NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm referring to the arguements between Evolution and Creationism.

Seriously! What is it and us argueing these things over and over again?

The way I see it is that there is only one way to find the complete answer: in death.

When we die, there are two basic things that could happen.
Judgement by a supernatural being, or nothing.

Most beliefs which have some sort of supernatural being and usually have a "Heaven" and then they also have a "Hell".

Atheism or Naturalism basically believe that there is nothing after death, either that or something else that doesn't deal with a "God".


In reality, all of our arguements are against something that we both have, faith in something.

Either you have your faith in that there is some supernatural being or that there isn't (although it can't be proven that he/she doesn't exist but it can't be physically proven that they do exist).

So, as before, I think the only way to know the "truth". Would be to die.

Although, there's the small problem then that you wouldn't be able to share that fascinating answer to the rest of us since you'd have "kicked the can", "gone to the pearly gates", had all of your bodily systems shut down for good.

So, you agree or disagree?
Oh, and plz support your answer.

I stopped arguing a while ago. Its futile...

I stopped arguing a while ago. Its futile...

Really rather too bad though........

they're really rather interesting sometimes too.....

Wonder why those 3 people said no.....

I'm referring to the arguements between Evolution and Creationism.

Seriously! What is it and us argueing these things over and over again?

because one of them is trivially false (provided we don't give up the belief that there really is an external world, and that it is possible for humans to at least partially understand it through the combination of empiricism and reason), and pushing it as science amounts to an attack against the very concept of science. and a large number of us hold the scientific project to be a good thing that ought be defended.

The way I see it is that there is only one way to find the complete answer: in death.

When we die, there are two basic things that could happen.
Judgement by a supernatural being, or nothing.

that has nothing to do with anything. it has no bearing whatsoever on the question of the truth of the theory of evolution.

we should all commit mass suicide to see who's right.

we should all commit mass suicide to see who's right.
But dude, than none of US would know. :p

I've believed for quite some time that all answers will become clear in death, that our souls are purposely limited by our bodies and are cycled through lives without being able to remember the ones that came before them except in a moment of reflection between lives while your karmic debt is weighed and the starting point of your next life determined at which point, you must determine what you want to ingrain into your own subconscious to help you to remember what you've learned as you grow before you once again lose access to that knowledge.

But here's an interesting and related thought, what if your beliefs determine your fate after death? What if, believing you don't have a soul and it's just nothingness waiting for you after death means that when you die, your soul dies with you, ensuring that nothingness is all you'll find after death? What if, believing in some kind of eternal reward or punishment causes your soul to create it for you? What if being unable to accept your death causes your soul to linger on earth as a ghost?

what i dont understand is why people keep getting the "is there a god?" debate mixed up with the evolution debate. They are separate things and shouldnt really be argued together as the threads tend to descend into a flame war twice as fast if both are being argued.

I'm referring to the arguements between Evolution and Creationism.

Seriously! What is it and us argueing these things over and over again?

The way I see it is that there is only one way to find the complete answer: in death.

What? We only find out if evolution is true in death? You dont think looking at the evidence we have know has anything do with it then?

I'm referring to the arguements between Evolution and Creationism.

Seriously! What is it and us argueing these things over and over again?

The way I see it is that there is only one way to find the complete answer: in death.

When we die, there are two basic things that could happen.
Judgement by a supernatural being, or nothing.

Most beliefs which have some sort of supernatural being and usually have a "Heaven" and then they also have a "Hell".

Atheism or Naturalism basically believe that there is nothing after death, either that or something else that doesn't deal with a "God".


In reality, all of our arguements are against something that we both have, faith in something.

Either you have your faith in that there is some supernatural being or that there isn't (although it can't be proven that he/she doesn't exist but it can't be physically proven that they do exist).

So, as before, I think the only way to know the "truth". Would be to die.

Although, there's the small problem then that you wouldn't be able to share that fascinating answer to the rest of us since you'd have "kicked the can", "gone to the pearly gates", had all of your bodily systems shut down for good.

So, you agree or disagree?
Oh, and plz support your answer.

I agree, but I refuse to agnowledge you because you said "plz".

I feel another bout of arguement coming on.

Actually, I like to have a heated arguement where both sides aknowledge the other's opinions. Sadly, this doesn't happen with this type of question (and with gun allowance, for that matter) very often. I still try every time ;-)

Actually it's a threeway argument anyway.
Creationists.
Religious / Agnostic evolutionists.
Atheist evolutionists.

Plus the non-arguing group:
Those who are both in an above group and don't bother arguing.

Yes, we won't be sure about this until we're dead, but that doesn't mean that we should stop trying to find out now.

I know that I will be disagreeing with a large number of other Christians out there, but I will argue that the entire concept of evolution completely undercuts the Christian message. The point of Christianity is that we were once perfect, we screwed up, and Christ came to fix what we had done. Evolution says the opposite, in that we are continuously getting better, and that most of the things that we caused by the fall of man (eg, death) have been here since life began. That is why there is such a controversy.

what i dont understand is why people keep getting the "is there a god?" debate mixed up with the evolution debate. They are separate things and shouldnt really be argued together as the threads tend to descend into a flame war twice as fast if both are being argued.



What? We only find out if evolution is true in death? You dont think looking at the evidence we have know has anything do with it then?

Yep. And throw in the whole "afterlife" as well, as the OP does, so the debate is triple volatile.

Yes, we won't be sure about this until we're dead, but that doesn't mean that we should stop trying to find out now.

Nope. Dying won't show us anything about evolution.

I know that I will be disagreeing with a large number of other Christians out there, but I will argue that the entire concept of evolution completely undercuts the Christian message. The point of Christianity is that we were once perfect, we screwed up, and Christ came to fix what we had done. Evolution says the opposite, in that we are continuously getting better, and that most of the things that we caused by the fall of man (eg, death) have been here since life began. That is why there is such a controversy.

Understanding what evolution is in the first place, and avoiding that strawman you just put up in it's place, would be a good start.

because one of them is trivially false (provided we don't give up the belief that there really is an external world, and that it is possible for humans to at least partially understand it through the combination of empiricism and reason), and pushing it as science amounts to an attack against the very concept of science. and a large number of us hold the scientific project to be a good thing that ought be defended.



that has nothing to do with anything. it has no bearing whatsoever on the question of the truth of the theory of evolution.
One Question; Are science and religion are mutually Exclusive? :confused:

One Question; Are science and religion are mutually Exclusive? :confused:

not necessarily. it is entirely possible that there is some religion that is true. and when we figure out what it is, its empirical claims about the world will also be true. and you can always come up with some sort of religious belief system which actually does go out of its way to not make falsifiable claims.

... lthough, there's the small problem then that you wouldn't be able to share that fascinating answer to the rest of us since you'd have "kicked the can", "gone to the pearly gates", had all of your bodily systems shut down for good.
Ask the parrot.

"The bloody parrot has expired, he's shuffled off this motal coil, he's joined the bleedin' Choir Eternal!"

There's a key point with the so-called "arguements" which occur over creationism and evolution. Which is that they aren't really arguments at all. Somebody makes an idiotic suggestion regarding their misguided belief in crazy creationism, and then evolutionists tear that person to shreds, their "arguement" to sub-atomic particles.

Then another creationist arises... and the process begins again.

not necessarily. it is entirely possible that there is some religion that is true. and when we figure out what it is, its empirical claims about the world will also be true. and you can always come up with some sort of religious belief system which actually does go out of its way to not make falsifiable claims.
The contempt that science has for religion and the willful ignorance of certain elements of religion,[Yes i know i am wildly overgeneralizing],to me ensures that there will never have any middle ground for discussion. That and the fact that science deals with only with verifiable facts and religion is faith based. Just a thought Are there any scientists who refute their faith because of discoveries made that refutes their faith?

I'm referring to the arguements between Evolution and Creationism.

Seriously! What is it and us argueing these things over and over again?

The way I see it is that there is only one way to find the complete answer: in death.

When we die, there are two basic things that could happen.
Judgement by a supernatural being, or nothing.

Most beliefs which have some sort of supernatural being and usually have a "Heaven" and then they also have a "Hell".

Atheism or Naturalism basically believe that there is nothing after death, either that or something else that doesn't deal with a "God".


In reality, all of our arguements are against something that we both have, faith in something.

Either you have your faith in that there is some supernatural being or that there isn't (although it can't be proven that he/she doesn't exist but it can't be physically proven that they do exist).

So, as before, I think the only way to know the "truth". Would be to die.

Although, there's the small problem then that you wouldn't be able to share that fascinating answer to the rest of us since you'd have "kicked the can", "gone to the pearly gates", had all of your bodily systems shut down for good.

So, you agree or disagree?
Oh, and plz support your answer.

The arguments between Creationism and Evolution have nothing whatsoever to do with the existence or non-existence of any deity.

I know that I will be disagreeing with a large number of other Christians out there, but I will argue that the entire concept of evolution completely undercuts the Christian message. The point of Christianity is that we were once perfect, we screwed up, and Christ came to fix what we had done. Evolution says the opposite, in that we are continuously getting better, and that most of the things that we caused by the fall of man (eg, death) have been here since life began. That is why there is such a controversy.

You are incorrect. That is not the entire Christian message, nor even crucial to it. That is specifically the view of certain ancient theologians such as Augustine and Anselm, and many have adopted it.

It may be interesting for you to look into the Abelardian concept of absolution.

The contempt that science has for religion

I should stop right here, as science has no such thing - a small subset of individiuals who study science do - but I will continue nonetheless.

That and the fact that science deals with only with verifiable facts and religion is faith based. Just a thought

This statement points out exactly why there should be no conflict. The two are in entirely different realms and are used to describe entirely different things.

So, you agree or disagree?
Oh, and plz support your answer.

But you just said arguments regarding this topic have no mortal proof. So if I agee with you how can I provide supporting evidence???

two options?

no reincarnation>?

People argue because it is their nature.
At least creation/evolution is reasonably important. it not like we are aguing about our favourite colour (Go Blue :) . Speaking of which, why can we pick a smiley's colour?)
Sort of back on topic (ooh! wait! this one's sort of bluish :D), the problem is that the we all think (or something that passes as thinking from a distance), and hence we will always find a variance in a thought that is important to us, such as racism, formation of the universe, hetero/homosexuality, music etc.
I pesonally think that death is not an end but a new beginning in existance, but since I will be dead and a new existance/not existing, we can not argue too deeply into it or get an ultimate answer until we ourselves die.

I should stop right here, as science has no such thing - a small subset of individiuals who study science do - but I will continue nonetheless.



This statement points out exactly why there should be no conflict. The two are in entirely different realms and are used to describe entirely different things.

I have to disagree in part to your statement. Where religion deals with a real world aspect, eg Resurrection, Walking on Water, Healing, then they are in direct competition and hence are contesting ideals

Understanding what evolution is in the first place, and avoiding that strawman you just put up in it's place, would be a good start.

Where's the strawman? I know what evolution is.

You are incorrect. That is not the entire Christian message, nor even crucial to it. That is specifically the view of certain ancient theologians such as Augustine and Anselm, and many have adopted it.

It may be interesting for you to look into the Abelardian concept of absolution.

So then what is the Christian message? If it's not Christ dying to fix what man screwed up, what's the point?

Not necessarily; some people view such stories as metaphors and allegories. Others see it as a sign that something we don't know about has occured (i.e., perhaps Christ was somehow able to freeze the water directly beneath his feet, or whatever, in a manner consistent with the laws as we know them). Others believe that such "non-scientific" intervention is a thing of the past (the "Christ has come, therefore God doesn't visit earth anymore" thing).

An omnipotent being could change the laws of physics at will and we'd never know; an omnipotent being would know ways of manipulating the world consistent with the laws of physics that we wouldn't, etc., etc.,

I'm a committed atheist, for the record, but the area I live in is mostly Catholic or fundamentalist Christian, so I hear about this a lot.

The way I see it is that there is only one way to find the complete answer: in death.

When we die, there are two basic things that could happen.
Judgement by a supernatural being, or nothing.


I think the only way to know the "truth". Would be to die.


Just wanted to point out that if the atheists are right, you won't know anything after you die. By asserting that answers will be found in death you are taking sides.

Just wanted to point out that if the atheists are right, you won't know anything after you die. By asserting that answers will be found in death you are taking sides.

yeah, though not the side everyone assumes. because if there is an afterlife and you get to know the truth about the history of the universe with absolute certainty, then you'll still find out that creationism is complete and utter crap.

yeah, though not the side everyone assumes. because if there is an afterlife and you get to know the truth about the history of the universe with absolute certainty, then you'll still find out that creationism is complete and utter crap.

Quite honestly, evolution could be called the same thing however, until we actually know what is true, it'd be best to save judgement.

My two cents worth.

The argument between evolution and creationism can be resolved. It just takes an honest look at the evidence from each side. If you look at the evidence with an open mind you can't help but see that evolution has occured, and creationsim is a fable.

The argument between evolution and creationism can be resolved. It just takes an honest look at the evidence from each side. If you look at the evidence with an open mind you can't help but see that evolution has occured, and creationsim is a fable.

That however could be called not an honest viewpoint since it's biased. If we could look back in time at see it all actually happen then yes I'd say we could have a non-biased answer (or non-biased enough). But since we can't then it could be argued that creationism is right and evolution is wrong and so forth.

The only problem however is that each side has a point where they both revolve around faith. Creationism: faith that there is a God. Evolution: faith that there isn't a God or that we are getting better and that scientist's are right.