Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Evolution debate.



Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
Therefore surely God can only have come about by intelligent design. If this is the case then who designed God?

I love how people completely dismiss intelligent design with logic such as this. Am I right in thinking you believe in the Big Bang Theory? If so, do you actually understand it or do you have a rough notion but have faith in other people who do understand it? Is that not just another belief system then? You can argue that the scientists work with proof (they don't but that's another argument) but ultimately you're just relying on strangers that you trust.

You've been mocking the nonsensical argument of a deity creating all life and then arguing that if that was the case then who created God. It's a fair point - but worth bearing in mind that your whole belief system rests on the idea of there being absolutely nothing, then there was a bang and the universe was created and a few billion years later there were sentient beings. Which sounds the more ridiculous?

I'm not a creationist, by the way - I'm firmly agnostic.
 

KZNSeagull

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
19,671
Wolsingham, County Durham
One of the slightly alarming things about living in the USA is finding out that –

46% believe in Creationism - Gallup poll

55% believe they are protected by Guardian Angels - Washington Times

and 57% believe in the Devil - Washington Examiner

Normally as countries become more prosperous and educated they become less religious, America seems determined to buck this trend.

And 80% have been abducted by Aliens and 99% cannot find Canada on a map. Imadethisup.com
 

Creaky

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2013
3,833
Hookwood - Nr Horley
I love how people completely dismiss intelligent design with logic such as this. Am I right in thinking you believe in the Big Bang Theory? If so, do you actually understand it or do you have a rough notion but have faith in other people who do understand it? Is that not just another belief system then? You can argue that the scientists work with proof (they don't but that's another argument) but ultimately you're just relying on strangers that you trust.

You've been mocking the nonsensical argument of a deity creating all life and then arguing that if that was the case then who created God. It's a fair point - but worth bearing in mind that your whole belief system rests on the idea of there being absolutely nothing, then there was a bang and the universe was created and a few billion years later there were sentient beings. Which sounds the more ridiculous?

I'm not a creationist, by the way - I'm firmly agnostic.

The big difference between scientific and religious beliefs is that one can be tested, the other can't - putting them on the same level as each other, making comparisons or suggesting that explanations of natural phenomena made on a religious or scientific basis are equally valid is to misunderstand both religion and science. You can be a scientist and still have a religious belief, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Science doesn't try to prove or disprove religious beliefs, it simply tries to understand the mechanics of a system.
 

BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
16,977
You've been mocking the nonsensical argument of a deity creating all life and then arguing that if that was the case then who created God. It's a fair point - but worth bearing in mind that your whole belief system rests on the idea of there being absolutely nothing, then there was a bang and the universe was created and a few billion years later there were sentient beings. Which sounds the more ridiculous?

I'm not a creationist, by the way - I'm firmly agnostic.

The point is that either way, which ever way you believe, you can always ask what happened before. Both concepts can be taken back to nothing (and then discuss what nothing is).

What happened before the big bang?
What was there before god?
What was there before the aliens that created us?

As Tyrone said, we will continue to ask these questions.
 


Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
The big difference between scientific and religious beliefs is that one can be tested, the other can't - putting them on the same level as each other, making comparisons or suggesting that explanations of natural phenomena made on a religious or scientific basis are equally valid is to misunderstand both religion and science. You can be a scientist and still have a religious belief, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Science doesn't try to prove or disprove religious beliefs, it simply tries to understand the mechanics of a system.

I don't disagree with any of that, my point was that how many people who claim to believe the Big Bang Theory on here understand it. I doubt there are many so for the others it just comes down to faith in strangers and a belief that what those strangers are doing is right.

The other point was that some of the assumptions that we are asked to make when considering the Big Bang Theory are just as mind-blowing as the idea of intelligent design. "There was nothing forever and then there was a big bang and then everything was created." Err..okay.
 

BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
16,977
These are the kinds of questions children ask - not any adult who has seriously taken the time to consider what "time" actually is.

At least give us some answers among the condescension.'

Like I say these are the questions that children ask...........and the theists that teach RE at my work fail to answer with anything that makes sense.
 

Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,716
Hove
I love how people completely dismiss intelligent design with logic such as this. Am I right in thinking you believe in the Big Bang Theory? If so, do you actually understand it or do you have a rough notion but have faith in other people who do understand it? Is that not just another belief system then? You can argue that the scientists work with proof (they don't but that's another argument) but ultimately you're just relying on strangers that you trust.

You've been mocking the nonsensical argument of a deity creating all life and then arguing that if that was the case then who created God. It's a fair point - but worth bearing in mind that your whole belief system rests on the idea of there being absolutely nothing, then there was a bang and the universe was created and a few billion years later there were sentient beings. Which sounds the more ridiculous?

I'm not a creationist, by the way - I'm firmly agnostic.

It is worth noting that whenever you see or hear scientists talk about cosmology, there is an acceptance of simply 'not knowing' what went before. The theory of the big bang is commonly thought of as 'the creation of the universe', however this is really incorrect, as it is a theory that explains the origin of our 'known' universe as we currently observe it. It is merely a point at which our known scientific discovery and theory can get us back to. Beyond the big bang is the unknown, not nothing.

The singularity prior to the big bang is some crazy quantum mechanical relativity science that has various theories, but the concept of 'nothing' doesn't exist, there is in essence always something, even if we don't understand what that is.

I think creationists jump at the Big Bang theory as an opportunity to ask who created the singularity. Science doesn't have the answers to that question, but that in turn doesn't support the conclusion that something created it.

I agree with your point to [MENTION=1313]BadFish[/MENTION] that there is no way of using science to argue against religion. Religion is a belief system that does not require empirical experience or evidence. Science will eternally never know all the answers. There can always be the question laid at its feet of 'what came before', or 'what created the start of that'.

This can be true of evolution. The absence of knowledge of what binded the cells in the primordial soup is not a justification for intelligent design, it's just that we don't know. Again, the absence knowledge can never be the explanation for something.

Only evidence supports science, hence why scientific theories and laws are disproved with welcoming joy and excitement of a new discovery. When Einstein proved Newton incorrect in his explanation of the universe, there was a seismic shift and science adapted and simply rewrote it's text books. The Higgs Boson came along and actually helped prove the hole Einstein knew was in his Theory of Relativity all along. These are exciting discoveries in a journey of discovery. Ultimately you have a belief in a theory because it makes sense, however that belief is not absolute and unchallengeable. It's a belief that has nothing to do with faith.

So in essence, the theory of the big bang is not a belief that there was nothing, then suddenly a bang, the universe expanded and then there was life. It's a theory that says all this that we can see started at a single point. What went before we don't really know, but conceptually it is not a theory of creation, it is merely a point in time that we can establish.

I'm agreeing with you by the way (at least I think I am...) in that science can never be used as an absolute tool to disprove religion. It simply can't because 95% of life the universe and everything we simply don't understand, therefore science has to perhaps philosophically at least accept that one day a deity maybe proved or discovered. A true atheist to my mind is not someone who blindly believes they will always be an atheist, they are simply an atheist in the absence of sufficient proof of a God.

.......

Oh my, just as I'm typing this 2 Jehovah Witnesses have knocked on the door. Brilliant timing. In the end they had to make their excuses to leave! I was quite prepared to make them a cup of tea and go through my thoughts on life, death the universe and everything, but they have more doors to knock on and get going. They were very sweet and looking forward to their resurrection which is nice for them.
 
Last edited:


BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
16,977
It is worth noting that whenever you see or hear scientists talk about cosmology, there is an acceptance of simply 'not knowing' what went before. The theory of the big bang is commonly thought of as 'the creation of the universe', however this is really incorrect, as it is a theory that explains the origin of our 'known' universe as we currently observe it. It is merely a point at which our known scientific discovery and theory can get us back to. Beyond the big bang is the unknown, not nothing.

The singularity prior to the big bang is some crazy quantum mechanical relativity science that has various theories, but the concept of 'nothing' doesn't exist, the is in essence always something, even if we don't understand what that is.

I think creationists jump at the Big Bang theory as an opportunity to ask who created the singularity. Science doesn't have the answers to that question, but that in turn doesn't support the conclusion that something created it.

I agree with your point to [MENTION=1313]BadFish[/MENTION] that there is no way of using science to argue against religion. Religion is a belief system that does not require empirical experience or evidence. Science will eternally never know all the answers. There can always be the question laid at its feet of 'what came before', or 'what created the start of that'. The absence of knowledge is not the proof of faith.

Only evidence supports science, hence why scientific theories and laws are disproved with welcoming joy and excitement of a new discovery. When Einstein proved Newton incorrect in his explanation of the universe, there was a seismic shift and science adapted and simply rewrote it's text books. The Higgs Boson came along and actually helped prove the hole Einstein knew was in his Theory of Relativity all along. These are exciting discoveries in a journey of discovery. Ultimately you have a belief in a theory because it makes sense, however that belief is not absolute and unchallengeable. It's a belief that has nothing to do with faith.

So in essence, the theory of the big bang is not a belief that there was nothing, then suddenly a bang, the universe expanded and then there was life. It's a theory that says all this that we can see started at a single point. What went before we don't really know, but conceptually it is not a theory of creation, it is merely a point in time that we can establish.

This can be true of evolution. The absence of knowledge of what binded the cells in the primordial soup is not a justification for intelligent design, it's just that we don't know. Again, the absence knowledge can never be the explanation for something.

I'm agreeing with you by the way (at least I think I am...) in that science can never be used as an absolute tool to disprove religion. It simply can't because 95% of life the universe and everything we simply don't understand, therefore science has to perhaps philosophically at least accept that one day a deity maybe proved or discovered. A true atheist to my mind is not someone who blindly believes they will always be an atheist, they are simply an atheist in the absence of sufficient proof of a God.

.......

Oh my, just as I'm typing this 2 Jehovah Witnesses have knocked on the door. Brilliant timing. In the end they had to make their excuses to leave! I was quite prepared to make them a cup of tea and go through my thoughts on life, death the universe and everything, but they have more doors to knock on and get going. They were very sweet and looking forward to their resurrection which is nice for them.

Very eloquently put. I remember reading that even Richard Dawkins doesn't consider himself an atheist as the concept of a scientist being that certain about the non existence of something was not one he could entertain.
 

drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
22,981
Burgess Hill
WHAT?? Evolution is based on facts. Creationism is based on a book written 200 hundred years after the events they're supposed to be talking about.

Evolution = fact
Creationism = belief

It's not that hard really

Incorrect. The book was written 200 years after Christ but 4200 years after their so called creation theory started!

Glad you think someone who speaks English, Russian, French, German and Spanish and teaches Science at the one of best Universities in the world is an utter idiot.

His beliefs would seem to uphold the suggestion he is an idiot. (in my opinion)


As for the debate itself, surely Ham shoots himself in the foot with his idea that secularist have hijacked science and then he goes on to differentiate between observational science and historical science and argues that as you want there to prove evolution or the big bang then you can't prove it. But doesn't that completely destroy his own beliefs as the people who wrote the bible weren't there at the beginning either!!!

Religion is a load of old cock purely to pacify people who are scared of death and don't trust their own judgement and hide behind 'the will of god'.
 

Gilliver's Travels

Peripatetic
Jul 5, 2003
2,916
Brighton Marina Village
...It just comes down to faith in strangers and a belief that what those strangers are doing is right.
But one set of strangers bases its beliefs on evidence and logic, available to all for repeated peer review and testing.

The other set of strangers derives its beliefs from an old book packed with ambiguity, contradictions and painfully obvious myths.
 


Creaky

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2013
3,833
Hookwood - Nr Horley
I don't disagree with any of that, my point was that how many people who claim to believe the Big Bang Theory on here understand it. I doubt there are many so for the others it just comes down to faith in strangers and a belief that what those strangers are doing is right.

The other point was that some of the assumptions that we are asked to make when considering the Big Bang Theory are just as mind-blowing as the idea of intelligent design. "There was nothing forever and then there was a big bang and then everything was created." Err..okay.

Except that there wasn't a 'forever' - for there to be so requires the existence of 'time' which didn't exist prior to the 'Big Bang'.

The same 'miracle' is still continuing - the 'Big Bang' scenario includes the idea of an expanding universe but it is expanding into something that doesn't exist because if it did it would already be part of the universe.

When I was at school I was taught the then current scientific hypothesis that the universe was a Steady State system - i.e. that it had always existed. It is only since the mid 60s that it was shown this hypothesis apparently couldn't explain the existence of certain types of radiation. The 'Big Bang' and how this came about is still more correctly described as an hypothesis as it is still being tested.
 

BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
16,977
I didn't mean to appear condescending, sorry.

The concept of "time" you're referring to is a subjective interpretation based on your own perception of the world around you changing, for example "before, now and after" - this is the classical understanding of time based on a deterministic universe which precedes our understanding that time is not a constant - it could well be a complete illusion as we are conscious observers which perceive the changes that we call time.

Without writing an essay, they are a child like questions because as far as we are aware the big bang or God and time are likely to have emerged together, nothing necessarily happened "before" them, because time didn't necessarily exist to make "before" possible.

Thanks for that, Much of this stuff is hard for me to get my head around. Luckily there are people about far cleverer than me and with more time on their hands to work this shit out.

Surely though time is just a description or concept that explains the sequence of events. If an event occured (like the big bang) then surely there must have been something preceding that event which means that something or nothing was happening before it.
 

CheeseRolls

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Jan 27, 2009
5,908
Shoreham Beach
Glad you think someone who speaks English, Russian, French, German and Spanish and teaches Science at the one of best Universities in the world is an utter idiot.

Okay, so putting aside the name calling. Please explain the holes in evolution, that mean that it remains a theory. What evidence is there that can not be explained by this theory ?
 


BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
16,977


This video asks the question "What was there before the big bang?"

The basic answer is "We don't know!"

Quite interesting though.
 
Some interesting questions there, some silly ones too.

I suppose that somewhere there are 22 questions for creationists too.

From what I understand there are many questions that scientists are still looking for answers to. The fact that there are still questions doesn't mean that the theory is wrong it just means that their are questions that still need to be answered. The great thing about science is that if the evidence proves them wrong then they will rethink their theory.

View attachment 50957

Not sure if this was actually said but hey I haven't watched the whole thing yet.

Yeah this was asked, though the answers are simplified on the meme. Its mad that Bill Nye kept saying that science would welcome any evidence that questions our current accepted model on evolution, and Ken Ham said that we had the evidence in the bible...
 


seagullmouse

New member
Jan 3, 2011
676
You need common ground to have a constructive debate otherwise you just get a lot of talking and no listening.
 
Last edited:

Creaky

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2013
3,833
Hookwood - Nr Horley
The problem I have with debates like this is that people believe that science can or has somehow falsified the existence of God, but it hasn't, far from it - possibly even the contrary.

Putting the apparent divine perfection of our universe and its life aside, we are learning through quantum physics that the atheist ideas of a deterministic, mechanistic, "Godless" universe are most probably wrong.

UNTIL the discovery of the Higgs bosun - don't ask me how but certainly Stephen Hawking now accepts that following this discovery there is an explanation of how the universe could be created from nothing as do many other scientists. Of course just because there is an explanation of how the universe could come into being without the intervention of a god this doesn't meant there isn't a god.
 

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills


Top
Link Here