From what I see I stand in the middle ground here; I think the creationist and evolutionist theories can be sat side by side and explained. From my viewpoint as a scientifically minded individual, the evolution theory makes sense, and therefore I believe that is one of the reasons we are here today. However, as Stephen said, how can something be created out of nothing?
Disregarding far out scientific theories, it seems it is a philosphical question, not a scientific one. But could one not argue that philosophy only makes sense when supported by science, and that science only makes sense when supported by philosophy. Is it not unprobable that some higher power (in my case God) could have put the big bang singularity in place? After all, why do we go forward in time and not backwards? and why can't we remember the future? Those questions can be answered both scientifically and philosophically. It's a grey area, and in my opinion evolution, something I am 100% sure is true, can only be fully explained with the intervention of a higher power.
Quote:
Call it 'God', call it nature, or whatever, but there's no deigning that there's a higher 'power' (or force) at work here. Perhaps the 'truth' lies somewhere between.
I agree. And that also does not rule out evolution. In fact, it can reinforce it.
Quote:
I am sorry, D_B, but I find that to be somewhat hypocritic.
Having one standard for you and another standard for the neighbour is not equal to loving your neighbour as much as yourself.
Hmm, I don't understand that. I think D_B meant that his opinion is pro-life, but he does not wish to impose it on others who may not believe the same as him. That is not a double standard; just because you disagree with someones view doesn't mean you have to shun them, and it doesn't mean he does not "love his neighbour as himself". It is NOT hypocrisy.
Quote:
Btw Luke, surely it can't still be Arctic in Wiltshire? It was a beautiful in London today. (All readily explainable by meteorological conditions I'm sure.)
Oops, I'd better change that; my barometer clock reads 18 celsius ATM. It's a beautiful day here too.
Quote:
In a word: true religious man is the one who follows only the path of god (not capitalized).
True religious people maybe are not at all suited for the world as it is today and that's why you can't find them except in monasteries.
I disagree, and that is a somewhat sceptical and out-of-date view of religion - although you appear to be referring to Christianity here and that is all I can answer for. Religious people do not have to be perfect people, they can make mistakes and as long as they want to be. they can be forgiven. Saying true religious people aren't suited for the world today is crazy; just because some priests appear to be behind the times does not mean every Christian person is like that. True religious people can be found everywhere - just because they aren't saintly all the time does not mean they are not truly religious. After all, religion reinforces our inbuilt moral values and code - how is that out of date? You need to see past the rituals and the ceremonies.
Quote:
The reason I find for this is that religion is so much disconnected from the modern environment, that it simply can't be applied in its original form. That's why the position of the church is highly ridiculous in many cases, cause you can't judge a contemporary event with standards 2000 years old.
I've partly answered this above, but again I totally disagree. Although the church does take some rather conservative and strange decisions sometimes, for the most part they are connected with the modern environment. You can judge a contemporary event with standards 2000 years old because the churches standards are based on a defined set of moral values and ideals that have not changed and never will as long as humans survive. Of course there are new issues such as stem cell research that could not possibly have been considered 2000 years ago, but the moral codes defined by the church can be applied to these new issues to determine the churches position on them. Sure there are extremists in the church, but there are also extremists on the other side of the argument.
Quote:
Quote:
What is so illogical about something creating the universe
On the same token, whats so illogical about evolution?
There is nothing illogical with either. There is a middle ground IMO.
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, if you are getting into a debate about the Big Bang that is a slightly different tack, although I think it is still more plausible than a God who has presumably existed forever?
Personally I thought this was part of the debate, as it's one way of deciding between the two 'causes' if you like.
I agree with D_B here. The Big Bang is what it all comes down to - evolution could not have happened without the big bang. It is a way of helping people decide between the two causes and is central to any argument.
Quote:
Quote:
Richard Hardison constructed a computer program in which letters were "selected" for or against, and it took an average of only 335.2 trials to produce the sequence of letters TOBEORNOTTOBE. This takes the computer less than 90 seconds. The entire play can be done in about 4.5 days! I think that is pretty amazing.
That's fair enough. So the computer represents what? The animal's brains? If so, then what does Richard Hardison represent?
Probability is a dangerous subject. . Do you know that there is a probability of 1 in infinity that all the particles in a wall will rearrange when you kick a ball at it, letting the ball through? I don't think you can explain things with probability. But as for evolution, I agree with Stephen that it is not random - it happens for a reason. What is that reason? It can't be chance, as Stephen just said that. A higher power perhaps?
I just noticed this:
Quote:
Then who designed God? Why is it less fantastic to posit an existence of God who transcends every law of physics than evolution which explains all the variety of life around us and which (even if you don't think it's there) has evidence to back it up
In my opinion the only way you can explain and verify the laws of physics or any other science is by having the existence of something which transcends these laws to put them in place. A paradox, but one that makes sense to me. All theories and axioms in maths, and theories and evidence in physics are based on assumptions anyway - and therefore you can't rule out the existence of 'something' that transcends these laws. Again, something really difficult to understand.
And BTW, it doesn't make a jot of difference to me what persuasion anyone is, atheist or otherwise. I won't have any prejudged ideas about anyone, or I'll try not to. This is an interesting and intelligent debate.
[This message has been edited by Luke_Feanor (edited 03-18-2005 @ 12:11 PM).]