Both creationism and evolution are suspect. Why? because 99.9% of people who formulate opinions and hypothesis about them do so because of their angst toward the opposing view. No one who seeks to *disprove* something can ever be unbiased. The moment you do you taint your perception of the evidence. That's why creationists and evolutionists can often point to the same evidence and draw completely disparate conclusions. There are as many blind skeptics as there are blind believers.

One can study evolution without tainting their empirical research with 'faith'. One can study religion without ever pondering the 'truth' of a given belief system. Paleontologists, geologists, historians and other such scholars can go about their work without ever allowing the idea of a factual 'God' to enter into it. "This exists, therefore God (can/can't)" is a leap that defies the objective spirit of science itself. Science, by its definition, cannot address God, by his religious definition, unless He appears in some tangible form that can be studied.

When I hear someone use the Gilgamesh Epic to place the existence of God into doubt, it affects me in the same way that it would were I to hear an Egyptologist reference "alien astronauts". You can refute tradition, folklore, even the Bible itself, but as a concept God is irrefutable, and can only be accepted or rejected on a personal level. Conceptually, God exists independently of the concrete evidence that mankind uses to formulate opinions about Him. You can disprove a particular relic or work of folklore, but it leaves the essence of God untouched. Better yet, it cleanses the concept of something that was misleading. Skepticism, itself, is a servant of God, in my personal opinion. Others will differ, of course.

So, when someone says "Look at all these wars, how can there be a God??" one might as easily say "If it weren't for God, think of how long mankind might have lasted before it destroyed itself." Let's not forget that our continued survival, our ability to overcome the animalistic, to drag ourselves up an evolutionary ladder without anything more than opposable thumbs, is as much proof of the existence of God than that which we overcome disproves Him.

How you explain it is your own affair. I would, again, suggest reading Marcus Aurelius. I find great comfort in the beliefs of the later Stoics. God created the world and everything in it by whatever method He chose to. God is what God is independent of what I think or feel. He gave me a mind and judgment to move about the world and better it in an virtuous way. Speculation on the spiritual origins of such things has relevance of diners pondering how a delicious dessert was made. Fun to ponder, but all it does is distract you from actually eating the dessert.

We have a great task simply living justly in this world, and such dissension and bitterness just makes people want to fly planes into buildings.

Howdie

We're certainly seeing a broad range of beliefs here, and as usual this subject stirs up some strong feelings.

I think it's pretty obvious from my initial post that I don't believe in God. I actually place about as much faith in there being a God as I do in there being a Santa Claus. I believe both concepts pertain to a similar thing.

I won't argue that the idea of God and creation gives those people who believe in it a sense of importance and comfort, and it's therefore not a bad thing in itself. If it helps to enrich a person's life, then I wouldn't want to take that away from them. It's when those people start to push their ideas as the only truth, and make the assertion that in not believing I am somehow less of a person, that I become angered. You'll find a lot less people who try to spread the 'word' of science than you will those who try to spread the 'word' of God.

As for evolution, there is certainly proof of evolution in a smaller scale, as it has been shown that certain creatures adapt their bodies over generations to cope with changing climates and their needs for survival. Nobody can say for sure exactly where it all started, and you won't find a single scientist who will give you a definitive answer for how life started. That's what sets scientists apart from followers of religion. Scientists try to keep an open mind until they have adequate proof to believe, whereas a religious person will believe in something simply because they read it in an old book and think that in not believing they are damning themselves to an unpleasant existance after death. Which sounds the most rational to you?

I always wonder whether 2000 years from now there will be people walking around preaching the great word of J.K. Rowling and following the faith of Potter.

By the way, I would just like to emphasise that I only don't believe in a God because I have no reason to believe. I have experienced nothing in my life to push me in that direction, and I feel no need to attribute my existance to a higher power. I like to keep an open mind in so far as that if God were to suddenly appear in front of me I would admit I had been wrong and become a believer. I just don't see the point of blindly following a faith 'just in case', which I think happens so much these days.

hehe uh oh there is dutchy...
what is that wooden shoe land Religion?

Reading through this thread I have been wondering why most people seem to exclude an after-life if they do not believe in (a) God. Why?

As a scientist I believe in the Theory of Evolution which for me also includes the evolution of my soul while I am here on earth. It also includes the possibilies of a species that is much older and higher in its state of evolution than humans. Whether one of them was involved in creating (enhancing) human life we won't know until we are actally able to contact it.

Maybe we have to evolve enough to find out how the Universe came into existence in order to finish your own development?

As for proof of the evolution Theory; DNA mapping is far from being finished and more missing links are getting connected every years. I think it is just a matter of time until we finally tie up the loose ends after all our knowledge of biological and geological processes is very limited at this stage.

my old man would be very disapointed with this thread ... j/k j/k. there is so much info about for arguing both sides but it's up to every individual to make a decision for themselves.

I for one do not lean either way, I am still trying to find the answer that I am happy with. This my take the rest of my life for me to come to a belief that I am happy with, or it may never happen.


Don't let the "nick" fool you, it's nothing sinister or evil (in my mind), it's just the name of a song I like by my favorite band "Danzig"

to each of you either live long and prosper, or "GOD" be with you.

This is a question that isn't ever going to be really answered, at least in terms of convincing all of the participants.

I'll wedge myself firmly in the middle here, by stating that I'm a scientist (engineer) who also believes in God. I am also firmly behind evolution (and cosmology, etc.).

First, to clear up one common misconception about what is regarded as the *theory* of evolution. The entire chain of evidence (common genetic heritage, the fossil record, etc.) fully support the concept that life did progress from simpler to more complex forms (and the Second law of thermodynamics wasn't violated, as the energy from the sun more than makes up for any order gained in evolution). What constitutes the theory part is the proposal that the mechanism of natural selection is responsible for the specific outcome of evolution. That species evolve is a dead certain fact, it is clearly observed in the current world (especially as regards insects, bacteria, virii, and many other organisms with a rapid life cycle). There are valid concerns about the initial event that caused abiogenesis (the original instantiation of first life). But unless we can go back in time and watch it occur on our planet (or find a location where it is currently occurring), we will never be able to do much more than speculate about it.

My personal take on the whole creation idea is that God set up the initial conditions for the entire universe and started it up (with the big bang, for example), with the full expectation that it would culminate in the existence of intelligent life. I also think that His purpose for that intelligent life is nothing so limited as to simply revere Him, but thatt we should also grow and learn and understand the system that He created. There is nothing in science that, IMHO, violates that expectation, indeed it is one of the purest expressions of that ideal.

IMHO, God is the purest expression of love, ethics, and justice. He cannot be jealous or mean spirited, or vengeful, as those qualities would diminish His purity. Certain people want Him to have those impure qualities because they want to use God as a weapon, the purpose of which is to frighten others into believing as they do. The thing is that motivation matters. If you believe because you are afraid of what God will do, that isn't doing any justice to God whatsoever. It is the moral equivalent of obeying someone because they have a gun to your head.

As to the accuracy of the Bible, it is a wonderful source of history, it is full of good examples of behaviour, and it is worth it to follow the spirit of what is written. But you cannot literally follow the text. Even if you argue that the original texts were divinely inspired (even though most of those were the written form of oral stories told over generations), the fact that the texts were edited, altered, and compiled by people with agendas other than the complete expression of truth requires one to use critical thinking to properly extract the true meaning. The problem that I have with the literalists is that they are effectively placing the bible above God Himself.

"Do not say 'I follow the one true path of the Spirit,' but rather, 'I have found the Spirit walking on my path,' for the Spirit walks on all paths" -- Khalil Ghibran

I like the evolution theory that man evolved from the ocean/water. It is very interesting to hear how we are the only land based mamal that aren't covered with "fur" and the theory as to why babies are born with "babyfat" that allows them to float in water.

I just really like that particular theory.

Hus, a more concrete proof that evolution exists (it continues to exist, it's not a thing of the past) is in Aleatoric's post.  Evolution through mutations have been observed concretely in insects and other small life-span lifeforms such as virii and bacterias.

If there is a God I'm going to come back and seriously haunt some of you people.

I'm on either side of this which means "I don't know" I will not make a guess err, I mean give faith to something that I have no idea about.

I think for most people *not all* that God in any form mystic/super being/scary guy above the clouds is a crutch for people. It helps them get by when they have nothing else because there aren't any explainations.

My friend gave me the best answer when I asked him "Why do you believe in God" Answer: I don't want to go to hell. I hate people who have such blind faith.

Thanks Paxx The Prophet is a favorite of mine, as well.

I also agree that there is little point in beating this horse, there is little chance of changing minds. I still like to get my $0.02 in from time to time

Hus,

Abiogenesis is one of the really big questions, no doubt of it. We can hypothesize and speculate all we want, but any theory we come up with is difficult to test in a way that assures us we're on the right path. There have been many experiments where the precursors of life have been formed in an environment that resembles what would have been on earth in the distant past. The problem with those are that we have no way of knowing, exactly, what those conditions were, and none of these experiments has progressed to the point of self-replication.

It may not be perfect, it may not be complete, we may rewrite it (or parts of it) many times as we learn, but evolution is currently the *best* theory we have to explain the whole of life on earth and its relationship to us (and us to it). The knowledge we have gained from studying life at that level has enabled us to begin to understand the intricacies of genetics and the mechanisms of life in ways that allow us to improve our ability to heal others, aid longevity, and provide us with the tools to understand (for example) how diseases affect us, and hopefully, how to ultimately deal with the ongoing mutation of the disease vectors in ways that allow us to head them off at the pass, so to speak.

No theory that can help us do all of that can be completely wrong. And even if it is incorrect in places, its very effectiveness as a tool makes it a valuable tool and field of study.