Have you taken into consideration that God can create something now on the spot which already has a long history? This is a very frustrating discussion for most people, and I think one not worth having maybe. If God can do everything, then there is essentially no theory incompatible with God other than God-lessness. Other stuff is just incompatible because of books claiming to be God's words and hinting at things which can't necessarily be scientifically proven, but the followers still have to believe it. Evolution is now a widely agreed upon theory, and in itself, it's always evolving. The thing that keeps a religious person believing things despite scientific evidence is, for example.... If the bible said there are 8 planets, and 50 years ago you were talking to a Christian, you would tell them there's actually 9 planets ('scientifically proven' I guess) so the Bible must be wrong. This disagreement would go on for another 48 years till science decides there are actually 8 planets in our solar system. Now you're screwed. The point I'm trying to make is that, for religious people, they believe what they believe but also believe that science would prove what they believe over a period of infinity. However, the world will end on a specific date, therefore it's not unusual that these people die while there are still major contradictions between what they believe and what science says.
We're talking about biological evolution? The theory itself says there is a starting point to life on our planet. Life did not start with the Big Bang, though the materials necessary for life might have been "created" then. Since scientists consider the Big Bang to be the start of time itself, its hard for me to grasp something creating the Big Bang. That's what I was referring to when I said creationist arguments lose me.
I believe in a world filled with only beautiful, talented, soulful or aesthetically symmetrical people. That is my utopia. And evolution has made these people a minority. But with my own creationism, using innovation, selective breeding, forced sterilizations as a method of population control, my dream will one day become a reality. And if we don't accept my methods, overpopulation, sloth and war over resources will ruin us all.
That creates a paradox. In order to keep this discussion from going super nebulous, we probably ought to stay away from those.
That's exactly my point. It's difficult to say religion and evolution can't co-exist, because to make that determination you would probably have to scientifically prove things that can't be scientifically proven. What's even more twisted is when religious people will tell you God created the history of evolution intentionally in contradiction with the bible to 'test' people's faith in Him. But yeah as you said, if you limit the discussion to areas which are more compatible to only one side of the argument, then there's really no value in it.
It's not really about limiting the discussion, it's about staying within the confines of reality to keep things pointed in a singular direction, instead of straying off down some philosophical rabbit hole wondering aloud whether god can create a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it. That's counterproductive, and to me, a fairly tired discussion.
It's as counterproductive as unnaturally limiting the discussion to stay within the confines of reality in order to keep things pointed in a singular direction I'd say. The answer to the question is not within those confines. However, your answer to the question is within those confines. It's kind of like discussing what makes a good burger, ignoring beef, and focusing on bread (for example because you're a baker). Yes, we can have a more focused discussion about bread (rather than include all other ingredients) but we're simply not discussing the burger in its entirety anymore.
That makes no sense. We're not going to get anywhere if we keep falling back to a paradox. If we want to get anywhere, we need to deal with the known, and use the unknown as little as possible to build discussion upon. I posed the question of the context in which this question was asked because there are literal, word for word descriptions of the origin of the universe in religious scripture, yes? If that is the case, and "creation" theory spawned from that, then we should probably use those as our guidelines. If that was not the OP's intention, then fair enough, this thread can continue circling the drain towards total philosophical tail-chasing.
I've read plenty of science. I love science. I don't believe Science and Religion have to be mutually exclusive. Did you even read what I wrote?? You can't claim to know about Creation by ONLY reading Genesis. The bible has to be read in its entirety to fully understand it. Unfortunately, many Christians take the bible in parts which leads to the Young Earth Theory - which I do not believe. I believe in Theistic Evolution, with my basis being 2 Peter 3:8 - which I quoted. I quoted scripture to back up my argument - would you rather me not quote it and leave you wondering what I base my theory on? By the way, Darwin believed in God...and George Lemaitre, who came up with the big bang theory, was a priest. Funny thing..most scientists (including Einstein) dismissed the priests theory at the time.
I'm sure many people (myself included) didn't vote because neither answer correctly explained their beliefs.
No, he didn't. This is a pretty common myth created by religious folks after Darwin died. Pure horseplop propaganda, man.
