Top 3 problems with Evolution / Creationism

I'm back to try another soon to fail experiment if you will allow it.

And just to clarify, I am using the term evolution to cover the natural opposition to creationism.

There has to be some way to have a legitimate discussion between creationists and evolutionists without it resorting to the childish antics that usually follow. There has to be some give and take, so I would love it if everyone could post their top 3 problems with their own beliefs.

As a dumb sack of meat, I spend a lot of time trying to find out and understand how we got here. I would love the responses to be....

"Hey, I'm a dumb sack of meat too. Where we came from is a tricky question. I think X but I wonder why/if/what/when/where/how X,X,X."

Whilst it's easy and fun to pick apart other people. I think it could be beneficial if we could humble ourselves and accept our ignorance. And more importantly share our ignorance. If everyone could be so kind to play along we may even make some progress.

And please, pretty please. Only post the problems with your own beliefs. I don't care about the stuff you think you know for sure.

That way we can see that firstly, we are actually honestly asking ourselves the right questions. And secondly and more importantly that we are respecting each others views (Only this thread, I'm happy to be a bastard and/or bastardised in other threads).

I really think this could be valuable for all involved.
Provided we stick to the rules (Please humor me)...

* 3 problems with YOUR belief
* Solve the problems if you can, but keep in mind solving it means supporting the posters
* Be supportive, the only beliefs being disputed should be your own
* Be supportive, I can't stress this enough.

Here goes...


1. We have no idea how the universe began. Something from "nothing" is a hypothesis not a theory and even Lawrence Krauss says that he is unable to prove it and may never be able to. Just that his take on it is plausible.
The big bang theory doesn't explain how it started as physics break down the closer we get to the actual start.

2. We are not sure if abiogenesis is even possible. Many ideas, but none proven as yet. Perhaps panspermia but that just seems like Creationism Lite.

3. The fine tuning idea. The universe seems perfectly tuned to allow life.
I think it's more a case of life being fine tuned to the universe, however it is still a valid question that doesn't have a solid answer.

Cheers.

Bait thread.

2nd

I enjoy Cosmology quite a bit. I have no idea how to reply to this post however. Being an agnostic and all I just don't have any set beliefs as far as the origins. I can certainly argue things I don't believe and why.

PS why would someone debate their own beliefs with themselves on a public forum. It doesn't make sense to me. You would be better off setting up formal rules of academic debating.

a reply to: luthier

Hey Luthier,
Unfortunately that's what I want to avoid. If we argue things we don't believe that's the first domino and no real conversation can happen. This is more about expressing some doubts you have in the side that you are on.

If we are only arguing with ourselves it makes a shouting match hard. And helps us actually make ground...
maybe

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: luthier

Hey Luthier,
Unfortunately that's what I want to avoid. If we argue things we don't believe that's the first domino and no real conversation can happen. This is more about expressing some doubts you have in the side that you are on.

If we are only arguing with ourselves it makes a shouting match hard. And helps us actually make ground...
maybe

See part two my edit.

As a guy with a philosophy degree 16 years ago I can tell you there are formal arguements and rebuttles to the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguements. Most have existed for centuries. The teleological is more involved then Paley's watch with guys like Craig but it's similar.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

We don't need to know where it all began to understand where we are now. Evolution doesn't look to explain how it all began, just what happened after it did.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
1. We have no idea how the universe began. Something from "nothing" is a hypothesis not a theory and even Lawrence Krauss says that he is unable to prove it and may never be able to. Just that his take on it is plausible.
The big bang theory doesn't explain how it started as physics break down the closer we get to the actual start.

Nothing to do with evolution.

2. We are not sure if abiogenesis is even possible. Many ideas, but none proven as yet. Perhaps panspermia but that just seems like Creationism Lite.

Nothing to do with evolution.

3. The fine tuning idea. The universe seems perfectly tuned to allow life.
I think it's more a case of life being fine tuned to the universe, however it is still a valid question that doesn't have a solid answer.

Life evolved to live on this planet. Oxygen was poisonous to early life and nearly killed it all off before some life evolved to depend on it. If this planet had a hydrogen atmosphere, life would've evolved to depend on that instead. And there's the fact that 99.99999999999999999999999999% of the universe is utterly hostile to life on Earth. So much for tine tuning...

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: luthier

If we are only arguing with ourselves it makes a shouting match hard. And helps us actually make ground...
maybe

When you have a topic where one side of the camp is led by the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the other half is led by nothing more than religious superstition, you're not going to get an interesting discussion going.

"Here's a pile of evidence that clearly shows evolution".

"Yeah, well, the evidence is wrong because that's what I was taught in Bible school".

Riveting stuff.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
1. We have no idea how the universe began. Something from "nothing" is a hypothesis not a theory and even Lawrence Krauss says that he is unable to prove it and may never be able to. Just that his take on it is plausible.
The big bang theory doesn't explain how it started as physics break down the closer we get to the actual start.

Nothing to do with evolution.

2. We are not sure if abiogenesis is even possible. Many ideas, but none proven as yet. Perhaps panspermia but that just seems like Creationism Lite.

Nothing to do with evolution.

3. The fine tuning idea. The universe seems perfectly tuned to allow life.
I think it's more a case of life being fine tuned to the universe, however it is still a valid question that doesn't have a solid answer.

Life evolved to live on this planet. Oxygen was poisonous to early life and nearly killed it all off before some life evolved to depend on it. If this planet had a hydrogen atmosphere, life would've evolved to depend on that instead. And there's the fact that 99.99999999999999999999999999% of the universe is utterly hostile to life on Earth. So much for tine tuning...

I don't think you understand fine tuning. You just argued for it as a teleological arguement.

Also hydrogen? That doesn't make sense. We are carbon based. The oxygen carbon dioxide factor is pretty important on many levels. One being what the first prevelant molecules were in the universe. (Carbon)

a reply to: luthier

It's because all these discussions tend to revert to I'm right you're wrong. With everyone being proud to show how much they know (That's what I do anyway).

With no one willing to concede any ground nothing progresses. The idea behind this experiment is that if the rules are followed you cannot tell someone they are wrong. Hopefully avoiding the typical banter these threads degrade into.

People share their own doubts and we gain a greater understanding of both sides.

Win/Win.

But like I said, it's an experiment. And like I also said, soon to fail.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: luthier

It's because all these discussions tend to revert to I'm right you're wrong. With everyone being proud to show how much they know (That's what I do anyway).

With no one willing to concede any ground nothing progresses. The idea behind this experiment is that if the rules are followed you cannot tell someone they are wrong. Hopefully avoiding the typical banter these threads degrade into.

People share their own doubts and we gain a greater understanding of both sides.

Win/Win.

But like I said, it's an experiment. And like I also said, soon to fail.

Because you set up an impossible situation. It's not a discussion to talk to yourself.

It's very easy to study the arguements for and against God in philosophy. There are good ones and bad ones on both sides. The general consensus by academic experts is there are good arguements for and good rebuttles against that only show a stalemate. Accept the ontological arguement. Most philosophy academics think Anselm made a bad arguement. It's more a Mind trick.

Just set up academic debating rules and moderate the falacies.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: luthier

If we are only arguing with ourselves it makes a shouting match hard. And helps us actually make ground...
maybe

When you have a topic where one side of the camp is led by the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the other half is led by nothing more than religious superstition, you're not going to get an interesting discussion going.

"Here's a pile of evidence that clearly shows evolution".

"Yeah, well, the evidence is wrong because that's what I was taught in Bible school".

Riveting stuff.

It's not that simple.

Cosmological arguement set up by Aquinas for instance. The necessary being. What created the universe. Without going into infinite regress there must be a necessary being. (This is a paraphrase of the arguement ) you can research Aquinas and the five ways. Really good arguement. It also has a good rebuttle. Not enough to be definitive.

Teleological modern says the impossibility of random events creating the correct " groceries" and recipee is close to mathematical impossibility. There must be something fine tuning the universe. Directing events like a computer program to do this. That programmer is God.

One rebuttle being the multiverse can create enough probability to create this.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a) It is hard for 1 not to believe the moon isn't a Mother Ship WATCHING HUMAN development. It just doesn't make any sense that its said to ring like a bell as if hollow in some areas. And it doesn't make any sense that its not more active by Humans. UNLESS THE NATIVES don't allow...

b) It is hard for 1 to believe humanity has gained TOTAL OBJECTIVE TRUTH on EXISTENCE and the Human life form develops on a small habitat. There are STARZ that dwarf SOL as well as Planets that dwarf EA*RTH. So it is not easy to believe intelligent life may not be there that may dwarf mankind in size, technology, consciousness and awareness WHO MAY BE OF A TYPE 3-4 civilization who can design hyper time displacement and traveling technologies. Or even reality control mechanisms that can cause lower unaware life forms to be placed in illusions types boxes or matrixes, to further Observe -GUIDE TO MATURITY ETERNAL LIFE FORMS WHO ARE UNAWARE OF THEIR ETERNAL ATTRIBUTES -Control or Manipulate said life forms to prevent certain life forms from ASCENDING into high types civilizations. BECAUSE THEY MAY BE A THREAT OR COUNTER ENERGY THERE.

c) 1 cannot believe that some think tugging a large celestial cooling sphere(s) near a STAR after full assessment of said STAR potential is made. Then launching large ice bodies (containing single and multi cell life) and radioactive asteroids and comets also containing life encouraging flora/fauna single-multi cell DNA activators for land to charge up the life assisted with nearby Star energy to issue in AN ADVANCED Panspermia EVENTS. It's just hard to believe some cannot BELIEVE

NAMASTE*******

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

here has to be some way to have a legitimate discussion between creationists and evolutionists without it resorting to the childish antics that usually follow. There has to be some give and take, so I would love it if everyone could post their top 3 problems with their own beliefs.

The common ground here has to be evidence-based science. "Beliefs" are not relevant to this type of discussion unless both sides presents AND ACKNOWLEDGES the evidence presented by both sides. This is why I have suggested several times that a formal debate would be an appropriate venue. In a debate, both sides MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE and defend their case based on that evidence.

To date, all the science-based evidence that has been posted, to include research posted in the ATS library, is ignored by the Creationist or ID side. Science-based evidence which has been posted ad infinitum by myself, Peter Vlar, Barcs and several others is never read or even referred to in replies. Instead, replies range anywhere from fraudulent science, to Plato, to statements of absolute certainties which are never substantiated.

And that says everything we need to know about Creationists and ID proponents. The real world of science contradicts their positions so forcefully, that discussion is out of the question.

Draw your own conclusions.

a reply to: luthier

I don't think it's an impossible situation.

There is a whole lot of information out there and a lot of it is counter intuitive. Anyone claiming to not be confused by any part of evolution (I should have chosen a better word universal evolution possibly, natural creation maybe) or creationism, I don't think is being sincere.

I was just seeing if there was anyway to have a constructive discussion about the topic without resorting to "I know everything, you know nothing". Understanding what people struggle with on both sides is important I think and can't hurt.

I still have hope, someone is bound to look at the rules and give it a go.

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13 tugging elements, questions... ... ...
DYSON SPHERE

Evidence long orbital celestial objects leaving and returning to STAR Systems. Main DYSON GROUPS or tugs possibly unobserved by inhabitants within groups...

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

here has to be some way to have a legitimate discussion between creationists and evolutionists without it resorting to the childish antics that usually follow. There has to be some give and take, so I would love it if everyone could post their top 3 problems with their own beliefs.

The common ground here has to be evidence-based science. "Beliefs" are not relevant to this type of discussion unless both sides presents AND ACKNOWLEDGES the evidence presented by both sides. This is why I have suggested several times that a formal debate would be an appropriate venue. In a debate, both sides MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE and defend their case based on that evidence.

To date, all the science-based evidence that has been posted, to include research posted in the ATS library, is ignored by the Creationist or ID side. Science-based evidence which has been posted ad infinitum by myself, Peter Vlar, Barcs and several others is never read or even referred to in replies. Instead, replies range anywhere from fraudulent science, to Plato, to statements of absolute certainties which are never substantiated.

And that says everything we need to know about Creationists and ID proponents. The real world of science contradicts their positions so forcefully, that discussion is out of the question.

Draw your own conclusions.

Thats completely false. The debate of God is a metaphysical debate. It's not a science debate. I agree however that formal debate rules should be employed. Like here are simple guidelines.
www.csun.edu...

However if you choose to argue against a claim you need evidence. For instance debating against fine tuning can be tricky because you are using rhetorical physics to explain possibilities of why things appear to be fined tuned. Well respected astrophysicists and cosmologists are even perplexed by fine tuning. It doesn't mean God did it or fine tuning exists (rather than only appears so) but the probability starts to become a question. The rebuttles begin to ignore probability in many cases and start using arguements that rely in what could happen rather than the probability.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

here has to be some way to have a legitimate discussion between creationists and evolutionists without it resorting to the childish antics that usually follow. There has to be some give and take, so I would love it if everyone could post their top 3 problems with their own beliefs.

The common ground here has to be evidence-based science. "Beliefs" are not relevant to this type of discussion unless both sides presents AND ACKNOWLEDGES the evidence presented by both sides. This is why I have suggested several times that a formal debate would be an appropriate venue. In a debate, both sides MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE and defend their case based on that evidence.

To date, all the science-based evidence that has been posted, to include research posted in the ATS library, is ignored by the Creationist or ID side. Science-based evidence which has been posted ad infinitum by myself, Peter Vlar, Barcs and several others is never read or even referred to in replies. Instead, replies range anywhere from fraudulent science, to Plato, to statements of absolute certainties which are never substantiated.

And that says everything we need to know about Creationists and ID proponents. The real world of science contradicts their positions so forcefully, that discussion is out of the question.

Draw your own conclusions.

Thats completely false. The debate of God is a metaphysical debate. It's not a science debate. I agree however that formal debate rules should be employed. Like here are simple guidelines.
www.csun.edu...

However if you choose to argue against a claim you need evidence. For instance debating against fine tuning can be tricky because you are using rhetorical physics to explain possibilities of why things appear to be fined tuned. Well respected astrophysicists and cosmologists are even perplexed by fine tuning. It doesn't mean God did it or fine tuning exists (rather than only appears so) but the probability starts to become a question. The rebuttles begin to ignore probability in many cases and start using arguements that rely in what could happen rather than the probability.

What's false? The OP suggested a discussion of Creationism vs. Evolution. It's not a discussion about a god(s).

I can argue evolution. There are 500 respected journals with thousands of articles on various topics in evolution to support the conclusion that evolution is a process on this planet. Creationists have no such evidence.

What could happen and probability is an entirely different area of discussion.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I have never seen Evolution and Creationism as mutually exclusive theories. As Scremmo said, Evolution only explains what is happening now not what happened before. I believe all things are a synthesis of science and spirituality. Math is the language of the universe, but God and soul are its essence.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: luthier

I don't think it's an impossible situation.

There is a whole lot of information out there and a lot of it is counter intuitive. Anyone claiming to not be confused by any part of evolution (I should have chosen a better word universal evolution possibly, natural creation maybe) or creationism, I don't think is being sincere.

I was just seeing if there was anyway to have a constructive discussion about the topic without resorting to "I know everything, you know nothing". Understanding what people struggle with on both sides is important I think and can't hurt.

I still have hope, someone is bound to look at the rules and give it a go.

I doubt it. The entire point if debates and discussions are to elevate your thinking. To challenge your ideas and to contemplate ones you haven't thought of. Your asking for self analysis. This is something as a philosophy student I did with papers. Papers that were shredded and torn apart by professors. Which helped me get I have no idea and should be watching for fallacies in arguements including my own.

I am an agnostic (atheist) who leans towards deism and pantheism of spinioza.

I have no problem admitting in academic debates I was schooled by Christian apologists from time to time. Because my rebuttles and arguements contained fallacies or were poorly made. Same goes with strong Atheists in this site who think science can prove everything and provide everything. It can't.

To me you have to admit this little bit from Kant. (Without getting overly technical)

Basically there is what you know of an object through your senses and mind constructs and then there is the reality of the actual object. Chances are there is no way we can ever know the reality of an object. It first has to pass through your limited senses and then be analyzed by your limited mind.

When talking about Cosmology this is even greater.