Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[Koockaburra101]

I've always been bothered by how some people refer to the "balance of nature" as evidence for life being created by some "higher power". Where exactly is this balance? Nature is entirely dependent on things constantly killing each other, and is incredibly wasteful. Just think that the vast majority of species that have ever existed are now extinct, just think of all the suffering that is inherent in this "balance of nature".

 

There is nothing to suggest that earth was somehow made with us in mind, even if we were to ignore the overwhelming evidence we have for how earth was formed.

For example, most of earth is completely inhospitable to humans (too hot/cold etc.). Consider earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, tsunamis, floods and not to mention asteroid impacts and other disasters. Also consider that for the vast majority of human history most of our species didn't live past 40 or so. Our sun is also expending it's fuel and will eventually swell up and completely "devour" our little planet, isn't that some rather questionable "design"?

 

As to the "miraculous" nature of life I'm afraid I don't see that either. Even if life is extremely unlikely it would have had to happen countless times already just on account of the size and age of the universe. There's also no reason to assume that life is uncommon considering that we're made of some of the most common elements in the universe (hydrogen, oxygen and carbon mostly). We haven't yet found any life on other planets but considering we only have real knowledge of about 8 planets out of several billion that isn't saying much.

The fact that our existence, to ourselves, seems unlikely and "special" is irrelevant.

[ProHypster]

I think what the fable is trying to say is that the Earth wasn't really created for us but we grew into the planet's environment. Again, if you believe that God did it, I applaud you. However, it isn't science and should not be taught as such in schools. Do you agree?

I think both should be taught in school, and we as sentient beings should be allowed to choose for ourselves what to believe and respect each other's philosophies. Peace comes from mutual understanding, and I think having a good moral compass is what keeps us from going to war with each other. I'm not going to write too much more in this topic though, I've shared my opinion and that's all I can do. I'm not here to convert anyone or force my views on others.

 

Ha, I have a paradox for you. Do you respect my belief that we should not all respect each other's beliefs?

lol, that's not entirely what I believe, but it's an interesting question.

no, only some, paradox solved.

[BTGBullseye]

I've always been bothered by how some people refer to the "balance of nature" as evidence for life being created by some "higher power". Where exactly is this balance? Nature is entirely dependent on things constantly killing each other, and is incredibly wasteful. Just think that the vast majority of species that have ever existed are now extinct, just think of all the suffering that is inherent in this "balance of nature".

[sarcasm] I never knew balance = lack of suffering... [/sarcasm]

 

Will people quit putting the wrong definition to words, it's getting boring.

 

What waste is there? Everything goes right back into the cycle eventually...

 

 

There is nothing to suggest that earth was somehow made with us in mind, even if we were to ignore the overwhelming evidence we have for how earth was formed.

So how was the Earth formed? (no theories, facts only please... like videos of the Earth forming, or a time machine that will take us back to watch it happen, or something that PROVES it without extensive conjecture)

 

 

For example, most of earth is completely inhospitable to humans (too hot/cold etc.). Consider earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, tsunamis, floods and not to mention asteroid impacts and other disasters.

So what? Ever thought that maybe they were made inhospitable specifically to make us grow to be able to fill them?

 

 

Also consider that for the vast majority of human history most of our species didn't live past 40 or so. Our sun is also expending it's fuel and will eventually swell up and completely "devour" our little planet, isn't that some rather questionable "design"?

And where is your proof of that? Last I heard all that was just theoretical since nobody has ever witnessed our sun expanding and devouring our planet, or recovered large caches of records chronicling the ages of the world's population for any lengthy duration.

 

 

As to the "miraculous" nature of life I'm afraid I don't see that either. Even if life is extremely unlikely it would have had to happen countless times already just on account of the size and age of the universe. There's also no reason to assume that life is uncommon considering that we're made of some of the most common elements in the universe (hydrogen, oxygen and carbon mostly).

The material doesn't have any affect on the commonality of the object... Carbon is the most common element, yet jewelry quality diamonds are rare... I want to say something about not seeing any skyscrapers building themselves, but that analogy seems to be a bit too complex for most people to understand.

 

We haven't yet found any life on other planets but considering we only have real knowledge of about 8 planets out of several billion that isn't saying much.

What "several billion" are you talking about? We have no evidence supporting that assumption anywhere, just a theory. (I personally agree, but it's still just a theory without proof)

 

Oh, and we have discovered a few other planets outside of our solar system. They are thought to be gas giants though, and therefore "unimportant". I wonder what'll happen if they find one that has Earth-like conditions...

 

 

The fact that our existence, to ourselves, seems unlikely and "special" is irrelevant.

True, but the same is true for the assumption that we aren't "special". It doesn't matter in the grand scheme, so why try to deny people the ability to choose without bias?

 

 

 

Just because you think that the Evolution Theory is more scientific, it doesn't mean it has actual proof, or that it is a fact. Never treat a theory as fact. (EG String Theory, Chaos Theory, Control Theory, etc.)

[Koockaburra101]

I mean wasteful in the sense that if earth was made specifically for us humans the way in which we came about on this planet would be a very strange way of doing things. And since you brought up "putting the definition of words" I suggest you look up what is meant by a scientific theory since I don't think it means what you think it means.

When using the word "Balance" I was quoting others who use it in that way and who use it to argue that we are somehow special and that this planet was clearly perfectly made for us, which the examples I gave are attempting to disprove. You must agree that any of us can imagine a far better planet for the human species than our current one, which means that this "designer" people want to believe in is either incompetent, inexistent or not at all interested in our well-being.

 

We know that most people didn't get as old as they do know because we have historical records to show this. The advances of modern medicine are fairly recent in our history and written records exist from before that. We have no reason to believe that it was any better before that either. Besides, we can tell from old human remains how old people were when they died.

 

We have also seen other stars of the same size as our sun expanding in that way. But fine, let's ignore that one, even if it doesn't expand it will eventually "expire" and it'll make earth uninhabitable to our species anyway (not that we'll be around then).

 

No one has problems understanding your point about skyscrapers building themselves, it's just that it's completely irrelevant to this argument.

You seem to have a very narrow view of what counts as "proof". It is very possible to know things without directly observing them. That'd be like refusing to convict murderers unless their crime was directly observed and caught on tape.

[Dan-95]

If you ask what I mean, I mean what I'm saying. There's nothing else to it. Besides, your questions just end up overthinking and overanalyzing my statement way beyond its intended purpose.

 

Fine then, end it here

 

One last question. If your initial statement's purpose wasn't philisophical, then what was it's intended purpose?

 

 

 

 

 

@BTGBullseye

You would make a great skeptic. Also, you forgot the part where kookaburra is just mad and insulting because you're turning a rational eye to his dogma.

[Axeldeath]

@BTGBullseye The reason diamond is so precious is because it literally takes them pressure of entire mountains to compress coal into diamonds, even though it is made of carbon it requires very special circumstances for the diamond to be of a large size

[BTGBullseye]

@BTGBullseye

You would make a great skeptic.

I try... I am skeptical of anything that people say is a fact when they refuse to provide proof.

 

Also, you forgot the part where kookaburra is just mad and insulting because you're turning a rational eye to his dogma.

I don't like saying things like that because it is usually misconstrued as a flame or an attempt to provoke a flame war... Unfortunate isn't it...

 

@BTGBullseye The reason diamond is so precious is because it literally takes them pressure of entire mountains to compress coal into diamonds, even though it is made of carbon it requires very special circumstances for the diamond to be of a large size

I know that, and that's the reason it was in the analogy. (BTW, I even know a process to make diamonds artificially)

 

 

 

@Koockaburra101:

You still haven't shown me any proof of your claims...

[Eedo Baba]

@BTGBullseye The reason diamond is so precious is because it literally takes them pressure of entire mountains to compress coal into diamonds, even though it is made of carbon it requires very special circumstances for the diamond to be of a large size

 

Diamond is very rare and valuable, but it's price is increased greatly by the DeBeers cartel, which has the international diamond monopoly. Totally off topic, but true.

[Koockaburra101]

@Koockaburra101:

You still haven't shown me any proof of your claims...

 

If the only "proof" you are willing to accept are along the lines of video footage of earths formation I'm afraid I can't help you.

[ProHypster]

Here's my nickel to the atheists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion

Religion is science.

 

I know I said I was going to bomb with arguments (by which I meant I was going a write a full scientific statement with research) but I came home tired and sleepy, and besides considering proof as other articles written on the internet isn't very healthy.

[Eedo Baba]

Religion in general disregards facts in favor of faith. Faith is just a romantic idea that people love to believe in. They convince themselves that believing in something without proof makes them more righteous. They think that they are a more spiritually enlightened person, when in fact this romantic "faith" is only helping to obscure the truth, by proliferating in a person the idea that solid proof isn't necessary with regards to the big questions, like "where did we come from?". This idea is backwards, and is a plague in modern society. Staunchly religious people tend to reject any idea that goes against their faith, because they believe that going against their faith would be unrighteous.

It starts from childhood of course. Parents teach their children that the Bible or the Koran or the Rig Vedas or the Torah is the word of God (or Gods). Children are raised in an environment where they are not encouraged to question, but to accept without thought. Over the years, the healthy curiosity and questioning part of a person is killed, in a way, replaced by the overbearing plague of faith, stubbornly refusing anything that isn't what mom and dad kept telling them is true. This process repeats every generation, and it's the reason these outdated and idiotic religions still exist today.

Why do these people allow themselves to be tricked? They believe so surely in these religious teachings, letting this faith cloud all reasonable judgement.

Say what you will, religion is a poison.

[ProHypster]

Religion in general disregards facts in favor of faith. Faith is just a romantic idea that people love to believe in. They convince themselves that believing in something without proof makes them more righteous. They think that they are a more spiritually enlightened person, when in fact this romantic "faith" is only helping to obscure the truth, by proliferating in a person the idea that solid proof isn't necessary with regards to the big questions, like "where did we come from?". This idea is backwards, and is a plague in modern society. Staunchly religious people tend to reject any idea that goes against their faith, because they believe that going against their faith would be unrighteous.

It starts from childhood of course. Parents teach their children that the Bible or the Koran or the Rig Vedas or the Torah is the word of God (or Gods). Children are raised in an environment where they are not encouraged to question, but to accept without thought. Over the years, the healthy curiosity and questioning part of a person is killed, in a way, replaced by the overbearing plague of faith, stubbornly refusing anything that isn't what mom and dad kept telling them is true. This process repeats every generation, and it's the reason these outdated and idiotic religions still exist today.

Why do these people allow themselves to be tricked? They believe so surely in these religious teachings, letting this faith cloud all reasonable judgement.

Say what you will, religion is a poison.

 

Right except

 

1. I was an atheist before I became a monotheist and my mom and dad are not very religious. We come from the parts of the Soviet Union where 70% of people were atheist.

 

2. Germany is one of the most scientific countries in the world and teaches religion as a mandatory subject.

 

3. Atheism is also a religion.

 

Check and mate.

[ProHypster]

And now my response in your way:

Religion in general disregards facts in favor of faith.

 

Natural Selection theory in general disregards facts in favor of faith.

 

Faith is just a romantic idea that people love to believe in. They convince themselves that believing in something without proof makes them more righteous.

Exactly

It starts from childhood of course.

It starts when they question religion as it puts them in an unfavorable position as a "slave to God" of course.

Parents teach their children that the Bible or the Koran or the Rig Vedas or the Torah is the word of God (or Gods).

The word of atheism first spreads around when some "sad but trying to be cool" kid offers something naughty to a monotheist and then convinces the person that there is no god so the person shouldn't worry about anything.

Children are raised in an environment where they are not encouraged to question, but to accept without thought.

Evolutionists are raised in an environment where they are encouraged to be free and feel powerful over everything and to accept those values without thought.

 

Over the years, the healthy curiosity and questioning part of a person is killed, in a way, replaced by the overbearing plague of faith, stubbornly refusing anything that isn't what mom and dad kept telling them is true. This process repeats every generation, and it's the reason these outdated and idiotic religions still exist today.

Over the years the person will feel free and powerful in the universe (without god of course) and forgets about god but secretly knows he exists and is afraid of him.

Why do these people allow themselves to be tricked? They believe so surely in these religious teachings, letting this faith cloud all reasonable judgement.

why do these evolutionists allow themselves to be tricked? It's easier to be an atheist then a monotheist.

Say what you will, religion is a poison.

Say what you will, the natural selection theory is a poison.

 

Now, your reaction to this post is exactly as is mine to yours.

[Eedo Baba]

*sigh* fine. You seem very very intent on refusing every level of argument I can offer, then throwing back absolute falsehoods that you seem to actually think are true. Things like:

Natural Selection theory in general disregards facts in favor of faith.

Um, no. This is either a lie, or you really don't understand how science is conducted. Science is based off of facts. There are NO accepted facts that contradict natural selection. It's a law of nature. Give me one fact you can think of that does.

 

The word of atheism first spreads around when some "sad but trying to be cool" kid offers something naughty to a monotheist and then convinces the person that there is no god so the person shouldn't worry about anything.

Well, no, at least not those that actually believe in atheism. If a kid puts on that he doesn't believe in god just to rebel, then that's not a real atheist. When a person makes a philisophical decision to no longer believe in god, they do it after introspection, and gaining understanding. Anyway, atheism isn't the only alternative to theism. I'm a noncommittist, which means I don't believe in beliefs.

 

Evolutionists are raised in an environment where they are encouraged to be free and feel powerful over everything and to accept those values without thought.

No once again, you're on a roll. "Evolutionists" do not exist. There are just reasonable people. Scientific method is founded on questioning what you see and understanding it. A child raised by a (healthy) nonreligious person would likely be encouraged to question and understand the world for themselves, weather that means joining a religion or not.

 

Over the years the person will feel free and powerful in the universe (without god of course) and forgets about god but secretly knows he exists and is afraid of him.

 

You weren't even listening to what I was saying, were you? I was talking about a person raised to believe in god. God as you think it exists is unlikely and foolish. What your referring to is an innate disposition in humans to be constantly fearful of authority, which in religion takes the form of a god.

 

why do these evolutionists allow themselves to be tricked? It's easier to be an atheist then a monotheist.

 

Tricked by what exactly? Facts? Science? You think it's more reasonable to be tricked by a 2000 year old book with no backing evidence and numerous logical contradictions?

 

Say what you will, the natural selection theory is a poison.

 

Now, your reaction to this post is exactly as is mine to yours.

 

This is seriously just sad. You realize your doing exactly what I described in my above post. You're disregarding logic in the case of philosophical questions because your religion tells you that this makes you more righteous. You still have yet to contradict what I say with any solid argument, and this is because you can't. Your response to this post will be that of course you can, and you will give inane examples that are easily disproved. You will reject every argument I make vehemently, because your faith tells you if you agree you are unrighteous. You are giving into the innate disposition I described above, to fear authority. You fear authority that isn't there and call it god. It's this fear that causes you to reject reality. You fear for your soul, and you feel proud that you are defending your faith. You feel you have defended this authority, and for this he may show you mercy or kindness. But as I said, this authority you feel must be there is an illusion. It's sad. I do not hate religious people. I pity them.

I pity you.

[danielsangeo]

So how was the Earth formed? (no theories, facts only please... like videos of the Earth forming, or a time machine that will take us back to watch it happen, or something that PROVES it without extensive conjecture)

 

Wait a moment. Are you suggesting that, without real-time eyewitnesses, there's NO WAY to know what happened in the past?

 

The Earth was formed by material from the accretion disk coalescing into a large rock that orbits the star we call "The Sun" (or Sol). This big rock had elements from the accretion disk such as hydrogen, carbon, etc. Internal heat (caused by pressure) formed volcanoes on the surface of the rock and released steam, carbon dioxide, ammonia, and other fun stuff. This steam fell to the surface of the rock as water. Over time, organic material formed and began to grow and divide, forming the most primitive life. That life eventually evolved until we are here.

 

This is all backed up with literal mountains of evidence.

[Bjossi]

You guys are seriously still going? Yelling random gibberish at a brick wall for two hours accomplishes more than talking with BTGbullseye about science. If this continues much further then I'll be tempted to propose to the rest of the staff to close this thread, as it has been going in pointless circles for the majority of its pages with the same showcase troll in the centre.

[Lord Sinister]

There is nothing to prove nor disprove religions in general. There are fossils and various other pieces of scientific evidence indicating that we and every other plant and animal on this Earth evolved.

 

However, with regards to being created by a deity of some form, who are we to judge the perception of a being hypothetically beyond our realm of understanding? For all we know thousands of years of evolution are to 'it' a mere few seconds, where to 'it' evolution for us is its moulding of everything out of metaphorical clay. Same with the creation of the Universe we know. It's all a matter of perception, assuming this deity exists.

 

I am not religious. Nor did I more than skim-read this thread due to it being 12:30am. However denying fossilised evidence of evolution as well as blatantly ignoring the adaptability and thus evolution of simple things such as hospital super bugs is madness, as is claiming to understand how a superior hypothetical deity possibly comprehends reality as we know it.. In my eyes can both creationism and evolution can co-exist, one does not necessarily disprove the other.

[ProHypster]

*sigh* fine. You seem very very intent on refusing every level of argument I can offer, then throwing back absolute falsehoods that you seem to actually think are true. Things like:

Natural Selection theory in general disregards facts in favor of faith.

Um, no. This is either a lie, or you really don't understand how science is conducted. Science is based off of facts. There are NO accepted facts that contradict natural selection. It's a law of nature. Give me one fact you can think of that does.

 

The word of atheism first spreads around when some "sad but trying to be cool" kid offers something naughty to a monotheist and then convinces the person that there is no god so the person shouldn't worry about anything.

Well, no, at least not those that actually believe in atheism. If a kid puts on that he doesn't believe in god just to rebel, then that's not a real atheist. When a person makes a philosophical decision to no longer believe in god, they do it after introspection, and gaining understanding. Anyway, atheism isn't the only alternative to theism. I'm a noncommittist, which means I don't believe in beliefs.

 

Evolutionists are raised in an environment where they are encouraged to be free and feel powerful over everything and to accept those values without thought.

No once again, you're on a roll. "Evolutionists" do not exist. There are just reasonable people. Scientific method is founded on questioning what you see and understanding it. A child raised by a (healthy) nonreligious person would likely be encouraged to question and understand the world for themselves, weather that means joining a religion or not.

 

Over the years the person will feel free and powerful in the universe (without god of course) and forgets about god but secretly knows he exists and is afraid of him.

 

You weren't even listening to what I was saying, were you? I was talking about a person raised to believe in god. God as you think it exists is unlikely and foolish. What your referring to is an innate disposition in humans to be constantly fearful of authority, which in religion takes the form of a god.

 

why do these evolutionists allow themselves to be tricked? It's easier to be an atheist then a monotheist.

 

Tricked by what exactly? Facts? Science? You think it's more reasonable to be tricked by a 2000 year old book with no backing evidence and numerous logical contradictions?

 

Say what you will, the natural selection theory is a poison.

 

Now, your reaction to this post is exactly as is mine to yours.

 

This is seriously just sad. You realize your doing exactly what I described in my above post. You're disregarding logic in the case of philosophical questions because your religion tells you that this makes you more righteous. You still have yet to contradict what I say with any solid argument, and this is because you can't. Your response to this post will be that of course you can, and you will give inane examples that are easily disproved. You will reject every argument I make vehemently, because your faith tells you if you agree you are unrighteous. You are giving into the innate disposition I described above, to fear authority. You fear authority that isn't there and call it god. It's this fear that causes you to reject reality. You fear for your soul, and you feel proud that you are defending your faith. You feel you have defended this authority, and for this he may show you mercy or kindness. But as I said, this authority you feel must be there is an illusion. It's sad. I do not hate religious people. I pity them.

I pity you.

 

I guess you are foolish enough to think that my arguments were serious........

every time I write something you get the opposite information out of it then what I was trying to provide you with. I wrote in the exact way as you did for a reason (Think about why...you should get it), and your response really humored me, what you did is basically defend yourself against yourself except monotheist.

 

I also said that I will provide a paper when I'm going to be free. Also I'm not some holy guy, that's not me, I just know philosophically that God exists based on what I studied.

 

Bjorne please don't close this topic, I don't think it will harm anyone for this topic to exist.

 

Just from now on I will only write facts supporting monotheism if I will write here and I suggest the atheists, (and eedobaba who apparently just doesn't care about religion overall) to do the same.

 

In my eyes can both creationism and evolution can co-exist, one does not necessarily disprove the other.

That is possible.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Lord Sinister]

I am sure that this topic will remain open provided that debate is reasonable, sane, and argument/insult free. And that no one is being a jerk. And that everyone supports their side of the debate properly.

[ProHypster]

I am sure that this topic will remain open provided that debate is reasonable, sane, and argument/insult free. And that no one is being a jerk. And that everyone supports their side of the debate properly.

 

I smell sarcasm....