Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate - Nye Vs Ham

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Evolution doesn't prove or disprove god, it just doesn't require a god for evolution to work.

This is sort of what I was trying to get at in differentiating physics / cosmology above. I thought about how to put it another way even though I'm preaching to the choir at this point.

If you're a theist talking to a cosmologist, they may tell you, "what our field is concerned with is the structure and origin of the universe, and here is what we've managed to discover". As a theist, you may respond, "Okay, but all of that was caused by a divine creator who set up all the physical norms you're talking about". At which point, the cosmologist would have a lot to say as to whether that makes sense, in what circumstances that might be a reasonable conclusion, why reality as it currently stands does or doesn't support the notion that a divine creator caused the universe, or indeed whether you're even talking about the problem using language that applies (see Carrol in that debate up there). There's some intersection here - there are things that the creationist can meaningfully talk about with the cosmologist.

Now, if you're a theist talking to an evolutionary biologist, they may tell you, "what our field is concerned with is the way new species are created, how they develop and change over time, and why they change in particular ways". If you're a creationist, you might say "Okay, but regardless, all of this was set in motion by a divine creator who set up all of the biological rules you're talking about". At which point, the biologist would shrug his shoulders and tell you that whatever set up the rules of the world is irrelevant to the study of how it actually operates.

This of course assumes you're a reasonably modern creationist who doesn't think that dinosaur bones are a hoax and that the world is 6000 years old and that biblical stories are literally true. If not, there's no point in involving you in a discourse anyway.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Evolution doesn't prove or disprove god, it just doesn't require a god for evolution to work.

Evolution disproves most of the 1000 or so religious Gods though.

[19Yzerman19]

No it doesn't. Did you bother to read the post right before you? It really doesn't have anything to do with any God.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by T@T

Evolution disproves most of the 1000 or so religious Gods though.

No it doesn't...and I say that as both a scientist and an atheist.

The theory of evolution describes the process by which living organizations adapt to their environments over thousands of years through mutation and natural selection. It does nothing to disprove the existence of a god or gods, although it does provide a scientific explanation for the origins of life on earth that is not dependent on the supernatural.

[photon]

I think what he means is if a specific definition of a god involves special creation of all extant species as they are currently as described in some creation myths, then evolution disproves that specific definition of that god. Others may start with or move to a different definition.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

No it doesn't...and I say that as both a scientist and an atheist.

Ok chief lets start with christianity, fairly sure Adam and Eve weren't a couple of tadpoles.

[photon]

All evolution does cast doubt on one specific literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, it doesn't disprove the Christian God.

Catholics (I think) believe that once humans had evolved to a certain point they received souls (ensoulment), so there still was an Adam and Eve, but they were the product of evolution. Though I don't know if Catholics believe in actual two individuals, or just believe that they were representative of the population.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by T@T

Ok chief lets start with christianity, fairly sure Adam and Eve weren't a couple of tadpoles.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the overwhelming majority of Christians around the world accept that the creation story in Genesis is a myth and not an actual recount of history. Only Biblical literalists, who represent a very small minority of the global Christian population, think that the universe was created in six actual days.

The Catholic Church (with over 1 billion followers, it is by far the largest Christian denomination) accepts the scientific theory of evolution, albeit with the slant that their God set the process in motion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi..._and_evolution

[T@T]

Originally Posted by photon

All evolution does cast doubt on one specific literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, it doesn't disprove the Christian God.

Catholics (I think) believe that once humans had evolved to a certain point they received souls (ensoulment), so there still was an Adam and Eve, but they were the product of evolution. Though I don't know if Catholics believe in actual two individuals, or just believe that they were representative of the population.

The Catholic Church will change anything to keep its coffers from going empty. They are without doubt the most hypocritical church on the planet.

Common sense and history should disprove the Christian God. how many years before he ends up extinct like Thor,Zeus,Janus..etc.?

Every God ever named is a figment of human imagination, the bible and it's storys are no different.

[Thor]

I'm not extinct

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Thor

I'm not extinct

No but you are wasting away......

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

No but you are wasting away......

Which is especially funny since most Gods powers tend to wane as they lose believers/followers, not the other way around.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by T@T

The Catholic Church will change anything to keep its coffers from going empty. They are without doubt the most hypocritical church on the planet.

Common sense and history should disprove the Christian God. how many years before he ends up extinct like Thor,Zeus,Janus..etc.?

Every God ever named is a figment of human imagination, the bible and it's storys are no different.

What I've bolded is the crux of the matter. All it means is that you haven't experienced god yet. If you don't leave the experience as a possibility, you are the closed minded one.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

All it means is that you haven't experienced god yet. If you don't leave the experience as a possibility, you are the closed minded one.

That's true I suppose, and why I do leave open the possibility that there may be some higher power, I doubt that he (or she, or 'it') cares what I'm doing in my own bedroom (or dining room table) however.

Further to your point, I've never experienced fairies, unicorns, three headed aliens, leprechauns, dragons, ghosts, witches, centaurs, mermaids, yeti, devils, talking snakes, angels, intelligent good looking Edmontonians or any number of mythical magical creatures. It doesn't mean that they don't necessarily exist, just that the proof for them is glaringly limited to non-existent.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

If you don't leave the experience as a possibility, you are the closed minded one.

You're right, and this is something that really bothers me when I am told I "believe no gods exist", because it simply isn't true. I just don't believe in any. I'm open to the possibility, but in light of bad or no evidence, I'm not compelled to accept any existence claims.

I'm 99.999% sure that there is no god but my skeptical nature requires I at least leave some room for discovery and advancement. This is a key principle of science... claims must be falsifiable.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I'm 99.999% sure that there is no god....

I'm 73.999% sure there is. One of us is 100% wrong.

[Enoch Root]

only if your definition is the same

[TorqueDog]

^Well in this case, it's 'a god', with no real care for whose definition you use. Once you start putting a definition behind it, you get to a point where a god concept can be contradicted by evidence or logical reasoning.

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I'm 73.999% sure there is. One of us is 100% wrong.

Occam's razor.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

What I've bolded is the crux of the matter. All it means is that you haven't experienced god yet. If you don't leave the experience as a possibility, you are the closed minded one.

I experienced fairy tales when I was little, I'm guessing it's probably the same mental reward!

I believe in things that can be physically seen not stories, especially from times when humans were so dense they thought the earth was flat and the center of everything...because that's what they were told.

It must be extremely confusing to be a christain these days, every bit of scientific evidence points to a 0% chance of a "religious" God, the Bible's stories now look like the were written by 10 year olds or authors for childrens books.

When you talk about being close minded, I suggest you and everyone dumb enough to believe this junk look in a mirror and open your minds to reality not stories.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by T@T

I believe in things that can be physically seen not stories, especially from times when humans were so dense they thought the earth was flat and the center of everything...because that's what they were told.

I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that people believed these things because they were "so dense". People came up with explanations for natural phenomena that matched the observations they could make and previous knowledge they had available to them. One day, it is possible that the things we hold to be absolute truths are mocked in much the same way that we mock the idea that the Earth is flat. That doesn't make us stupid.

And I know you don't care about this (and I have no idea why I am even trying here), but calling people names and acting/arguing like you do does not exactly lend weight to your arguments. It doesn't make you look smarter or better than them.