i usually try to stay out of religious discussions like this (it's more fun to watch), so this will probably be my last and only post in this topic. also, keep in mind that when i mention creationism, that i am using it to mean the belief that god created life, not that god created the universe. i think those two are separate arguments, and one of them is obviously not what is being disputed here.
just thought i'd say a couple of things real quick.
i myself am an agnostic, neither believing nor disbelieving in the existence of a god or gods. i've been in my share of arguments over the idea, and none of them ever had a clear victor. i'm not here to say anything on that subject, and nothing i say should affirm or refute anything another might say on it (if it does, let me know).
neoaetas:
i believe that philosopher you mentioned was Plato, from his dialogue with Euthyphro. As you may know, his dialogues were conversations between Socrates and another man, so you might say it was Socrates as well.
from what i can see, you are also saying that creationism and evolutionism are mutually exclusive (that is, one or the other is true but not both). i have a couple of things on this point i'd like to say. i agree with Yankeeabe in that they can be reconciled and coexist. keep in mind that i am not supporting or denying creationism, i'm just saying that believing it does not keep a person from believing in evolution as well.
now, i realize that there are different types of creationist belief; it is not a black-and-white school of thought, but rather a spectrum of different ideas. one type, the type that i see belegkano as having, does exclude evolution. this belief holds that god created everything as it is today, and the world has only existed for a short amount of time (i think it is somewhere around 10,000 years, but i could be wrong). as far as i know, there is little or no factual value to this claim, and it basically derives from blind faith in the bible. in fact, there is a mountain of evidence against it (much of this has already been cited, so i need not repeat it), so you either have to be ignorant or ludicrously faithful and devout in your belief in god/the bible to accept this.
another type is what Yankeeabe seems to believe (again, correct me if i'm wrong here - this is just my interpretation of what you have presented). at some point in the distant past, god created the first organism capable of reproducing itself and thriving in some given environment. over the countless number of times that the organism reproduced itself, minute mutations occured in the copies. some of these helped it survive and reproduce, and were passed on, while others didn't, and weren't. eventually new species were formed, and eventually this lead to the version of life on earth as we know it today.
there are two versions within this version that i can see as well. the first is that god controlled the mutations to get what he wanted. the second is that simple random chance did, and there was no driving force behind it except survival.
as far as i know, there is as much scientific evidence to support this claim as there is to support the claim that life spontaneously evolved. there have been experiments which involved puting the appropriate non-biological elements in an apparatus and an electical charge to the system. some of these experiments (the results were replicable, so they constitute true scientific evidence) created biological molecules (i can't remember what molecules, unfortunately), but none have created a living organism, as far as i know.
this is partial support to the random chance theory (i.e. a bolt of lightning struck a puddle and things combined to create life), but is very weak and by no means conclusive. like i said before, there isn't really any more evidence for random chance evolution than there is for creationist evolution.
the last thing i would like to say is to belegkano. as has been mentioned previously, your posts are very difficult and at times impossible to decipher. your ideas are extreme and difficult to accept. you provide no evidence to support them save the "god says so" argument which, by the way, is the informal fallacy of appeal to authority, making it an invalid argument in a factual debate such as this one. while i credit you your faith, it might be wise to consider some of the facts this argument has produced against your claims. then again, it might not; who am i to say?
i'd just like to add that if you wish to be taken seriously, you really should take the suggestion seriously to use at least somewhat proper grammar/punctuation, and try to spell things right. it's hard to argue with, let alone believe, someone whose words make little sense.
|
