How Did Life Come To Be As It Is To-Day

[H. Ross Peron]

Option 2 for me

[afleitch]

Naturalistic Evolution. That is where the evidence lies.

If it makes you sleep better at night to think that some god was doing some behind the scenes magic to 'make it so' then I don't care.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It came to be the way scientific conclusions point to it coming to be. Whether or not this process was designed by a superior entity is not a question that concerns science. As an agnostic, I'd lean towards no though.

[dead0man]

What the last two posters said.

[Franzl]

I'm a Roman Catholic and accept evolution as fact.

[windjammer]

I'm a Roman Catholic and accept evolution as fact.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Theistic evolution covers a spectrum of beliefs over how involved in the day-to-day details of evolution the Divine is.  For that matter, if one shares my belief in a Divine that is not constrained by temporality, then the Divine can act in a manner that would for us who are constrained by temporality leave no evidence inconsistent with naturalistic evolution.  Personally, I don't believe that God directed evolution in a anthropocentric manner to produce Homo sapiens.  I believe God likely directed it to produce self aware life, of which Homo sapiens is likely but one example, but that any direction was not made by means within the temporal frame of reference man inhabits.

[DemPGH]

Choice 1, and I agree with Afleitch and Antonio.

Although, Young Earth Creationism is wrongheaded enough that I would probably care enough to bother to oppose it.

[Goldwater]

Options 1 and 2 are the only legitimate answers.

[Spamage]

I'm a Roman Catholic and accept evolution as fact.

[Del Tachi]

Young earth creationism all the way!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Does this need to be asked? Do any of these inane questions need to be asked? Is there anything good that will come of it? I don't really think so, and I'm not sure why you'd disagree on that. Are there any drug dealers in your neighborhood you can consult for life coaching?

[Goldwater]

Young earth creationism all the way!

I can't tell if this post is sarcastic or not...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Option 1, of course.

Even when you combine the first two options, evolution is basically tied with creationism among Americans.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx


But option 2 is one of those moderate hero cop out answers like civil unions in a poll about gay marriage.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem is that it is not one question but two. You can think evolution is correct based on the overwhelming consensus of evidence to that point, you can beleive that a deity or other "higher power" played a role either in just kickstarting it or helping it along at various points. A point that can hardly be proved or dispproved hence the use of the "beleive" instead of "think".

The first one is a question of rational reasoning and thought, the second half is a matter of one's spiritual belief system.

Option 2 is thus hardly a matter of moderate heroism, unless you think that science and religion are so incompatible that one has to always necessarily be at odds with the other and I don't.

[7,052,770]

Options 1 and 2 are essentially the same thing, since there will never be any real evidence which one is correct.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Options 1 and 2 are essentially the same thing, since there will never be any real evidence which one is correct.

Well, no scientific evidence, as the difference between them is not testable by the scientific method unless one could examine multiple universes, and maybe not even then.

[Del Tachi]

Young earth creationism all the way!

I can't tell if this post is sarcastic or not...

Honestly there are very few topics towards which I am more ambivalent than this one.

What difference does it make?  The elements of Christianity that are relevant to my everyday life are not diminished if the earth ends up being millions of years old.


However, I see no reason why an all powerful deity could not create an earth with the appearance of age...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Young earth creationism all the way!

I can't tell if this post is sarcastic or not...

Honestly there are very few topics which I am more ambivalent towards than this one.

What difference does it make?  The elements of Christianity that are relevant to my everyday life are not diminished if the earth ends up being millions of years old.

Exactly.  That's why there's really no necessity to reject highly reputable scientific theories like evolution in the name of faith.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem with this theory is that one can use that rationale to claim the world might have been created last year, or last month, or last week, or two minutes ago, with everything only having the appearance of age and all your memories being mere fabrications that God put into your head.  Not only is the concept both scientifically and philosophically flawed, but it makes God look like a liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Criticisms

[Del Tachi]

Young earth creationism all the way!

I can't tell if this post is sarcastic or not...

Honestly there are very few topics which I am more ambivalent towards than this one.

What difference does it make?  The elements of Christianity that are relevant to my everyday life are not diminished if the earth ends up being millions of years old.

Exactly.  That's why there's really no necessity to reject highly reputable scientific theories like evolution in the name of faith.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem with this theory is that one can use that rationale to claim the world might have been created last year, or last month, or last week, or two minutes ago, with everything only having the appearance of age and all your memories being mere fabrications that God put into your head.  Not only is the concept both scientifically and philosophically flawed, but it makes God look like a liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Criticisms

The Omphalos hypothesis might be a problem theologically, but let's refrain from saying its scientifically flawed.

The fact that some things cannot be studied using a scientific outlook is not a failing of whatever is being studied, but it is rather a flaw of science itself.   

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Young earth creationism all the way!

I can't tell if this post is sarcastic or not...

Honestly there are very few topics which I am more ambivalent towards than this one.

What difference does it make?  The elements of Christianity that are relevant to my everyday life are not diminished if the earth ends up being millions of years old.

Exactly.  That's why there's really no necessity to reject highly reputable scientific theories like evolution in the name of faith.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem with this theory is that one can use that rationale to claim the world might have been created last year, or last month, or last week, or two minutes ago, with everything only having the appearance of age and all your memories being mere fabrications that God put into your head.  Not only is the concept both scientifically and philosophically flawed, but it makes God look like a liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Criticisms

The Omphalos hypothesis might be a problem theologically, but let's refrain from saying its scientifically flawed.

The fact that some things cannot be studied using a scientific outlook is not a failing of whatever is being studied, but it is rather a flaw of science itself.   

So then how can the Omphalos hypothesis be scientifically verified, as you do not believe it is at odds with science?

[Del Tachi]

Young earth creationism all the way!

I can't tell if this post is sarcastic or not...

Honestly there are very few topics which I am more ambivalent towards than this one.

What difference does it make?  The elements of Christianity that are relevant to my everyday life are not diminished if the earth ends up being millions of years old.

Exactly.  That's why there's really no necessity to reject highly reputable scientific theories like evolution in the name of faith.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem with this theory is that one can use that rationale to claim the world might have been created last year, or last month, or last week, or two minutes ago, with everything only having the appearance of age and all your memories being mere fabrications that God put into your head.  Not only is the concept both scientifically and philosophically flawed, but it makes God look like a liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Criticisms

The Omphalos hypothesis might be a problem theologically, but let's refrain from saying its scientifically flawed.

The fact that some things cannot be studied using a scientific outlook is not a failing of whatever is being studied, but it is rather a flaw of science itself.   

So then how can the Omphalos hypothesis be scientifically verified, as you do not believe it is at odds with science?

I don't think it can be scientifically verified.  The Omphalos hypothesis, like the idea of a soul or even of God, exists in such a way that makes it unverifiable using science.  That doesn't mean these things aren't true or don't exist, it just means that we can't know that they are real or that they exist.  However, I don't think that fact alone puts the truth or existence of these things on some sort of "lower plane" than the existence or truth of things that can be verified scientifically. 

Science is one way to look at the universe, but is certainly not the only way. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ever heard of Occam's razor?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ever heard of Occam's razor?

But what is simplest in this case?  To run a universe for billions of years, or to set up a universe that happens to look billions of years old at the point which humanity comes to be, but only needs to be running for the thousands of years humanity is around?

[afleitch]

Ever heard of Occam's razor?

But what is simplest in this case?  To run a universe for billions of years, or to set up a universe that happens to look billions of years old at the point which humanity comes to be, but only needs to be running for the thousands of years humanity is around?

The first. The second would mean creating a universe with the appearance of billions of years of age including starlight in mid transit from a distant light source that might actually not be there and fossils buried in tens of feet of rock from animals that never existed. It's like wanting to film the last ten seconds of an explosion by creating the explosion from that point and then filming, rather than running it from the beginning.