Evolution or Creation?

[cliffy1]

This discussion has evolved into something akin to a Muslim and a Christian arguing over whether or not Jesus was a god. Both evolution and creation rely on a certain amount of faith, Science and religion require faith because both leave more questions than answers, both processes have to rely on magic as the ultimate answer.

The world is not black and white. Until both sides in this argument can leave their egos at the door and work together, the real answers will evade both sides. Cooperation and compromise. Science cannot answer all the questions as long as it leaves more than half the human population out of the equation. The religious have to give up their adherence to rigid dogma. It serves no purpose but to divide and alienate.

We have all arrived here, at this point in our journey, together, by the same process. Is it really necessary to argue over which process or how? The past is gone. It is not much more than an inaccurate memory. The future is only a dream. It will be heaven or it will be hell depending on how we treat this moment. Ten thousand years of blood shed and violence because everybody wants to be right. Well, is it worth it? When are we going to stop slitting each other's throats and learn to get along?

[Process]

Cliffy, you're spouting nonsense. Science is not some sort of belief system - it's based on testable, repeatable evidence. Religion is based on divine insights or visions that are neither testable or repeatable. You need to learn more about science, clearly. Please don't lecture me on the topic as I am a working scientist. You might as well tell machine head that cars are really magic flying carpets. How idiotic.

There's no reason at all that science needs to work towards some sort of conciliation with religion. However, I'd like to see all religions get together and seek common ground (first, figure out who's prophet is the most important and best, where the promised land really is located). That'll keep the deluded masses occupied for a while.

Remember, atheism is a none prophet enterprise!

[Process]

Cliffy, you're spouting nonsense. Science is not some sort of belief system - it's based on testable, repeatable evidence. Religion is based on divine insights or visions that are neither testable or repeatable. You need to learn more about science, clearly. Please don't lecture me on the topic as I am a working scientist. You might as well tell machine head that cars are really magic flying carpets. How idiotic.

There's no reason at all that science needs to work towards some sort of conciliation with religion. However, I'd like to see all religions get together and seek common ground (first, figure out who's prophet is the most important and best, where the promised land really is located). That'll keep the deluded masses occupied for a while.

Remember, atheism is a non-prophet enterprise!

[cliffy1]

Cliffy, you're spouting nonsense. Science is not some sort of belief system - it's based on testable, repeatable evidence. Religion is based on divine insights or visions that are neither testable or repeatable. You need to learn more about science, clearly. Please don't lecture me on the topic as I am a working scientist. You might as well tell machine head that cars are really magic flying carpets. How idiotic.

There's no reason at all that science needs to work towards some sort of conciliation with religion. However, I'd like to see all religions get together and seek common ground (first, figure out who's prophet is the most important and best, where the promised land really is located). That'll keep the deluded masses occupied for a while.

Remember, atheism is a non-prophet enterprise!

You are so proud of your declaration that you had to repeat it.

The Big Bang relies on magic. Science has many different fields of study. Saying you're a scientist means nothing without disclosing which branch. I'm an engineer, historian, ethnographer and anthropologist. I think that I may qualify as a scientist too. I also like to dabble in quantum physics and mechanics. That is where the barriers between science and religion start to break down.

[Geckonidae]

The Big Bang relies on magic. Science has many different fields of study. Saying you're a scientist means nothing without disclosing which branch. I'm an engineer, historian, ethnographer and anthropologist. I think that I may qualify as a scientist too. I also like to dabble in quantum physics and mechanics. That is where the barriers between science and religion start to break down.

Science does not rely on magic. Magic is the realm of fantasy and pretending, not science. If you simply mean that science does not have all the answers, then you are correct. Science does not claim to have all of the answers...anyone who claims to have all of the answers should not be trusted.

There is no barrier where science and religion interact in the slightest, so there is no time or place where any such barrier would break down. There may be areas where the laws that govern our physical world as we know it no longer seem to apply, and there is evidence that constants may not be as constant as we thought, but that doesn't mean we should automatically jump to religion for explanations. Is there a verse in the bible that explains quantum entanglement? No. If you open a physics textbook and see "God", it's because you were predisposed to seek answers from religion, not because the science was pointing in that direction.

[fluffy]

There is no barrier where science and religion interact in the slightest, so there is no time or place where any such barrier would break down.

Of course there are barriers between science and religion. They pop up whenever one side claims superiority over the other. They pop up whenever either side lays claim to territory firmly inside the bounds of the unknown, even if done so by refuting the other's claim to such territory.

[Geckonidae]

Of course there are barriers between science and religion. They pop up whenever one side claims superiority over the other. They pop up whenever either side lays claim to territory firmly inside the bounds of the unknown, even if done so by refuting the other's claim to such territory.

Obviously there are ideological barriers between rational and religious people with respect to the topics of science and religion. I will never agree with a young earth creationist, and they are unlikely to ever agree with me. That certainly is a barrier of sorts, but that isn't the kind of barrier that was being discussed. Cliffy1 is referring to quantum mechanics as an area of study where the barriers between science and religion break down. I may have misunderstood, but it sounds like Cliffy1 is claiming that there is a border between science and religion like there is a border between Canada and the USA. The point I was making is that this statement is false. There is no area of scientific study where the accepted explanation for something not currently understood is to say that the magic sky wizard must have done it.

If there were a border between science and religion, it would be more like the border between Canada and Middle Earth.

[fluffy]

There is no area of scientific study where the accepted explanation for something not currently understood is to say that the magic sky wizard must have done it.

Point taken. But...if something is not currently understood is it within accepted scientific procedure to discount any explanation? Statistical possibilities may be very low, but in the absence of any solid proof to the contrary then all theories stay on the table. I think what Cliffy1 is referring to is that in some of the more esoteric realms of scientific study there are areas where the "accepted explanation" tends to be more intuitive or spiritual in nature. The use of the word "religion" muddies the water a bit here, religion is an outgrowth of spiritual thought and for the most part attempts to be yet another explanation for something not currently understood. For me a literal interpretation of the Bible has been discounted way too many times with undeniable proof. Evolution is a fact. On the same hand there was a "creation" of sorts, we certainly must have come from somewhere, and science has been as yet unable to nail that one down. Who's to say what happened before ?

[zzontar]

Please don't lecture me on the topic as I am a working scientist. You might as well tell machine head that cars are really magic flying carpets. How idiotic.

Out of curiousity, do you believe all the elements that make up the universe are eternal with no beginning, or that they appeared as if by magic?

[zzontar]

Obviously there are ideological barriers between rational and religious people with respect to the topics of science and religion.

It's statements like these that drive these discussions into the ground. Perhaps you too could answer the question I asked above with your rational thinking.

[kibbs]

do you believe all the elements that make up the universe are eternal with no beginning, or that they appeared as if by magic?

good one that is the truth the big bang could have happened billions of times over billions of eons with no end or beginning and we probably wont get how that can be, ever. That is the wonder and mystery of eternity it makes life very interesting. Evangelist one track thinking drove me from religion and atheists one track way drove me back ..open your mind quaid.Darwin believed both but i think he lost faith in the story when his kid died.

[Geckonidae]

Out of curiousity, do you believe all the elements that make up the universe are eternal with no beginning, or that they appeared as if by magic?

That's an easy one; I don't have any beliefs with respect to the origins of our universe. There are interesting possible explanations, and some are easier to accept than others. The only element that needed to exist in the beginning is hydrogen, you don't need all of the elements for the Big Bang. I live in a physical world of matter, so I have no problem accepting that matter has always existed or that matter needs to exist before time can exist. That isn't what I believe, it's what I feel is a reasonable concept at this time. What I don't find reasonable, is the notion that some magic being existed before time or matter, and this being had the power to magically create time, space, matter, etc. Even if I could accept the notion of this all powerful being, why would this being even want to create mankind?

Bottom line; if I haven't heard what I consider to be a reasonable scientific explanation for a phenomenon, that doesn't automatically equal "God did it." I don't need to have all the answers, and what you or I believe doesn't in any way influence what is or isn't true.

[zzontar]

The only element that needed to exist in the beginning is hydrogen, you don't need all of the elements for the Big Bang. I live in a physical world of matter, so I have no problem accepting that matter has always existed or that matter needs to exist before time can exist.

Could you please give me a link on how all elements can be created from hydrogen? While your at it, maybe a link on how anything can exist with no beginning?

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Evolution : big bang theory ... what came before that ... nothingness ... what is nothingness ... no one can explain it ... mystery
Creation : God created everything ... what came before that ... nothingness ... what is nothingness ... no one can explain it ... mystery

Until the mystery is solved all you can do is " Just love each other, that is all you can do and that is all anyone really wants ".
If every child on Earth was taught these simple words, the world would be so much better.

[Geckonidae]

Could you please give me a link on how all elements can be created from hydrogen? While your at it, maybe a link on how anything can exist with no beginning?

The first one is easy...there's this website called Google where you can search for answers to these types of questions.

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/tour/elements/stellar/stellar_a.html

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/starstruct.html

As for the second one, there is no such link, but there are some fascinating ideas out there. I'm afraid you may need to do some reading.

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X

Or try this for a little teaser:

http://youtu.be/qY0EHI3Hg_Q

We have difficulty truly wrapping our heads around the concept of nothing, and this concept has changed over time as well. Heck, there was a point in human history where people didn't even have a concept of the number 0. Once we had it, we didn't really understand what to do with it. Now we have negative and imaginary numbers. It takes time for these ideas to take shape, it takes time for them to become accepted, and it takes time for the masses to understand them. It takes even longer when these ideas are contrary to the myths that people have constructed to explain all of the hows and whys using easy to understand magic. Some people just get offended why they hear ideas that they don't understand.