Evolution vs Creation

#881

If I need to ask for the blessings of a unicorn once a week, and hash is my holy sacrament, sign me up. Plus, I bet there’s all sorts of cool ways I could use that hash as a tax write-off as well…
plotting

…but no, in all seriousness, I’ve deferred to the side of pragmatic agnosticism, and I’ll take whatever hands me the most compelling proof, first. I find it extremely hard to believe, in the face of all logical evidence to the contrary, that life (or indeed the universe) has only existed for roughly a half-dozen millenia, give-or-take an epoch. That should be a non-starter if you have an IQ deemed respectable and acceptable in society-at-large.
On both sides of the same coin, no-one can reasonably refute or prove that life just happened to ball up in a big amalgam of amino acids and spit out pure reason.
HOWEVER (and this is a big however) nothing has yet proven that it hasn’t, either.
It’s kind of a rather large impasse, if you ask me.
That’s why I think no true scientist can reasonably be an atheist to the core at heart. To practice science is to accept the possibility of all outcomes, whether that outcome involves the lack of, or possible presence of, some sort of divine…thingamajigger.

Evolution, as evidenced by everything around us, is solid, pure, undeniable fact. What the real argument should be (and likely was at some point pages ago, that’s a fucking novel and I’m not truly assed to read it, it’s probably re-hash of the same century old argument, anyway) is what, or even more simply, when it began, and how.

It sounds like there’s compelling proof coming to the front that the possibilities and capabilities of life far exceed what we had thought we’d “proven” true as its capability. The only thing thus proven is that life is truly, utterly remarkable. And that’s it.
It’s human fallacy to think both that it is truly an utter miracle bestowed upon the universe by a benevolent force, and an equally human fallacy to assume that just because we can’t prove otherwise, that it isn’t.

And that’s my take, and why I’ll sit comfortably on my fence after this post and absorb the aftermath.

#882

Well, I think it is possible to know if life was spontaneously created by chemical reactions, but not in our lifetime. For instance, it would help a lot to find any form of life (intelligent or not) outside of Earth. The Bible says nothing about God creating life in other planets, although I can see creationists defending that God creating life in the skies also means in other planets, etc. It would also help to find life in another planet that is still in formation - and after a few billion years humanity could see if that turned into life or not.

There are evidence of some religions. For instance, the famous picture “Our Lady of Guadalupe” is said to contain lots of such evidence (I don’t believe in any of them, btw). There are also said evidence for reincarnation. I think scientists should take these theories seriously, specially if they don’t believe in them, this way the theory can be put to a quality test.

Anyway, I’ve just seen a set of theories including human behavior and other stuff that makes a lot of sense, specially if you consider reincarnation as true, and it does not go against current scientific theories. As a matter of fact, it plays along very well with evolution. The theory is not published yet (they fear someone else will claim authority), so I won’t provide details, but I rear it will be published soon. In the end, even if this theory turns out to be wrong and scientists are able to provide alternative explanations, I think it will at least wake up the world in many ways. I mean, do you really think creationism is a strong theory that involves religion, proves God’s existence, has evidence and does not contradict the rest of science? Sorry, you have no idea what you are talking about :smiley:

#883

There has been some success in getting the initial stages of amino acids to combine using alternating conditions. This is interesting because the alternating atmosphere of early earth is difficult to fully replicate or know details of. There has been forms of life found in places like Mono lake that aren’t even on our tree of origin. Two different origins of life make it very difficult to say that life had trouble forming on Earth. If these extremophiles are able to develop into ( while microscopic ) a functioning organism completely different than all other known life on earth, it seems more reasonable to me to accept that we simply haven’t figured out the details and the process of the formation.

Actually, because atheism is the default position, then I would have to hope that a scientist doesn’t form any belief without evidence. Because there is no evidence to support a belief, the logical position to take would be a lack of belief until a supportable one can be found.

I don’t think we will ever know. The physical evidence is far too degraded and the variables are too far back in our history to base any solid hypothesis on. Not knowing though doesn’t default to any other explanation though. That is arguing from ignorance.

If there is two totally different forms of life on one planet, I’m kinda thinking that on a universal sense it’s not remarkable at all, but far more commonplace than we initially imagined. We can not even say for sure there isn’t life forms on other planets in our own solar system. Places like Europa, that has huge oceans of liquid water heated by the gravitational forces of Jupiter could support life, be we just don’t know it. Microscopic life may still exist on Mars and we wouldn’t even know because it is below the surface. Life may have existed more fully in the past there, but we simply do not know.

There is about 200billion stars in our own Milky way galaxy, and billions of other galaxies in our universe. Some estimations are around 200billion galaxies. Some estimates say it is as high as 500billion galaxies. That’s over 40 trillion stars, and most have planets.

There is no real evidence of anything resembling a god to humans, and when the scale of existence is taken into account, it seems preposterous to assume our creation is cultivated by a being that created existence. Not only unsupportable, but ridiculous. Our entire planet is a sub atomic particle when compared to the universe. If a person was a universe it would be like saying that a specific electron has unique value over every other in your body…well not exactly, but the point is that scale alone should act as evidence against creationism. I would really like to get more into the whole ’ fine tuning ’ thing, but that would make this post even longer…

#884

I don’t think you understand the term “atheist”, tbh.

#885

I think I must agree.

#886

Y’can hardly blame the guy. A lot of atheists don’t know what the term means. Lots of people still think Agnostic means the same as undecided. Lots of religious people think that atheists are satan worshipers, or immoral, or all scientists, or pseudo intellectuals. The problems stems from lack of belief, and thus lack of doctrine. Each atheist is different because there is no unifying theme of atheism. It’s just a lack of what theists have.

#887

Clearly I apparently worded that badly. In fewer words, I guess it could have said that I hope most scientists or those are agnostic. I certainly hope those of a more pragmatic bent haven’t rejected the idea utterly.

I’m afraid I’ll make that confusing again if I act on the compulsion to elaborate.

#888

Agnosticism answers a different question than atheism. One can be both agnostic and atheist.

Simplified:
Agnosticism says “I don’t know”.
Atheism says “I don’t believe”.

As an agnostic atheist, I don’t know and I don’t believe. If the answer to the question “Do you believe in a deity?” is anything other than being in the affirmative, then you’re an atheist, plain and simple. As Max said, the only unifying thing that all atheists share is the lack of belief in a deity or deities. Everything else, and I do mean EVERYTHING else is completely separate.

Even the most hard-core militant atheist will believe in a deity given evidence for said deity. How do I know that? I’m a very hard-core militant atheist. :slight_smile:

#889

why? how is believing there is no god at ALL affecting science? scientists have open minds for things that are reasonable, like things you can actually have any amount of evidence for. i’m sure if you showed any atheist actual proof for any “god” they’d change their mind immediately. if it’s affecting literally nothing, what’s the point in even worrying about it?

aaargh :ninja:

#890

A true scientist doesn’t believe in anything, he/she just create a probability function for every piece of information in his/her mind (no, seriously…).

#891

Don’t be dumb. belief is just a state of mind in which you accept something as true. It doesn’t mean it is something unchangeable.

#892

Well, do you have a MSc (or higher) in a technical field or are you close to having one? No??? Then sorry, but you know NOTHING about science nor scientific way of thinking. Besides, your “true” is meaningless when applied to fuzzy logic. And who is dumb now, heh, who is dumb now???

#893

Fuzzy logic is only another way to view things, just another brand in logic, it does not replace nor is more general than traditional logic.

#894

Atheism is the position of any rational human being who is presented with scientific fact and is subsequently educated in the full extent of the claims on any religion.

#895

Yeah, but the point is that simple logic in many cases is not applicable.

#896

I have quite a few technical certifications. Thanks for asking! :slight_smile:
The way things are going, you certainly are coming off sounding a bit dumb. Your knowledge of fuzzy logic doesn’t really apply here. We aren’t talking about the difference between binary true/false but rather a statement of confidence in accuracy.

#897

:hmph:

Define that word in your own words.

#898

Using a binary logic in place of fuzzy logic is like using a pixelated picture instead of a real photo - it just flattens things up. Believing in things is just using a binary logic.

Accepting something as true of course, in terms of binary logic.

Bonus - short quiz: Sun revolves around Earth. - true of false?

#899

Scientists don’t accept anything as true in terms of binary logic?

False, using the generally accepted definitions of such.

#900

true of false

Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.