Creationism vs Evolution?

[Naiwen]

If you believe in creationism, that's fine. It just seems impossible that in this modern age of science and high-tech, there are still people who deny evolution. Who do you think have made these machines and etc? What about you? What do you believe in personally?

 

[Ashlynn S]

I would call myself agnostic because none of the possible options makes any sense to me, so I don't know what to believe in .

Certainly I don't believe in any all powerful deity who created everything and if there was one then where did he/she come from, the big bang theory is nice but where did the bang come from, was our universe created by aliens? maybe but where did they come from.

Whichever one you choose to believe at some point something came from nothing and that's just impossible to understand.

 

[Elseb]

Agnostic here!

I went to church as a young lad and it's amazing people actually carry on believing Christianity as they get into later life but hey, if they're happy, who am I to judge.

 

[Grungie]

I’m an Apatheist, since I didn’t grow up in a religious environment, I don’t believe in creationism, unless by the Flying Spaghetti Monster or by ancient aliens, because the latter totally happened.

 

[Zap]

There are so many debates that fall into the category "Do you believe in the scientific method or not?" This is one of them.

 

[MrDawn]

There are so many debates that fall into the category "Do you believe in the scientific method or not?" This is one of them.

I respectfully must disagree. It's not something you "believe" in as you would believe in a religion. Science demonstrates it's validity through existing evidence, data, observation, and reason. Science makes no conclusions or unsubstantiated claims until there is EVIDENCE found that supports it.

 

[Zap]

I respectfully must disagree. It's not something you "believe" in as you would believe in a religion. Science demonstrates it's validity through existing evidence, data, observation, and reason. Science makes no conclusions or unsubstantiated claims until there is EVIDENCE found that supports it.

I think you misunderstood me, I’m on science’s side of things.

That you don’t have to believe in science is false. Humans cannot hold that something is true without also believing that it is true. Basic epistemological point.

The difference between believing in the scientific method and religion is that the former belief is justified, while the latter isn’t.

The point of my post is that:

• Premise 1: The scientific method is the best tool we have to knowledge.
• Premise 2: Since it is the best tool, we should trust that over other tools, especially if those other tools deliver contrary results to the scientific method.
• Premise 3: Regarding creationism as true is 1) contrary to the scientific conclusions and 2) based on a lesser tool: unjustified belief
• Conclusion: Even considering the debate «creationism vs evolution» is a waste of time. There is a clear winner. (Unless you reject rationalism and basic logic, but then you have even bigger problems than explaining the origin of life)

But that’s a lot of words, so I tried to keep it short in my previous post hehe

 

[MrDawn]

I think you misunderstood me, I’m on science’s side of things.

I think you just became my new best friend.

That you don’t have to believe in science is false. Humans cannot hold that something is true without also believing that it is true. Basic epistemological point.

For a long time I thought if something was proven to exist with objective evidence, then it was almost certainly infallible. However, that isn't the case, like you've pointed out, I've met a few people that denied that the world was round and were very knee deep into the flat earth belief.

The difference between believing in the scientific method and religion is that the former belief is justified, while the latter isn’t.

Very true and agreed. Science backs itself by demonstrating with evidence while the other is largely based on unsubstantiated claims.

The point of my post is that:

• Premise 1: The scientific method is the best tool we have to knowledge.
• Premise 2: Since it is the best tool, we should trust that over other tools, especially if those other tools deliver contrary results to the scientific method.
• Premise 3: Regarding creationism as true is 1) contrary to the scientific conclusions and 2) based on a lesser tool: unjustified belief
• Conclusion: Even considering the debate «creationism vs evolution» is a waste of time. There is a clear winner. (Unless you reject rationalism and basic logic, but then you have even bigger problems than explaining the origin of life)

BINGO! Give that man a prize. Bulls-eyed that target. Given an individual who is fully vested in their faith with no doubts and no-questions-asked, it is highly improbable their minds could ever be changed using empirical evidence proven by experts in many scientific fields. The lengths they will go to in order to defend and justify their religion can often boggle the mind.

But that’s a lot of words, so I tried to keep it short in my previous post hehe

I enjoyed every word of that post.

 

[Zap]

Given an individual who is fully vested in their faith with no doubts and no-questions-asked, it is highly improbable their minds could ever be changed using empirical evidence proven by experts in many scientific fields.

Exactly. If your debate sparring partner don't even rate empirical evidence then any discussion with them will (at least in most cases) be a waste of time. If we cannot agree on the methods of reaching the truth, on what constitutes truth, on what the term "true claim" even means, then any attempt on reaching a common ground (or even understanding the other's position) is impossible.