How can anyone not believe in evolution?

Gary82 said:
Just because you can't comprehend something, doesn't mean God did it. In that sense, you're creating a god to bridge the gap between your understanding of the world and what you do not know.

I'm not saying there isn't a God. I'm just saying, that's not good enough.

Of course it's easier to say God did it.
Click to expand...

I try to be careful in these sort of discussions with the word "comprehend" formal it has a formal meaning of complete knowledge. We really can't have a comprehensive or total knowledge of anything. Else we are de facto, God.

And just because you can explain things on one level doesn't mean there are depths of meaning. In philosophical terms we talk about primary, secondary causes, etc. So, to think that when we have a mathematical formula or scientific theory that fits phenomena well, doesn't mean that we've exhausted the meaning - or in this case ruled out a divine cause working thru secondary causes.

And I'd also add Gary, that when you do that sort of thing, you really have locked yourself into a mechanistic box that while pleasing on one level, is fraught with other problems.

But then to your point, to say that God is the creator, shouldn't keep us from then exploring how God created. It really doesn't have to be an either/or. It hasn't been in much of the history of science - thankfully.
 
Gary82 said:
An all powerful intelligent designer that transcends time; a being that created us in its own image on a planet somewhere in the boondocks of the universe is more plausible?

Who did all of this? Obviously a man. A male human god being that is omnipresent and all knowing.

I mean...it's possible.
Click to expand...

An all-powerful, transcendent, immanent, all-wise, non-material, gracious, triune God who creates all material and energy and time, including a planet in our part of the galaxy and orders the very laws by which this material world operates and through whatever means brings organic life into existence, and which in turn bears the mark of his being in some form or fashion, and who condescends to reveal himself to humanity in ways they can understand - doesn't seemed far-fetched to me at all.

And to my mind less far fetched to say that everything boils down to eternal inanimate matter that has the power of being within itself which in turn in part becomes at some juncture life.
 
BedellBrave said:
"Creation"?
Click to expand...

2499461-1394410947285.jpg
 
Runnin said:
We have to come from somewhere and you have to call that "somewhere" something.
Click to expand...

But where did the "somewhere" come from? And where did these "dimensions" (i.e., space - "somewhere") get the ability to produce things to go in them? How did it get that ability? Why did length, width, depth, and height get that ability? And dimensions - what are they a measurement of exactly?
 
BedellBrave said:
No, you still believe in "poofing" - there has to be some organism that is a first living organism, right? One moment before - not a living organism and then poof, the next, living.
Click to expand...

This is outside the scope of the supported (as you would have it) Theory of Evolution; I will grant you that many people want to take that extra step, but they are drifting into ontology and abiogenesis, fields which are much more up for debate.
 
weso1 said:
I think a better question is who cares if someone doesn't believe in evolution? Honestly, what does it really matter? Seems pretty harmless.
Click to expand...

I don't care... until those people try and implement public policy based on their beliefs. People only have these internet arguments because folks keep trying force garbage science into schools. If people wanna home school their children to think dumb things, more power to them. Leave the rest of us be.

weso1 said:
But if you defer to a scientist without knowing the science then you are in fact putting faith in that scientist. I'm not saying folks shouldn't do that, but maybe some should consider that fact before they belittle those who also put faith in something or someone else.
Click to expand...

"Science" isn't a book of facts that individual scientists add things to. People don't defer to "a scientist," people defer to a consensus of a massive number of scientists who all work with empirical data. Science is a process, one with extremely visible fruits, and one where there is an enormous incentive to disprove any established tenets. Comparing trust in that process with faith in a divinity is more than a bit of a stretch.

If a blind man asks 100 people what color his shirt is, and they all tell him blue, he is indeed taking it on "faith" that his shirt is blue. But that is a completely different category of faith than religious faith, which entails embracing apparently paradoxical ideas as equally true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top