h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Very well written article on the scientific aspect of the Creation versus Evolution debate.

I personally have had many deabtes on this subject, due to my religious beliefs. I would not always use the scientific arguments to substantiate my cause, it would be more scriptural.

Josh (Is he still with us?) has managed a fairly well balanced discussion here, that has a well rounded feel to it.

I find it difficult, but I can understand how people chose not to believe in an Almighty Creator (In whatever form). I can understand it because the only way it would be possible for me, would be through sheer arrogance.

Mankind seems to think that they are the supreme being, the only life-form that is allowed to create. Unfortunately, as a race, we have many failings and this is one of the biggest.

We are subservient to a Greater Being, yes, God. Unfortunatly for all the scienific minded people that choose not to accept this, please, attempt to disprove it. I do not have to attempt to prove it, because life being here is evidence and proof that we were created, also it was documented.

Have a good one...

Sludge

Hi Sludge,

"I personally have had many deabtes on this subject, due to my religious beliefs. I would not always use the scientific arguments to substantiate my cause, it would be more scriptural."

Quoting Scripture to substantiate an argument is not valid. I could equally well quote Shakespeare. Your scripture was written by men, many years after the events they were trying to describe and at a time of scientific ignorance and heavy superstitious belief.


"I find it difficult, but I can understand how people chose not to believe in an Almighty Creator (In whatever form). I can understand it because the only way it would be possible for me, would be through sheer arrogance."

I'll forgive you your arrogance this time but you have to be prepared to listen to reason or this will not be a debate.


"Mankind seems to think that they are the supreme being, the only life-form that is allowed to create. Unfortunately, as a race, we have many failings and this is one of the biggest."

You may think that but our growing understanding of our place in the universe makes us well aware of our sheer insignificance - a thin smear of green on a tiny rock near an ordinary yellow star in an unspecial arm of a common spiral galaxy... Scripture on the other hand claims we were created specially as the only intelligent life there is. Scientists know we are completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things; only believers are arrogant enough to think there is anything special about humanity.


"We are subservient to a Greater Being, yes, God. Unfortunatly for all the scienific minded people that choose not to accept this, please, attempt to disprove it. I do not have to attempt to prove it, because life being here is evidence and proof that we were created, also it was documented."

Science shows that the universe arose from a single, as yet unexplained, event billions of years ago. The formation of the stars and planets was a consequence of known and demonstrable laws of physics - the same laws that allow you to post messages on this site. Life arose by chance, quite possibly more than once, as the first self-replicating molecules formed in a seething chemical soup on a cooling Earth. Once a self replicating molecule has formed it will continue to make copies of itself, gradually increasing its fitness for survival and evolving until life (as we know it) emerges. There is nothing magical about this process.

Disproving the existence of God depends entirely on how you describe your creator. The descriptions can be easily disproved because they are bound to be false. For example: "God made man in his image". So: God looks like us? Why? We are moderately well constructed for life on a planet like Earth. Why should God look like we do? Does He also live on a planet like Earth? Whatever God's image is it's unlikely to be anything like we've ever seen on Earth. Life here is not evidence and proof we were created - no God is required to create life. Your documentation was written by a superstitious people more than two thousand years ago and carefully edited by a politically motivated Catholic Church at the Council of Nicea 1600 years ago. So much of its content has been shown to be false it is becoming an embarrassment to a large number of believers.

The burdon of proof is not with me - I don't have to ask anyone to believe in a magical, undetectable entity that seemingly had no prior social contact before creating the world yet displays the worst human traits of jealousy, anger, vengeance and outright cruelty.

Wishing you a Happy Christmas.

F

Can I interject here Fathom?

I would just like to comment that I think your view is, while well-accepted, a little narrow-minded.

Firstly, I would like to point out that your arguments against a God who created man in the likeness of His own image are again assuming, without thought or question, that the theory of Evolution is not a theory but a fact, and that furthermore, God (if you believed His existence) is subject to the same system. You are assuming that God created man in His own image FOR Earth. God created everything, therefore He created the Universe and He created the Earth. Through the scriptures He conveys to man that the Earth and all in it is to provide for them. Earth is for man, not man for Earth, and you are taking it backwards from your own views of Evolution in reasoning that man evolved to 'fit' Earth, therefore God is in the image of man.

You will probably take the view that it is in fact me who assuming that creationism is correct in writing this. This is true in that I believe God created man. But I am writing from that viewpoint only to point out that reasoning and 'proving' from yuor own standpoint without contemplating any other is also not debating. Furthermore please do not refer to unproved theories as facts, because THAT is misinformation.

I am not in any way ignoring you and your arguments, but debating is one thing, while directly and pointlessly insulting the beliefs of others (your last paragraph) is not to my mind acceptable.

Thank you.
PJ

A theory is as good as it gets in science. We make no bones about it. There are no 100% facts. It's strange how people use '*theory of* evolution' as some kind of proof that it's mere speculation or conjecture, not a robust concept that repeatedly holds up to scrutiny. Creationists use the word 'theory' like an insult! Ironically it's the opposite.

When so many experiments and observations from many wide and disparate scientific fields point to the same conclusion one cannot avoid the truth. Evolution is a reality. The theory of evolution is such a strong and well-supported theory it's as close to fact as you can get in science.


'Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.'
- Ashley Montagu


Ste

Hello PJ,

I trust you had a good Christmas?

I can understand your frustration with the content of my final paragraph:

"The burdon of proof is not with me - I don't have to ask anyone to believe in a magical, undetectable entity that seemingly had no prior social contact before creating the world yet displays the worst human traits of jealousy, anger, vengeance and outright cruelty."

If you wish to point out anything that is factually incorrect please feel free to do so.

Where exactly did I rely on the Theory of Evolution in my arguments? I simply pointed out - and merely as an example - that Man is well(ish) suited to life on Earth. God, in who's image Man is apparently constructed, did not live on Earth before it was 'created'. The question I asked was why God should also possess such suitable physiology.

If Earth was created for man why was an air breathing, hairless mammal given a planet that is four fifths salty water and only habitable (without clothes and shelter) over about five percent of its land area? Why are most of the species we share it with dangerous, poisonous, inedible or completely unknown until the past hundred years?

F

Well IF the bigG created the earth then he would create his personal favourites with attributes to teem all over the face of the earth (we may even conquer the deep in time) and if as it says in the bible we have the same image as the creator the creator would have simply created a world he could do as well as we have done in.

Of course looking at the sentence above again you will see that it is both literally and figuratively a big if. (I crack myself up some times) Not only because as peole have pointed out all the evidence to support this position comes from sources that are less than completely reliable but also because we have many competing stories from sources of equal reliability.

Only one theory gives any consistent and rational evidence to support its claims.

A good hypothesis Blicky - perhaps it's testable in some way.

Strange: the reason many people believe in God is because somebody told them there is one and could describe what He's like. I don't believe for exactly the same reason.

F

Hi Fathom,

It seems very obvious you do not believe in God (correct me if I am wrong).

I do believe in God, as do many, many others. I am not of the opinion that just because X amount of people belive something, that in itself makes it right. I belive in God through my own understanding, not what I have been told to belive, or have to believe because my parents told me to or from some supposed religious authority.

You choose not to believe in God, because you do not want to believe in God.

There is abundant PROOF that God exists, proof that you see each and every day but, again, you choose to ignore.

You attempt to reason out my earlier post by debunking each of my statements in turn. You have only played with the words I have written. Are you not able to provide your own reasoning on matters without lowering others opinions, trying to make yourself look big? (it doesn't work, it's called childish behaviour)

I appreciate your attempt at a discussion, I really do, I appreciate a proper two way exchange. In future, my advice would be:

* Listen to others peoples opinions, give them the respect that they deserve.

* Lowering others peoples opinions does not make yours right.

* Disecting postings, statement by statement, makes you look a bit sad, try and be original, find your own material.

Here's the biggie

* God exists, you may not choose to believe this (as I keep saying), but maybe one day you will come to realise this.

BTW, sorry for the delay on this reply, I only get onto H2G2 when I cover a night shift at work, which isn't all that often.

Have a good one...

Sludge

Hi Sludge,

I didn't mean to cause offence but you opened the debate at that level with the word "arrogance". You then stated a number of assumptions which I felt were open to criticism.

There is no proof for the existence of God. If there was there would be very few atheists and certainly none who were also rational thinkers: i.e. scientists.

Everything I see, each and every day, can be explained without the need for God. The explanations do not rely on quotations from a book written hundreds of years ago but can be examined, questioned and independently tested.

Which god exists? The Christian / Jewish / Muslim God or one of the myriad others that people believe in? No-one can believe in them all (presumably) so you're faced with a personal choice. You say you believe in God through your own understanding. I respect your choice, that is up to you. I would ask you to consider why it is that you 'chose' that particular god to believe in and not one of the others

Hi Sludge,

I didn't mean to cause offence but you opened the debate at that level with the word "arrogance". You then stated a number of assumptions which I felt were open to criticism.

There is no proof for the existence of God. If there was there would be very few atheists and certainly none who were also rational thinkers: i.e. scientists.

Everything I see, each and every day, can be explained without the need for God. The explanations do not rely on quotations from a book written hundreds of years ago but can be examined, questioned and independently tested.

Which god exists? The Christian / Jewish / Muslim God or one of the myriad others that people believe in? No-one can believe in them all (presumably) so you're faced with a personal choice. You say you believe in God through your own understanding. I respect your choice, that is up to you. I would ask you to consider why it is that you 'chose' that particular god to believe in and not one of the others

Ooops.

... to ensure you really made an informed choice. Just as my informed choice is not to believe in any god.

If you choose to post your beliefs on here you should expect to find that other people will question, criticise and 'debunk' those beliefs. That is the nature of this site. Some of those people will have strongly held beliefs of their own which clash with yours, others will have no particular beliefs at all but will be merely curious about yours. I would be delighted with a proper two way discussion; particularly if you can meet the criterion you set me: to try to be original and find your own material.



F

Hi again, Fathom

First of all, can I say, thank you for taking the time to reply.

Secondly, I am genuinely apreciative of the manner of your reply. I had assumed, wrongly, that you would not have taken on board any of my criticisms and, again, 'debunked' my posting.

I would be happy to carry on our discussion, now that I feel we have started off on the right foot.

Would you like to take this conversation somewhere else, or are you happy with it here?

And if you want, choose a subject you would like to discuss further, then we begin (I do like the Creation V's Evolution one. Lol).

Have a good one...

Sludge

hi Sludge,

In your first posting you made some very definite statements without anything to back them up other than this is what you believe. And that's fair enough. Everyone is free to believe whatever they like.

I didn't get the impression that Fathom was simply 'dissecting and debunking' your posting. He seemed to be countering your personal opinions with his own, which PJ considered to be 'a little narrow-minded', but then the same could be said of your views in the first posting. This is not meant as criticism, just an observation on the first few postings here. Nice to see you both have cleared up any misunderstanding between you.

Now Sludge, I do have a question about what this thread is meant to be for. If it is meant for debate, you state clearly in your first posting that: <> If this is the case, then where is the debate?

It's just that I have recently had some discussions with a creationist and his method of trying to 'prove' his point to me was to simply quote bible scripture and say - 'See! It says so in the bible! This makes it true!'

So that is my question to you. If this is meant to be a debate on creation vs evolution then how do you plan to debate it?



azahar

Hello az, fancy meeting you here!

"If this is meant to be a debate on creation vs evolution then how do you plan to debate it?"

You've got a point; there are several 'god' threads on here already and they all suffer from similar problems: too many contributors, no real conclusions, certain 'enthusiasts' who will never concede a point and people who resort to name calling and abuse. In addition Sludge has limited access to the site and would be disadvantaged by a fast moving thread because he'd never get his points answered.

Thinks for a moment...




Sludge,

I notice from your home page you are subscribed to a number of game threads. If you like games perhaps we could have a debate - no need to restrict it to any particular subject - with game rules. This would let you hone your debating skills (which is what it's all about, regardless of the outcome) without being disadvantaged by your night shift posting.

I suggest the following rules (open to debate, obviously):
Each post must consist of one clear question (the gambit) and one clear explanation (the response; to the previous gambit).
Participants will remain polite and respectful.
If other people join in responses will be addressed to the originator of the gambit by name.
To avoid drawn out issues of semantics all words used will be intended to mean what most people would expect them to mean or will be suitably defined for the context in which they are being used.
If, as is likely, an interesting discussion develops this may be conducted in another thread in order to retain the integrity of the game.

Just a suggestion - let me know what you think. Suggest some alternative rules if you want.
Perhaps a game approach might make this more interesting than the usual type of debate. Join in if you like, az.

F

"Firstly, I would like to point out that your arguments against a God who created man in the likeness of His own image are again assuming, without thought or question, that the theory of Evolution is not a theory but a fact, and that furthermore, God (if you believed His existence) is subject to the same system. You are assuming that God created man in His own image FOR Earth. God created everything, therefore He created the Universe and He created the Earth. Through the scriptures He conveys to man that the Earth and all in it is to provide for them. Earth is for man, not man for Earth, and you are taking it backwards from your own views of Evolution in reasoning that man evolved to 'fit' Earth, therefore God is in the image of man."

No, the statement that humans are well adapted for life on Earth does not assume evolution. Whether we are this way because YHWH made us this way 6008 years ago or because of billions of years, we are clearly well adapted for Earth. We live most comfortably at temperatures on the surface of Earth. Our muscles work best for locomotion and tool use at about 9.8 N/kg gravity. We have lungs that are very efficient in Earth's atmosphere. We have a biochemistry that allows us to digest many types of food common on this planet. We have eyes that see in the part of the light spectrum that is very present on Earth and can be focused by a small lens and retina. We have an internal body pressure that matches atomsphereic pressure. We have a olfactory system that can detect many chemicals common on Earth.

This may result from evolution or a well thought out design by a creator, but either way, these characteristic seem unlikely in an entity that does not exist in a place much like Earth and that is omnipotent--thus not needing to be so specially adapted for one environment but unable to survive in another witohut massive aid.

"Mankind seems to think that they are the supreme being, the only life-form that is allowed to create. Unfortunately, as a race, we have many failings and this is one of the biggest."

I do not claim that we are supreme beings in respect to others on this planet and we certainly aren't the only lifeforms that can create. We are not superior to anything else alive on this planet and we have the same duty as any other one--to survive and act in our benefit. If we feel it is good for us to wipe out tigers and we can, then we have that right. But if tigers feel it is good to wipe us out and can, than they hae that right. We aren't superior to other species, though we may be more successful at surviving than them. On the other hand, cockroaches and the bubonic plauge are quite good at surviving, too.

On the other hand, believing that we are the favored creations of an omnipotent being requires much arrogance.

Hi Fathom

I like the idea.

I have moved the thread to F19585?thread=369395&post=4711036#p4711036 and placed your instructions (which are apt) as guidelines for the conversation.

I have asked a question, which you will be able to answer, I'm sure.

Have a good one...

Sludge

Hi Sludge,

We'll have to find the time to converse too; I like the cut of your jib.

The debating game seems to have taken off with a lot of people who like debates so well done with kicking that off.

See you around.

F

Hi Fathom,

Sorry I've been so long replying to your answering post, technical probs... oh well...

I think you've still missed my point - you've argued against Earth being created for man later, but still insisted that God was created in the likeness of man's image and not the other way round...
This relies on man adapting, therefore God being adapted, not God creating in His likeness then creating the world for man.

And how would you describe moderately well-adapted? An 'air breathing, hairless mammal given a planet that is four fifths salty water and only habitable (without clothes and shelter) over about five percent of its land area'?

As for the paragraph under discussion, it is merely a matter of opinion - but since you want factual proof, could you point out where jealousy is shown?

Cheers
PJ

I'm always a bit puzzled by that phrase "made in God's image/likeness". In what sense, exactly (or even roughly)?

Noggin

Hi PJ,

Thanks for replying.

Moderately adapted means exactly that. If we were well adapted we would presumably be aquatic or the Earth would be a bit dryer. And why all the wasted material building a whole universe just for us? We can't even see most of it.

I'll get back to you on this (unless someone better informed wants to join in) but I'm sure somewhere in the Bible there is a quote along the lines of: "for he is a jealous God."


Noggin,

Yes, the likeness bit has always bothered me - what do they mean by 'likeness'? If it's physical likeness that makes God look like us, if not actually being an air breathing hairless mammal. Perhaps it means spiritual, emotional or even intellectual likeness. The people who wrote this, of course, had no idea that there were environments different to Earth's.

F