Evolution v. Creationism And How Morality Relates

[AuCivilEng1 11,048]

A spinoff of the gay marriage thread. Bring your evidence or lack there of.  

[AuCivilEng1 11,048]

@Mims44

Bible: There was nothing and then God spoke and .... Boom. energy, matter, light. Everything came into existence.

BB theory: There was nothing and then suddenly ... Bang. energy, matter, light. Everything came into existence.

IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This has to be the beginning of the creation story, right? Of course. 

Even people with very little knowledge of science and physics can come to the conclusion that everything has to start from nothing.  I wouldn't say that is proof that a divine creator had anything to do with The Big Bang or Evolution. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

I believe in aspects of both. Science is the tool to figure things out. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,048]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

I believe in aspects of both. Science is the tool to figure things out. 

I agree that science is a tool to figure things out, but it hasn't been a tool to figure out that there was a divine creator. In fact, science has mostly found evidence of the opposite. If you believe in science, how does science relate or begin to prove biblical creationism?

[Mims44 1,922]

10 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

@Mims44

Bible: There was nothing and then God spoke and .... Boom. energy, matter, light. Everything came into existence.

BB theory: There was nothing and then suddenly ... Bang. energy, matter, light. Everything came into existence.

IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This has to be the beginning of the creation story, right? Of course. 

Even people with very little knowledge of science and physics can come to the conclusion that everything has to start from nothing.  I wouldn't say that is proof that a divine creator had anything to do with The Big Bang or Evolution. 

Oh, I wasn't offering that as any type of proof. There were just 3 posts in a row about it. And at it's base they are very close to each other in thought.

 

7 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I agree that science is a tool to figure things out, but it hasn't been a tool to figure out that there was a divine creator. In fact, science has mostly found evidence of the opposite. If you believe in science, how does science relate or begin to prove biblical creationism?

That thought only works if you suspect God works by magic. If he's an old dude with a long white beard and a wand. Then yes, it disproves it. Otherwise science has merely found some of the processes involved in Gods creations.

 

I should probably also put in my 2c with the faith train from the other thread. Someone said it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God. I would say it takes more faith to believe in a Christian God than to be an atheist. But along that same line; it would take more faith to be an atheist than to be a theist.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Just now, AuCivilEng1 said:

I agree that science is a tool to figure things out, but it hasn't been a tool to figure out that there was a divine creator. In fact, science has mostly found evidence of the opposite. If you believe in science, how does science relate or begin to prove biblical creationism?

Law of Conservation of Mass.

 

[abw0004 10,139]

17 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

@Mims44

Bible: There was nothing and then God spoke and .... Boom. energy, matter, light. Everything came into existence.

BB theory: There was nothing and then suddenly ... Bang. energy, matter, light. Everything came into existence.

I actually believe both are true.  For example, we do not know long long God's version of a day is.  So evolution could have taken place in His eye.  The Big Bang could have also taken place by God himself.

This is why I believe that the real discussion should be how literal do we take the Bible, or have considerations of when it was written, very similar in the discussion of our rights as gun owners in the United States.  Does it actually mean 24 hours equals one day in the Bible just as did our forbearers intend for our right to bear arms to include assault rifles?

[TitanTiger 20,571]

19 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I agree that science is a tool to figure things out, but it hasn't been a tool to figure out that there was a divine creator. In fact, science has mostly found evidence of the opposite. If you believe in science, how does science relate or begin to prove biblical creationism?

On the contrary, I find that the more we discover through science - the intricacy and complexity, the astronomical mathematical precision required for not just life's basic building blocks but for everything to develop and evolve (I do believe in theistic evolution) and become what we all see around us now, the more than ever I'm convinced of a creator.  To be sure, science alone doesn't convince me because science is not able to answer all the relevant questions.  But science doesn't leave me less convinced, but more convinced.

[AuCivilEng1 11,048]

29 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Law of Conservation of Mass.

 

Made me think of this meme.

[AuCivilEng1 11,048]

39 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

On the contrary, I find that the more we discover through science - the intricacy and complexity, the astronomical mathematical precision required for not just life's basic building blocks but for everything to develop and evolve (I do believe in theistic evolution) and become what we all see around us now, the more than ever I'm convinced of a creator.  To be sure, science alone doesn't convince me because science is not able to answer all the relevant questions.  But science doesn't leave me less convinced, but more convinced.

the intricacy and complexity, the astronomical mathematical precision required for not just life's basic building blocks but for everything to develop and evolve.

It had to do that for you to get to a point where we can even be having this discussion. IMO, it wasn't just some once in a lifetime chance of it all happening, it happened and us sitting right here discussing it are the circumstances of that. If that makes any sense (I really should be under the influence of THC while I'm having this convo. I can explain my thought better). If you subscribe to the idea that we are not alone in the universe, then it really isn't that hard to believe that we ended up where we are today. Because that's just the cards that were delt. We could have just as easily been a species of blobfish on planet Melmac, if planet Melmac was in a suitable location for blobfish to exist. 

To be sure, science alone doesn't convince me because science is not able to answer all the relevant questions.

Not yet. Earth has existed, per science for 4.5 Billion years. Dinosaurs inhabited earth for 165 million years (4%). Humans have existed for 200,000 years or about (0.007%). It is unreasonable to expect humanity to discover the entirety of the origins of the universe in that amount of time. What is impressive is what we have discovered, considering modern physics has only been around since the early 20th century. 

But science doesn't leave me less convinced, but more convinced.

The argument here is science has been so impressive in proving the origins of the universe that it has convinced you that the universe is so complex that it had to be created by a divine creator. But it still has yet to provide any evidence of the actual creator, itself. That kind of science wouldn't be given the time of day in ANY other concept or theory, other than creationism. It has no sound structure to stand on, imo. It is "because he said it is" gives no more information to anyone. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,048]

Regarding the morality aspect of this discussion. For those that are Christians, we know these tenants.

God created The Earth and Heavens

Hell exists in one way or another, depending on what flavor of Christianity you subscribe to.

One must accept God/Jesus into their lives and protest that he is your lord and savior, in order to enter the kingdom of God.

This begs the question, what happens to those who don't?

[TitanTiger 20,571]

15 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

the intricacy and complexity, the astronomical mathematical precision required for not just life's basic building blocks but for everything to develop and evolve.

It had to do that for you to get to a point where we can even be having this discussion. IMO, it wasn't just some once in a lifetime chance of it all happening, it happened and us sitting right here discussing it are the circumstances of that. If that makes any sense (I really should be under the influence of THC while I'm having this convo. I can explain my thought better). If you subscribe to the idea that we are not alone in the universe, then it really isn't that hard to believe that we ended up where we are today. Because that's just the cards that were delt. We could have just as easily been a species of blobfish on planet Melmac, if planet Melmac was in a suitable location for blobfish to exist. 

To be sure, science alone doesn't convince me because science is not able to answer all the relevant questions.

Not yet. Earth has existed, per science for 4.5 Billion years. Dinosaurs inhabited earth for 165 million years (4%). Humans have existed for 200,000 years or about (0.007%). It is unreasonable to expect humanity to discover the entirety of the origins of the universe in that amount of time. What is impressive is what we have discovered, considering modern physics has only been around since the early 20th century. 

But science doesn't leave me less convinced, but more convinced.

The argument here is science has been so impressive in proving the origins of the universe that it has convinced you that the universe is so complex that it had to be created by a divine creator. But it still has yet to provide any evidence of the actual creator, itself. That kind of science wouldn't be given the time of day in ANY other concept or theory, other than creationism. It has no sound structure to stand on, imo. It is "because he said it is" gives no more information to anyone. 

I say that science isn't able to answer all the relevant questions not because it just hasn't managed to yet, but because it can't.  It can't and won't ever be able to explain how literal nothing became something - the "un-caused cause."  And the things that it can answer are questions like "what" or "how" but never "why."  It can't explain meaning or why we would evolve to even care about meaning. 

It can tell me "is" but not "ought" or why I should care about ought in the first place - or why caring about ought is universal.  It cannot account for objective morality - that some things are good and right even if virtually everyone says they aren't, and other things are bad and wrong even if everyone says the opposite - and that everyone lives as if such a thing is true even if they may disagree on specfics.  In other words, it cannot give me an account for why morality ultimately isn't just "might makes right."

To the degree it tries, it fails miserably at explaining love, self-sacrifice, why a symphony or a sunset or a field of brilliant flowers or a starlit sky out in the rural areas affects us on a deep emotional level.  It gives insufficient answers as to why we appreciate beauty.

These are questions for philosophers and theologians, not scientists.  And they never will be questions science can answer.  But these questions and answers matter - in some ways, more than any answer science is capable of giving.

Yes, science is part of the reason I believe in a Creator.  And yes, the "un-caused cause" aspect, the vastness of the universe, and the incredible complexity and such are part of the reason.  I don't have enough faith to believe this all happened by luck, from out of nothing to all of this.  But it's more than science.  Science is great, but it has its limits.

[AuCivilEng1 11,048]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I say that science isn't able to answer all the relevant questions not because it just hasn't managed to yet, but because it can't.  It can't and won't ever be able to explain how literal nothing became something - the "un-caused cause."  And the things that it can answer are questions like "what" or "how" but never "why."  It can't explain meaning or why we would evolve to even care about meaning. 

It can tell me "is" but not "ought" or why I should care about ought in the first place - or why caring about ought is universal.  It cannot account for objective morality - that some things are good and right even if virtually everyone says they aren't, and other things are bad and wrong even if everyone says the opposite - and that everyone lives as if such a thing is true even if they may disagree on specfics.  In other words, it cannot give me an account for why morality ultimately isn't just "might makes right."

To the degree it tries, it fails miserably at explaining love, self-sacrifice, why a symphony or a sunset or a field of brilliant flowers or a starlit sky out in the rural areas affects us on a deep emotional level.  It gives insufficient answers as to why we appreciate beauty.

These are questions for philosophers and theologians, not scientists.  And they never will be questions science can answer.  But these questions and answers matter - in some ways, more than any answer science is capable of giving.

Yes, science is part of the reason I believe in a Creator.  And yes, the "un-caused cause" aspect, the vastness of the universe, and the incredible complexity and such are part of the reason.  I don't have enough faith to believe this all happened by luck, from out of nothing to all of this.  But it's more than science.  Science is great, but it has its limits.

I feel you on that, and I suppose that is the cause of a lot of people believing in a higher power. Keep in mind though, at one point, people spoke about the birth of babies and the location of the sun in the same way you speak about  a symphony or a sunset. The whole point of science is to continue to explain these things. Just because something can't be explained, yet, doesn't mean it's unexplainable. The main argument that mankind has against religion and God is that if he created everything, why is everything so miserable and unfair and random. Why create a universe where innocent children and animals suffer in misery? Why create a universe where you have as much chance of existing as an ant who is killed in cold blood, for no other reason but you were an ant.

Bouncing off of that idea, if people truly believed that God created everything in an intelligent design, why on earth would anyone ever hard a single thing (animals and humans alike). And what kind of judgement awaits for everyone who did or does? Everyone can claim to believe in this stuff, but it required some kind of level of disbelief for any moral being to harm or kill anything else for anything other than survival. 

[Leftfield 2,795]

4 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Earth has existed, per science for 4.5 Billion years. Dinosaurs inhabited earth for 165 million years (4%). Humans have existed for 200,000 years or about (0.007%). It is unreasonable to expect humanity to discover the entirety of the origins of the universe in that amount of time. What is impressive is what we have discovered, considering modern physics has only been around since the early 20th century. 

This statement is what simultaneously gives me hope and terrifies me. Hope because this universe is so complex, considering we've existed for such an insignificant amount of time, we should have far, far more to learn, which should hopefully drive us for a really long time. The terror comes from the possibility that may be a false assumption.

What's more frightening right now is that we may not be able to get out of our infancy as a race, considering we're advancing faster than we're evolving. Throughout history we've had this conceit that we are special. Some believe we're special in this entire universe, but most at least believe we're special on this planet. My fear is that there's nothing special about us, that we might be advancing too fast for our own good, and that our knowledge and wisdom are too far out of balance, leading to our own destruction. How ironic would it be if another creature on this planet, simply due to their intelligence not developing as quickly, was able to get that balance correct? Who's to say that if there is a creator, their intention wasn't to make dolphins the center of the universe, and we were just meant to be a cautionary tale?

Sincerely,

Mr. Bright Side

 

Joking aside, I'm not a nihilist, but I do think the fact we've considered ourselves to be "God's chosen" (in almost all cultures and religions) since the beginning of history has left us with a ton of blind spots and slowed our focus on taking care of the things that take care of us, not to mention led to wars that foster resentment and division to this day, making cooperation to survive less likely. 

 

 

[AuCivilEng1 11,048]

6 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

 

 

Joking aside, I'm not a nihilist, but I do think the fact we've considered ourselves to be "God's chosen" (in almost all cultures and religions) since the beginning of history has left us with a ton of blind spots and slowed our focus on taking care of the things that take care of us, not to mention led to wars that foster resentment and division to this day, making cooperation to survive less likely. 

 

 

This^

Also, notice how much destruction we’ve done to the earth and how much suffering humanity has cause itself and every living being that inhabits earth. “God Chosen”. Yea right! We are the disease that does nothing but destroy the host and all of its good bacteria. We’ve done more to **** this place up in 200k years than the dinosaurs did in 825x more time. 😂😂😭😭😭😭😭

Edited May 17, 2023 by AuCivilEng1

[DKW 86 7,499]

6 hours ago, abw0004 said:

I actually believe both are true.  For example, we do not know long long God's version of a day is.  So evolution could have taken place in His eye.  The Big Bang could have also taken place by God himself.

This is why I believe that the real discussion should be how literal do we take the Bible, or have considerations of when it was written, very similar in the discussion of our rights as gun owners in the United States.  Does it actually mean 24 hours equals one day in the Bible just as did our forbearers intend for our right to bear arms to include assault rifles?

 

6 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

On the contrary, I find that the more we discover through science - the intricacy and complexity, the astronomical mathematical precision required for not just life's basic building blocks but for everything to develop and evolve (I do believe in theistic evolution) and become what we all see around us now, the more than ever I'm convinced of a creator.  To be sure, science alone doesn't convince me because science is not able to answer all the relevant questions.  But science doesn't leave me less convinced, but more convinced.

Pretty much my take. God did it, over a very long period of time. The idea that random variations created what life there is on Earth is just plain crazy.

[AuCivilEng1 11,048]

13 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

 

. The idea that random variations created what life there is on Earth is just plain crazy.

That’s the more far fetched  idea? Really?

There can be a lot said for a believer who can admit that it believing in a God takes a massive leap of faith, when everything that exists points you in the other direction.
 

But to be able to sit there with a straight face and say that the people who don’t believe in an all knowing and all powerful wizard in the sky are the crazy ones, that my friend takes a level of hubris that is nearly too impossible to fathom.

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by AuCivilEng1

[DKW 86 7,499]

29 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

But to be able to sit there with a straight face and say that the people who don’t believe in an all knowing and all powerful wizard in the sky are the crazy ones, that my friend takes a level of hubris that is nearly too impossible to fathom.

I did not say nor imply this. That is your problem. You argue with yourself rather than men.

[AuCivilEng1 11,048]

6 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I did not say nor imply this. That is your problem. You argue with yourself rather than men.

I just quoted you saying that in my last post. What are you talking about?

[SaltyTiger 7,992]

5 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I feel you on that, and I suppose that is the cause of a lot of people believing in a higher power. Keep in mind though, at one point, people spoke about the birth of babies and the location of the sun in the same way you speak about  a symphony or a sunset. The whole point of science is to continue to explain these things. Just because something can't be explained, yet, doesn't mean it's unexplainable. The main argument that mankind has against religion and God is that if he created everything, why is everything so miserable and unfair and random. Why create a universe where innocent children and animals suffer in misery? Why create a universe where you have as much chance of existing as an ant who is killed in cold blood, for no other reason but you were an ant.

Bouncing off of that idea, if people truly believed that God created everything in an intelligent design, why on earth would anyone ever hard a single thing (animals and humans alike). And what kind of judgement awaits for everyone who did or does? Everyone can claim to believe in this stuff, but it required some kind of level of disbelief for any moral being to harm or kill anything else for anything other than survival. 

God did not create everything miserable, unfair, and random. He actually created everything perfect. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by SaltyTiger

[homersapien 11,619]

16 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I just quoted you saying that in my last post. What are you talking about?

[CoffeeTiger 5,300]

18 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

 

Pretty much my take. God did it, over a very long period of time. The idea that random variations created what life there is on Earth is just plain crazy.

 

There are an estimated 100 Billion different planets in the Milky way, The Milky way is 1 Galaxy. Estimates on the number of Galaxies that could exist are in the Billions and even Trillions. 

 

over the course of billions of years it's actually very believable to me that at some points all the variances, variables, and evolution could create a habitable world and human like/sentient species. It seems like a crazy idea if you believe our earth and the plants around our sun are the only ones that exist and earth just so happened to have the 'perfect setup'. Yeah that does seem insane........... But what if earth is simply one of hundreds of trillions/quadrillions/quintillions of planets that actually exist throughout space and overall existence? 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[Leftfield 2,795]

18 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

God did not create everything miserable, unfair, and random. He actually created everything perfect. 

Not saying I agree with the miserable and unfair part, but perfect as defined by whom?

[Leftfield 2,795]

19 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Pretty much my take. God did it, over a very long period of time. The idea that random variations created what life there is on Earth is just plain crazy.

Could God not have created the random variations? Again, there's nothing in science that doesn't allow for God to exist. Plenty of scientists have faith.

The inconsistencies between what we've discovered and what is written in religious texts are what cause problems. If you take the stories in those texts as lessons to be a better person, instead of absolute truths, that goes away.