Support NeoGAF

[marrec]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you sound like a philosophy major who has only had Bio 101 and has never been in a lab. Science is very specific. It requires hypotheses that can be falsified upon experimentation. There is no deduction. It it not even technically induction because it never makes statements of fact. Science does not exist without evidence. Also, some of those people you mentioned aren't even scientists. Genuine scientific fields didn't exist at the time of Galileo - he's more appropriately an astronomer or a mathematician. Newton was clearly a mathematician. Darwin was a naturalist whose hypothesis lead to the development of the science of Biology. Philosophy certainly influences the way scientists think about Reality and Life in a more global sense, and science certainly helps philosophers form more realistic premises, but because their methods and goals are different they are different subjects and should be treated as such.

I'm a philosophy major who's never taken a Science class beyond the 101 level, but I came to the conclusion that Philosophy in itself is not the answer to any problem. It fits perfectly in as a tool in a larger set that helps answer questions with a certitude but cannot go beyond that. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Philosophy's best use is in clarifying language and nothing more.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I think that is one of the major issues we need to address. Why did everybody start pitting religion and science against each other?

The entire fact that people confuse the terms evolution and abiogenesis and use that confusion to pit evolution against creationism is ridiculous to me. Creationism and evolution can co-exist, but people treat them as opposites.

Science is not a respecter of anything. It is simply out to test and find various hypothesis as best it can and arrive at a conclusion based on it's findings. How can something that is simply searching for concrete answers be biased towards anything else?

Well mostly because science for one, does not take into account supernatural forces. It continually marginalizes the influence of a god and forces religious institutes to change dogma.

I should really buy a biography of Galileo.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Not surprised that Sanky makes another claim he can't substantiate.

 

[marrec]

I think that is one of the major issues we need to address. Why did everybody start pitting religion and science against each other?

The entire fact that people confuse the terms evolution and abiogenesis and use that confusion to pit evolution against creationism is ridiculous to me. Creationism and evolution can co-exist, but people treat them as opposites.

Science is not a respecter of anything. It is simply out to test and find various hypothesis as best it can and arrive at a conclusion based on it's findings. How can something that is simply searching for concrete answers be biased towards anything else?

It started because Religion felt it was being threatened by the advancement of Science. Up to a certain point Religion was the only answer for anything and everything else was considered archaic.

 

[Ponn]

Alright, well if my tax dollars had to go to a public school teacher spending time discussing creationism then Catholics and conservatives should start ponying up tax dollars for contraceptives.

 

[jett]

America,

 

[Canuck76]

As a side comment: I briefly did a Teach America type thing in a very rural public highschool a few years back. I got a mini-class of students each period to teach biology to. Christianity was very prevalent in this school. Many teacher displayed posters with scripture quotes. Even the biology teacher did this.... and kept a Bible and cross on her desk. However, she told me she was afraid of Creationists and was completely opposed to teaching Creationism in a biology class. She said religion was a personal matter, and that biology was a science rooted in evidence. I hope that Tennessee highschool teachers will feel the same way.

One of the most offensive things in this thread is the rash generalization of the south and rural America in general. It's obvious some people have never lived here and say stupid crap like "man it would suck to teach science in "southern state" right now.

 

[JGS]

I sure hope JGS responds to this.

Thanks for the marker. Anti-religion threads move too fast for me to keep up. I never really avoid, but it's also unrealistic to reply to everything or address all the accusations.

This statement implies that "some atheists" were previously presented with "facts", and refused to change their "beliefs". I'll do you the favour of letting your strawman atheist fly, but you'll have to substantiate which belief ought to have changed in the face of which fact.

You misunderstood. I'm saying that some atheists aren't honest enough to admit that they rely on a belief of what abiogenesis is. It has nothing to do with facts. It has exactly the same weight as any other belief out there regarding how life got here. There is no weight to it beyond what a scientist puts on it.

Simply put JGS, Sanky and their ilk REFUSE to acknowledge abiogenesis as a scientific theory because denying it allows the origin of life to remain shrouded in mystery. This leaves room for GOD to fill in the gap, the only place God apparently exists...in the gaps of human knowledge. Sorry guys, but that's how I see it.

When I say "ilk", I'm accused of insulting. Did you just insult me?

In any event, if you & your ilk actually had the abilty to give me reasons to acknowledge this, this wuld go a long way toward my absolute rejection of God which seems to be pretty important to you... & your ilk.

 

[CornBurrito]

You misunderstood. I'm saying that some atheists aren't honest enough to admit that they rely on a belief of what abiogenesis is. It has nothing to do with facts. It has exactly the same weight as any other belief out there regarding how life got here.There is no weight to it beyond what a scientist puts on it.When I say "ilk", I'm accused of insulting. Did you just insult me?

You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any less false.

A few of the current theories of abiogenesis at least have more evidence than say... Ancient Egyptian creation myths.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Thanks for the marker. Anti-religion threads move too fast for me to keep up. I never really avoid, but it's also unrealistic to reply to everything or address all the accusations.

You misunderstood. I'm saying that some atheists aren't honest enough to admit that they rely on a belief of what abiogenesis is. It has nothing to do with facts. It has exactly the same weight as any other belief out there regarding how life got here. There is no weight to it beyond what a scientist puts on it.When I say "ilk", I'm accused of insulting. Did you just insult me?

In any event, if you & your ilk actually had the abilty to give me reasons to acknowledge this, this wuld go a long way toward my absolute rejection of God which seems to be pretty important to you... & your ilk.

The weight scientists can place on a theory outweighs what any religious figure can by an almost incalculable degree.

Ilk

Definition:

A type of people or things similar to those already referred to: "reporters of his ilk".

You and Sanky hold beliefs which invoke supernatural entities into your understanding of the universe. As the gaps narrow and grow smaller in size, you two just refute the natural conclusion of the entire scientific community to leave a space just large enough for your god. You and many other religious individuals who hold similar religiously grounded beliefs.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

WTF is wrong with Evolution? I mean, I believe that God exists but I know that evolution does as well. Do they *have* to be polar opposites?

Ugh, religion shouldn't be in ANY classroom unless it's a theology class.

 

[JGS]

You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any less false.

A few of the current theories of abiogenesis at least have more evidence than say... Ancient Egyptian creation myths.

I'm not arguing true/false.

No one believes ancient Egyptian myths which is why that's not what the assumption is when the argues are brought up. Ironically, most Christians aren't YEC's, but for some reason that is always brought to the forefront as the Christian standard.

I assume that's to keep the anti-evolution rhetoric going when abiogenesis garbage has nothing to do with that.

 

[genjiZERO]

I'm a philosophy major who's never taken a Science class beyond the 101 level, but I came to the conclusion that Philosophy in itself is not the answer to any problem. It fits perfectly in as a tool in a larger set that helps answer questions with a certitude but cannot go beyond that. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Philosophy's best use is in clarifying language and nothing more.

I wasn't trying to come out too hard against Philosophy majors. I just find that since Philosophy was the "original major" a lot of its students make claims on science that show they haven't much experience in field thinking it's similar to philosophy (because science does develop from philosophy initially)

One of the most offensive things in this thread is the rash generalization of the south and rural America in general. It's obvious some people have never lived here and say stupid crap like "man it would suck to teach science in "southern state" right now.

I had a lot of kids who were stuck on Creationsim, but it seemed to me that it was because their parents were indoctrinating them in it. Most were receptive to evolution when you explained it properly. One problem is that evolution is a little difficult to explain on a very basic level. Overall, I had a spectacular experience with it.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Ilk
You and Sanky hold beliefs which invoke supernatural entities into your understanding of the universe. As the gaps narrow and grow smaller in size, you two just refute the natural conclusion of the entire scientific community to leave a space just large enough for your god. You and many other religious individuals who hold similar religiously grounded beliefs.

The gaps are not getting narrower, and no ammount of technology has made advances into the explanations of the natural origin of life. I feel more confortable with an intelligent deity filling the gaps, than random luck and faith in unobserved natural processes.

 

[marrec]

You misunderstood. I'm saying that some atheists aren't honest enough to admit that they rely on a belief of what abiogenesis is. It has nothing to do with facts. It has exactly the same weight as any other belief out there regarding how life got here. There is no weight to it beyond what a scientist puts on it.

I have no clue where current science stands on abiogenesis, I spend too much time specializing in my field of study and other fields that interest me to delve fully into it, and yet I can state with full confidence that God did not create life. Nor any other religious fairy made up by man. I can state that because Science gives me the tools needed to quickly reason out a conclusion based on previously provided evidence.

You seem to be making these ridiculous statements in a vacuum where Science and Religious belief somehow have equal ground. They do not. Science has many years of historical weight to back up it's logical conclusions, whereas Religion has nothing to provide but text created out of someone's imagination thousands of years ago.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm not arguing true/false.

No one believes ancient Egyptian myths which is why that's not what the assumption is when the argues are brought up. Ironically, most Christians aren't YEC's, but for some reason that is always brought to the forefront as the Christian standard.

I assume that's to keep the anti-evolution rhetoric going when abiogenesis garbage has nothing to do with that.

Abiogenesis is what started life, which is involved in evolution. No matter how much you wish to cling onto your supernatural explanation of life's orgin, it holds vastly more weight than any creationist argument.

The gaps are not getting narrower, and no ammount of technology has made advances into the explanations of the natural origin of life. I feel more confortable with an intelligent deity filling the gaps, than random luck and faith in unobserved natural processes.

That is because you do not take issue with holding irrational beliefs.

 

[JGS]

Abiogenesis is what started life, which is involved in evolution. No matter how much you wish to cling onto your supernatural explanation of life's orgin, it holds vastly more weight than any creationist argument.

So you are saying that evolution and abiogenesis are the same because that is certainly a different stance than others take.

If that's the case, a little leaven spoils the whole lump and evolution becomes crap too.

I have no clue where current science stands on abiogenesis, I spend too much time specializing in my field of study and other fields that interest me to delve fully into it, and yet I can state with full confidence that God did not create life. Nor any other religious fairy made up by man. I can state that because Science gives me the tools needed to quickly reason out a conclusion based on previously provided evidence.

You seem to be making these ridiculous statements in a vacuum where Science and Religious belief somehow have equal ground. They do not. Science has many years of historical weight to back up it's logical conclusions, whereas Religion has nothing to provide but text created out of someone's imagination thousands of years ago.

We are in the same boat because I can state without a doubt that life getting here by complete random chance encounters and hookups is the biggest load of hooey every to be thought up by man's overactive imagination.

The good thing is you can focus completely on your field of study whithout this being even the slightest concern to you.

 

[CornBurrito]

The gaps are not getting narrower, and no ammount of technology has made advances into the explanations of the natural origin of life. I feel more confortable with an intelligent deity filling the gaps, than random luck and faith in unobserved natural processes.

You do realize that some people can take the "I don't know" route right? The gap doesn't need to be filled with irrational nonsense.

 

[Orayn]

The gaps are not getting narrower, and no ammount of technology has made advances into the explanations of the natural origin of life. I feel more confortable with an intelligent deity filling the gaps, than random luck and faith in unobserved natural processes.

It didn't matter what you're comfortable with - An intelligent diety is a poor solution to this problem because it requires more new assumptions than abiogenesis. Are you a god-ologist?

 

[Log4Girlz]

So you are saying that evolution and abiogenesis are the same because that is certainly a different stance than others take.

If that's the case, a little leaven spoils the whole lump and evolution becomes crap too.

Abiogenesis and evolution are entwined as is planetary formation is entwined with stellar formation.

In your irrational mind, yes, that would mean evolution was crap too and that your theory of infinitely complex being who needs no explanation of his own to exist is superior in every way, because it is simplicity itself to understand.

 

[Sanky Panky]

That is because you do not take issue with holding irrational beliefs.

I do take issue when they are held under the guise of "science".

 

[Log4Girlz]

I do take issue when they are held under the guise of "science".

I'm glad you make no pretense to shroud your beliefs as anything scientific and instead hold onto the belief that a supernatural being is responsible for everything. Makes sense.

 

[marrec]

We are in the same boat because I can state without a doubt that life getting here by complete random chance encounters and hookups is the biggest load of hooey every to be thought up by man's overactive imagination.

The good thing is you can focus completely on your field of study whithout this being even the slightest concern to you.

In your mind though, it leaves the only solution being one of magical origin. How can one follow life scientific step by scientific step back to the very beginning and only THEN say 'Whelp, looks like God did it.'

I'm asking honestly because it's baffling to me.

 

[JGS]

Abiogenesis and evolution are entwined as is planetary formation is entwined with stellar formation.

In your irrational mind, yes, that would mean evolution was crap too and that your theory of infinitely complex being who needs no explanation of his own to exist is superior in every way, because it is simplicity itself to understand.

Thanks for clearing up my beliefs and your grasp of all things science.

how does it feel to possess the pure knowledge I ascribe to God? No wonder I tick you off.

 

[Log4Girlz]

In your mind though, it leaves the only solution being one of magical origin. How can one follow life scientific step by scientific step back to the very beginning and only THEN say 'Whelp, looks like God did it.'

I'm asking honestly because it's baffling to me.

Cognitive dissonance is the only explanation if he actual holds those beliefs.

Thanks for clearing up my beliefs and your grasp of all things science.

how does it feel to possess the pure knowledge I ascribe to God? No wonder I tick you off.

Feels as empty and non-existent as god.

 

[Orayn]

I do take issue when they are held under the guise of "science".

You putting the word science in scare-quotes is unseemly.

 

[That Singer Guy...]

I don't see anything wrong with this, why is everybody on this this board so close minded?

 

[Stumpokapow]

You misunderstood. I'm saying that some atheists aren't honest enough to admit that they rely on a belief of what abiogenesis is.

You said:
"I am well aware of the difference between belief and fact. I will happily change my beliefs in the face of facts... If only some atheists were that honest"

Your first implication is that you have certain beliefs, and that certain facts would convince you to change them. Your second implication is that "some atheists" (not named) have their own beliefs, and that they would not change those beliefs no matter which facts they are exposed to.

People do not begin by assuming bad faith on the part of others. You are assuming bad faith on the part of those "some atheists". Therefore, logically, you have some reason to assume bad faith on the part of those people. Again, I will not ask you to substantiate who those people are--I'm letting you keep up your strawman. But I will ask you to substantiate why you feel they would not be open to contradictory facts, and what such facts might take form as. I would argue that if you are not able to substantiate why you feel "some atheists" would not change their "beliefs" in the face of "facts", your original post was disingenuous.

You are now telling me that none of what I just said was what you meant with your post. Fine, I apologize for misunderstanding your argument. My interpretation was very simple and literal, so I'm not sure how I could have misunderstood your argument, but I concede to you anyway.

You now say your actual argument was "Some atheists think they know everything about abiogenesis and are unwilling to admit that they don't [or that some of their "knowledge" is actually "faith"]". Is this what you're saying? I'm trying to be socratic here; I want to make absolutely sure we're on the same page before we continue on this discussion.

 

[JGS]

In your mind though, it leaves the only solution being one of magical origin. How can one follow life scientific step by scientific step back to the very beginning and only THEN say 'Whelp, looks like God did it.'

I'm asking honestly because it's baffling to me.

This is incorrect. I don't deny nor have I ever denied the facts of a situation so quit trying to know more about me than you really do.

How can someone follow life scientific step by scientific step back to the very beginning and only THEN say "Whelp nothing did it".

I get that where a non-believing scieintist would have to start things, but it's patheitic to keep it there AND try to convince others that's the most logical conclusion when it's actually the dumbest.

You said:
"I am well aware of the difference between belief and fact. I will happily change my beliefs in the face of facts... If only some atheists were that honest"

Your first implication is that you have certain beliefs, and that certain facts would convince you to change them. Your second implication is that "some atheists" (not named) have their own beliefs, and that they would not change those beliefs no matter which facts they are exposed to.

I said what I meant in the statement and in the reply. Be my guest to read more into it though. It was a simple statement of non-believers need to acknowledge that abiogeneisis is a belief whether it's a religious one or not.

Sorry I caused the misnderstanding but that happens when writing on the fly.

 

[zomaha]

how does it feel to possess the pure knowledge I ascribe to God? No wonder I tick you off.

Lol

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

I don't see how a theological perspective is "illuminating." I don't see it as much better than a random guess. If you can't currently get a scientific answer to your question, but you still want to know badly enough, you might lower your standards enough to accept a mere guess. That's not illumination, it's comfort.

Yes, I read everything at the link. There are some very silly things, and some more interesting points. The most interesting parts are about "hard questions for science," such as the apparent fine-tunedness of the universe. Some theologically inclined people like to say here, "God can explain that" (is there anything you can't explain using God?), though I don't see that as an especially good answer. Vague ideas come to mind that are no worse, such as an "evolution of universes," in which universes which manage to form stars (say) exert an influence backward in time on their own "parameters," so that star-forming universes are encouraged. This is a convoluted explanation with holes in it, sure, but how is it a worse answer than, "God?" It takes many more words to write out, but the unobserved things it claims must exist are no more complex. The point is, "God did it" is just a random guess out of a large set of possible crappy-sounding explanations for questions we don't know how to answer yet. I don't see how having a "privileged guess" is at all helpful. If anything, it seems harmful, as it distracts from all the other guesses, though they have no worse odds of actually being correct.

It seems to me that what you're saying is basically that science cannot tell us why God is a better answer to difficult questions than an unprovable, untestable, vague scientific theory. I would agree, and I think that's exactly why theology and philosophy are so important, because they attempt to substantiate answers to some of those questions in a way that science never could.

Whether or not what you'll see will convince you is another matter entirely, of course. Just as an example I would say that I probably value historical evidence related to the life of Jesus much more highly than the typical atheist (which is another debate entirely).

One of the most offensive things in this thread is the rash generalization of the south and rural America in general. It's obvious some people have never lived here and say stupid crap like "man it would suck to teach science in "southern state" right now.

It really is kind of offensive.

 

[Orayn]

I don't see anything wrong with this, why is everybody on this this board so close minded?

Creationism isn't science.

 

[Log4Girlz]

This is incorrect. I don't deny nor have I ever denied the facts of a situation so quit trying to know more about me than you really do.

How can someone follow life scientific step by scientific step back to the very beginning and only THEN say "Whelp nothing did it".

I get that where a non-believing scieintist would have to start things, but it's patheitic to keep it there AND try to convince others that's the most logical conclusion when it's actually the dumbest.

How is it the dumbest? From simplicity complexity arises. The religious argument would be that the very first thing would be the most complex and it sorta devolves from there.

 

[Gr1mLock]

America,

Where the hell should I start?

 

[Dunk#7]

You seem to be relatively open-minded so I'm going to make the rare genuine, heartfelt attempt to change your mind.

First, creationism isn't in the bible. It's new. It's new as all get out, in fact. It's earliest descriptions are from the 1840s or so; the term itself was first used in 1927. In America. As a religious belief it specifically denies that evolution as we understand it takes place and replaces many of the natural explanations for the diversity of life with religious tenets. There is nothing inherently wrong with this on a level of personal belief, but it cannot be called "science" in- ahem- good faith. It does deter one from seeking knowledge because, for example, seeking the knowledge of how whales became sea animals would yield answers directly incompatible with the beliefs put forth by creationism.

The second line I quoted puts me in the frameset that perhaps you accept "Theistic evolution" or "evolutionary creation"- if that's the case and I apologize as this is a purely semantic argument and I have nothing to convince you of. But at its most basic value, science is the study of the natural world by means of testable hypotheses and observation. It cannot concern itself with any supernatural agents or causes because such entities are by definition untestable and unobservable, and thus simply not the purview of science.

edit:

Unfortunately, without you being more specific, this is misguided, at best. If you are using creationism as a broad umbrella to include concepts like theistic evolution, then perhaps a coexistence of the type you imply is possible. But otherwise they can only coexist in the sense that geocentric and heliocentric theories of celestial motion can coexist; with one clearly and demonstrably correct and the other discredited. They may not be opposites, but creationism absolutely denies the possibly of evolution.

Thank you for the civil debate. We are all out hear seeking knowledge and understanding and questions are the only way to get there.


My thought is that God created the world and universe around us, but since that time things have been capable of evolving/adapting to the world around them. To deny that things change and adapt over time is completely asinine. Maybe I am completely ripping through evolutionary theory with that comment as I cannot claim to know it really in-depth.

I just simply do not believe in taking evolution all the way back to abiogenesis or the beginning of life and letting everything we know and see today to have evolved from that point.

 

[zomaha]

I just simply do not believe in taking evolution all the way back to abiogenesis or the beginning of life and letting everything we know and see today to have evolved from that point.

Why?

 

[Orayn]

Thank you for the civil debate. We are all out hear seeking knowledge and understanding and questions are the only way to get there.


My thought is that God created the world and universe around us, but since that time things have been capable of evolving/adapting to the world around them. To deny that things change and adapt over time is completely asinine. Maybe I am completely ripping through evolutionary theory with that comment as I cannot claim to know it really in-depth.

I just simply do not believe in taking evolution all the way back to abiogenesis or the beginning of life and letting everything we know and see today to have evolved from that point.

Well, abiogenesis is a horse of a different color. The fact of the matter is that evolution still works if the first living things were created by one god or another. I know plenty of religious people who believe just that.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Guys, let me put on my irrationality cap

How can anyone claim that the natural conclusion of several fields of science which include astronomy, geology, chemistry and physics has anymore weight at all than god, who has absolutely no evidence at all, or any logical reasoning to back him up at all? How does it even make sense? Please remember that using logical reasoning and combining science from several fields is inconsequential and should not be considered.

Well my goodness. Maybe these religious folk have a point. God and abiogenesis really are on the same level.

See the way this works is. God does not have any evidence or logical thought whatsoever backing up his existence.

Abiogenesis, also has no evidence or logical thought whatsoever backing up its existence! This wiki link? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

It doesn't even begin to touch upon any of the respective disciplines in science that could possibly support the conclusion that life must have arose from non-supernatural means.

There's no talk of chemistry...astronomy...geology...radiological dating. Nothing! The nothing did it!

tl;dr

Religious theory: God did it. Nothing to back it up

Science theory: The nothing did it. Nothing to back it up.

 

[Wazzim]

These are public school right? I thought Church and state were separated, guess not.

 

[Stumpokapow]

The gaps are not getting narrower, and no ammount of technology has made advances into the explanations of the natural origin of life.

The gaps are most certainly getting smaller; do you think someone in the year 1505 would agree with the statement that "The Earth is an ancient body that revolves around the sun, which is an ancient star, in an ancient galaxy, in an ancient universe. The formation of the Earth, the stars, and the galaxies are all governed by understood and materialistic processes. This universe has been in continual expansion, and began approximately 14 billion years ago, which we have determined through a materialistic process. Modern man is a descendant of older primates which are themselves descendants of earlier lifeforms. We can demonstrate this through materialistic processes. Living on man are tons of other organisms including bacteria and viruses, which cause various processes within the human body. We can demonstrate this through materialistic processes. We can map this descent quite a while back, but we are not able to explain the first step. ", or do you think some of those statements might be ascribed to some sort of supernatural explanation?

You've simply taken the liberty of redefining "the gap" historically as "the gap" in a modern sense. When someone argues the gap is getting narrower, what they might mean in your term is that "the number of gaps has shrank and of those that still exist, some have gotten narrower".

Thank you for the civil debate.

I just simply do not believe in taking evolution all the way back to abiogenesis or the beginning of life and letting everything we know and see today to have evolved from that point.

Are human descendants of earlier primates ("monkeys" to use the term loosely)?

 

[Dunk#7]

Why?

Because I do not believe that you can get something out of nothing

I also do not believe that non-living matter can spawn living matter

I also believe that there is far too much order in the universe to arrive at the conclusion that it all came to be from random chance

 

[marrec]

This is incorrect. I don't deny nor have I ever denied the facts of a situation so quit trying to know more about me than you really do.

How can someone follow life scientific step by scientific step back to the very beginning and only THEN say "Whelp nothing did it".

Never did I say that you're denying the facts of a situation, only what your conclusion is based on your answers in this thread. If your conclusion is different then please enlighten me so that we can continue having a debate with full knowledge of where each other stands instead of you CONSTANTLY moving the goalposts by not clearly defining what your position is.

I'm asking honestly because it's baffling to me.

That's what I get for asking honestly, you give me a non-sequitur.

I trace scientific knowledge to the origin of life and say 'Science has told me there is a reasonable, logical, and verifiable solution to every single problem up to this point, so there must be a reasonable, logical, and verifiable solution to this problem as well.' There is no other conclusion besides one of magical origin of which there is provided ZERO evidence.

 

[Schweinehund]

I think my public high school spent like at most 5 minutes going over creationism. It was like one paragraph in our 1980's textbook.

I don't think any biology textbook is going to go more in depth than that.

I also don't think one paragraph is going to convince anyone that this line of thinking is the way to go.

 

[Noise Pollution]

Jeezus I really started a shit hurricane last night.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I also do not believe that non-living matter can spawn living matter

Why not?

 

[zomaha]

Because I do not believe that you can get something out of nothing

I also do not believe that non-living matter can spawn living matter

Just because we don't know how life originated, that falsifies evolution?

I also believe that there is far too much order in the universe to arrive at the conclusion that it all came to be from random chance

What "order" are you talking about?

 

[Davidion]

You do realize that some people can take the "I don't know" route right? The gap doesn't need to be filled with irrational nonsense.

This is right...

Creationism isn't science.

...and this is right.

While on paper this law only forces the teacher to engage in discussion of creationism and doesn't require them to teach it as a valid approach on the origin of life, it's nonsense that this should be a mandate for a biology/science course in the first place.

 

[Dunk#7]

Just because we don't know how life originated, that falsifies evolution?

You should really read a few of my most recent post before commenting. I am not against evolution at all. I simply believe God created the universe and everything has evolved since then.

 

[Noise Pollution]

Just because we don't know how life originated, that falsifies evolution?

He doesn't claim that it falsifies evolution, he merely claims that god may have been needed to start evolution.

 

[Log4Girlz]

You should really read a few of my most recent post before commenting. I am not against evolution at all. I simply believe God created the universe and everything has evolved since then.

The word universe can have a number of similar, but subtly different definitions. Ultimately, the quest to learn the secrets of the universe is to learn everything that can be learned in this reality. To me, universe, reality...they are completely interchangeable.

So my question is, how can god be responsible for creating reality if it is apart of reality?