Evolution and Creationism

[ApeNotKillApe]

I am assigning special meaning, it is something humans do. You are applying a special meaning when you say it is insignificant. That is what humans do.

I think you solved your conundrum right there, sport.

[Alex K]

Is evolution any less a miracle than Creationism?

Yes.

Time does not dictate the miraculous. If a wizard appeared in front of me, whether it took him one minute to fly upwards or 10 years I would not consider the act any less miraculous. This leads one to ask why would evolution be considered miraculous? The general consensus around miracles is that they have to defy the laws of nature. While the meaning of that definition is a good argument for another time, I am going to move forward defining miracle as something that goes against the laws of nature. The laws of nature are all interconnected and go back to the big bang. To further demonstrate what I mean by this, let's imagine we're trying to predict where the ball goes after I throw it. This depends on the weight of the ball, the force of my throw, the wind, and etc. etc. To understand these forces, we have to view them as interconnected processes and not isolated events. So, the force I put into the ball depends on what I have eaten, if I have worked out, etc. which all depends on the processes before it. The wind that blows the ball slightly to the left is only blowing that way because of the weather patterns that happened before it, which happened because of what materials and where the earth formed etc. So, lets start at the big bang. Immediately upon that explosion, the universe was doomed. Granted its going to take an inconceivable-to-our-fragile-minds amount of time, but still everything was meant to die. Albeit this, there is a natural propensity for life to keep on living. This is the root of evolution, that life is fighting against itself. On one hand the universe was made to die, on the other it was designed to live.

No.

This difference between how things are and how things strive to be is ultimately irrational. It's the ultimate paradox. So my question is, how do you reconcile life on one hand being designed to end and on the other hand being designed to keep going on?

I don't do either of those because life wasn't designed for either of those things.

[brewer]

Then let's not the use word miracle or magic.
I witness it.
360. An about-face is a 180, not 190.
By designed I mean how it functions. Regardless of the existence of a designer, I am assuming we all agree everything exists.
What should I read about the sun that will say otherwise? Do you mean with specific reference to the second law of thermodynamics or of another scientific principle?
Also, I hope I have not come across as trying to convert somebody to believe something. I came here with the intention of a debate that moves everybody's ethos to be sound.

The sun will eventually take out the earth. Not in our time, but eventually. There, you are aware on an approaching annihilation. Google it. Unfortunately I think the human race will do itself in long before that time.

Still waiting for this ultimate death explanation. Or are you only describing earths death, death of life on earth. Earth is totally unique.

So far I have not found much "sound" that you have presented.

[Bob Kelso]

Is evolution any less a miracle than Creationism? 

You're assuming the two are remotely comparable.

Time does not dictate the miraculous. If a wizard appeared in front of me, whether it took him one minute to fly upwards or 10 years I would not consider the act any less miraculous. This leads one to ask why would evolution be considered miraculous?

Who said it should be? The theory is a description of a naturally occurring process. 

The general consensus around miracles is that they have to defy the laws of nature. While the meaning of that definition is a good argument for another time, I am going to move forward defining miracle as something that goes against the laws of nature. 

*my alteration*

See the above response. Evolution is a natural process.

The laws of nature are all interconnected and go back to the big bang.

You could've stopped there mate. 

So, lets start at the big bang. Immediately upon that explosion, the universe was doomed. Granted its going to take an inconceivable-to-our-fragile-minds amount of time, but still everything was meant to die. Albeit this, there is a natural propensity for life to keep on living. This is the root of evolution, that life is fighting against itself. [b]On one hand the universe was made to die, on the other it was designed to live. [/b]

You're assuming a purpose and a designer. How do you know these things?

This difference between how things are and how things strive to be is ultimately irrational. It's the ultimate paradox. So my question is, how do you reconcile life on one hand being designed to end and on the other hand being designed to keep going on?

I don't, because I don't think things are designed. Life as we know it "is as it is"; and since I don't have the interest -nor the mental talent- to look into it any further than the cursory science as to why, I'm quite content to live my life fully without any unnecessary assumptions.

[Whateverist]

I honestly don't understand the "What does it say about consciousness that I can apply meaning to it?". Sorry I might be the problem in this case.

When you say "We are made of the universe and we give it meaning." what do you mean when you say that we are made by the universe? Who is the universe? Do you imply the universe is a being/intelligent/a creator? And yes we do give it meaning, but like I said the meaning we give it is realistically literally insignificant and random. We are just chemical reactions/matter just like everything else, we are not (life isn't) in a miracilous way more special than our sun, the Andromeda Galaxy, a burning fire or cats. I am saying this because it seems like you are assigning a special meaning to the universe like I said earlier.

We are a part of existence. The universe is and so are we. What makes it insignificant? What does it say about existence that we can have thoughts about meanings that do not exist? Just because everything is made of constituent parts, does not make the whole any less insignificant. Everything that exists is made up of smaller pieces and helps to form something bigger. If one thing is significant then everything is. I am assigning special meaning, it is something humans do. You are applying a special meaning when you say it is insignificant. That is what humans do.

Okay lets go with that.  You aren't making any claims regarding the actual meaning of things, just assigning them meaning along your own design right?  That seems fine.  Are you asking if anyone sees things the same way you do?  

I guess you can say evolution is a bloody miracle the same way I think my little puppy is.  He's perfect and so is evolution.  Or did you mean to imply something supernatural when you used the word "miracle"?  I'm not aware of anything that is actually supernatural so I'm quite disinclined to invent such a category simply to accommodate the god you seem on your way to deducing must exist.

But maybe I'm reading in way more than you intended.  Apologies if that is the case and welcome in either case.

[robvalue]

Edit: never mind. I can't even understand what's going on here.

[downbeatplumb]

Edit: never mind. I can't even understand what's going on here.

It seems to boil down to "there's stuff, therefore god. Ta dah".

[robvalue]

Ah OK, that makes sense.

So... what does any of this matter perennial? If there's other weird forces at work that I can't detect, what am I supposed to do about it?

[ignoramus]

PP, the universe, in all it's warts and all is what we live in. It's all around us. It's there and it's obvious.
The topic of Gods and religions, on the other hand is completely intangible and non existent to someone from eg: a remote tribe of nomadic eskimos.

Is God really that cryptic and inaccessible to all by his very nature that you cannot learn of him unless you've been trained in understanding him... (indoctrinated)
I don't need to be trained to know that stepping in a puddle will wet my foot, or touching a hot iron will burn and hurt, or if I jump off a cliff, the "theory" of gravity will kill me! lol.

As you may know, the vast majority of us are agnostic atheists. Unless Gods taps us on the shoulder or whispers in our ear, then we'll treat sacred texts like the ancient books of myth that they are. This in no way means we are incomplete as people in any way, shape or form, as many theists like to strawman us with. (it gets tired quickly).
For those same "critical thinking" reasons, we also don't subscribe to most/all other woo. eg: miracles, supernatural, yeti, smart blonde women, etc hehehe

[Brian37]

Is evolution any less a miracle than Creationism? Time does not dictate the miraculous. If a wizard appeared in front of me, whether it took him one minute to fly upwards or 10 years I would not consider the act any less miraculous. This leads one to ask why would evolution be considered miraculous? The general consensus around miracles is that they have to defy the laws of nature. While the meaning of that definition is a good argument for another time, I am going to move forward defining miracle as something that goes against the laws of nature. The laws of nature are all interconnected and go back to the big bang. To further demonstrate what I mean by this, let's imagine we're trying to predict where the ball goes after I throw it. This depends on the weight of the ball, the force of my throw, the wind, and etc. etc. To understand these forces, we have to view them as interconnected processes and not isolated events. So, the force I put into the ball depends on what I have eaten, if I have worked out, etc. which all depends on the processes before it. The wind that blows the ball slightly to the left is only blowing that way because of the weather patterns that happened before it, which happened because of what materials and where the earth formed etc. So, lets start at the big bang. Immediately upon that explosion, the universe was doomed. Granted its going to take an inconceivable-to-our-fragile-minds amount of time, but still everything was meant to die. Albeit this, there is a natural propensity for life to keep on living. This is the root of evolution, that life is fighting against itself. On one hand the universe was made to die, on the other it was designed to live. This difference between how things are and how things strive to be is ultimately irrational. It's the ultimate paradox. So my question is, how do you reconcile life on one hand being designed to end and on the other hand being designed to keep going on?

Spoken by someone who has done little to no research on the history of worldwide religions. The narcissist thinks they were the first to come up with their myths. "Creation" stories existed long before Christianity or even the Hebrews. Even the much older Hindu religion has it's own creation myths.

Oh and also, Christianity isn't the only religion that either tries to debunk science, then when it can't tries to co opt science to point to their book. I have been debating on line for 15 years now. I run into Christians the most, but have also debated Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists. 

The problem with all religions is that scientific method is a tool, a process, not a religion. Scientific method does not prop up the Bible, or Quran or Torah or Talmud, or the Hindu Vedas or Buddha. Scientific method is completely religion independent. 

Evolution is fact. I am sorry that bothers you. Your lack of understanding of reality does not default to your old book of myth being true.