Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Blastcat]

Brother, fact in science is a verifiable observation. Evolution is both fact and theory. It depends on what you mean though. If you believe we evolved from Apes, then this is false. However, i believe the Qur'an does not go against Evolution.

You say that evolution is a fact and theory, and then you deny the theory?

 

[Blastcat]

NoorNoor, you present your BELIEFS as if they were FACTS.
That's nonsense.

Etritonakin, you are a believer. Let me talk to you from that perspective or to be more accurate, from my perspective as a Muslim. Our understanding of God should always be in light of the fact that no thing in our physical world is like him.

This is a belief, not a fact.

For example you exist and he exists but his existence is totally different than yours in a sense beyond our understanding. You exist within the confinement of spacetime but he exist external to that. Similarly all Gods attributes can be understood in light of nothing is like him.

This is another set of beliefs that are not facts. It is not a FACT that your god exists, but just that you believe it's a fact.

God gave you an example of his power in your own kingdom which is your body. You want it done and it's done. You want your hand or legs to move and it precisely and instantly obeys. Similarly, God has this same control over every thing. If He wants it done, then it's done.

Again, you only say what you believe in.
These aren't facts.

We have no evidence that you KNOW anything about any god. We have no evidence that this god GIVES anyone anything, or has control over anything, or can do ANYTHING ... or indeed, it if exists at all.

You create and God creates.

Opinion, not fact.

But because of your limits, your creation has to be rearrangement of what's already existing but God brings his creation to existence from non existence. God doesn't need to start with existing stored potential to rearrange in different state. He simply brings what he wills to existence.

You would have to DEMONSTRATE that your god "simply brings"... anything whatsoever. We can clearly see that you believe it.

Non believers would have great difficulty understanding God's power but you would easily get my point.

It's easy to understand your point.
You believe things.

Big deal.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

When I was in school, I remember an exercise my teacher did with us; when she told us the difference between "fact" and "opinion", then showed clips of TV shows and news, pausing between each clip and asking us if what the person stated on the TV was an "opinion" or a "fact"; and how we deduced that answer.

They just don't teach like that anymore.

That's sad.

 

[NoorNoor]

Are you ever going to show your math?
I mean, here you are asking for others to show their math when you have yet to show yours.

The math is simple. First you compare observations with multiple models, you check every single observation to see if it's more consistent or better explained by one model or another.

Creation point at the big bang would be better explained by an influence or a first cause (vs. nothing). A fine tuned design is consistent with the claim of intelligent designer. Billions of theists/historical accounts indicate past events of proportional significance and would be consistent with the claim that God exists. If more observations are more consistent with a model, then this model would be more probable. It's not about evidence or facts, it's about weighing probabilities. We tend to reject God, simply because his being is not understood to us but this is not an evidence against his existence. This is only our limitation, After all we don't really understand the nature of any single force that exists in our world. We only observe the effects. God as a higher level force/ first cause would be no exception.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The math is simple. First you compare observations with multiple models, you check every single observation to see if it's more consistent or better explained by one model or another.

That's not maths, that's pure subjectivity. Where's the maths?

Creation point at the big bang would be better explained by an influence or a first cause (vs. nothing).

You can't possibly conclude that, since you cannot test "nothing". Also, what is wrong with the concept of an infinite regression?

A fine tuned design is consistent with the claim of intelligent designer.

I have already explained that fine-tuning is nothing but a logical fallacy. What's more, literally ANY observation could be considered "consistent with the claim of an intelligent designer" because any formation can be explained with "It was designed that way".

Billions of theists/historical accounts indicate past events of proportional significance and would be consistent with the claim that God exists.

False. It wouldn't matter if every single human who ever lived believe absolutely in a God (even if they all believed in the same God), it still would mean absolutely nothing with regards to the likelihood or rationality of God's existence.

If more observations are more consistent with a model, then this model would be more probable.

False. Something being "consistent" doesn't render it more probable. It lends nothing to any probability. Especially when the claim is so vague (like the claim of God's existence) that it can be used to fit or explain ANY observation that can be made.

It's not about evidence or facts,

You finally say something correct.

it's about weighing probabilities.

Then please present the precise probability of God's existence and how you worked this out mathematically.

We tend to reject God, simply because his being is not understood to us but this is not an evidence against his existence.

This is demonstrably false. Studies show that humans tend towards explanations that include a God, not reject one, because "God did it" is an easier explanation than actually having to consider a more complex explanation, and humans are somewhat limited by our natural tendency towards apophenia and personification of things we don't quite understand.

 

[Blastcat]

When I was in school, I remember an exercise my teacher did with us; when she told us the difference between "fact" and "opinion", then showed clips of TV shows and news, pausing between each clip and asking us if what the person stated on the TV was an "opinion" or a "fact"; and how we deduced that answer.

They just don't teach like that anymore.

That's sad.

It's easy, the Opinion starts with an O, yo.

 

[Parsimony]

You still didn't see the point of my argument. I am talking about weighing probabilities. You already acknowledged that the existence of God is a possibility that you don't eliminate. In your case, how do you compare the possibility of God's existence vs. non existence? I assume it would be 50% vs. 50% or simply you assume we don't know. My argument is, cosmic observations/data in addition to historical accounts (which I also consider as data), support the probability of God's existence.


It's possible that alternative laws may not create any universe at all. A single change and the model fails. But that would be a perfect design not a product of chance.

A definition should exist before any contradiction would have a meaning. Definition would be a product of intelligence. In our case, the entire universe/life is the definition. The questions stays, who made the definition?


Your hypothesis of an absolute unvarying constants with internal dependencies would imply a steady state eternal model which was already rejected long time ago.

Neither the observational evidence of a finite age universe nor the values of the individual forces can be explained by the hypothesis of a steady state eternal model with internal dependencies but rather its a dependency on an external influence at the creation point (the Big Bang)

Congratulations, you have outlasted me. It was interesting while it lasted and you did make me think. Thanks for that.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Billions of theists/historical accounts indicate past events of proportional significance and would be consistent with the claim that God exists.

"Billions", huh? That is quite a claim. No matter. Its interesting that you mention "past events". Where is the Tower of Babel? Where is Sodom and Gomora? Why is it that devastating plagues struck Egypt during the Exodus; but this is recorded in no literature outside of Judaeo-Christian texts; and why is it that we can find no remnants of any civilization numbering in the hundreds of thousands to millions wandering the desert? Where is the evidence of these "past events" that supposedly consist of "billions of theistic/historical accounts?"

If more observations are more consistent with a model, then this model would be more probable.

Well, as we have no evidence of spontaneous generation; no evidence of a creature that has no genetic relationship to a different species; then the model of more observations is evolution.

By your own criteria, evolution is the answer for the diversity of life; with or without a "god".

 

[McBell]

The math is simple. First you compare observations with multiple models, you check every single observation to see if it's more consistent or better explained by one model or another.

Creation point at the big bang would be better explained by an influence or a first cause (vs. nothing). A fine tuned design is consistent with the claim of intelligent designer. Billions of theists/historical accounts indicate past events of proportional significance and would be consistent with the claim that God exists. If more observations are more consistent with a model, then this model would be more probable. It's not about evidence or facts, it's about weighing probabilities. We tend to reject God, simply because his being is not understood to us but this is not an evidence against his existence. This is only our limitation, After all we don't really understand the nature of any single force that exists in our world. We only observe the effects. God as a higher level force/ first cause would be no exception.

All that to NOT show your math?

You do know that "probabilities" is math, right?

 

[NoorNoor]

All that to NOT show your math?

You do know that "probabilities" is math, right?

Didn't I already show it?
Consider an example of 10 observations (of equal significance) and two models "A" and "B". If we assume 7 observations are consistent with model "A" then the probability of model "A" would be 70%. in other words, the probability of "A" would outweigh the probability of "B".

 

[psychoslice]

Things are created through evolution, its that simple.

 

[NoorNoor]

Things are created through evolution, its that simple.

What do you mean things? You would mean life but life is not everything. Creation is not only concerned about life but every thing in existence.

 

[Desert Snake]

Things are created through evolution, its that simple.

Technically impossible, as the first cause is obviously outside ''evolution''.

 

[psychoslice]

Technically impossible, as the first cause is obviously outside ''evolution''. /this assumes a very broad definition of ''evolution'', as well, since outright the usage of the word is arbitrary

So you believe that everything just pops into existence, very interesting.

 

[Desert Snake]

So you believe that everything just pops into existence, very interesting.

What is your theory? That the magical fairies make things in candyland? you can't have things without first cause, //they wouldn't exist in the first place/. what's the cause?

 

[psychoslice]

What is your theory? That the magical fairies make things in candyland? you can't have things without first cause, //they wouldn't exist in the first place/. what's the cause?

But evolution does have a so called beginning or cause, the ultimate cause being the so called big bang.

 

[Desert Snake]

But evolution does have a so called beginning or cause, the ultimate cause being the so called big bang.

*shrugs*
that's a very incomplete theory. First off, you assume some sort of 'cause', anyway, then you are dealing with the matter that you have to figure was set into motion for ''creation'', /no proof to either of those/, then, it leaves a bunch of variables.

cool. I'm going to make some coffee now.

 

[psychoslice]

*shrugs*
that's a very incomplete theory. First off, you assume some sort of 'cause', anyway, then you are dealing with the matter that you have to figure was set into motion for ''creation'', /no proof to either of those/, then, it leaves a bunch of variables.

cool. I'm going to make some coffee now.

Ok, that maybe so, but where the hell do you get your info from, God ? lol.

 

[Desert Snake]

Ok, that maybe so, but where the hell do you get your info from, God ? lol.

Loll,, does it matter, if i'm right? I'm not arguing with people out of some ''cause'', dude.

 

[psychoslice]

Loll,, does it matter, if i'm right? I'm not arguing with people out of some ''cause'', dude.

Well what are you arguing from ?.