Creationism vs Evolution thread.

[Genomita]

Personally I believe in evolution, but if someone believes in creationism I respect that. Let the people believe what they want to believe. It will save everyone a lot of nerves. Since we can't prove that God (or Gods, for that matter) exist or that they don't exist there's really no point in argueing about it.

[IshCong]

No, the only unfalsifiable gods are those who cannot be tested. They cannot be proven to do anything, nor can it be proven they do not do everything. Because that's what unfalsifiable means, you cannot know.
As for why you would bother believing in them, perhaps it is comforting to believe in something greater than yourself. Perhaps you feel a spiritual connection in some manner. There are billions of theists living, and so, billions of reasons.

On that note, why not believe in them?

To be in tune with reality, logic, to not have some deity judging you all the time,

Some people like the notion of a universal moral truth, be they atheist or theist. I imagine, to some, it's part of the appeal.

to see the universe as more wonderful, and I believe the universe is more wonderful with no god, such and such things.

And others believe the universe is more wonderful with a god. It applies to both sides, as a subjective perspective.

The problem with comfortable delusions is that they can get you to do crazy things and have almost no positive impact that you couldn't get from secular means.

The notion that faith has never had a positive impact is, quite frankly, false.
While you could do almost all things through secular means, you might not be able to do them as effectively.

As for 'crazy things', that's something that moves past theism or atheism. At any rate, as I've argued repeatedly, one should remember that some things are falsifiable, and some are not, and not confuse the two. That generally solves most of the problems that crop up.

That's just my two cents, though.

Indeed, and they're all perfectly good reasons too. For you. For others, perhaps they feel differently. That's rather the point I've been trying to make.

[The Cummunist State]

Personally I believe in evolution, but if someone believes in creationism I respect that. Let the people believe what they want to believe. It will save everyone a lot of nerves. Since we can't prove that God (or Gods, for that matter) exist or that they don't exist there's really no point in argueing about it.

Right. The arguing comes from the creationists trying to shove their beliefs down everyone's throats when evolution is proven.

[IshCong]

Personally I believe in evolution, but if someone believes in creationism I respect that. Let the people believe what they want to believe. It will save everyone a lot of nerves. Since we can't prove that God (or Gods, for that matter) exist or that they don't exist there's really no point in argueing about it.

I respect theists. I don't respect people who refuse to admit evolution is scientific fact. That is falsifiable, it can be proven, and it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
People don't get to choose to disbelieve that which is proven, especially for something as important as evolution, which impacts biology, zoology, archeology, etc, etc, etc...

[Chinese Regions]

What if Mercurius came down and told you instead?

Jesus, got to be.
Unless Mercurius can prove he's undercover Jesus.

What if Jesus is undercover as Mercurius?

[Sociobiology]

Evolution may disprove the bible, so creationism is wrong. No doubt. However, it does not cast doubt on Intelligent Design, so it is still a viable theory.

sure it does it offers evidence against every one of its claims.

no irreducible complexity.
no increase in predictive accuracy by postulating a designer, in fact there is a loss in accuracy.
no evidence for this designer to justify its necessity, despite it effect on predictive accuracy.

[Farnhamia]

Evolution may disprove the bible, so creationism is wrong. No doubt. However, it does not cast doubt on Intelligent Design, so it is still a viable theory.

Intelligent Design can't even prove itself, let alone disprove evolution. All of Intelligent Design is a thinly-disguised attempt to slide Christian Creation Science into the public schools as part of a wider movement to bring "God" back into our nation. Really. Go to Wiki, look up the "Wedge Document."

[Vousielle]

What if Mercurius came down and told you instead?

Jesus, got to be.
Unless Mercurius can prove he's undercover Jesus.

I call poe

[Sociobiology]

Personally I believe in evolution, but if someone believes in creationism I respect that. Let the people believe what they want to believe. It will save everyone a lot of nerves. Since we can't prove that God (or Gods, for that matter) exist or that they don't exist there's really no point in argueing about it.

if it was never used to justify anything I might agree with you, but people who believe in god are dangerous. Faith is a horrible thing to allow as justification for actions that effect others.

[Cyprum Xecuii]

Personally I believe in evolution, but if someone believes in creationism I respect that. Let the people believe what they want to believe. It will save everyone a lot of nerves. Since we can't prove that God (or Gods, for that matter) exist or that they don't exist there's really no point in argueing about it.

if it was never used to justify anything I might agree with you, but people who believe in god are dangerous. Faith is a horrible thing to allow as justification for actions that effect others.

true dat.

[The Alma Mater]

Personally I believe in evolution, but if someone believes in creationism I respect that. Let the people believe what they want to believe. It will save everyone a lot of nerves. Since we can't prove that God (or Gods, for that matter) exist or that they don't exist there's really no point in argueing about it.

Since the theory of evolution and creationism arrive at vastly different conclusions on how we should combat diseases, the debate is not purely academic, but literally a matter of life and death.

If we look at young earth creationism, science in general and creationism also come to very different conclusions about how the world works. This includes the workings of loads of our machines. Machines that nowadays are rather essential to keeping people alive, the economy running and debating stuff on nationstates. Again: not merely an academic debate.

[The Ancient and Orthodox Potato Church]

Never underestimate the mental gymnastics that a believer will go through to support erroneous beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. It is quite impressive really. Too bad they don't put that mental strength to some good use.

Name evidence that conclusively disproves God then.

If you're talking the monotheistic god laid out in the torah, bible, and qu'ran, then physics disproves god. You cannot have both that god and a universe obeying physical laws. Seeing as we exist in a universe obeying physical laws, we can safely say no god. The fact that we have exactly zero evidence for god helps too.

[Sociobiology]

the only unfalsifiable gods are ones that do absolutely nothing, which bring up the question of why you would bother believing in them.

No, the only unfalsifiable gods are those who cannot be tested. They cannot be proven to do anything,

exactly, they do nothing, they cannot be given the attribute of having an effect on the universe.

nor can it be proven they do not do everything.

sure they can, as soon as you say they do do something, that IS testable.

Because that's what unfalsifiable means, you cannot know.

no it means it is immune to testing because it makes no testable claim, claims of actual effects ARE testable.

As for why you would bother believing in them, perhaps it is comforting to believe in something greater than yourself.

Like society, or the species, or intelligence, or the universe, or natural law or ect.
Also it is probably comfortable for serial killers to believe they are heroes, that does not make it something we should encourage.

Perhaps you feel a spiritual connection in some manner.

define spiritual

There are billions of theists living, and so, billions of reasons.

but no justifiable reasons.

On that note, why not believe in them?

because I don't believe anything without reason, it is dangerous and harmful to do so. justification through evidence causes far less harm.

so really, why believe?

‘Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.’Marcus Aurelius

"believing there's no god means I cant really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good... I have to try to treat people right the first time around." Penn Jillette

[Sociobiology]

An important difference between religion and science is that you don't use faith when it comes to scientific theories. You accept that it is the most likely scenario and base future theories on top of it. If it were to be proven in the future that previous theories were wrong (say, it is possible to break the speed of light barrier) then we can simply change all theories built on that to fit the new evidence.
Religion, on the other hand is of the opinion that if new evidence contridicts previously held beliefs then the new evidence is wrong, not the theory.
The mark of a true scientist is to be able to believe every theory while at the same time trying to disprove them.
The mark of a true religious fanatic in to believe one theory and hate, discriminate or destroy anyone or anything that disproves said theory.

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. ~Carl Sagan, 1987

[Strykla]

This might could as picspam, but I just found it and had a very strong urge to post it.

[Sociobiology]

What mass? Mass is a property imparted by the Higgs boson, which did not exist until some time after the Big Bang.

Prove that Higgs boson exists.

we can't that is why it is called hypothetical, but the important diffrence is scientists have laid out HOW to test it, in a way that could both dispove or prove its existance based on the out come of the experiment, technology just has not caught up.

what experiment would prove OR disprove gods, depending on outcome.

[The Ancient and Orthodox Potato Church]

A real trial jury is generally composed of people ignorant of the scientific method.
And scientists continuously question evolution. Most even admit that if evidence were to show up disproving it and that evidence were credible, they would abandon it.

Generally? heck the easiest way to get out of jury duty is to tell the lawyer you are a scientist, they hate having people who are trained to think objectively on juries.

I'm lucky I live in a country where the only acceptable disqualifications (after citizenship, and mental stability, priesthood, and health problems) are:
1) "Do you know the defendant, or the victim?"
2) "Were you at any stage involved in the case?"
3) "Have you booked holidays during the expected duration of the trial?"

The last one was asked by the judge in the murder case I was selected for the panel (by random selection) but not the actual jury (by random selection of the panellees attendant, in this case c. 120 out of 150). Of course if a person chosen as juror feels incapable of carrying out their duties then they can recuse themselves.

[Sociobiology]

Generally? heck the easiest way to get out of jury duty is to tell the lawyer you are a scientist, they hate having people who are trained to think objectively on juries.

I'm lucky I live in a country where the only acceptable disqualifications (after citizenship, and mental stability, priesthood, and health problems) are:
1) "Do you know the defendant, or the victim?"
2) "Were you at any stage involved in the case?"
3) "Have you booked holidays during the expected duration of the trial?"

The last one was asked by the judge in the murder case I was selected for the panel (by random selection) but not the actual jury (by random selection of the panellees attendant, in this case c. 120 out of 150). Of course if a person chosen as juror feels incapable of carrying out their duties then they can recuse themselves.

in my country individual lawyers can have you removed because they don't like you.
It is a retarded system and needs to be changed.

[The Ancient and Orthodox Potato Church]

You made the assertion, you have to prove it.

God's messenger told me. Your turn.

I gave it to god up the rear end this morning. He gave me a time-travelling de Lorean in return. I am now Christopher Lloyd's father and grandfather.

[Vault 1]

what experiment would prove OR disprove gods, depending on outcome.

1. Sin
2. Die
3. Go to Hell

[Samuraikoku]

what experiment would prove OR disprove gods, depending on outcome.

1. Sin
2. Die
3. Go to Hell

That's not an experiment, since it cannot be hypothesized.

Also, I'm waiting on this.

Your move.

[Great Nepal]

what experiment would prove OR disprove gods, depending on outcome.

1. Sin
2. Die
3. Go to Hell

And how do you expect to publish your results after that?

[Sociobiology]

what experiment would prove OR disprove gods, depending on outcome.

1. Sin
2. Die
3. Go to Hell

which cannot do what I asked.

what repeatable experiment could I do, with A or B as an outcome. Where A could convince you gods do not exist, and you would claim B as very good evidence that gods do exist.

It is also impossible since it requires 'me' to do something after my death.

[IshCong]

No, the only unfalsifiable gods are those who cannot be tested. They cannot be proven to do anything,

exactly, they do nothing, they cannot be given the attribute of having an effect on the universe.

No, cannot be proven to do something, and not doing anything are not equitable. You can't prove my shirt is brown at this moment, but that doesn't mean my shirt is not brown. (As it so happens, it is.) Likewise, you can't prove I'm watching TV, nor can you prove I'm not watching TV. That doesn't mean anything either way.

You cannot prove god does anything, nor can you prove he does nothing. Which doesn't mean he does nothing, it means you do not know.

nor can it be proven they do not do everything.

sure they can, as soon as you say they do do something, that IS testable.

It would be, were they not so durn omnipotent, and apparently undetectable by Human means without intentionally revealing themselves.
Which, apparently, they loathe to do to any concrete extent.

Because that's what unfalsifiable means, you cannot know.

no it means it is immune to testing because it makes no testable claim, claims of actual effects ARE testable.

If you can't test it, you can't know. You can make a claim, if said claim is not testable, and have that claim remain unfalsifiable.
For example, claiming a being that cannot be detected exists would be untestable, because the being in question can't be detected, and so results can't be conclusive either way.

As for why you would bother believing in them, perhaps it is comforting to believe in something greater than yourself.

Like society, or the species, or intelligence, or the universe, or natural law or ect.

Or god. Or any number of things aside from all of the above. People may find one 'thing that is greater than the self' more comforting than another, go figure.

Also it is probably comfortable for serial killers to believe they are heroes, that does not make it something we should encourage.

What does that have to do with anything?

Perhaps you feel a spiritual connection in some manner.

define spiritual

You and I know perfectly well that everyone defines 'spiritual' in their own way. Spirituality means something different to each individual. Besides, a hard definition isn't necessary in this case. Unless you're debating that people are spiritual.

There are billions of theists living, and so, billions of reasons.

but no justifiable reasons.

There's no objectively true reasons to believe in the existence or non-existence of god. That's the whole 'unfalsifiable' thing again.
I'll also point out, yet again, what is justifiable to you, subjectively, is not justifiable to another, subjectively, and vice versa.

On that note, why not believe in them?

because I don't believe anything without reason, it is dangerous and harmful to do so. justification through evidence causes far less harm.

so really, why believe?

Again, I listed some reasons people do.
Also again, treat the falsifiable as falsifiable, treat the unfalsifiable as unfalsifiable. Don't confuse the two, and you should be fine.

So, really, why not believe?

‘Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.’Marcus Aurelius

Yeah, the atheist's wager. I like the notion of living a 'good' life regardless of gods, but you'll note in the first case of just gods it doesn't matter whether you believe or not. Likewise, in the case of no gods, it again doesn't matter if you believe or not.

"believing there's no god means I cant really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good... I have to try to treat people right the first time around." Penn Jillette

And yet, atheists and theists and people of all stripes and colors are jerks to each other. So I fail to see how the discarding of religion would suddenly fix that problem. Whether a person is theistic or atheistic has little apparent bearing on how they treat people. At least, based solely on that lone criterion.

[IshCong]

Name evidence that conclusively disproves God then.

If you're talking the monotheistic god laid out in the torah, bible, and qu'ran, then physics disproves god. You cannot have both that god and a universe obeying physical laws. Seeing as we exist in a universe obeying physical laws, we can safely say no god. The fact that we have exactly zero evidence for god helps too.

Except god is explicitly stated to be omnipotent, which tends to mean he doesn't care for physical 'laws' that bind mortals. Physics would only disprove god if we presumed god had to obey physics, but his omnipotence would indicate otherwise.