Creation/Evolution controversy

[ConsequentAtheist]

However, not all creationists have a problem with evolution.

You simple adulterate the term 'creationism' to mean nothing beyond theism, and then pretend that you've said something meaningful. At best, you're fooling only yourself.

 

[Raithere]

I agree with you completely. The point I was trying to make, was that creationism and evolution do not necessarily conflict, since evolution makes no mention of how life came to be. This does not mean that I believe in a creationist origin.

I wasn't assuming you did, I just saw an opening to mention the problems with the 'scientific creationism' POV. And you are right that evolution does not deal with the inception of life, however, many creationists' positions (such as Biblicists) do conflict with evolution.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that there are no infinites? Or are you saying you know how and where the universe started? I personally believe that in our finite minds we can not even comprehend the enormity of the infinite nor the prospect of the beginning.

Huge topic there but basically you are correct in that we cannot really comprehend infinity. Much of current cosmological science, in fact, is an attempt to 'remove' the infinities from the equations. What I was getting at though was that one infinity is the same as another. An infinite god is no less an absurd proposition than an infinite universe.

So if the "source of all" has to come from somewhere where would it come from? If you don't believe there was or is a "source of all", where and how, in your opinion, did our universe start?

I don't think it did. Or to put it more clearly, I don't think that it's a viable question. It's like asking, "What is south of the South Pole?"

~Raithere

 

[Idle Mind]

and then pretend that you've said something meaningful.

Am I pretending I said something meaningful? Sorry.

At best, you're fooling only yourself.

Well, I am a fool.

 

[Awake]

I am not trying to be obstinate, but if the origin of the universe is not a viable question, what makes the creation/evolution questions viable? Either way (creation/evolution) we are here now. What do you consider the benefits of proving either creationist or evolutionist?

About something you said~You don't think the universe started? I am not sure I understand. I don't understand how it isn't viable.

Now about your other comment~You said, "An infinite god is no less an absurd proposition than an infinite universe." I am not by any means a cosmological scientist, but I humbly ask what is beyond the universe?

 

[Raithere]

I am not by any means a cosmological scientist, but I humbly ask what is beyond the universe?

Absolutely nothing, no time, no space, no matter. By definition, the Universe is all that is. There is no 'beyond'. Or perhaps it would be better to say that what might lie beyond our Universe is unknowable and would not be existent in any way we can fathom.

You don't think the universe started? I am not sure I understand. I don't understand how it isn't viable.

When we ask, 'How did the Universe begin' we are thinking causally. This is natural because that is how things work within the Universe. The problem is that time and space are dependent upon each other you cannot have one without the other. So if we go back in time the best we could hope for is a focal point, a singularity where all of space and time is focused in a single mathematical point. 'Beyond' this point, however, there is no time. There is no 'before'. The temporal chain of causality simply ends there.

To further obscure a possible beginning: Hawking proposed that the law of quantum indeterminacy prohibits the singularity. Instead we have a 'fuzzy' convergence that would be more like a bend. Traveling back in time towards the 'beginning' we would round this turn and be moving forwards in time without changing direction. It's like what would happen if you started walking due south in order to get 'beyond' the South Pole, the moment you pass the South Pole you're walking north.

I am not trying to be obstinate, but if the origin of the universe is not a viable question, what makes the creation/evolution questions viable?

Well, evolution deals with that which has happened within the Universe. Thus the chain of causality does apply. As to creation, it kind of depends upon what variant you mean. Do you mean Biblical creation?

What do you consider the benefits of proving either creationist or evolutionist?

Creation, as it stands, cannot be proven. Studying evolution, however, gives us an understanding of ourselves and life around us.

~Raithere

 

[Awake]

Raithere,

Thanks for your input. You seem to have studied this far more than I. To be honest, it is a bit beyond me intellectually but thank you for your comments. I will continue to investigate.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Here's the deal. I'm a biology major and this is my last semester in college. To graduate I'm required to do a seminar on a controversial topic. I must complete my presentation without my audience being able to tell what my own opinion is on this subject. This will be difficult for me because I am a firm believer in evolution and am going to have a hard defending the creationists.

Having said that, the University I attend is a private Baptist school, so they will easily pick up on me trying to swing them on the side of evolution.

My question is, how do I defend the creationist side of the argument given that everything I know about biology debunks creationism.

Your opinions and reasons on this creationism/evolution controversy will be greatly appreciated.

I suggest that you picked the wrong college to study biology, since evolution is hardly a scientifically controversial topic. I suggest you start browsing 'Nature' or 'Science' and find a really controversial topic.