning.

For all we know, the entire universe could exist in a closed manifold, with no "beginning" or "end". No? I don't know about you, but assuming time progresses in a linear fashion is very narrow minded. All I am saying is we don't know for sure, and neither does any book or priest. Period.

You're going to have to explain the bolded statement to me and how evolutionary theory addresses the problems with abiogenesis.

 

[Oldvol75]

The Big Bang and the origins of life don't have anything to do with each other as theories. Evolution has nothing to do with the Big bang, either. I suppose the origins of life have a little to do with evolution, but in a prebiotic way.

Remember, according to everything we know, the Earth had no life up until 2 billion years ago. So Earth was a dead world for 2 billion years. And the Universe was ticking for something like 11 billion years before that. I know you don't believe those numbers, but I am saying for the sake of context, the theories are separate.

Let me simplify. First we have nothing.
Second we have a Big Bang, the universe and all that goes with it happened. Earth is formed, cools, etc....
Third at some point life begins.

With out the formation of this earth, through what happened with the Big Bang, then life as we know it could not have happened. You can't seperate the two events. Without the first one happening, the other could not have taken place. Yes there could have been a great amount of time taken place between the events. In other words, life had to have evolved from a single event. According to the theories.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

As a christian I have no problem with evolution. It makes sense..... I guess my problem with all the scientific stuff is the creation point. Also, I have never understood why the creationist can't use the big bang and 11 billions years.

Why is this taboo?

I mean, if you were God, wouldn't you just have random gases and particles get together have a good time and form the universe?

 

[Oldvol75]

For all we know, the entire universe could exist in a closed manifold, with no "beginning" or "end". No? I don't know about you, but assuming time progresses in a linear fashion is very narrow minded. All I am saying is we don't know for sure, and neither does any book or priest. Period.

You're going to have to explain the bolded statement to me and how evolutionary theory addresses the problems with abiogenesis.

Doesn't this then exclude the Big Bang theory?

The Bold part was just in reply to a quote that rjd made.

 

[rjd970]

Let me simplify. First we have nothing.
Second we have a Big Bang, the universe and all that goes with it happened. Earth is formed, cools, etc....
Third at some point life begins.

With out the formation of this earth, through what happened with the Big Bang, then life as we know it could not have happened. You can't seperate the two events. Without the first one happening, the other could not have taken place. Yes there could have been a great amount of time taken place between the events. In other words, life had to have evolved from a single event. According to the theories.

Why?

Again, you assume a beginning, whether it be creation or a big bang. What if one didn't happen? Then it becomes a singular question of how the earth came to be. Why not compartmentalize our understanding of the universe and how the earth was formed? Especially, given our very, very limited understanding of the universe.

 

[rjd970]

Doesn't this then exclude the Big Bang theory?

The Bold part was just in reply to a quote that rjd made.

Obviously it would, or at least how we currently theorize how it happened.

 

[IPorange]

The theory of evolution doesn't try to explain how the Earth got here. If the Big Bang Theory didn't exist or fell out of favor, it wouldn't change the evolutionary story of life on this planet. They don't need each other.

I see what you are saying from a theistic perspective, though.


As far as a "beginning," what rj was getting at is that attaching a concept like a "beginning" to a non-temporal state doesn't work. There was no beginning. There is no end. We experience time in a constant linear fashion, but Einstein's theory of Relativity showed that time doesn't operate that way.

Even in the Bible, it's clear that God isn't a being that lives in linear time, but rather outside of it. It's difficult for us as simple humans to think in such terms, because everything about us and our experiences is structured by time. And we think of time as a constant. But it ISN'T.

 

[Oldvol75]

Why?

Again, you assume a beginning, whether it be creation or a big bang. What if one didn't happen? Then it becomes a singular question of how the earth came to be. Why not compartmentalize our understanding of the universe and how the earth was formed? Especially, given our very, very limited understanding of the universe.

Did you have a beginning? Or have you always existed?

 

[IPorange]

Doesn't this then exclude the Big Bang theory?

The Bold part was just in reply to a quote that rjd made.

Not really. The current thought (or at least that I am aware of, which isn't really saying much) is that there is an infinite loop of Big Bangs, universal expansion (that's how things are now), and eventually universal retraction into one single place/mass, followed by a Big Bang. Everything would be a never-ending cycle. Each iteration would be identical to the last, and it would be eternal in both "future" and "past." The real head scratcher is if we were in a contractional phase of the universe, would we know it? Time would be going backwards, so I am thinking we wouldn't. Of course, it doesn't matter since everything would be the same each go around.

 

[IPorange]

Did you have a beginning? Or have you always existed?

I am not sure how proving we don't know something proves a deity, which seems to be what you've been driving at.

 

[Oldvol75]

The theory of evolution doesn't try to explain how the Earth got here. If the Big Bang Theory didn't exist or fell out of favor, it wouldn't change the evolutionary story of life on this planet. They don't need each other.

I see what you are saying from a theistic perspective, though.


As far as a "beginning," what rj was getting at is that attaching a concept like a "beginning" to a non-temporal state doesn't work. There was no beginning. There is no end. We experience time in a constant linear fashion, but Einstein's theory of Relativity showed that time doesn't operate that way.

Even in the Bible, it's clear that God isn't a being that lives in linear time, but rather outside of it. It's difficult for us as simple humans to think in such terms, because everything about us and our experiences is structured by time. And we think of time as a constant. But it ISN'T.

You had a beginning and you will have an end. Every living thing has that.

I realize that evolution and the Big Bang are seperate theories. But without the first, the second could not have happened, thus linking the two.

But with time, we have a begining and an end. If we do not focus on time then why do scientists give dates? Why do they tell us that this particular rock is X number of years old. That dinosaurs live X-number of years ago and so forth. You can't use time in one sence and not in another of your choosing.