Very true, and at the same time I do admit it is just as wrong for those on the side of evolution to just disregard Creation out of hand. Especially when based upon deeply ingrained emotional automatic responses for whatever reason one might retain them.

You know, I do apologize for some of my posts based in those same auto-responses, at times the human condition can end up being all consuming and using the Emotional Mind to design reality tends to lend confusion at best for the most part and almost always blatant ignorance of social grace ( for me at least ).

Seems the mechanics of Social Cognition and Automatic response comes into play when one least expects it

Kona I almost responded to his questioning you on that because it lent something other than presenting the verses as a means of considering information presented as possibility. As if you were being dared into some kind of abreaction reaction, or to put you in your place.

Of course, it might just be how I read the words as they lay on the screen without the ambient information of psychical presence.

I am glad I did not and I totally agree 100% with what you've stated.

And no I am not attempting or intend what I said above to disrespect Church, Faith, the Bible or his beliefs.

But do not agree with the means in the least if my perception is in fact correct.

r3fr: Perhaps (as Jafo put it earlier in this thread) God created evolution...

hmmmmm....

If we are going to talk about written books that where cast down for us to read from God as fact, it is hard to prove. I can believe all I want in God and the Bible, I nor anyone here can prove any statement in there is specicifally God's word.

Its called faith.



Strangely enough, most religious people will answer that statement I made above by quoting something from the Bible as fact instead of useing the Bible as a guide (as it is really intended I believe) to some physical evedence or worked out theory. Any book written well has references to others. I beleive the Bible (as well as some others) are written for faith not provability.


Does anyone know how many religions or faiths there are around the world who would feel just as strongly about thier bliefs and facts as written in their holy scripture?


(This is why I love my church. They don't try to ignore the fact that there are not other ways of looking at things and use the Bible as an example. They know there is a difference between faith and answers and beliefs)



As human beings, we should understand that there is no way we can understand the complexity of this universe created or otherwise. That includes the Bible (one example) and the multiple faith types that come from it. I think if you try to be more rational and open it is easier to see that a belief can be wrong and a fact can be mis-understood.


Many here have their opinion about creation or evolution and some have many sources to back their opinion up. Nevertheless it can be said from reading the posts so far that we all are pretty much working on other peoples work and trust that they did the work and research right. Not a belief but an assumption that the previous work was done correctly.


The belief starts when no one questions the 'facts'.




This thread has given me allot to think about. I really didn't think about evolution or creation working together until now.



Lets call it creat-U-lution

yeah, why couldn't God create evolution?


I think we are getting to stuck in the terms of these words. Evolution might be more than the term states. Creation might well be part of the effect.

or just the universe been created to evolve from some unknown source.

(I would call the unknown source God. Either way you look at it, the unknown source created us and is the force that is part of our being and destiny. I think "God" is a very overloaded term to many people because of religion and a 'human like' figure looming over them. People would rather say there isn't one even though there was or is a force that happened to create/evolve us and is part of us; our universe, solar system, galaxy. That source is our 'God'... it is what gives life and takes it away)

What Dreams May Come

Sorry to interrupt...but would you guys mind if I copied this entire thread and published it as a book, entitled "Creation vs. Evolution: Seen through the eyes of ordinary people". If I get rich, I'll give you all a smurf.

R3fr's posts are a good example of how subjective both arguments are, so much so that a Biblical Literalist can believe that science can prove their points. Oddly, though, science isn't helping his opponents prove their points to him. He can say the findings are wrong, and then not expect the other side to say the same? Scientific proof requires subjective belief as well.

A fun, if annoying, example. It is impossible to prove to someone that the moon landing occurred ( http://www.moonmovie.com/10things.html ) . Show them pictures, they say it is a soundstage at Area 51. Show them a moon rock, they ask you to prove that it came from the moon. If you are an astronaut, they say you are paid to lie. We think they are kooks, but we have no more empirical evidence that man landed on the moon than they do. We choose to believe the evidence we have second-hand, and they don't.

It is *belief*, not science, that separates the two sides of the argument. They are, in their own small minds, being more scientific than you, because of their "skeptical" nature. To me this is no different than an Atheist ruling out the possibility of God, or a biblical literalist ruling out the possibility that Evolution was God's method of creation. Their 'a priori' ideals have no possibility of being defeated by an 'a posteriori' addendum to Man's knowledge.

People tend call this sort of thing 'skepticism', but it is really blind pessimism. I can't prove that Jesus existed, but neither can anyone prove that Shakespeare existed. Darwin could simply have been an invention of a Humanist/Communist conspiracy to destroy all religion!!! We rely on written and oral tradition for everything outside of our own personal experience, whether it be the Torah or The Origin of Species.

Unless you know everything, you have to admit that your universal model is incomplete. Again, I don't see a vs. here, unless it is imposed by lack of imagination or prideful inflexibility. Both sides should readily agree on the possibility that they don't know everything, and then go believe whatever the smurf they want to.

Sorry to interrupt...but would you guys mind if I copied this entire thread and published it as a book, entitled "Creation vs. Evolution: Seen through the eyes of ordinary people". If I get rich, I'll give you all a smurf.

You could put it into the 'Ten most interesting threads from the WC message board' collection. (Along with the 'Uzee' thread (any of them) and 'Musical Vision!'

Yeah I like musical vision thread.


anyway, I think we should be discussing how the two can actually work together.

I'm telling you guys:

Creat-LU-tion.

Or Crevolution. Maybe Evo-reation?

Baker,

Not to mention the Flat Earth Society

That said, I do have a minor quibble with your philosophical position.

While I agree that the body of knowledge that we accept is primarily founded on an acceptance of authority, I do still stand by the argument that we can, *in principle* replicate the results of most of that body of scientific knowledge ourselves. Yes, *in practice* such replication is difficult, cumbersome, and often outside of the scope of our abilities at any given time. But the in principle part is still important. The ability to make an empirical argument for the biggest part of our body of knowledge provides a meaningful foundation for any rational mind. And yes, I do consider such people as the flat earth society and the moon landing hoax proponents (among others) to be irrational. I accept their right to be irrational, and it may be a world view that provides the most comfort to them, but there really is some mental disconnect there.

I can make an empirical argument for the proposition that you are posting to this thread using a computer and keyboard (to pick a trivial case), while you may argue that you are directly manipulating the content using only your mind powers. I may not be able to convince you of my position, but the odds are staggeringly in my favor of having the correct interpretation.

The truth behind the core of our scientific viewpoint can be measured by, and supported by, the results we get from them. I don't have to be able to directly sense electromagnetic radiation to know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they do exist. It isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of inference.

As we get to the fuzzier subjects (history, natural selction theory of evolution, etc.), the empirical chain of argument *does* rely on greater levels of acceptance of *authority* (and there are valid arguments about the validity of some authority) and interpretation.

Nonetheless, I tend to reject any nihilistic view of knowledge. The epistemological pursuit of what constitutes how to distinguish between inadequate knowlege and adequate knowledge is my particular preferred mechanism for identifying what knowledge to accept and what to reject or modify. Fundamentally, I believe (and I know you're going to ping me for using that word ) that there are meaningful mechanisms for determining a basal truth in the body of our knowledge base.

*ping*

" ...we can, *in principle* replicate the results of most of that body of scientific knowledge ourselves."

True, but does that always matter? The universal 'What goes up, must come down' seems solid enough. I might say, "Stand with a ball in your outstretched hand, release it." You could test it over and over, with or without a control group, and it would always work just the way I say. It is the interpretation that is flawed. Something tested over and over with the same effect here might result in a totally different outcome somewhere else, or from a different understanding of the test itself. 'Common Sense' has never recovered from Newton.

Modern science and modern religion are based on many layers of *highly* interpreted data, which are based on previous rules of interpretation. Each level of abstraction loosens the philosophical truth tolerance a bit. Discussions of this ferocity happen within churches and educational institutions, between people of like mind. Each side projects a firm chain of evidence outwardly, but among their peers they disagree on many individual links. They, too, have faith that their chain is solid, even though they don't yet agree on the interpretation of the links.

"I can make an empirical argument for the proposition that you are posting to this thread using a computer and keyboard..."

Of course. If you can, you come see if I am lying or misled about my swooby mental powers . Sadly, though, as a witness, you have become part of the experiment. Anyone removed from the occurrence in space or time will reference you as data that must then itself be interpreted. What you have gained is personal, factual knowledge of a single occurrence. What you have given the world is another perspective they may or may not choose to believe. Granted, these witnesses add up in time. In terms of evolution and religion, though, people tend to say "Nothing of the sort has ever been, or ever shall be, possible." This goes far deeper, and taints the whole thing, regardless the results of any one test.

I keep seeing a relative of mine on TV since it is Halloween. A member of csicop, he goes and 'debunks' X-Files style phenomenon. He used to carry a 'bologna detector' to balance all the equipment the paranormal people brought. My opinions would jive with his pretty well. The difference, I think, is that I see them as opinions.

P.S. for anyone interested, and who can stand a manly dose of pessimism with their skepticism, their site is here: http://www.csicop.org/

[Message Edited]

...and a really, really applicable piece currently featured on CSICOP for all you "brights", It lends a bit of understanding to why these discussions are so chaotic, I think.

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/brights/

Gotta love the last line:

"I'm not sure, but I do know one thing -- something that we all learned in high school. The "bright" kids aren't always the ones with the most friends, and nobody -- nobody -- likes a smart ass."