Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:06:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5238 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> I can accept the matter and energy thing, but wouldn't that suppose that life
> and non-life are merely facets of the same thing, which would suggest that
> evolution and cosmology are intertwined?
I'd sure say so. One root problem being (I think) that science has an awful
definition of what it means to be alive. Evolution wants to separate itself
from cosmology because it doesn't really have anything to say about the Big
Bang or the Sun's trajectory, etc. Hence, the answer according to *strictly*
Evolutionary theory as set out in science is that it has no clue how life
initiated. Just kinda "happened". Personally (and this sounds really
out-there or crazy or extremely harsh) I think there's not really as much of
a distinction between "life" and "energy in general" as one might otherwise
think.
> > However, I think the best explanation is that time is *curved*. Hence, the
> > universe is curved back upon itself. What was before the Big Bang? We were.
> > Right now is before *and* after the Big Bang. Similar to California being
> > west of Maryland. Is it west of Maryland? Yes. But it's *also* east of
> > Maryland if you go around the world far enough.
>
> Yes. It is a paradox, and thus illogical (at least to our understanding)
Really? I don't find it paradoxical at all. I find it quite logical to
imagine time as a "time circle" rather than a "time line". I mean, sure, our
intuition wants to say that time is constant and linear, but then again, our
intuition also tells us that the Earth is flat, the Earth isn't moving, etc.
Time isn't linear. 'Science' has essentially 'proven' that... As for it
being curved back on itself? That's just my own pet theory. I don't find it
illogical in any way...
> > Well, I'd pose the same question on Creationism. Where'd God come from?
>
> Precisely. But my point is that whether you believe in Evolution or believe
> in Creationism, both POVs require the same leap of faith, or whatever you
> want to call it. Neither one, it seems to me, explains our universe any
> better than the other.
Oh, I think there's a clear winner. So do you. :) In the end, you're right
though. It's just a question of what you find more believeable. I mean, I
could argue that I'm God and that I'm controlling the universe, and everyone
in it. You can't disprove it, but you can find it less believable than your
own explanation. In the end, reality is as we perceive it, not as it "truly" is.
> I agree with you. Both explanations lack logic; it just seems to me that it
> really wouldn't matter *intellectually* which one one held to be true.
>
> What I am reacting to is the notion that a belief in God is somehow
> anti-intellectual or intellectually compromising.
Well, take the example of me controlling the universe. Logical? I guess so.
But my "sense of logic" tells me that that theory is wrong. My same sense of
logic also tells me that Creationism is wrong. Is Creationism illogical? No.
But I find it less likely due to my interpretation of the evidence.
Did WWII happen? You can't prove to me it did. You can't prove to me that
the world existed before 1950, because I can deny it and find wacky
explanations behind the "evidence" you present to me. Would I be being
illogical? Nah, it's logical. Just not too likely. I think there's a
definite difference between the two. With issues like WWII, the 'line'
between "likely" and "unlikely" is pretty darn clear. With
Creationism/Evolution, it's less clear.
How do we tell what to believe? I think it's a question of application.
Using the "I, DaveE, control the universe" theory, you can believe it if you
want-- but you're more likely to get predictable, useful results if you
instead believe that physics,etc controls the universe. Try each method, see
which works better, and use it.
I mean, Creationism's great and all, and it makes logical sense-- but from
my own experiences, it just seems unlikely. And furthermore, Evolutionary
theory may help me figure things out a bit more. Creationism simply doesn't
have much in the way of practical application. Look at the "DaveE, master of
the universe" theory. Even if it's true, how does that help you to predict
anything? Why bother believing it?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) does existential second guessing paranoia work in other areas of your life? yes we can all pretend that we're in the matrix but I'd sooner make decisions based on commonly agreed upon fact of our time, unless proven otherwise. Who has time to (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) I can accept the matter and energy thing, but wouldn't that suppose that life and non-life are merely facets of the same thing, which would suggest that evolution and cosmology are intertwined? (...) Yes. It is a paradox, and thus illogical (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
