Top 3 problems with Evolution / Creationism

a reply to: luthier
Thanks Luthier,
That's all I was after.

No debates, no fights. Just people honestly saying what they believe and the parts they struggle to understand.
You learn more from questions than answers. And the knowledge pool here should have countless interesting questions about their own beliefs which can help everyone gain an insight.

No tricks, No apologetic word games, No scientific arrogance.

Just a legitimate quest for knowledge whilst attempting to avoid it turning into "my teams the best".

=========================================================

Maybe we can start again from here, I'm trying to keep it simple as possible.....

As a dumb sack of meat, I spend a lot of time trying to find out and understand how we got here a lot of it confuses me. I would love to hear about other people questioning their beliefs. Something like the below would be great.

"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."

The rules are...
* 3 problems you have with YOUR belief
* What it is you struggle to understand and not why you believe
* Solve others problems if you can, but keep in mind solving it means supporting the poster's position
* Be supportive, the only beliefs being disputed should be your own
* Be supportive, I can't stress this enough.
* This isn't a debate the only one questioning your belief is you
* Evidence is irrelevant, this is about what you believe now. Not what you should, could or would believe.
* The truth of either isn't in question
* Don't be afraid to show your ignorance, you can't Deny Ignorance if you pretend it's not there

Remember the more you know the more you realise you don't know.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: luthier
Thanks Luthier,
That's all I was after.

No debates, no fights. Just people honestly saying what they believe and the parts they struggle to understand.
You learn more from questions than answers. And the knowledge pool here should have countless interesting questions about their own beliefs which can help everyone gain an insight.

No tricks, No apologetic word games, No scientific arrogance.

Just a legitimate quest for knowledge whilst attempting to avoid it turning into "my teams the best".

I'm. But look at my posts. I am pretty much showing the nature of the discussion is unknowable. I give the arguement and in many cases what the rebuttle is. Your one of the five or so other atheist minded people I know here who are open to say science can't prove this topic probably ever (best would be probably for this universe only)

A lot of anti theists and Atheists use fallacy because they are coming from scarring religious teachings. I get that. This is where Dawkins messes up.

Where as some one like Sam Harris has a more philosophical understanding and attacks the specific aspects of theism that are fallacious. Discounting there could be a designer or designers is pretty rediculous. Even if you don't believe that to be true as a real scientist you wouldn't even make that public claim one way or the other. You would know there is no substantial evidence. You need to rely on reason and theory within the mind.

Debating metaphysicsis like navigating a shore without a lighthouse. The shoreline is filled with shipwrecks

a reply to: luthier

Like the author of the OP I live Hitchins. However, I believe he lost the debate with Craig. So do a lot of other atheist philosophers. You can't just believe your own ideas are correct without scrutiny. Thats an important thing lost by abandoning philosophy as a normal part of education.

My higher education was during the 1980s and late 1990s..we took philosophy in college. I agree it is too often passed over these days.

I, however, find Craig impossible. I scrutinize my own ideas daily - and actually don't have a problem playing the opposition between my own two ears. "What if" seems to be the prime thought in my mind, always. As long as I can remember....
what if, and "why?"

Maybe I misunderstood the OP - I thought he asked for us to present our ideas and then acknowledge the weaknesses inherent therein.
Seems, though - that the thread has turned to more of a discussion of proper debating or at least the value of debating at all. So, I guess I don't have anything to add.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I want to avoid evidence because it stops discussion. The only people who look at it are the one's who already believe it.

You have to understand that the discussion is ADVERSARIAL - one side does not agree with the other. Each side will want to present WHY they think the way they do.

So I don't understand how you can assign rules to a discussion without acknowledging that the two sides are on different sides of the issue.

What would be the point of the discussion?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: luthier

Like the author of the OP I live Hitchins. However, I believe he lost the debate with Craig. So do a lot of other atheist philosophers. You can't just believe your own ideas are correct without scrutiny. Thats an important thing lost by abandoning philosophy as a normal part of education.

My higher education was during the 1980s and late 1990s..we took philosophy in college. I agree it is too often passed over these days.

I, however, find Craig impossible. I scrutinize my own ideas daily - and actually don't have a problem playing the opposition between my own two ears. "What if" seems to be the prime thought in my mind, always. As long as I can remember....
what if, and "why?"

Maybe I misunderstood the OP - I thought he asked for us to present our ideas and then acknowledge the weaknesses inherent therein.
Seems, though - that the thread has turned to more of a discussion of proper debating or at least the value of debating at all. So, I guess I don't have anything to add.

Well my bad for leading the conversation away. I just didn't understand the purpose or how or why this done.

I despise Craig. But I appreciate him as a brilliant philosopher. He has made a lot of people look silly. He even uses nearly the same arguement. If you Google scholar the guy he is prob one of the biggest hits for scholar articles about and from.

I think that is the essence of the OP. You have to be aware enough of your own biases to know you don't know.

I believe in a designer of some kind both for our universe and possibly a seperate being outside of time. Otherwise I can't wrap my head around what started the first motion. I know there is a problem with this. There one is no evidence of that other than philosophical arguement and two there could be a strong self causation of the universe and all its matter. I happen to not find the rebuttles satisfying. I would kike to debate pwolle in case thwy have morw satisfykng answers i havent thought of or read. However this isnt the place i guess. Completely personal taste IMO.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I want to avoid evidence because it stops discussion. The only people who look at it are the one's who already believe it.

You have to understand that the discussion is ADVERSARIAL - one side does not agree with the other. Each side will want to present WHY they think the way they do.

So I don't understand how you can assign rules to a discussion without acknowledging that the two sides are on different sides of the issue.

What would be the point of the discussion?

Thats what I am having issues with. I guess though he wants to avoid the bitter arguements that happe n on this topic at least once a week. I do understand that.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I want to avoid evidence because it stops discussion. The only people who look at it are the one's who already believe it.

You have to understand that the discussion is ADVERSARIAL - one side does not agree with the other. Each side will want to present WHY they think the way they do.

So I don't understand how you can assign rules to a discussion without acknowledging that the two sides are on different sides of the issue.

What would be the point of the discussion?

Thats what I am having issues with. I guess though he wants to avoid the bitter arguements that happe n on this topic at least once a week. I do understand that.

Well that's fine - but it never turns out that way
As soon as someone posts a research article substantiating some scientific point, all hell breaks loose.

So if Neo comes along and says that ID is an absolute and no other claim is possible, someone will most definitely come along and refute that.
Do you see my point?

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I want to avoid evidence because it stops discussion. The only people who look at it are the one's who already believe it.

You have to understand that the discussion is ADVERSARIAL - one side does not agree with the other. Each side will want to present WHY they think the way they do.

So I don't understand how you can assign rules to a discussion without acknowledging that the two sides are on different sides of the issue.

What would be the point of the discussion?

Thats what I am having issues with. I guess though he wants to avoid the bitter arguements that happe n on this topic at least once a week. I do understand that.

Well that's fine - but it never turns out that way

As soon as someone posts a research article substantiating some scientific point, all hell breaks loose.

So if Neo comes along and says that ID is an absolute and no other claim is possible, someone will most definitely come along and refute that.
Do you see my point?

Absolutely. Thats what I am having trouble with myself.

I think though both sides often get ad hominem. Theists take the holier than though "I feel bad for you" and anti theists will think science is the only way to think. Science doesn't have much to say about the subject honestly. Just like science doesn't teach ethics either. We take out theism in education good all for it. But we need to replace it with ethics which is associated academically with philosophy. I think you could even include theology as long as it's taught as only a point of view. The bible actually has some beautiful and powerful parrables mixed in there. Jefferson even made one without the supernatural excerpts.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I want to avoid evidence because it stops discussion. The only people who look at it are the one's who already believe it.

You have to understand that the discussion is ADVERSARIAL - one side does not agree with the other. Each side will want to present WHY they think the way they do.

So I don't understand how you can assign rules to a discussion without acknowledging that the two sides are on different sides of the issue.

What would be the point of the discussion?

Thats what I am having issues with. I guess though he wants to avoid the bitter arguements that happe n on this topic at least once a week. I do understand that.

Well that's fine - but it never turns out that way

As soon as someone posts a research article substantiating some scientific point, all hell breaks loose.

So if Neo comes along and says that ID is an absolute and no other claim is possible, someone will most definitely come along and refute that.
Do you see my point?

Absolutely. Thats what I am having trouble with myself.

I think though both sides often get ad hominem. Theists take the holier than though "I feel bad for you" and anti theists will think science is the only way to think. Science doesn't have much to say about the subject honestly. Just like science doesn't teach ethics either. We take out theism in education good all for it. But we need to replace it with ethics which is associated academically with philosophy. I think you could even include theology as long as it's taught as only a point of view. The bible actually has some beautiful and powerful parrables mixed in there. Jefferson even made one without the supernatural excerpts.

Well heated arguments occur in the lab too - but the difference is we argue about results and how they were obtained - this is a good thing because one party may have overlooked something - or even better, you both come out with a new perspective. But it doesn't (usually anyway) break down into a fist fight.

The Creationists reject science. You can see that on their websites. When they refer to science, they completely revamp what has been published into some convoluted interpretation which has no basis in actual experimentation. In other words, none of these guys ever goes into the lab! And the ones who have come up with results have been rejected by the greater scientific community (if they were published - there are a few of them).

So at the end of the day, at least on this board, it would be very difficult to have an intelligent discussion because the real science is always ignored.

a reply to: luthier

I think that is the essence of the OP. You have to be aware enough of your own biases to know you don't know.

Precisely quite right.

That's a challenge for millions of people, you are right. They never even engage in second-guessing, or further research. I'm just built that way - if I think something, I almost automatically try to shoot down that same thinking - to see if my idea/theory holds up to scrutiny. While I was a professional counselor, I also helped my clients learn to do that.

If one is unwilling to even entertain the opposition's points, one has a weak position right from the start. If I didn't feel able to substantiate my own ideas, I would have already discarded them. Again - I'm an agnostic.

I just don't know. And I know that....I think we can't really know about the origins. I am drawn to the multiverse idea. I think black holes may have something to do with that....
I believe firmly that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only 'transformed' (and at its very fundamental level, just always. it is just always what it is).

I believe the human soul is connected to the larger picture, but I do not believe in a "God" who set out to deliberately orchestrate and write some cosmic screenplay. I don't believe some of us get promotions and others get dropped into a bubbling pit of lava with sharks with laser beams on their heads. That just doesn't happen.

I believe in psi, however. I believe in reincarnation. I believe in evolution. I do NOT believe in "Jesus the son of God."
I DO believe that what he taught was right, and simply another regional version of human wisdom.

How did it all get started? I don't pretend to know. I can't know. That is what I know. I just don't know.
So - I am agnostic.

To sum up: anyone who says, "I know because the Bible" is instantaneously discredited in my mind. Anyone who says "gays are sinners and going to hell" likewise. Anyone who says "We are made in the image of God, by God, with a purpose" is set aside as (if not delusional) someone who might be willing to think further about what "God" is. God is not a guy. I hate that the Supreme Source - whatever it might be - is turned into a "guy." That, I believe, is ridiculous.

Yet, I believe in the spirit, the Divine - the Force - the Supreme Origin....
and that we are all connected.
Loose ends and impossible conflicts? Yep! That's why I say I don't know.

I just don't know.
The one thing that really bugs me, though, is people who say, "But I really know this for sure."
The only way that is possible is if you were dead; perhaps a Near Death Experience.
Everyone else is guessing, or accepting psi and naming it "God."

If you answer the question honestly you will be correct. The question is about your beliefs, not whether they are accurate or not. Unless you lie there is no argument to be found here.

If a few people could try it, it might catch on and more people will.

Even just 10 people would give a lot of information. The goal is learning, nothing more.
It's not about proving how smart you are or winning an argument.

Just greater understanding.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Umm I get that this is a click bait thread however I feel impelled .....

Why do people always have to cram in "how the universe began" and "how life started" into a theory on how "life changes". Also the universe does NOT seem fine tuned to allow life, where do you get that idea from?

None of those questions have anything to do with evolution.

I will give you the main problem with evolution: We don't have enough data yet, so it is going to take many decades (assuming no quantum leaps in technology) to fine tune it. That is not a problem really, given it has taken us over 100 years to observe gravitational waves, which Einstein predicted. Patience, and a steady approach is better than belief and a bull in a China shop approach.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
If you answer the question honestly you will be correct. The question is about your beliefs, not whether they are accurate or not. Unless you lie there is no argument to be found here.

If a few people could try it, it might catch on and more people will.

Even just 10 people would give a lot of information. The goal is learning, nothing more.
It's not about proving how smart you are or winning an argument.

Just greater understanding.

I am totally confused fuswd by your examples. You brought up a cosmological and teleological arguement and abogensis which has recently showed to exist in labs.

You did not provide any flaws in these beliefs or if they were your beliefs.

For instance fine tuning. Fine tuning States if the small parameters of physical constants were even a small degree different. Weights of atoms, electrical charges etc stars couldn't exist etc. One of the problems with this is that we don't know if this is the only universe. To me it seems to indicate some kind of design. I could be wrong for sure.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
If you answer the question honestly you will be correct. The question is about your beliefs, not whether they are accurate or not. Unless you lie there is no argument to be found here.

If a few people could try it, it might catch on and more people will.

Even just 10 people would give a lot of information. The goal is learning, nothing more.
It's not about proving how smart you are or winning an argument.

Just greater understanding.

nice thought, but it wont work. proving how smart you are or winning an argument is too fun to just walk away or agree to disagree.

a reply to: Noinden

Creationism covers the universe starting to now.
I misused the term evolution I think, I understand the differences. I'm just not sure of the right term for the scientific theory of the universe starting to now.

Care to take a crack at the question?

It's not click bait, it's a legit request.
Is there nothing about the start (if there was one) to now that confuses you.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Noinden

Creationism covers the universe starting to now.
I misused the term evolution I think, I understand the differences. I'm just not sure of the right term for the scientific theory of the universe starting to now.

Care to take a crack at the question?

It's not click bait, it's a legit request.
Is there nothing about the start (if there was one) to now that confuses you.

The study of origins is cosmology. In a basic way it would just be origin I guess.

I would say Cosmology though I guess that may leave out theists?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Noinden

Creationism covers the universe starting to now.
I misused the term evolution I think, I understand the differences. I'm just not sure of the right term for the scientific theory of the universe starting to now.

Care to take a crack at the question?

It's not click bait, it's a legit request.
Is there nothing about the start (if there was one) to now that confuses you.

the theory of everything, drafted by the brilliant man about whom the film was made?

there are many confusing things about it. many loose ends to pull together. but then, the theory has only been around a few decades. it is still the best to date. perhaps you should look it up and come back with some questions.

originally posted by: luthier
One of the problems with this is that we don't know if this is the only universe.

I totally agree, but creating universes we can never see is not the most satisfying answer. I'm not saying it's not true, I believe it however, it's something I have a little problem with.

That's the sort of thing I want to hear.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: luthier
One of the problems with this is that we don't know if this is the only universe.

I totally agree, but creating universes we can never see is not the most satisfying answer. I'm not saying it's not true, I believe it however, it's something I have a little problem with.

That's the sort of thing I want to hear.

It's not satisfying to me either. I don't believe it .kind of agnostic to that idea.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

There is no single theory in science to cover all the things the various flavours of Creationism/Intelligent design claim to explain. Science can't just go "it was God/the Gods/Aliens" and sit back and smugly wait. It needs evidence for theories. Thus this is why the theory of evolution has changed (we discovered DNA (as the vehicle for inheritance), and what it did, AFTER Charles Darwin postulated the first iteration). SO no Evolution in the biological sense (which is what is implied when it is used these days) is a poor phrase.

As for the hypotheses (as that is where we are with that in science) to the beginning of the universe (or THIS universe), is basically down to one hypothesis with a fair level of evidence (aka the Big Bang) and several other contenders.

So the problem with those? We don't have the tools yet to measure the things we need to measure.