Is It Possible That Creationism And Evolution Both Happened?

[pdq1]

At presnt it seems you are either in one camp or the other and pour scorn if it doesn't agree with your own thinking. If you are in the creation camp the usual question is who created the creator. If you believe in evolution its difficult to come across crossed species and no plausible solution is given how man crossed the species barrier.

Wouldn't a better solution to believe there was initially a creator (god or otherwise) and within each species evolution took place to provide the variety we now see. The creator's creator could possibly be explained by negative time principles of which we know so little about as we only work in positive time.

[jake-the-peg]

OG - Atheism as a belief system

Yes and No

Unfortunately for many Atheists it is - their position is an article of faith.

Karl Popper really summed this up in the principla of falsifiability

To be scientific it must be disprovable (hence my problem with string theory and to some extent with multiverses)

We can apply this to atheism.

Ask someone about their atheism "What would convince you you're wrong?"

If they can't tell you or the answer is "Nothing" then it's a belief system no different from Keyplus' Islam

If they can tell you something, however improbable then it's not a belief system but a rational position

[naomi24]

Jim, I would hazard a guess that most people are A-Fairyists – and since there’s no evidence of fairies most would say that an absence of belief in their existence is just plain common sense. No one would call it a ‘belief system’ – so what’s the difference between that and an absence of belief in a god for whose existence there is equally no evidence?

Incidentally, currently there cannot be absolute certainty – in either case. ;o)

[Old_Geezer]

One need not debate tangible things, the nature of spiritual matters is non-tangible. So the idea something is not a belief simply because it can not be touched doesn't follow. Given a claim that something 'is', a refusal to accept a belief in it's existence is still a belief in it's non-existence. One can not reasonably claim it's not simply because one doesn't believe in the claim in the first place.

Interesting way to put things jtp. Not sure about that, I'll think about it.

[naomi24]

OG, //One can not reasonably claim it's not simply because one doesn't believe in the claim in the first place.//

There’s nothing to believe.

[Old_Geezer]

Did your fairies create everything :-)

Maybe it's fair enough to say one believes in their non-existence or existence. No problem with that. But I don't see that a claim for fairies progresses any attempt to get to the nature of reality and existence, so isn't really a useful area of discussion.

[Old_Geezer]

There is the proposed existence of a diety that you opt not to believe in.

[jake-the-peg]

There is the proposed existence of a diety that I require evidence for

in the same way that there are proposed multiple Universes that I require evidence for.

I'd also point out that the more remarkable a claim the stronger the evidence needs to be

[naomi24]

OG, //Maybe it's fair enough to say one believes in their non-existence or existence. //

I repeat, there is nothing to believe. Atheism equates not to non-belief but to an absence of belief. There is nothing there.

[naomi24]

OG, … and maybe if I say I think I know how I feel rather better than you do, it will help you to understand my thoughts on this.

[Old_Geezer]

I don't believe it is to do with how one feels. It is more to do with your view that if you can deny existence of something then that is sufficient for it not to be a case of you believing in it's non existence, and my holding the view that the denial of existence isn't relevant, and ensures you must believe in it's non existence. Just going around in circles aren't we ?

[naomi24]

We are really - but what I'm saying is there's no reason to deny the existence of an imaginary something for which there is no evidence. There's nothing to deny.

Got to go. Good chat. :o)

[jomifl]

The fundamental premise behind creationism ( apart from the obvious one that creationists can't possibly be wrong) is that evolution could not possibly have produced the vast array of life forms that now exist by 'chance' therefore there had to be a designer ie. god. In what order and when these designed forms were produced is quietly ignored so as not to strain credulity too far. Once the least smidgin of evolution is conceded then the creationist argument goes down the pan quicker than a vindaloo on a saturday night.....even with the lager.

[jim360]

Interesting point about fairies Naomi because perhaps the only reason religion is more acceptable is simply because it's been around longer. That must play some part, surely?

[LazyGun]

"It is laughable to hear because we have no proof of multiple universes they cannot possible exist.

The Higgs Boson is a sub-atomic elementary particle, not a sailor. It is Boson, not Bosun. The above statement is what is laughable. No one here has ever said that multiple universes cannot exist - just that they are conjecture with scant to no evidence to support them. Given that, it would be laughable to construct a theory, first for the existence of multiple universes simply to explain what is a very unlikely proposition - that of a creator god. That would be a joke theory, with no foundation in reality at all.

"Only last year we couldn't accept the existance of the Higgs Bosun because no proof had been found. We now know differently! "

Who was it that could not accept the existence of the Higgs Boson? You might not have been able to accept it, but certainly the majority of theoretical physicists did.

"The existance of a multiple universes is no different than the search for the Higgs Bosun.. it depends on how much effort we want to put into it. Even if they were located doesn't mean the existance of a god but it does give it more credence."

How would the finding that there were multiple universes give the existence of god more credence? Where is your reasoning and what is your logic for that statement?


"So the main argument against creation is a creator couldn't exist within our universe as we live in a 4 dimensional sphere with time always proceding in a positive direction. "

No, this is not the main argument - it is one of many, and that is the reason why most scientists think that a god - certainly a god as described by the main religions - is very, very unlikely.

"If it were proved that there existing other universes than our own these laws may not hold. "
True.
"To this day no proof has been found but only conjecture."
Also True.
" Many physicists prefer not to enter this arena for fear of being branded religious nutters and losing their funding."
Untrue.
" However with the use of string theory and quantum mechanics this area is taken up by some. "
Untrue. String Theory and quantum mechanics does not make a god more likely, but such esoteric theories are often cited and used by those who wish to make a case for a deity - without necessarily understanding the concepts.

"This article expounds our theories on this matter and will surely get more acceptance in future.
http://physics.about.com/od/astronomy/f/multipleuniverses.htm "

It makes an overview of some of the thinking around thes issues. Why do you assume that these theories will gain greater acceptance in the future? What is your reasoning behind that statement? Just because such issues are popular in fiction and in dinner table discussions does not make them any more likely to be accepted in the future. Evidence might, but first you have to design the experiment and collect the data....

[pdq1]

As I said before people seem to be split into two camps....those that believe in a creator and those that rely on evolution alone. Some of the pourings of self indulgence above lie claim to that!

Not once have i mentioned that God exists as I treat the subject as a non religious matter. However evolution does not tick all the boxes for me. I believe there are many unknowns and the possibility of multiple universes may point in another direction...just concentrating on our own universe is like a horse with blinkers not knowing whats going on around him.

Maybe the problem will never be resolved in our lifetimes but it doesn't mean we should continue to look. If there were a god why would he want us to worship him. To me its like a child worshipping his Mother and Father for bringing him into the world.

[jomifl]

pdq1,
/...just concentrating on our own universe is like a horse with blinkers not knowing whats going on around him./
I suspect that it is a good strategy to concentrate one's attention on those things which directly affect our immediate survival. I think we can begin to worry about multiple universes when there is some evidence of their existence or when we are watching Startrek.

[modeller]

pdq1
//As I said before people seem to be split into two camps....those that believe in a creator and those that rely on evolution alone. Some of the pourings of self indulgence above lie claim to that!//

Hold on ! The belief in a creator or otherwise has nothing directly to do with Creationism or Evolution. , both of these events are the effects after whatever caused the universe.

//Wouldn't a better solution to believe there was initially a creator (god or otherwise) and within each species evolution took place to provide the variety we now see.// Oh yes ! Better for whom ?

Better to believe in a myth , rather than search for the truth .
As a deist said to me recently " You may as well believe in God as it's better than the alternative. " W

[modeller]

I recently asked you theists to comment on the belief by some that the universe and everything was created by the Invisible Pink Unicorn, it is
omniscient , it answers all our prayers that are for the greater good.

W

[keyplus90]

Jake - /////You read it in a book by someone who said an Angel told him!////

Yes, as a matter I do exactly as you said. Unless someone can go back in time and (then of course) come back and tell us that it never happened that way then there are only two option,

a - What I am doing, in other words believing that it happened.

b - What you are doing, in other words believing that it did not happen.

But in both of the scenarios none of us have any proof, do we? Then the best option is to wait and see, but then again with that we have two scenarios again.

a - You might be proved right and I would have nothing to lose.

or

b - I might be proved right and you will have a lot of things to worry about.

Finally, we all have to believe in someone, telling us about something, somewhere in our lives, that we either believe or disbelieve entirely on the basis of the trust we have in the person who is telling us, as it's not always possible all of the time to go and find it ourselves.

[jomifl]

Keyplus, 2points
1. Believing in something doesn't make it true. This is demonstrated by all the believers, none of whom have exactly the same beliefs.
2. We don't have to believe anything or anyone. I think you have let your erroneous assumption that we do have to believe in something or to believe someone unduly influence your life.