-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
What if God invented DNA and evolution?
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Siddhartha
Lifer
Which god, Zeus, Odin, Brahma, etc?
who cares
I fully "believe in God" and there are SOME points of evolution that I do believe. There are some scientific facts that you just can't ignore and I believe that God worked it all out to where everything worked by itself not bunches of blank spots. Saying that I also believe that some theories and parts of evolution are correct. But also there are some theories and ideas that I think are incorrect.
ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Senior member
Unfortunately, it is not possible to believe in traditional Christian Creationism, as described in the Bible AND believe in the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. The two are mutually exclusive. Consider this:
In Genesis, it was God who created man first; thus, mankind existed before animals were created.
In Evolution, man existed millions of years later because they developed from simpler organisms in a process of natural selection.
If you believe that God created the universe, physical laws, the earth, etc., and then allowed evolution to develope mankind, then this poses a LOT of problems -- for instance, how come his "divinely inspired" bible states something completely different? And why is it that we must seek Jesus for salvation when we evolved (rather than originating from Adam who sinned for us)...etc. The list goes on and on.
However, for the sake of argument, I will STIPULATE that in this alternate theory, God created the world, and allowed evolution to make life forms, including animals and plants. This theory, by definition, is LESS LIKELY TO BE TRUE than Evolutionary theory alone because it requires us to concede additional "unfalsifiable claims" (such as existence of an invisible God who can make stuff, etc.) ON TOP OF the faults in the theory of evolution. In other words, it adds complexity and more inconsistency to an existing theory, and therefore less likely to be correct by Occam's Razor.
Valsalva
In Genesis, it was God who created man first; thus, mankind existed before animals were created.
In Evolution, man existed millions of years later because they developed from simpler organisms in a process of natural selection.
If you believe that God created the universe, physical laws, the earth, etc., and then allowed evolution to develope mankind, then this poses a LOT of problems -- for instance, how come his "divinely inspired" bible states something completely different? And why is it that we must seek Jesus for salvation when we evolved (rather than originating from Adam who sinned for us)...etc. The list goes on and on.
However, for the sake of argument, I will STIPULATE that in this alternate theory, God created the world, and allowed evolution to make life forms, including animals and plants. This theory, by definition, is LESS LIKELY TO BE TRUE than Evolutionary theory alone because it requires us to concede additional "unfalsifiable claims" (such as existence of an invisible God who can make stuff, etc.) ON TOP OF the faults in the theory of evolution. In other words, it adds complexity and more inconsistency to an existing theory, and therefore less likely to be correct by Occam's Razor.
Valsalva
Why are people constantly quoting Occam's Razor like it is helpful in a debate like this? You don't see people quoting Genesis saying "I told you so" because it's there. On what basis does Occam's Razor even enter into a discussion about evolution/creation. Occam's Razor is more a theory based on observations and tendencies, and it is not backed by any kind of fact. You can not prove Occam's Razor anymore than you can prove the validity of Genesis.
Or am I mistaken?
Or am I mistaken?
ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Senior member
Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation is the most likely one. It does not neccessitate that an explanation is true, it only points to the one most likely to be correct.
For instance:
I'm looking for my car on a particular street corner where I parked it. It is no longer there anymore. My car was parked in a toe-away zone.
Explanation #1: My car got towed.
Explanation #2: Aliens came down from Mars and needed a parking space for their Martianmobile because they wanted to eat at the diner across the street. Thus, they used their special raygun to disintegrate my car in order to make room for their vehicle. The vehicle cannot be seen because it is invisible. The staff at the diner do not remember serving Martians, but that could easily be because the Martians erased their memories.
Why is explanation #1 the more likely expanation? Answer: Occam's Razor. We are required to make less assumptions that rely on "leap-of-faith" stipulations like the existence of Martians (that nobody has seen) for example. Is explanation #2 possible? YES! Can we disprove it?? NO!..because I could continue to make "unfalsifiable claims" ad nauseum. However, we clearly agree that explanation #1 is more plausible -- and the reason is Occam's Razor. I hope this helps.
Valsalva
Ok, I follow now. It's not about proof, it's about likelihoods. Makes more sense now. So let me try this...which is more simple:
1. An almighty being that we do not see created the universe and everything inside it.
2. There was a walnut sized mass of super condensed matter that exploded to create our universe. Then, some primordial sludge, after a really long time, became self aware and then evolved into every known species on earth.
They both take a lot of faith to believe, and neither have much SCIENTIFIC PROOF to back them up. It's just scientists tend to accept it because it's the only explanation they can come up with. Either way, my problem is still the matter of chaos moving toward order. It just does not happen. Things don't just "come together by chance" if you wait long enough... the longer we wait, doesn't change the astronomical probabilities that would have to be realized for life to come from inanimate objects. For instance...if I told you that I was going to flip a coin fifty times in a row, and it would land on heads every time... you obviously wouldn't believe me. Now if I flipped it once, twice, three times, maybe even four times, and it landed on heads each time... you'd start to wonder what is going on. Now let's say I flipped the coin 15 times in a row and it landed on heads every time. Am I to believe you will just accept this because "throughout history people have been flipping quarters, and it was bound to happen at some point." No! You'd tell me I had a trick coin, or was cheating, or whatever. Now think about that... except with the probability of the theory of evolution... You're telling me that at some point if I do it enough times, I could flip a coin 10000000000<insert insane amount of zero's here>0000000 and come out heads every time? I'm not buying it...I need some hard proof, which science has yet to provid. So my only real choice is to believe in the alternative...which is creation.
How does probability figure into Occam's Razor if at all?
1. An almighty being that we do not see created the universe and everything inside it.
2. There was a walnut sized mass of super condensed matter that exploded to create our universe. Then, some primordial sludge, after a really long time, became self aware and then evolved into every known species on earth.
They both take a lot of faith to believe, and neither have much SCIENTIFIC PROOF to back them up. It's just scientists tend to accept it because it's the only explanation they can come up with. Either way, my problem is still the matter of chaos moving toward order. It just does not happen. Things don't just "come together by chance" if you wait long enough... the longer we wait, doesn't change the astronomical probabilities that would have to be realized for life to come from inanimate objects. For instance...if I told you that I was going to flip a coin fifty times in a row, and it would land on heads every time... you obviously wouldn't believe me. Now if I flipped it once, twice, three times, maybe even four times, and it landed on heads each time... you'd start to wonder what is going on. Now let's say I flipped the coin 15 times in a row and it landed on heads every time. Am I to believe you will just accept this because "throughout history people have been flipping quarters, and it was bound to happen at some point." No! You'd tell me I had a trick coin, or was cheating, or whatever. Now think about that... except with the probability of the theory of evolution... You're telling me that at some point if I do it enough times, I could flip a coin 10000000000<insert insane amount of zero's here>0000000 and come out heads every time? I'm not buying it...I need some hard proof, which science has yet to provid. So my only real choice is to believe in the alternative...which is creation.
How does probability figure into Occam's Razor if at all?
ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Senior member
Your reasoning is significantly flawed. Here's why:
1) Read the thread title. We are discussing evolution as a means for higher-order plants and animals to evolve from simpler species by natural selection. You are are arguing Creation vs. Big Bang theory and mixing the word "evolution" in a few times. Do you understand that the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are different?
2) But since you bring up Big Bang, I will make just one comment: and that is, Creationism suffers from the same problem of where did everything come from? Where did God come from? I mean, he couldn't have just materialized from nothing.
3) Your argue that since you find faults in evolution/bigbang (can't tell which), then Creationism must be correct by default. This syllogism requires the premise: "Either Creationism or Evolution/BigBang is correct, but not both"...and clearly you have NOT established that, nor can you. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
4) If you need hard proof of Creationism, then you're going to be waiting around a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.
Valsalva
Yes, I agree...it's my bad bringing up Big Bang/Evolution. And yes, I do understand that those theories are different, but the are almost always used in tandem, and basically taught and accepted as fact, with no scientific proof to back it up. I don't need hard proof of Creationism, because Creationism isn't built on a foundation of fact, it's built on faith. Science has, and always will have the burden of proof. That's what science is... believing in things with empirical data to back them up...not because it "probably" happened that way or it is our scientists' best guess. That's why I said my alternative is faith in something else. If someday they prove evolution...I'll jump on the bandwagon like everyone else. But until that day...
ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Senior member
Well, I don't know if you can do that. I mean, if God is indeed almighty and omniscient, he would know that humans would use the Bible to learn about Him and Christianity. If there are things in the bible that you could just "ignore," then why would God have allowed those things to be entered into the text to begin with? ...unless, of course....He doesn't exist.
Valsalva
DielsAlder
Member
Exactly Valsalva.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Not going to get into the God vs Darwin: Best of 3 falls thing, but about Occam's Razor. One who depends on it too often may find it is a useful tool with which to slice one's throat. 🙂
They have to brush the OT under the rug. The OT "God" was a murderous, sexist, war-loving slave master that demanded obedience. Why would anyone want to worship a god like that?
Instead, the NT god is a benevolent, fun-loving, sugar-coated monstrosity. It is a god that gives everyone a warm, fuzzy feeling everytime they pray. That is something the people want to look up to.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
