Creation or Evolution?

[N. Escalona]

If evidence of observable evolution is not enough for those with your belief system, then nothing will be; and I daresay that Creationism should be measured against the same standards, for if direct proof is not enough for evolution, then an absence of any observable evidence should signal the end of belief in supernatural creation.

First of all. I'm not saying that because there's not enough evidence you can't believe in something. Obviously I'm not saying that, because it's what I do. Evidence of evolution is "not enough"for certainty because evidence for anything is not enough for certainty. We need to SAY what we MEAN, and evidence can never bring true knowledge. It can bring us closer and closer to certainty, but never there. It would be irrational to refuse to believe anything based on this, but it's still true.

I did say that the evidence for evolution doesn't entirely satisfy me. However, I'm open to the possibility. But the argument you're using is precisely what I meant when I referred to inflammatory evolutionists in my first post. You're trying to argue against creation from a scientific context. Scientific evidence or lack thereof isn't wholly relevant to a theological question like whether God exists. You can't say "don't believe it" because there's not enough scientific evidence, like you can with scientific theories.

[VijchtiDoodah]

You make it seem as if your argument against evolution is purely from the standpoint of someone who believes that evidence proves nothing. If that's the case, it appears that you might only accept evolution through spiritual enlightenment, whereas I dare to know through intellectual enlightenment. The understanding of evidence is knowledge, to me. But I doubt you unbiasedly believe that certainty cannot be derived from evidence, at least from a practical position. It is not as if you wake each morning worried that gravity has failed in your sleep, that oxygen will continue to sustain your breath, that the food you eat is not poisonous, that you exist, even. You wouldn't think these thoughts because it is not a useful way to live life. In the same way, I might agree from the minor skeptical standpoint that nothing is certain, even evolution or gravitational theory, but in practice I would be a buffoon to ignore the evidence. That living life based on skepticism is irrational: we both agree. So drop the facade of skepticism and argue from fact, argue from subjective judgment if you must resort to that, but don't continue to pretend that evidence amounts to nothing.

And for clarification, Escalona, my arguments are not against creation, only in support of evolution. I have never stated whether I believe in a god or gods.

[Smegma]

The understanding of evidence is knowledge, to me.

So long as you're epistemologically responsible.

[N. Escalona]

This is just a misunderstanding. I agree with you: In practical terms, you can't allow yourself to worry about gravity every minute etc. That's why we have belief. I believe gravitation will continue to act for the rest of my life just like it has so far. I don't have any proof for this statement, only a heck of a lot of evidence. "in practice I would be a buffoon to ignore the evidence." yes.

The way I use the terms, knowledge is for proven things and belief is for unproven things. Try to live your life according to proof alone, and you're in trouble. Incidentally, belief is even more scientific than knowledge (because proof is foreign to science, and a conclusion based on evidence is belief).

[Smegma]

That living life based on skepticism is irrational: we both agree.

I think I do it every day.

[LtKillroy]

But they are mutual exclusive.

It's either god created em, or made naturally by natural evolution.

False, they can be inclusive. However, things like the amino acid theory can be exclusive. However, it still doesn't say how God created everything, just that he did. But things like the amino acid theory is more exlusive than evololution in itself. Because God just said let the earth produce animals, not that they don't change or that it is specific in any way.

[excruciator]

If we argue creationism in a spiritual context, how does that really link to the material world we are in?

and N. Escalona, there is more evidence for evolution than creationism. yet you believe in the latter, so somehow I don't think it's really a evidence problem.

[Twistkill]

Again? Really, again?

Until we get an influx of active new members who have yet to share their opinion on the creation of the world, this topic is more stale than a pack of 40 assorted Timbits that have been left out for a week.

[Smegma]

If we argue creationism in a spiritual context, how does that really link to the material world we are in?

Did you finally read that second sentence or something?

[N. Escalona]

If we argue creationism in a spiritual context, how does that really link to the material world we are in?

It depends on what you mean by creationism. But it doesn't need to link to the material world directly. That doesn't necessarily mean its not an important question.

and N. Escalona, there is more evidence for evolution than creationism. yet you believe in the latter, so somehow I don't think it's really a evidence problem.

I guess I need to say this again. Scientific evidence is much more important in the context of science than the context of theology. Science is not the universal standard by which to measure all ideas, because science is limited only to the physical world. But you need to define evolution and creationism if you intend to make them mutually exclusive like this. I think its exceedingly misleading to characterize creation as anything besides the idea that God created the world.

[Mangled*]

Note: The material world is the only apparent one. Careful there, ghosty.

[Smegma]

Note: The material world is the only apparent one. Careful there, ghosty.

Not necessarily.

[N. Escalona]

Note: The material world is the only apparent one. Careful there, ghosty.

Not necessarily.

Yeah. It depends what you mean by apparent, and it would be nice to see your justification for that idea.

[excruciator]

Again? Really, again?

Until we get an influx of active new members who have yet to share their opinion on the creation of the world, this topic is more stale than a pack of 40 assorted Timbits that have been left out for a week.

But you'd still eat it wont you?

If we argue creationism in a spiritual context, how does that really link to the material world we are in?

It depends on what you mean by creationism. But it doesn't need to link to the material world directly. That doesn't necessarily mean its not an important question.

But in the end, no matter how spiritual it was, it will still link to the real, touchy world. So I guess scientific context will matter somehow.

and N. Escalona, there is more evidence for evolution than creationism. yet you believe in the latter, so somehow I don't think it's really a evidence problem.

I guess I need to say this again. Scientific evidence is much more important in the context of science than the context of theology. Science is not the universal standard by which to measure all ideas, because science is limited only to the physical world. But you need to define evolution and creationism if you intend to make them mutually exclusive like this. I think its exceedingly misleading to characterize creation as anything besides the idea that God created the world.

I agree that you need a different approach for different things. Science can't argue about spiritual world. Done. Does it mean that theology can't argue about science? So what is evolution in an entirely theologian view?(which does not link ANYTHING to the material world)

Note: The material world is the only apparent one. Careful there, ghosty.

Not necessarily.

Don't chew on words.

Material is what we live in. And spiritual could be even more virtual than the one we are living in.

You get what he meant, and that's the end of it.

[Smegma]

Don't chew on words.

Material is what we live in. And spiritual could be even more virtual than the one we are living in.

You get what he meant, and that's the end of it.

I'd be interested to hear your definition of spiritual/material world.

[Demonic]

Indeed. What you mean on spiritual could very might just cover the fact that we don't have an organ that reads and broadcasts radio waves, like how our eyes can't perceive a whole lot of the light spectrum (infra and ultra-waves). The evolutionary explanation for that is that we never needed that function, just the same as you can touch, feel and see a rock as solid, when on the smallest scale, there's effectively more space between those molecules than matter (though Geo might come and fix me on this one with a wrench, as my high school trivia knowledge is fading fast).

[excruciator]

Indeed. What you mean on spiritual could very might just cover the fact that we don't have an organ that reads and broadcasts radio waves, like how our eyes can't perceive a whole lot of the light spectrum (infra and ultra-waves). The evolutionary explanation for that is that we never needed that function, just the same as you can touch, feel and see a rock as solid, when on the smallest scale, there's effectively more space between those molecules than matter (though Geo might come and fix me on this one with a wrench, as my high school trivia knowledge is fading fast).

Yeah lets keep asking why.

physical is stuff you could touch, feel, or it could influence you or your living world in some degree.

Spiritual is the rest.


Nobody will never know wtf is the spiritual world. Therefore use some common sense.

[Smegma]

Nobody will never know wtf is the spiritual world. Therefore use some common sense.

Only because you just defined it as such!

[N. Escalona]

Yeah lets keep asking why.

physical is stuff you could touch, feel, or it could influence you or your living world in some degree.

Spiritual is the rest.


Nobody will never know wtf is the spiritual world. Therefore use some common sense.

You're making some assumptions here. "touch, feel" is certainly a phenomenon of the physical world. However it's closed-minded to say that these are the only ways for things to influence you. You've simply asserted that idea, absurdly redefining "physical" and "spiritual" to be essentially "real stuff subject to common sense" and "imaginary stuff not subject to common sense".

[Lt. Sprizz]

WOW(lots of replies), I haven't been on for awhile and apologize. Lots of good opinions.

You're making some assumptions here. "touch, feel" is certainly a phenomenon of the physical world. However it's closed-minded to say that these are the only ways for things to influence you. You've simply asserted that idea, absurdly redefining "physical" and "spiritual" to be essentially "real stuff subject to common sense" and "imaginary stuff not subject to common sense".

I agree with excruciator, though. He may have asserted that idea, but it makes sense to me. How do you define the physical and spiritual world?