Evolution vs. Creation

[Pendragon]

The difficulty in having an objective debate on evolution / creation is that, while evolution is based upon objectively observing the world around us and making deductions based upon those observations, creation is based upon believing a thousands of years old book without question.

Where is the objectivity in fundamentalist religion?Having said that, XC, you know that I both have and still do question the basics of Christianity. At one time, yes, I followed it blindly, without bothering to question the whys or hows or whatevers. Oddly enough, it took the very Christian people I trusted to make me start to question everything, because when I really needed them, they withdrew and kicked me out. Why did I not become bitter and become totally anti-religion? Man is a creature of change. Your friend today becomes your enemy tomorrow. What man decides is correct today, another will try to disprove, and sometime succeed. I hung on to my faith in a higher power than man.

Question? Hoo-boy! I dared question evrything. But I believe, not as before, but still I believe in God. Creation as written in the Bible seemed to me an attempt to explain the unexplainable, to put God into time, which will not work if God is God. So science made sense to me a little more clearly. If we work from the hypothesis of God creating everything but do not limit the creation process to a seven day period, but rather however long was required, and allow for time for God to watch His experiment progress, things make more sense in believing both evolution and creation.

I see things in a different way, and as I stated before, I am one man, and of course, I could be wrong. Do you have any idea how many innocent people are in prison because someone read the evidence and made a wrong deduction? Or how many times they re-open a cold case file to find they had the evidence all the time to convict the criminal, even had interviewed the person, but missed the clue that was right in front of them? Question everything. And when you feel you have it figured out, question it again. You could be right, you could be wrong, but satisfy yourself on the matter, and what other think, well, que sera, sera. Good day, XC, mon ami. :)

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Thanks for your response Pen. I have no objection to your kind of belief. I was referring to belief in the entirity of the creation myth as portrayed in the bible/torah. It is why I included the word 'fundamentalist' in my question. I agree with you entirely about questioning everything. I even question whether I should be questioning! :nod:

[RJbibliophil]

If we work from the hypothesis of God creating everything but do not limit the creation process to a seven day period, but rather however long was required, and allow for time for God to watch His experiment progress, things make more sense in believing both evolution and creation.

If we are assuming the truth of the Bible, and it is the most historically accurate book of all time, it is actually extremely reasonable to believe the world was created in 6 days. Notice that in Genesis 1, it says God created plants on the third day, and the sun, moon and stars on the third day. It would be logical to assume that plants could not survive very long without light. Also, it is stated at the end of each day, "and there was evening, and there was morning-the first day"(and so on).
I believe very strongly in the truth of Christianity, and that the world is a mere 6,000 years old. I believe the flood accounted for many of the dramatic changes in the earth. I do admit that unitarianism and the slow processes of change have been happening, but that they have only been a small part in the transformation of the earth. Although some mutations and evolutionary processes have been experimented with, they are usually useless if not harmful. As far as I have seen, evolution and random beginnings to our world do not have much evidence. I am inclined to think that evolution as a beginning for the earth had more evidence when Darwin first invented it than right now. If you are wondering how a scientific theory can be wrong, keep in mind that the geocentric universe.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I am not wondering how a scientific theory can be wrong - all they ever are are 'best guess' approximations. What I am wondering is how you can cling to a far shakier belief than any proposed by science without questioning it. The world is billions of years old not 6000. The light from the edges of our own galaxy takes longer than that to reach us - or don't you believe in the speed of light and relativity? after all, it's not mentioned in the bible is it? Which is good news for us all because it means atomic weapons can't possibly work! Please tell the good news to the people of Hiroshima.

[toddhill]

Just found this in an article online.

"Antony Flew, an 81 year-old British atheist-philosopher who for more than 50 years avidly denounced God, creationism, and Christianity--in defense of Darwin’s theory of evolution--has declared he is now a believer in God. His acknowledgment has staggered the scientific community. Flew is the author of scores of books and academic articles opposing God’s existence, including “Atheistic Humanism” and “Darwinian Evolution.” Renouncing his error, he now endorses science’s Intelligent Design Principle, “IDP,” as the explanation for the origin of the Universe. Dr. Flew has joined the ranks of numerous other world-class scientist-philosophers who believe that God is the Creator and master intelligence behind the cosmos. IDP, which, in another expression is known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, declares that the inter-working complexities of our Universe--and of life on our planet--are too numerous to co-exist by evolutionary chance. Instead, they have been deliberately designed by a Supreme Intelligence."

Thought it was interesting. Todd

[Virgil]

--and of life on our planet--are too numerous to co-exist by evolutionary chance. Instead, they have been deliberately designed by a Supreme Intelligence."

Yes, that was interesting Todd. I was at a presentation recently where a group of software engineers were presenting a software on systems design. It had nothing to do with God or any connotation to it. It was somethng to the effect of understanding how each parameter and variable goes into a design of a system and how one design parameter of one variable can influence the whole system. Their example was with an airplane jet engine. What was particularly interesting was that the software calculated the odds of the engine coming together by chance, and that was something over 7 Billion to one. My memory of the details is fading, but it was I think as if someone ignorant of jet engne design sat down as said he would randomly pick variables and paramenters and come up with the correct solution. Now an jet engine is subtle and requires finesse, but it is no where as complex as a human being, with the workings of the mind and various biological sub-systems. Who can even aproximate the odds of such complexity coming together. Or even evolving from a simple cell. To me that is more signalling of an intelligent design than just random chance. Flew came to the same understanding that I and other scientifically minded people come to. Now that doesn't mean i don't believe in evolution.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Despite the rumours flying around, I would hardly consider Flew's position to have shifted as radically as the God-lobby would like to believe.

See here. (http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369)

[Virgil]

I had never heard of Antony Flew before. Here's an excerpt for wikipedia:


While an undergraduate, Flew attended the weekly meetings of C. S. Lewis's Socratic Club fairly regularly. Although he found Lewis to be "an eminently reasonable man" and "by far the most powerful of Christian apologists for the sixty or more years following his founding of that club," he was not persuaded by Lewis's argument from morality as found in Mere Christianity. Other philosophical proofs for God's existence also fail, according to Flew. The ontological argument in particular is false because it is based on the premise that the concept of Being can be derived from the concept of Goodness. Only the scientific forms of the teleological argument impress Flew as being decisive.[1]

In God and Philosophy (1966) and The Presumption of Atheism (1984), Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He still stands behind this evidentialist approach, though he has been persuaded in recent years that such evidence in fact exists, and his current position appears to be deism. In a December 2004 interview[2], he said: I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins.

On several occasions, apparently starting in 2001, rumours circulated claiming that Flew had converted from atheism. Flew refuted these rumours on the Secular Web website.[3] In 2003, he signed the Humanist Manifesto III.

In December 2004, an interview with Flew conducted by Flew's friend and philosophical adversary Gary Habermas was published in Biola University's Philosophia Christi, with the title Atheist Becomes Theist - Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew. Flew agreed to this title.[4] According to the introduction, Flew informed Habermas in January 2004 that he had become a deist [5], and the interview took place shortly thereafter. Then the text was amended by both participants over the following months prior to publication. In the article Flew states that he has left his long-standing espousal of atheism by endorsing a deism of the sort that Thomas Jefferson advocated ("While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings."). Flew states that certain philosophical and scientific considerations had caused him to rethink his lifelong support of atheism. However, it is clear from the interview that Flew is not comfortable with either Christianity or Islam.

Flew's conception of God as explained in the interview is limited to the idea of God as a first cause, and he rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created "a lot of" evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact. He is particularly hostile to Islam, and says it is "best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism."[6]

Flew has subsequently made contradictory statements to those given in the Habermas interview as justification for his endorsing of deism. In October 2004 (before the December publication of the Flew-Habermas interview), a letter written to Richard Carrier of the Secular Web, stated that he was a deist and also said that "I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations."[7]. Flew also said: My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.

In an another letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew went on to retract his statement "a deity or a 'super-intelligence' [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." wrote Flew. He blames his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins, claiming Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter". (Dawkins has - in "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube," published in the 21 May 1992 issue of Nature, with Laurence Hurst.) The work of physicist Gerald Schroeder had been influential in Flew's new belief, but Flew admitted to Carrier that he had not read any of the scientific critiques of Schroeder that Carrier referred him to.

When asked in December 2004 by Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News if he still stood by the argument presented in The Presumption of Atheism, Flew replied he did but he also restated his position as deist: "I'm quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god". When asked by Crary whether or not he has kept up with the most recent science and theology, he responded with "Certainly not", stating that there is simply too much to keep up with. Flew also denied that there was any truth to the rumours of 2001 and 2003 that he had abandoned his atheism or converted to Christianity.[8]

A letter on Darwinism and Theology which Flew published in the August/September 2004 issue of Philosophy Now magazine left the world hanging when it closed with, "Anyone who should happen to want to know what I myself now believe will have to wait until the publication, promised for early 2005, by Prometheus of Amherst, NY of the final edition of my God and Philosophy with a new introduction of it as ‘an historical relic’."[9]

But in 2005, when God and Philosophy was republished by Prometheus Books, the new introduction failed to conclusively answer the question of Flew's beliefs. The preface says the publisher and Flew went through a total of four versions (each extensively peer-reviewed) before coming up with one that satisfied them both. The result is an introduction, written in a distinctly detached third-person context, which raises ten matters that came about since the original 1966 edition. Flew refrains from personally commenting on these issues, and basically says that any book to follow God and Philosophy will have to take into account these ideas when considering the philosophical case for the existence of God.

[toddhill]

Thanks for that, Virgil. Seems like Flew doesn't know what he himself believes. Hope he figures it out. Have any of you heard of the string theory proposed by Leonard Susskind, a theoretical physicist of Stanford University? A strange one to be sure. Here is a quote from a periodical I read recently, "At the end of an interview in New Scientist, Susskind is asked--if his theory is ultimately not borne out--'Are we stuck with Intelligent Design?' And Susskind gives a candid answer:

'I doubt that physicists will see it that way...I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now, we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the Intelligent Design critics. One might argue that a hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as Intelligent Design.'"

At least he was honest.

I'll be interested to see the book Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, is coming out with called The Language of God. Apparently he also is an intelligent design proponent. Todd

[Virgil]

'I doubt that physicists will see it that way...I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now, we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the Intelligent Design critics. One might argue that a hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as Intelligent Design.'"

In all fairness to Flew, we all struggle with this. At various times of my life I swung on both sides. There is one thing I could quibble with Flew, here let me quote it:

In God and Philosophy (1966) and The Presumption of Atheism (1984), Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces.
Well, why is that. Granted, on his side of the ledger there is no empirical evidence of God. But on the other side of the ledger, there is thousands of years of belief, there is a wide spread belief in some form of diety across the overwhelming majority of cultures, and there is the statistical inductive argument (which is what convinces me) that I presented above. If Flew thinks he can declare that he will win a million to one odds lottery on a given night then he is correct on where the burden is. But frankly given the BILLIONS to one odds of complex life just happening and correctly evolving, then I feel the burden is with the atheist to explain how humanity won this lottery.

[toddhill]

Well said, Virgil. Would it be weird for me to say, "I like your mind"? Todd

[The Unnamable]

At various times of my life I swung on both sides.
I would never have guessed you were into this, Virgil. Shouldn’t you post such revelations in the ‘secret identities’ thread?

[Virgil]

I would never have guessed you were into this, Virgil. Shouldn’t you post such revelations in the ‘secret identities’ thread?
You can't imagine how loud a laugh I just let out. Thanks. :lol:

[Grumbleguts]

Well, why is that. Granted, on his side of the ledger there is no empirical evidence of God. But on the other side of the ledger, there is thousands of years of belief, there is a wide spread belief in some form of diety across the overwhelming majority of cultures, and there is the statistical inductive argument (which is what convinces me) that I presented above. If Flew thinks he can declare that he will win a million to one odds lottery on a given night then he is correct on where the burden is. But frankly given the BILLIONS to one odds of complex life just happening and correctly evolving, then I feel the burden is with the atheist to explain how humanity won this lottery.

It seems reasonable that in a universe that is billions of years old a billion to one shot would come up once in a while. Especially when you multiply those billions of years by all of the days, hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds in them and all of the billions of galaxies, stars and planets upon which those milliseconds are played out, then it starts to look virtually inevitable.

[Pendragon]

But frankly given the BILLIONS to one odds of complex life just happening and correctly evolving, then I feel the burden is with the atheist to explain how humanity won this lottery.Don't feel to bad, Virgil, my friend, when I gave a similar argument about how chance was nigh impossible as the starting point for evolution, people wouldn't accept my arithmetic either. And Math is called an exact science, at that. Still, I will cheerfully admit that I could always be wrong. That is the one thing that one must always learn.

Cheif Justice of the Surpreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes was once asked to what he attributed his success in life. He replied. "At a very early age I discovered that I was not God." Those are words to live by. None of us are exempt from mistake or misunderstanding. So while we point the finger at others to proclaim them wrong, remember, we point three back at ourselves at the same time. Question what you believe, but if you really believe it, don't budge. ;) :nod:

[toddhill]

It seems reasonable that in a universe that is billions of years old a billion to one shot would come up once in a while. Especially when you multiply those billions of years by all of the days, hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds in them and all of the billions of galaxies, stars and planets upon which those milliseconds are played out, then it starts to look virtually inevitable.

"Nobel Prize winning biologist, Professor deDuve, wrote in a book called Tour of a Living Cell, 'If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one.'"

[beer good]

It's funny the way scientists' words seem to count all the more when they agree with you but are easily dismissed when they dis-.

Nah, on second thought, I won't get into this. It's just a funny debate to be having. Or following.

[toddhill]

Ha :lol:. I agree. But it is a valid rhetorical device (appeal to the expert).

[Virgil]

It's funny the way scientists' words seem to count all the more when they agree with you but are easily dismissed when they dis-.

Nah, on second thought, I won't get into this. It's just a funny debate to be having. Or following.
and

It seems reasonable that in a universe that is billions of years old a billion to one shot would come up once in a while. Especially when you multiply those billions of years by all of the days, hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds in them and all of the billions of galaxies, stars and planets upon which those milliseconds are played out, then it starts to look virtually inevitable.

Hey this is no slam dunk debate. Grumbleguts has a good point. But it's not decisive to me. It could be for others. There are other factors too (such as the scientific notion of entropy, which show that things will tend to disorder if left to their own devices, so what has caused nature to not disintegrate toward chaos, especially life) that go into my thinking. All I want to say is that there are intelligent people on both sides of the debate. There are plenty of scientist on my side of the debate, including Einstein. The atheists love to characterize believers as some sort of Bible thumping simpletons. I just feel that is so unfair, and just stymies the debate.

[Grumbleguts]

Hey this is no slam dunk debate. Grumbleguts has a good point. But it's not decisive to me. It could be for others. There are other factors too (such as the scientific notion of entropy, which show that things will tend to disorder if left to their own devices, so what has caused nature to not disintegrate toward chaos, especially life) that go into my thinking. All I want to say is that there are intelligent people on both sides of the debate. There are plenty of scientist on my side of the debate, including Einstein. The atheists love to characterize believers as some sort of Bible thumping simpletons. I just feel that is so unfair, and just stymies the debate.

Thank you. For what it's worth, I think that you make some valid points as well. I sincerely hope that I have not been guilty of characterising anybody but genuine bible thumping simpletons as such.

I must address your remarks regarding entropy however as there is a common misconception that any system in which entropy cannot be shown to increase is evidence of outside influence. This is not a valid argument. The second law of thermodynamics only shows that this is true for an 'isolated' system. The Earth is not such a system, in fact no such system truly exists. The entropy of the universe is increasing as the kinetic energy created by the big bang (in my opinion the only valid time and place in the history of the universe where any argument for the existence of God's hand is justified) is converted into other forms and spread out over time.

Entropy is about kinetic energy being spread about until things approach a state of motionless absolute zero (a state that can never actually be reached due to the first law of thermodynamics, that of conservation of energy). As an example, the creation of stars would appear to be an example of negative entropy. However the overall long-term result of a star's creation is a net increase in the entropy of the universe. Similarly the evolution of life provides only a short term reduction of the local entropy of the energy contained within that life, the net result of all life when viewed as a part of the entire picture of the Earth and the wider universe is no different to the case of stars and planets, a temporary blip. Things are 'degenerating into chaos' or more acurately into stagnation but the time scales are immense, the currently consensus puts the point at which entropy will affect the formation of star systems capable of supporting life at many times greater than the life of the universe so far, don't expect it to happen in the next few weeks.

On your other point, regarding the sides to this debate and their adherents. I should prefer to see a debate as an open discussion where both points of agreement and difference can be established, rather than as an adversarial conflict. You seem like an intelligent and rational man and I would hope that you would agree with this outlook.

[Pendragon]

It's funny the way scientists' words seem to count all the more when they agree with you but are easily dismissed when they dis-.

Nah, on second thought, I won't get into this. It's just a funny debate to be having. Or following.BG, your thought there reminded me of how Oscar Wilde once said that the trouble with History is that those who win write it. (Meaning those who win the wars, thus all the messy junk is swept under the rug. A case in point: Jolly mentioned that wars are usually fought over religious purposes. The uprisings in India against the British were blamed on the religious beliefs of the Muslims and Hindus, since the rifle cartridges of the day were sealed with grease made from animal fat to make them more weather proof. They were being sealed with sheep fat, an animal, neither religion objected to, but rumors got around that they were sealed with beef and pork fat. No Hindu would defile himself with the beef fat, and no Muslim with the pork fat. War ensued. What was swept under the rug was British imperialism that put the British there in the first place. They came after the wealth of India, just as they went to South Africa for diamonds, and the USA ran Native Americans off their land for gold and silver, or oil. But History records the Sepoy Uprising, The Boer War, and Custer's Last Stand because the people who won wrote it. What would the people on the other side call it? Ask a true Southerner in the USA about the Civil War. It seems that many recall it as the War of Northern Aggression, and the term "Carpetbagger" still leaves a bag taste in the mouths of the Deep South. But then, we lost the war. http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000AO2PW2.01-A36NIL00HJ3IIY._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[beer good]

Pendragon: good point, though one might argue that the winner being the one writing history does not necessarily mean the loser's version is always the correct one. Occasionally, one side wins simply because it has the better arguments, be they made of words or lead.

But that analogy aside, like I said, I'm not really looking to get into this argument since I really cannot see myself adding anything; I'll gladly admit that I'm as close-minded about creationism as I am about astrology, flat earth theory and the idea that Oswald got set up by the FBI. Yes, there are some things science has not yet been able to explain fully, but if the alternative is the idea of an omniscient being snapping its metaphysical fingers and willing life into existence - to me (and I want to stress TO ME) we're entering fairytale land right there.

All I wanted to say with the above statement - which probably came at the wrong point in this thread - was that a few people in this thread and others on the subject have constantly pointed out what they see as flaws in the scientific method itself, arguing that believing in science requires just as much of a leap of faith as, say, God building Eve out of a rib. Yet they still use parts of it - carbon dating or whatever - to defend their own standpoint. I'm not saying that's what you or Virgil are doing, it was just a general observation based on some earlier posts in this thread. But no matter, I've rambled long enough. Like I said, this thread is interesting, though I doubt it will move me even one inch from the idea that life evolves, the stars don't control our fate, the Earth is round and Oswald acted alone. :D

[Pendragon]

B.G., mon ami, I did not think you were after me, it was just a comment and comparison, and you are correct, I don't think the Southern stories of the Civil War any more reliable than the "official" record. Bias is bias, no matter who is guilty. And to everyone that posts on this thread, I would like to point out that this reply, posted by Beer Good is how a gentleman replies to a statement. Up front, stand by your own belief, don't knock the other man, be friendly. My hat is off to you, sir! May your days be filled with the things you require. God bless. :angel:

[Virgil]

All I wanted to say with the above statement - which probably came at the wrong point in this thread - was that a few people in this thread and others on the subject have constantly pointed out what they see as flaws in the scientific method itself, arguing that believing in science requires just as much of a leap of faith as, say, God building Eve out of a rib.
Beer, I have not read the entire thread and don't intend to. You make a valid point. Every conclusion that any of us makes on this subject is inductively drawn. It ultimately comes down to our disposition as to what we give greatest credence to. For instance, the science may just all be an illusion that God has placed for us to test our faith. I respect that. Behind it is a couple of thousand years of continuity in certain beliefs. It is a valid conclusion for some.

Grumbleguts too is reaching a conclusion through inductive reasoning. Both he and I have put a fair amount of faith in science, and so the inductive reasoning I outline above (I don't know if this is yours, I just put it out as an example) fails to convince us. But even given that we put faith in scence, we still draw different conclusions inductivey. In all fairness to him, he has to (from his point of view) prove a negative. He has no choice but to draw an inductive conclusion.

Those that believe in a God who actively performs miracles and intercedes can point to what appears to be empirical evidence. Grumbleguts will then point out why God performs some miracles and not others, and leads to a inductive conclusion.

[Virgil]

I must address your remarks regarding entropy however as there is a common misconception that any system in which entropy cannot be shown to increase is evidence of outside influence. This is not a valid argument. The second law of thermodynamics only shows that this is true for an 'isolated' system. The Earth is not such a system, in fact no such system truly exists. The entropy of the universe is increasing as the kinetic energy created by the big bang (in my opinion the only valid time and place in the history of the universe where any argument for the existence of God's hand is justified) is converted into other forms and spread out over time.

Entropy is about kinetic energy being spread about until things approach a state of motionless absolute zero (a state that can never actually be reached due to the first law of thermodynamics, that of conservation of energy). As an example, the creation of stars would appear to be an example of negative entropy. However the overall long-term result of a star's creation is a net increase in the entropy of the universe. Similarly the evolution of life provides only a short term reduction of the local entropy of the energy contained within that life, the net result of all life when viewed as a part of the entire picture of the Earth and the wider universe is no different to the case of stars and planets, a temporary blip. Things are 'degenerating into chaos' or more acurately into stagnation but the time scales are immense, the currently consensus puts the point at which entropy will affect the formation of star systems capable of supporting life at many times greater than the life of the universe so far, don't expect it to happen in the next few weeks.


I must say, I wound up spending an hour at work going through my physics book refreshing my memory of the second law of thermodynamics today. I hadn't thought about it for years. Thanks bringing it up, I actually enjoyed re-learning it. Most of my job deals (actually I should say dealt; I'm now trying to integrate electronic components with mechanical parts) Newtonian mechanics. I will respond to your post in a day or so, but (1) I'm a little tired to go into such thoughts and (2) I probably need a little more time to think it out.

BTW, what's your background? I was actually shocked that someone on lit net brought up any law of thermodynamics. I thought I was being dicey bringing up entropy. What's your background? Physicist, chemist, engineer, or just someone interested in science?

[Mililalil XXIV]

One thing I have looked at from both sides of Belief (without, then within) is that atheists often feel confident about scientific speculation to a similar degree as that at which a theologian feels confident with Doctrine. Does not this confidence often have no proven grounds in many cases? Science is not an atheistic domain - but there is an attitude that is the majority of the confidence bolstering to the atheistic speculations.

While one may say that atheists do not inject anything into their science, they selectively leave out all factors they classify with what they personally do not believe in. This can in no way leave them open-minded enough to discover all of the now invisible factors in science. If one is honest with himself, what really does he have the right to publicly say he is certain enough about?

At work once, an anomily occurred in which there was suddenly just enough units of something in a box in which there had just been one too little. My boss had no idea how it could have happened - but his incredulity could not erase the inexplicable. The proportions for time intervals discovered in archaeological digs in Israel exactly match the ones of events described in the Bible. The thing is, while the Bible gives exact years for the spaces of time, the identical proportions of the time intervals discovered in digs are given values by "scientists" that are guessing. The fact of such identical patterns between record and examination should raise questions about scientific dating. Perhaps the earlier you dig, there is some unrecognized factor that apparently increases the sum of years passed with each older layer. If there be any mistake about the size of the passage of time, then the reckoning of time is off, and, if so, then a great factor is misinterpretted, leading to the universal adaptation of all data.

As it is, certain layers are expected everywhere and all dated alike. Why? Because the layers first discovered in France appeared in a certain order. But what about when a layer is missing at a certain site? Do those accounted for still retain the same dating as those in France? In Turkey, for example, a certain layer of soil looked for on one occasion was missing, so the dates between those assigned to the layers the missing one should have come between are also said to be missing, resulting in a so-called "dark age".

Then there is the whole set of calculations for the ice ages. These were only commenced in recent times, thus, until the relevant observations have been compared for millennia - preferebly through an ice age - much remains sketchy.

[Logos]

"Discovered: the missing link that solves a mystery of evolution"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1747926,00.html

[Grumbleguts]

Mililalil, I am at odds to understand the point that you are making in your previous post. Since when did atheists 'own' science? Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Mendel and Pascal, to name but a few were all christians.

What are the "now invisible factors in science" to which you refer and to which atheistical minds must perforce be closed?

What are these mysterious "units of something in a box"? And what point are you trying to make here?

Carbon dating is by no means the only method utilised by science to age things. There are fossil trees of different ages whose rings show identical patterning to each other, giving a continuous record of events dating back far further than the bible would claim is the true age of the Earth.

Your vague imputations regarding missing layers in Turkey do not change the simple fact that it takes millenia to lay down a single strata and further millenia for it to be compressed into rock. I completely miss your point about recording data through an ice age.

Science does not have all of the answers but it is growing more complete daily as new discoveries are made and earlier theories are constantly revised. Compared to this, the efforts of the dogmatists to show how the bible can still be literally true in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary begin to look more and more like someone clutching at straws.

The simple fact is that science is based on experimentation that is both predictable and repeatable. I performed the same experiments for years before class after class of children. Every time I put Calcium into water it fizzed. Every time I added an alkaline solution to Phenolphthalein it turned pink. There is no faith needed to believe in this merely an understanding of the underlying principles and the benefit of experience. There is no corresponding predictability or repeatability in religious faith. Pray for rain and it may rain and it may not, strangely with the same percentage of success as if you had never prayed.

Please explain yourself better and if you must give 'scientific' examples quote their provenence, otherwise they fall into the category of hearsay.

[Virgil]

I must address your remarks regarding entropy however as there is a common misconception that any system in which entropy cannot be shown to increase is evidence of outside influence. This is not a valid argument. The second law of thermodynamics only shows that this is true for an 'isolated' system. The Earth is not such a system, in fact no such system truly exists. The entropy of the universe is increasing as the kinetic energy created by the big bang (in my opinion the only valid time and place in the history of the universe where any argument for the existence of God's hand is justified) is converted into other forms and spread out over time.

Let me just preface this that I don't profess to be an expert on the laws of physics (I studied them in school, but at an undergraduate level), but I am familiar, probably enough to get myself in trouble, but I think it would be fun to explore this, Grumbleguts. I love your lit net name, btw.

For those that are not familiar, the postulate of the 2nd law of Thermo that we are referring to states that nature doesn't move toward order (entropy being the measurement of disorder) but towards chaos. For instance, a tire with a hole in it doesn't blow in and heal itself (a movement toward order) without external energy applied but it's quite common for a tire to puncture and blow out, a movement toward disorder. I chose this analogy because I see it is as a fitting analogy for the universe. I picture the universe of blowing out like air blowing out of the tire, only the time scale vastly different.

And so I'm stating that because life exists some sort of external energy had to be applied in order to create a highly complex, ordered world (earth) and human beings, otherwise their existence is contrary to the 2nd law. I think Grumbleguts is responding with the earth being a sub-system of a larger system and the overall entropy is still increasing. Is that correct? If so I don't see why it would matter? Something caused this sub-system to move toward order or was it just coincidence?

[The Unnamable]

I picture the universe of blowing out like air blowing out of the tire,
Virgil, I thought you were against the use of psychotropic substances.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

The universe viewed as a giant fart - interesting image Virgil! :lol:

The matter in the universe would therefore be the result of "following through", I suppose?

[The Unnamable]

Are you trying to match me for charm?

[Xamonas Chegwe]

A man's reach should exceed his grasp. :nod:

[Virgil]

Virgil, I thought you were against the use of psychotropic substances.


The universe viewed as a giant fart - interesting image Virgil!

:lol: Come on guys. It was an analogy. :lol:

[Xamonas Chegwe]

:lol: Come on guys. It was an analogy. :lol:

That's a relief! You can tell me and the great nameless one thought you were serious. :lol: :lol:

[Virgil]

"Discovered: the missing link that solves a mystery of evolution"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1747926,00.html

I frankly don't know why this would matter. I don't know all the tenets behind what the intelligent design people put out, but I thought they believed in evolution. I certainly do, and I believe so does the Roman Catholic Church. Why does finding a missing link add anything different?

[fatsaint]

It has to be evolution[or analogy as Virgil suggests:lol:]. How can the whole human population be created by just two people? Think about yourself in that situation and see if it makes sense.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

How can the whole human population be created by just two people? Think about yourself in that situation and see if it makes sense.

I can imagine that a significant other and I would need to get very busy to create the whole human race single handed (or single somethinged! :brow:).

[woeful painter]

I can imagine that a significant other and I would need to get very busy to create the whole human race single handed (or single somethinged! :brow:).

:lol: LOL very very busy indeed, like how many kids each day, just to fill up an entire planet?

[Maxos]

Hey kids, I cannot see the point of the debate.

You forget that in the XX century Physics has deleted all of the ontological claims of the other sciences.

There is no place for a God, to this gnoseological extent.

[chook]

The notion that we, our existance, was the unplanned result of purely materialistic causes bothers me.

The problem with the idea that our entire existance can be explained without remainder by some event which happened 15 billions ago in blind obediance to purely materialistic causes (nature, the natural world) is that it leaves no room for the very things which we really value. It may be that the universe was formed from some primeval soup at some far distant point in time. It may be that in so forming it has become what it is, in obediance to laws which were themselve formed either at that time or prior to this formation. (But what prior to means in this context is problematic.) I was going to write "prior to this creation". But of course on the hypothesis that our existance was not the product of anything other than material causes then creation is what it most certainly cannot be.

On this view before this event happened there was no time, no matter nothing. The whole show has been proceeding to some future point in obediance to the laws of physics which have are themselves part of the material universe; its organising principles Thus ultimately I am sitting here at my computer thinking like I am, believing as I do, in fact existing at all in every aspect simply as the outworking of some causeless and purposeless event. The idea of freedom that I have is surely then an allusion. My ideas of justice, beauty, love, my hopes and dreams are merely the way the initial event has worked itself out in that point of space time which I occupy. When I say that some parts of the Dylan Thomas poem "Do not go gentle into that good night" are good or beautiful it is simply the state into which certain complex energy, spatial and material relations have at worked themselves. When I say that kindness to the needy is good or exploitation of children is bad all I am doing is acting out my part in the way the whole universe was bound to go, in obediance to purposeless laws. A fart would have been as significant. Both are the end product of the same process.

Now I accept that that in one sense, the idea that all that exists is nature, on one level explains all that we can see or sense. There is no need for God to exist, to create, to plan or have purposes. The material universe, open to investigation to the scientists needs no outside interference. But one part of the universe rebells against this notion. Me, myself. The one part of existance that touches the universe, over which I have inside knowledge, will not accept that life has no more fundamental root than the blind workings out of purposeless nature.

We read a book. We say that a passage is beautiful. When I read the Count of Monte Christo I say that thirst for revenge the drove Edmond Dantes to destroy his tormentors, while understandable, was wrong. I do not want to believe, cannot believe, that these thoughts are just the outworkings of purposeless nature. If nature is all there is then my ideas of beauty and justice and stone rolling down some lost hillside have the same root cause and are just as significant.

I anyone can live with that then so be it. I cannot and will not. Justice, beauty, right and wrong are just as much part of the the world as planets, chocolates and footballs. Any explanation of existance that destroys the reality and significance that I give to the justice and beauty must be modified.

If there is no place for God then there is also no place for most of the things which really matter.

By the way the idea that in the XX century Physics has deleted all of the ontological claims of the other sciences is an interesting one. What part of physics has done this?

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Chook,

I think that what really bothers you is the fact that removing God from the equation takes away the claim that humanity, and by extension you, has a special place in the universe; that we are somehow unique and here for a purpose. I will admit that this is a terrifying concept and one which most of us do our best to filter out of our daily lives.

But the question is: should we believe in God merely because we don't like the idea of the alternative? Isn't this just the metaphysical equivalent of burying our heads in the sand? To refuse the abyss won't make it go away if that is the correct view of the universe; which many of us believe it to be.

But on your other point, about the things that matter; surely the simple fact that there are atheists as well as religious believers on a forum like this, discussing great works of written art and their relevance to ourselves(occasionally, amidst all of the jokes ;) ), would imply that they find just as much beauty and significance in these works as anyone else does? My own particular take on it, is that I am here for a short time only and that after that there is nothing - sounds bleak, doesn't it? - but it is also liberating; it frees me from the notion that life is a prelude to some more significant after-existence and makes me appreciate the beauties and marvels of art and nature all the more - or at least I feel that it does. When one short life is all you have, it is worth more than if you see it as just part of an eternal process.

If there is no place for God, then the things that matter take on greater significance, because they become all that matters.

[ShoutGrace]

I think that what really bothers you is the fact that removing God from the equation takes away the claim that humanity, and by extension you, has a special place in the universe; that we are somehow unique and here for a purpose. I will admit that this is a terrifying concept and one which most of us do our best to filter out of our daily lives.

I can't imagine why this wouldn't be terrifying. One thing that needs to be clarified here, however, is whether or not people are believing that they are special and have a purpose because they are scared, or believing that they are special and have a purpose for any other reason. I won't deny that the naturalist postulation that people aren't unique, special, or inherently worthwhile is extremely powerful.

Imagine telling a person that they are made in the image of the Creator of the universe, that they were personally redeemed through the death of God's Son, and that they are genuine moral agents with an honorable purpose.

Contrast this to telling a person that they are a descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm floating around in an arbitrary hot soup, 3.5 billion years ago. They are a blind product of time, chance, and natural forces. They exist on a tiny planet, in a minute solar system, in an obscure galaxy in a remote and empty corner of a vast, cold, and meaningless universe. They are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba.


But the question is: should we believe in God merely because we don't like the idea of the alternative?

By no means! Any rational, logical, honest seeker needs to have real and empirical reasons for deciding to believe in, and consequently, love God. The question of God is so important! Something so ultimately and all-encompassingly crucial inherently neccesitates our complete and honest appraisal, not to mention legitimate research and consideration.


Isn't this just the metaphysical equivalent of burying our heads in the sand?

It would be. Hopefully, the majority or theists out there aren't believing in God out of dread apprehension of the unknown hereafter. Burying our heads in the sand couldn't be an option, as it relates to something so important. If there is one thing that I got out of reading Emerson (naturalist? I'm pretty sure) it is being honest with yourself. The integrity of your concious mind is something that no-one can take away from you and ought to be maintained.


My own particular take on it, is that I am here for a short time only and that after that there is nothing - sounds bleak, doesn't it? - but it is also liberating; it frees me from the notion that life is a prelude to some more significant after-existence and makes me appreciate the beauties and marvels of art and nature all the more - or at least I feel that it does. When one short life is all you have, it is worth more than if you see it as just part of an eternal process.

It does sound bleak. I think this notion is inherently flawed, however. How is it at all rational to conclude that it would be more liberating and freeing to know that this life is all there is, and consequently, there is no after-existence; as opposed to the idea that this life is a prelude, a finite period of time, which can in no way even offer us a hint as to the eternal beauties, truths, loves, etc, etc, of heaven? I would rather appreciate brilliant and complete beauties and marvels for all eternity rather than appreciate flawed and human beauties and truths for 80 years. I feel a greater sense of liberation knowing that I (hopefully) will someday know and experience something better than this veil of tears. I wouldn't trade heaven for earth.

William Lane Craig debates (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/debates.html)

Secular Web library (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/)

One thing that comforts me is that horrendously educated, brilliant, passionate people have been debating God for 3,000 years.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

The integrity of your concious mind is something that no-one can take away from you and ought to be maintained.

Sadly, any idiot with a bullet in his gun can take it away at any time. And you can also lose it through Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, CJD, any number of other diseases, or accidental brain damage without even needing to be killed. Sooner or later, that integrity is going to leave every one of us.


It does sound bleak. I think this notion is inherently flawed, however. How is it at all rational to conclude that it would be more liberating and freeing to know that this life is all there is, and consequently, there is no after-existence; as opposed to the idea that this life is a prelude, a finite period of time, which can in no way even offer us a hint as to the eternal beauties, truths, loves, etc, etc, of heaven? I would rather appreciate brilliant and complete beauties and marvels for all eternity rather than appreciate flawed and human beauties and truths for 80 years. I feel a greater sense of liberation knowing that I (hopefully) will someday know and experience something better than this veil of tears. I wouldn't trade heaven for earth.

You are assuming here that you have something to trade; I certainly don't believe that. There is neither proof nor even a reasonable expectation of eternal beauty, truth, or eternal anything else for us; or any eternity at all for that matter. Our consciousness ends when our brains stop receiving oxygenated blood - that's it. We have what there is here and now; it is ours to waste or enjoy.

Call me bleak; I call me honest. Your hoping for a vague "something complete" is exactly the kind of wishful thinking I was referring to.

One thing that concerns me is that so many otherwise educated and intelligent people have been believing in glorified fairy tales for (far longer than) 3000 years - I have no idea where you got that figure from. :nod:

[Pendragon]

Otherwise educated and intelligent people have been believing in a lot of things that when examined without prejudice begin to crack somewhat around the edges. The problem becomes whether or not the person(s) doing the examining are actually being open-minded. A deeply religious person, (and recall that I am a Minister) can easily be misled down the path of "If I don't believe it, it must be false." This is not an objective viewpoint. It begins by surmising that the person is correct to begin with, so any results that do not match that pre-determined view are automatically deleted. A person who is convinced of the truth of evolution may easily take an opposite view, that no possibility exists that any data has been misreported or corrupted in a way that makes it give a false reading. This, also, is not an objective viewpoint, for science has and will continue to make mistakes. There have been documented deliberate and accidental misrepresentations made while studying evolution. So a possibility always exists either way that a person is mistaken.

I feel the truth lies with the two combined, and I ask questions about Genesis: Like how would a person trying to simplify the whole process of creation (which he certainly was incapable of understanding himself) write it down for others, for whom oral tradition was the usual way of history? Then, years later, when someone else tries to translate that into another language, did they catch the correct meanings of the words? Was there more than two people, since it never says there were only two of each animal? Was part of the manuscript missing?

With scientific evidence, can we be certain of carbon dating? Does the pieces of skull actually mean a whole race, or one creature? Does the scientific drawing really match the completed skull, or is it forensically impossible? Can you build an entire creature upon one tooth? What about data that doesn't seem to fit, such as human footprints fossilized along with dinosaur’s footprints? Haven't we all seen people who look somewhat, if not exactly, like cavemen?

I am not trying to shake anyone's faith. I just ask be more objective. ;)

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Pen,

We can be certain enough about carbon dating to be quite sure that the world is far older (approximately 500,000 times older) than the 6,000 years claimed by a literal reading of Genesis. I was referring to this kind of fairy story above, not belief in general. Besides, carbon dating is not used for dating inorganic material, radioactive decay of trace elements is utilised for that purpose. But still, though both of these methods are not 100% accurate, they are certainly not out by a factor of half a billion!

A piece of skull means that a creature once lived with that skull - if that skull is unlike any creature alive today, it implies that there was a race of creatures with skulls such as that. Are you suggesting that the skulls of tyrranosaurus that have been found are actually skulls of an existing creature that were misidentified? And while you may not be able to reconstruct an entire creature from a single tooth, you can extrapolate it's size and certain of it's features. As an example, fossilised shark's teeth have been discovered that are many times the size of those in any shark today; would you suggest that these fell from the mouth of a deformed specimen of a great white, or that there was a prehistoric species that was far bigger than anything alive today at some time? Take a look. (http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/evolution/origin_megalodon.htm)

I would love to see your evidence of human and dinosaur footprints side by side; this looks like an example of that deliberate falsification of scientific evidence that you were talking about above (and which is far more likely to be found on fundamentalist religious websites than in any scientific journal!)

My belief in the validity of scientific method is not faith; faith is belief without evidence. In the case of scientific theories, evolution included, there is ample evidence and the only lack of objectivity is to be found in the fundamentalist camp. As I have mentioned so many times that my fingers can now type it in my sleep, SCIENCE IS NOT OPPOSED TO RELIGION; scientists are NOT uniquely atheists, or even mainly atheists. However, science IS, by it's very nature, opposed to superstition and dogmatic belief without question. And so am I.

[Pendragon]

I figured if I got a response, it would be from you, XC, mon ami. We will not argue, as you once told me that you respect my beliefs, I also respect yours. So we have no quarrels, just different oppinions--Hey, I guess that makes us humans! :)


Pen,


A piece of skull means that a creature once lived with that skull - if that skull is unlike any creature alive today, it implies that there was a race of creatures with skulls such as that. Are you suggesting that the skulls of tyrranosaurus that have been found are actually skulls of an existing creature that were misidentified? And while you may not be able to reconstruct an entire creature from a single tooth, you can extrapolate it's size and certain of it's features. As an example, fossilised shark's teeth have been discovered that are many times the size of those in any shark today; would you suggest that these fell from the mouth of a deformed specimen of a great white, or that there was a prehistoric species that was far bigger than anything alive today at some time? Take a look. (http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/evolution/origin_megalodon.htm)
I must disagree with you, and say only that the skull fragments mean one such creature existed. It may have been a freak of nature as easily as a new species if only one is ever found. If one discovered the skeleton of say, The Elephant Man, and all they had was fragments of the skull, they might easily mistake it for another race of man. Or Andre the Giant, with his 48 teeth, not to mention his huge size. Or the world's smallest woman, who now stands 25 inches high and weighs 14 pounds at age 39. It could be another race, I am not saying it cannot be. And it could be just one creature, with a deformity. *Chuckle* Ever see Professional Wrestler "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan? There's a living Neanderthal for you! :)

I won't refute the huge shark, I am well aware of its existance at some point in time, and as the ocean is very deep and wide, who knows, it may still be out there, somewhere. Misidentify a Tyranosaurus skull? No. But the Smithsonian DID fake parts of the triceratops skeleton for more than 90 years, which caused scientific drawings of the creature to be wrong. What happened was the skeleton was about 85% complete. The feet were missing, and various other bones. So they put Duckbill feet on it and scavanged bones for the missing ones. With the development of CGI, they decided to enter all known data and produce a CGI Tricereatops. Using that as a model, they then could recreate the bone structure. As I say, sometimes things get mixed up and sorted out later. Peking Man is another example.


I would love to see your evidence of human and dinosaur footprints side by side; this looks like an example of that deliberate falsification of scientific evidence that you were talking about above (and which is far more likely to be found on fundamentalist religious websites than in any scientific journal!)

I am afraid you would not. Unfortunately for people who should definately know better, the fossils are housed in a museum that devotes itself to disproving evolution. Bad move. Had I found such evidence in the fossil beds on the mountains where perhaps only I know, I would have invited the world to come and view them, so that people could rule out fakery at once. These people did not chose to do so, and so that is exactly what people will say. Some people never learn about how to preserve evidence if you wish it to be accepted.


My belief in the validity of scientific method is not faith; faith is belief without evidence. In the case of scientific theories, evolution included, there is ample evidence and the only lack of objectivity is to be found in the fundamentalist camp. As I have mentioned so many times that my fingers can now type it in my sleep, SCIENCE IS NOT OPPOSED TO RELIGION; scientists are NOT uniquely atheists, or even mainly atheists. However, science IS, by it's very nature, opposed to superstition and dogmatic belief without question. And so am I.

Well, you have to accept that what you have learned about the Scientific Method is truth, and I am not really sure how you personally would test that. To me, and remember, I am always ready to admit I could be wrong, that takes at least a bit of faith. As I said in a fomer post, God resists proof, so belief requires faith. I find trouble with blind faith, however. I think questioning is the only way to learn anything. I don't toss my science books out because I believe in God. I am far too courious about this world for that!
:nod:

[Jay]

It may have been a freak of nature...
Isn't 'freak of nature' supposed to mean 'one of a kind'? My point, if I understand what you're saying, there'd be too many freaks of nature in the past.

[Adelheid]

Here's a request:

Could somebody kind enough and knowlegeable enough PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE explain the theory of evolution, what it actually is. Somehow, it tends to get mixed up with what people believes it means and all the other things. Who would volunteer to do that? Anybody?

And then, I could help to write out the creation explained in the Bible. No more and no less. From there on, we can understand what people is talking about, or referring to. I must confess sometimes I get lost. :D

Hopefully after this, it will help a bit.

So... who's going to volunteer and help me with the evolution part? I don't know enough about it to give a good background. Besides, I'd be too biased. :D We need someone who doesn't get too biased easily.

[whatsthebeef]

Adelheid.....
The theory of evolution is the process of change over geological time. This change can affect many things, from physiological appearance, to cultural evolution.
Most of people's thoughts on evolution are concerned in the evolution of mankind, but as has been pointed out by previous posts, evolution is not as cut and dry as that.

The process of evolution is affected, sped up or slowed down, by a number of factors, namely, the desires of reproductive dependants - i.e., in a group of animals who rely heavily on competition for mates, where more males of the species exist than females, this leads to female selection, so evolution will be affected by the needs and wants of the females of the species.
This is not to say that evolution only operates and exhibits itself when women are unhappy about their men!!
There is also the utilitarian aspect to consider, the best example I've heard is put across by use of the relationship between male and female long tailed wrens - accepting that the theory that a male wren's tail is so decorative, solely for the use of attracting a mate, and accepting what was proposed earlier, about feminine selection, the wrens tail should in theory grow to the end of time.
From a utilitarian perspective, this obviously cannot happen, as the bird would not be able to fly, so evolution has to balance between the two. Generally, the exhibited feature would be found to be the average of the two aspects.
There are other aspects which will affect evolution, for example, parasites will have a large role to play in selection and change.

The most interesting fields of evolution I find are those that are exhibited in a social or cultural environment. For example, one of the reasons I believe the world has managed to cope with such unsegregated societies, as compared with how segregated the world was only a hundred years ago, is the evolution of man's ability to empathise. Granted, a lot of this has come from education and understanding, but I feel that evolution is still ongoing within our own minds, as well as physiologically, and it is here that we will see the most evolutionary progress over the next hundred years or more.

So in short, evolution is a strive for efficiency and stability with an organisms surroundings, and is affected by it's surrounding environment, organisms, physical ability and sexual tendencies, and also is affected and driven within the human mind, and can be expressed in the form of human culture.


From this you could think that I am incredibally biased for evolution, and I admit that I am, in a way, however, only because religion never answered any of the questions I had to ask. However, I don't HATE religions, as I feel it has had a large part to play in the world today, and would be surprised if religion itslelf has not affected the process of human evolution over the few thousand years that human kind have had a religion of sorts. Personally, i don't think what you believe is important, not as much as belief itself.

[Pendragon]

Isn't 'freak of nature' supposed to mean 'one of a kind'? My point, if I understand what you're saying, there'd be too many freaks of nature in the past.Hi Jay. And I just said the words "may have been". Wiggle room. Maybe. Maybe not. But if only one of the lineup of the descent of man figures could be a "freak of nature", then while it would not disprove evolution, it would make us more cautious in our work of identifing fossil records. This is not from a religious site but from the Wikipedia:


Java Man was one of the first specimens of Homo erectus to be discovered. It was originally given the scientific name Pithecanthropus erectus by its discoverer Eugène Dubois. The word "pithecanthropos" was derived from Greek roots and means ape man.

Dubois' find was not a complete specimen, as many are led to believe, but consisted merely of a skullcap, a femur, and three teeth. A 342-page report written shortly after the find throws much doubt upon the validity of this particular specimen. Despite this, the Java Man is still found in many textbooks today.

In this we see that a mistake was made, reported, and acknowledged, for which I salute the scientific community, they are only human, and these things happen. They tried to clear the mess up. But Java Man still appears in many textbooks to this day. Now I would think a 342 page scientific report a good refute of the find. Evidently, most scientists agree. Why does it keep slipping into the textbooks? Who knows?

With the tangled mess that religous people can make out of things, I would be the first to say that the creationist camp could hardly point fingers. I know many preachers who won't even speak to each other while claiming to believe the same Bible. You'll find that if I am anything, I am fair. I won't take sides, even if I believe in God, I believe in right. I still think it takes both to make sense of this old world. A creator and evolution work together.

[chook]

Chook,

I think that what really bothers you is the fact that removing God from the equation takes away the claim that humanity, and by extension you, has a special place in the universe; that we are somehow unique and here for a purpose. I will admit that this is a terrifying concept and one which most of us do our best to filter out of our daily lives.

But the question is: should we believe in God merely because we don't like the idea of the alternative? Isn't this just the metaphysical equivalent of burying our heads in the sand? To refuse the abyss won't make it go away if that is the correct view of the universe; which many of us believe it to be.

But on your other point, about the things that matter; surely the simple fact that there are atheists as well as religious believers on a forum like this, discussing great works of written art and their relevance to ourselves(occasionally, amidst all of the jokes ;) ), would imply that they find just as much beauty and significance in these works as anyone else does? My own particular take on it, is that I am here for a short time only and that after that there is nothing - sounds bleak, doesn't it? - but it is also liberating; it frees me from the notion that life is a prelude to some more significant after-existence and makes me appreciate the beauties and marvels of art and nature all the more - or at least I feel that it does. When one short life is all you have, it is worth more than if you see it as just part of an eternal process.

If there is no place for God, then the things that matter take on greater significance, because they become all that matters.

I apologize for not making myself clear in my earlier post. I meant no offense to atheists. I have meet some crazy theists believe me. I think it likely in fact that an atheist might even have richer experiences of this world than a theists because, as you say, to them this is all that there is to enjoy.

I agree that believing in the existence of God merely because we don't like the alternative would be a very weak position. It is true that I do not find the alternative very attractive. But it is not merely a matter of taste or emotion. (Though it is that also.) Any theory which attempts to explain our existence or the existence of a universe such as the one we find ourselves in has to be able to give an account of the real universe, not a subset of it. I agree that a resort to nature as a total explanation of our exixtance may be able to explain the existence of the natural world. But my experiences of truth, beauty, morality, love, reason and rational thought are as much a part of my existence as are the sun the moon and the stars. Any explanation of my world which precludes an explanation of the existance of the significance that we find in these other things is at best incomplete. I do not say that the naturalist position is totally wrong. I am sure that there is much truth in it,but it cannot be all that there is.

Or if we were able to show that the the naturalist position was actually the whole truth, then we should at least face up to the consequnces of it. If when I say that the abuse of children is wrong, then all that is happening is that some complex arrangement of space,time,matter and energy has come into play then let us at least stop acting as though it had significance. We might still continue to use the words right and wrong, should and should not, but we should at least be aware that as we do so we are merely giving vent to steam, complex steam, more complex but of the same sort as the emissions of a volcano. We might still go on doing good (or evil) but we must realize that at the core these words have been emptied of any meaning. By good I would simply mean that my collection of atoms and energy reacted in a certain fashion to the actions of your atoms and energy, no different than a collision between billard balls. It is no good saying that there are some wicked theists and good atheists. The words good and bad have a natural, physical cause. We would be better to use the words convenient or inconvenient. Furthermore it seems to me that an acceptance of the fully naturalist position also destroys the very possiblity of rational thought. But that is to much for this forum and I will not debate it here.

Though then you may disagree with my views I hope that you see that it is not entirely a matter of taste. I want an explanation of existence that includes all of my universe. Either much of what I thought was real was actually an illusion and I need to radically change the way I see the world. Or ultimate reality is more than mere nature.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Chook,

You made some good points but (as always, I'm afraid ;) ), I have a few points to make.


I apologize for not making myself clear in my earlier post. I meant no offense to atheists. I have meet some crazy theists believe me. I think it likely in fact that an atheist might even have richer experiences of this world than a theists because, as you say, to them this is all that there is to enjoy.

My belief is that to all of us this is all there is to enjoy. Of course you have the right to differ. My only regret is that, assuming for a moment that I am right, there will never be an opportunity to say, "I told you so!"

I am not at all sure that what you are describing is the naturalist viewpoint. It reads closer to the existentialist viewpoint to me. Knowing that "experiences of truth, beauty, morality, love, reason and rational thought" are merely the result of the passage of electrons in my brain in no way invalidates them, nor makes them any the less worthwhile from my perspective; these kinds of experience are what makes life worth living to all of us, it is invalid to claim them as the sole preserve of the theist.

On good and evil, lack of credence in the existence of a deity has no bearing on empathy either; causing pain deliberately for selfish motives is as abhorrent to me as I am sure that it is to you. Added to this, is the rationalist approach that treating other people well is likely to be reciprocated. Where we differ is that I have no compunction about breaking so called "Laws of God"; working or shopping on a Sunday is no problem to me and what I eat or who I sleep with is a matter for my personal taste and conscience (and in the latter case, the willingness of the other individual(s) involved! :brow: )

And on your final paragraph; of course it is not a matter of taste - there is a right and a wrong answer out there somewhere. It is a matter of deciding what one personally believes and, importantly to me, why one believes it.

[chook]

"Where we differ is that I have no compunction about breaking so called "Laws of God"; working or shopping on a Sunday is no problem to me and what I eat or who I sleep with is a matter for my personal taste and conscience (and in the latter case, the willingness of the other individual(s) involved! )"

Xamonas Chegwe
I think that we would be both very surprised to find how little difference that there is between what we would both describe as 'morally correct" actions though you might not use the same words to describe such actions. I have heard the words 'appropriate and inappropriate" also used in this context. Atheists of good intent are no more or less prone to good or bad behaviour than anybody else. It is misconceived pride by some on myside of the debate that causes some of us to talk at times as though a belief in God of itself somehow made us better people. I could wish it were true but I know full well it does not. There would of course be some differences in what we considered a good or bad action, but not so much as you might imagine. There are as many varieties of theists as atheists. For myself and I am not so unusual, I have little time for simply religious duties, such as not working on Sundays. Certainly, if you believe in the sort of God that I do, then there will be time for worship etc but these are a personal matter. If you were my neighbour I suspect that my mower would be safe from theft and that you would find me a very normal chap who happens to like football, timber and poetry. It is the fanatics on both sides that give the problem. That is not to say that I believe that it makes no difference in the end what side you come down on. If ultimate reality is what I believe it to be then to reject this is to miss the point for which we were created. But you are right, whatever may be the case neither of us will get the chance to poke out our tongue and say I told you so!

I will do some research on existentialism. Maybe that is what I was describing.

[Pendragon]

Wow. You take some time off and threads almost disappear. I thought this a bit funny. People often do not take too well to opinions different from their own, and will even ridicule them. So here's something to think about:

People laughed at Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin.

People have laughed at every religious leader there has ever been.

None of this helps to prove them right or wrong.

People also laughed at The Three Stooges! http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/n020.gif

[RJbibliophil]

Were you not leaving Pen? I don't suppose this is the right place to discuss tolerance, but, although we should be open to new ideas, and carefully consider them, we need not accept everything as right, and we can say why we do not agree.

[Pendragon]

Sorry to see me back, my dear little Piglet? I'm not saying anything about people not being able to disagree or think for themselves. I'm simply saying that when you do so, do it with a logical, straight forward approach without snide remarks. The rightness or wrongness of a belief will never be taught to anyone simply by laughing at them, and telling them they are wrong. An understanding of the other man's viewpoint may either solidify or cast doubt upon your own belief. In the meantime, have a nice day! :)

[WhimsySA]

I voted for creation.
I for one most certainly did NOT come from a monkey!!!

[Scheherazade]

I voted for creation.
I for one most certainly did NOT come from a monkey!!!Well... When you come to think of it... The idea of having descended from a man who could not say no to an apple is not very flattering either!

[AimusSage]

Although I don't really want to venture deep into this battlefield, I will mention that I did not come from a monkey either, but still accept the theory of evolution.

Just because my Grandgrand x10000 father was a 'monkey', doesn't mean I came from one, my father is homo sapiens, and so is my mother.

Then again, I wouldn't so easily refuse an apple offered by Eva either.

Anyway, time for a tactical retreat to safer pastures.

[cuppajoe_9]

I voted for creation.
I for one most certainly did NOT come from a monkey!!!

No, but many of your ancestors were something that, if you saw it, you would call it a monkey. And before that, your ancestors were probably some sort of slime.

"Apemen are not proud of their ancestors, and never invite them round for dinner"
-Douglas Noel Adams

[The Unnamable]

"The only reason why God created man is because he was disappointed with the monkey."

Mark Twain

[Pendragon]

"The only reason why God created man is because he was disappointed with the monkey."

Mark TwainTwain did have a way with words, didn't he? :lol:

I read where he also said "Man is the only animal that wears clothes--or needs to."

I also read a quote by someone, seems like it was a line in a movie: "Man is the only animal smart enough to build the Empire State Building, and stupid enough to jump off of it!"

Note: The above line containing the word "stupid" is not personally directed towards anyone. It is simply a quotation. Thank you. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/h020.gif

[The Unnamable]

I read where he also said "Man is the only animal that wears clothes--or needs to."

I also read a quote by someone, seems like it was a line in a movie: "Man is the only animal smart enough to build the Empire State Building, and stupid enough to jump off of it!"
I like the second one but the first one I've seen as "the only animal that blushes - or needs to." :D

[Pendragon]

I like the second one but the first one I've seen as "the only animal that blushes - or needs to." :DI do believe you are correct! How embarassing! And my favorite author... :blush:

[Pendragon]

If you will recall, I've always said that I fully intend to be fair, if I am nothing else. I made a compelling case about how cross-breeding animals resulted in larger, stronger beasts, but they came out infertile and could not reproduce. Examples would be the mule and the liger.

I recentlly learned of a natural cross-breeding that happens among bears; specifically polar and grizzley bears. It doesn't happen often, and I woundn't want to run into one of these babies, but it seems they are fertile, and can reproduce. The only reason we don't have a new species of bear is because I guess two of the opposite sex have not yet managed to meet. So it seems that in certain cases, a new species can and will develop given time. We may see this one during my own lifetime, who knows?

Boy, here's a thought. What if the polar bear fancies a Kodiak as a mate? That would be getting back to the old Cave Bear size!

So you see, when I find something interesting to pass along even if it shoots down one of my ideas, I am not slow to say that I was wrong. Who really knows what's out there anyway? God bless. ;)

[Arethusa]

I'm of the mind that creationism, and the evolution of whatever was created are two totally different things. Big bang, I don't buy it. That all these factors came together in our vast and possibly infinite universe and lined up by sheer happenstance to form a planet where we can even survive, and yet I can't manage to guess the lottery numbers...it's just a bit much for my mind to grasp.

After reading all the arguments, I'm going to wait until the movie comes out before I make a firm decision either way.

[My Word Is Law]

I went on another forum and I saw this guy who made a brilliant point. He said that humans have more vertebrae than apes. So if apes evolved into humans, they would have to evolve more vertebrae. I don't know how this could happen through random mutation, but if it did, it would be incredibly painful for the ape-men. They wouldn't be able to defend themselves properly or get enough food, and probably would have died out through natural selection.

Also, if life spontaneously arose from the dirt, how would this happen? One possible explanation is this experiment. One guy ran electrical current through what he thought was the primitive earth's atmosphere and got amino acids, the precursors to life. The only problem? He didn't use the right atmosphere. What happens if you run the same experiment with the right atmosphere that a primitve earth would have had? You get cyanide. :lol:

[Mililalil XXIV]

Chook,

I think that what really bothers you is the fact that removing God from the equation takes away the claim that humanity, and by extension you, has a special place in the universe; that we are somehow unique and here for a purpose. I will admit that this is a terrifying concept and one which most of us do our best to filter out of our daily lives.

But the question is: should we believe in God merely because we don't like the idea of the alternative? Isn't this just the metaphysical equivalent of burying our heads in the sand? To refuse the abyss won't make it go away if that is the correct view of the universe; which many of us believe it to be.

If there is no place for God, then the things that matter take on greater significance, because they become all that matters.
As a boy in elementary school I went though years of not searching for any religion, but trying to find human-centered psychic power, etc. I had great fears and melancholy, but these in no way had any bearing on my becoming a Christian. I agreed that it was the worst tragedy to wish there were GOD and not find HIM at the end of our lives. I didn't know what to do, but I in no way found solace in telling myself I believed in GOD so lond as a shadow of a doubt oppressed my heart. I sometimes cried myself to sleep as accepting the then seeming likeliness of nothing but a nihilistic hope at best. I also had a sense of GOD at times, but as something I didn't want to rest on just yet.

One day, when my family were beginning, at a neighbor's invitation, to go to protestant "services" (the sect actually did a great disservice to their members, trying to prevent direct Communion with GOD), I stayed home and turned my attention to lust. This was a regular Sunday theme for me, until, one day, without any input from my family, nor from any other human, I, who had thought of GOD (when I wasn't having an agnostic soul pang) as a universe away, and coldly remote, suddenly percieved HIM near, and heard HIS very Words to me. I then, at age 11, cast off my lust from myself, and never had an agnostic moment ever again. It was because I now peacably knew GOD to be real that I had no room in my heart for an empty existence apart from HIM. In a short time, I had such Faith in HIM, that, when my little sister's tongue split upon falling against something, after initially freaking out over all the blood she was choking on, suddenly decided not to call an ambulance, and believed she would be healed at once by GOD.

I placed my hand upon the little toddler, commanded her tongue to go back together at once, in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST, begged the HEAVENLY FATHER to please make this work right away, and recited the Words from Isaiah the Prophet, "By HIS Stripes we are healed". I didn't see at first that it had worked. I turned in disappointment and was intent on rushing into another room to shout at GOD in great anger for not honoring the Faith that told me a Healing was meant then to occur. I had only taken steps about a meter away when suddenly the loud voices in the room took on a new ambience of emotion. I turned quickly to see what I had just sensed, and everyone were shouting for Joy, no longer in a panick. The baby's tongue was no longer injured, and the others excitedly told me they had seen the tongue while it mended!

I also have a nonreligious witness to the fact that his broken finger completely healed in just over 2 minutes from when it was first broken, retaining not so much as a bruise, at our workplace. He thought over it for days, trying to figure out if something other than GOD had healed him on the instant, when I had just happened to be there to pray for him. He said that he couldn't think of an answer as good as that GOD had done it, but that his feelings of fear to raise his hopes are so great that they seem greater than logic to him.

Before I knew GOD to be real, as I now do, I did not think that things were all important. Only good people and sacrificing for them.

[Gallantry]

As people have stated before the theory of evolution doesn't really contradict with intelligent design. I believe in creationism but I don't see much wrong with evolution unless it is the only basis and tries to stand on its own. The moral and ethical implications of doing so are huge. To take words from Darwin himself

"The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are convictions in such a mind?"

In regards to the post by Xamonas Chegwe I am forced to disagree.

If there is no place for God, then the things that matter take on greater significance, because they become all that matters.

I would say that nothing really matters if you take on a naturalistic viewpoint and leave no room for God. You live, you die, nothing happens after. So...why does it matter what you did in between A and B? If it felt good at the moment its good right?

[Gawaine]

God is Evolution

[cuppajoe_9]

Explain Yourself

Do you mean that God invented evolution, or that evolution is a kind of god?

I'm just wondering, because only one of those positions makes even the slightest bit of sense.

[shao]

By referring to the theory of Evolution, might I just clarify that by accepting that theory, we are also saying that we agree man descended and evolved from apes?
I also thought I could point out, if anyone cared to really read up and notice, evolutionism might be a theory that scientists can prove with evidence while seemingly, creationism is based solely on Faith and the Bible alone, but there are also evidences that goes against the basis of evolution itself. We should not ignore them, no?
And no, i don't think the Big Bang theory is part of Creationism.

[cuppajoe_9]

By referring to the theory of Evolution, might I just clarify that by accepting that theory, we are also saying that we agree man descended and evolved from apes?Yes, although you might further clairify that by 'ape' you mean something that, if you saw it, you would call it an ape. We did not evolve from modern gorillas, for example.
I also thought I could point out, if anyone cared to really read up and notice, evolutionism might be a theory that scientists can prove with evidence while seemingly, creationism is based solely on Faith and the Bible alone, but there are also evidences that goes against the basis of evolution itself. We should not ignore them, no?There is no convincing evidence that contradicts evolution that I have ever seen. If you were to find, say, a complete human skeleton in Cambrian rock, that would blow the entire theory straight out of the water, but nobody has done that yet. The idea of 'irrudcible complexity', for example, is not evidence against the theory of evolution, because it is not physical evidence, and because it can be shown how supposedly irrudcibly complex structures might have evolved.

[Pendragon]

Yes, although you might further clairify that by 'ape' you mean something that, if you saw it, you would call it an ape. We did not evolve from modern gorillas, for example.There is no convincing evidence that contradicts evolution that I have ever seen. If you were to find, say, a complete human skeleton in Cambrian rock, that would blow the entire theory straight out of the water, but nobody has done that yet. The idea of 'irrudcible complexity', for example, is not evidence against the theory of evolution, because it is not physical evidence, and because it can be shown how supposedly irrudcibly complex structures might have evolved.

Two questions:

1.) Didn't Darwin use the term "common ancestor" in describing how man and apes evolved?

2.) You use the term "complete skeleton". How much of evolution is based solely upon a single skull, and in some cases, fragments of a single skull? Are you saying this is poor evidence? You need a complete skeleton? Many fossil creatures are missing parts. Does this prove the creature did not exist? I have stated before that a single skull indicates that there was one creature like that, but you cannot of necessity infer a race. Perhaps the creature was an oddity. It happens often enough. Just thinking. ;) :nod:

[cuppajoe_9]

Didn't Darwin use the term "common ancestor" in describing how man and apes evolved?Yes, and that is exactly what I am trying to say. We have a common ancestor with modern apes, and if you saw it, you would probably say that it was an ape or a monkey. I mention it because when somebody asks me why monkeys and apes still exist if we evolved from monkeys and apes, I have to strongly resist the urge to yell at them.
You use the term "complete skeleton". How much of evolution is based solely upon a single skull, and in some cases, fragments of a single skull? Are you saying this is poor evidence? You need a complete skeleton? Many fossil creatures are missing parts. Does this prove the creature did not exist? I have stated before that a single skull indicates that there was one creature like that, but you cannot of necessity infer a race. Perhaps the creature was an oddity. It happens often enough. Just thinking.A femur would do it, but a complete human skeleton would be a whole lot better. It was just an example.

[Pendragon]

Hey, XC, you think I should totally confuse the poor man now? Cuppajoe, it may surprise you to learn that I believe in both creationism and evolution. The first to start the engine, the second to keep it running and develop finished products along the way. So I never discount science, or their discoveries, although I may question them; nor do I discount creation, though I have questions about the hows and timeline. I do not believe time as we count it began until creation was completed. Which leaves a large gap in the timeframe, so I have no doubt the Earth is very old. ;)

[cuppajoe_9]

Cuppajoe, it may surprise you to learn that I believe in both creationism and evolution.Not particularly. I know many people who believe that, and believed it myself for quite some time. A reasonably educated believer would most have to come to that conclusion eventually, as the theory that species evolve is about as much in doubt as the theory that the earth goes around the sun.

[Pendragon]

Not particularly. I know many people who believe that, and believed it myself for quite some time. A reasonably educated believer would most have to come to that conclusion eventually, as the theory that species evolve is about as much in doubt as the theory that the earth goes around the sun.A wise and well-worded answer. You are a man of great integrity, mon ami. You will go far in life. I wish you well. As you say, the conclusion must be arrived at eventually. How one gets there seems to be a question, but the end result is the same. Everything evolves and changes to fit a changing world, with few exceptions. Man isn't one of them. ;) If we had not evolved, changing to suit different needs, we would all look alike. What a boring world that would be! :) :nod:

[cuppajoe_9]

Thank you very much, Pendragon, and let me assure you that the respect is mutual.

[qwertyuiop]

Jesus Said
"i Am The Same Yesterday Today And Forever."
Man Needs A Constant In His Life , Something That Will Never Fail Him Or Injure Him But Will Remain A Guiding Light To Bring Him From The Darkness Of Disbelief.

[ShoutGrace]

I can appreciate your usage of Jesus' words, I think that they are wonderful.

But what does your idea of Man needing a constant have to do with the verity/authenticity of the idea of evolution?

[Adelheid]

The only constant source we have, (or I have at least) a firm rock or standard, so to speak, is in Christ and Christ alone. Whatever He did or said is our standard. For example, the Word of God- it is true, because God called it true, and in faith we believe in it.

It is only because we have the certainty of this fact that we can be sure of everything else. We can be sure of our origin, of our history as recorded in the Bible. Because our faith is in Christ.

Therefore when man doesn't believe in God, they are obliged to find another way of explaining our origin, and our history. We say man cannot rewrite history, but that is exactly what we are doing. We have deviated from the truth, and have believed the lies and deception of Satan. HE obviously doesn't want us to believe God. So he plants half truth (lies) in our thoughts, and doubts. He is using the same weapon over and over again- History repeating itself- as he first did with Eve. If mankind would just place their entire trust in God and in the authenticity of His Word, we would have been so much more well off now. Surely we would've learnt from history as recorded in the Bible, and not have fallen into the same trap time and time over again.

When I see it, (history repeating itself- Satan playing the same trick and men falling for it all the time) I always have a sense of utter frustration. Why can't people just listen to God, just believe in His Word? Why can't they JUST choose to accept the fact that they cannot have control of their own lives and be done with it? I sigh and double sigh over and over again and the degenerated state of mankind. I pray to God for pity and mercy- perhaps He might turn His justifiable wrath and judgment away from us for yet a little while. Then perhaps, just PERHAPS man would see the lovingkindness of God and repent and turn to Him.

[atiguhya padma]

How can people be so naive as to believe that religion will cure the world of its troubles? There are over 4 billion believers on this planet, and do we have peace? We have had nearly 2 millennia of christianity and has this produced a better world? If we had all lived for the last 2 millennia according to biblical views and beliefs, we would not have had modern science or technology, and would not have received the benefits from these, and consequently, would now be living in a world far worse than the one we live in now. Disease is by far the biggest killer of man throughout history. The conquest and control of disease is thanks to science, not religion.

We are, unfortunately, hardwired with the drive towards religion. It is part of the problem, certainly not a panacea. Just look at the Holy Land, how holy is that?

Anyone who believes in the garden of Eden; Adam and Eve; the resurrection; and all that other stuff that appears to be complete nonsense, is more likely to misunderstand the way the world works.

[Dolwen]

You are quite right. Religion has not cured the world, will not cure the world, and cannot cure the world. Faith in God is what the world needs, not religion. Perhaps it seems I am being picky about definitions, but I don't think being a Christian is religion. In fact, the word "religion" is used several times in the New Testament, but only one time is it used in a positive way. Being a Christian is believing what the Bible says about God, His sacrifice for us, and resurrection, and accepting the salvation He freely offers us.
I fail to see how following what the Bible says would prevent our modern technology.
Perhaps you are referring to the middle ages, when the Catholic Church controlled much of Europe. Yes, they did try to stop people like Galileo, but they were not following the Bible when they did that. Throughout its history the Roman Catholic Church has put Papal bulls, church traditions, and public opinion before the the Bible. Therefore you cannot blame the Bible for their teachings.
I find it interesting that scientist through history, such as Newton, Pasteur, and Boyle, believed in God. I am not certain that all these men were Christians, but their belief did not get in the way of their discoveries.
I also agree the Middle East is having a lot of problems. Jews and Gentiles both need to put their faith in Jesus Christ to be saved.
I am sorry you think Adam and Eve and the resurrection is nonsense. I think evolution is nonsense. And in the end, both the creationist and evolutionist need faith to believe what they believe. None of us was there when the world began. Yes, there are things such as fossil to use as evidences for a theory, but they are not proof. True science is to be based on observation.
And fossils are not good evidence for evolution. The dating methods(carbon 14, etc. can't remember all the names) have not proved reliable. Live shellfish have been tested by these methods, and should have been "millions of years old" according to the results.
In the end, you must have faith. I prefer to put my faith in God.

[Orionsbelt]

Well lots of good thoughts floating around on this thread. I'd like to point out two assumtions. 1) God is somehow not part of the natural world. 2) Not knowing what happens on the "other side" automatically equates to bad stuff. I simply don't think that man ever fell from heavens grip. Perhaps into heaven's waiting arms and having landed upside down does not yet realize know how blessed he is.

PS I think it was Mark Twain who made the quote about man being the only animal that need to blush. It is in fact a key line in the bible where God asks Adam. "Who told you that you were naked?" If I read this correctly, this is the transition from beast to man. I think that Adam and eve is just a story but that does not mean that there aren't some fun things to find in it.

Just thunk'n out loud!

[Thorwench]

Science is not all that unreliable, and it can, like in maths, even be 100% certain. It is necessary to distinguish between observation and empiricist truths and analytical, i.e. mathematical truths. The problem with observation is not so much the observation but the explanatory theories derived from it, they can, and often have been, erroneous. However, if you can back up your theory (like the theory of gravity) with maths, you can get to a point were your theory must hold, no matter what (if you haven't miscalculated). 2+2 is always 4, even God couldn't make it 5. And since he cannot, does he cease to be all powerful or is God maths incarnate? Everyone can know mathematical truths or such normative rules as "You shall not kill" even if they have never heard about any God whatsoever like the old taoists.
Observation has done a lot for human kind, we learned to make fire, started to build engines and invented viagra. What did, if you want to be really evil, the bible or similar literature do for us? Didn't it tell us too that people will be harassed by locusts, that there male firstborns will be killed, that blood-sacrifice (Abel) is better than plant-sacrifice (Cain), that the Lord can have fun playing april foolsday with you and your son (Abraham and Isaac), that if you want knowledge (which is certainly something you would want since God gave you a brain, didn't he) you are thrown out of the family home and that you can kill anyone who does not believe the same as you, thus defending Him who is a jealous God. Perhaps the Father sent the Son to correct his mistakes in the old testament. But then, the two are the same, plus the holy ghost of course. And if God made mistakes why would he be a better option than empiricist explanatory theories? They at least can explain WHY people shouldnt kill people in contrast to the ten commandment whose reasoning goes along the line of "because I said so".
I am all for evolution which contains the possibility of change for the better, because, as it is, it is not a pretty sight. (but an exciting one, I give you that)

[holograph]

hehe. always an interesting topic. there is too much for me to potentially write, so I will stick to a minimum. my views are, though confused, fairly simple. "God" [as the idea is called] and science [as the idea is called] are all but the same. We as human beings create these ideas in the same way as well. After all, we createdthe term and idea of God, jsut as we created numbers to so quaintly illustrate that 2 and 2 are 4. In terms of evolution vs creation, I have an even simpler answer. In my op., the Bible (regardless of its religious credibility) is a book of human experience and inspirational/pedagogical anectodes. There is no way that wht it writes existed in literal history, so it should not be treated as such. Just like you cannot dispute that 2 and 2 are 4, you cannot dispute that evolution in some form exists. Evolution DOES NOT say that man and monky are all but the same, hence there is nothing to worry about. If anything, evolution should be deemed positive in a religious individual's eyes--at least we're moving forward. Ah, that's all for now folks. --Alina

[Adelheid]

Science is not all that unreliable, and it can, like in maths, even be 100% certain. It is necessary to distinguish between observation and empiricist truths and analytical, i.e. mathematical truths. The problem with observation is not so much the observation but the explanatory theories derived from it, they can, and often have been, erroneous.

Hi, Thorwench,
Here's an earlier post i posted about Science not being 100% reliable. I think it might interest you.


By the way, science cannot PROVE anything. The only limitations of science are that it cannot prove anything, is NOT 100% reliable, and must conform to a scientific method. A scientist may come up with a theory, that "explains" evolution, while in the next moment, another scientist might come up with a counter-example, that contradicted the scientific experiment. Of course, we CAN use science to observe, and thus form conclusions, but what I'm trying to say is that even science is NOT 100% reliable, so it doesn't PROVE anything.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Atiguhya Padma,


Anyone who believes in the garden of Eden; Adam and Eve; the resurrection; and all that other stuff that appears to be complete nonsense, is more likely to misunderstand the way the world works.

I'm sorry you think that way- but certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinions. :) For me however, the Bible has something to say about it.

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." 1 Corinthians 3:18-20

Perhaps after all I AM naive, but I think I prefer to be so in the eyes of the world than in the eyes of God. :nod:


Just look at the Holy Land, how holy is that?

If the Bible is true- let's just assume it is for a moment, then Israel is God's chosen people, and naturally Satan's enemy too. He would do all He can to destroy that country. Israel is beset on every side by enemies, all doing their best to wipe them out. Indeed, the Iranian President said so himself. Do you then think Israel would sit by watching themselves being wiped out? Of course not. If what you are referring to is their quarrels, fights, etc. Then don't you think they are forced to it? I do. That is what I think anyway.


How can people be so naive as to believe that religion will cure the world of its troubles? There are over 4 billion believers on this planet, and do we have peace? We have had nearly 2 millennia of christianity and has this produced a better world? If we had all lived for the last 2 millennia according to biblical views and beliefs, we would not have had modern science or technology, and would not have received the benefits from these, and consequently, would now be living in a world far worse than the one we live in now. Disease is by far the biggest killer of man throughout history. The conquest and control of disease is thanks to science, not religion.

Do you know- it's really interesting. I did a study about this subject not too long ago, and studies showed the complete opposite. I'll give you a brief overview and let you determine for yourself. When God gave the laws and regulations to Moses to pass on to the children of Israel in the desert, the children of Israel remained healthy. There is no mention of death in the Bible from diseases UNLESS Israel disobeyed God. Death and disease was used as a punishment. Many centuries later, in Europe, when the Bubonic plague broke out, many people died. In the eyes of the world, it was witchcraft- they believed it to be. This unknown disease, killing so many of their people. The people who didn't die from the plague were mostly Jews. They died for another reason- suspected practice of witchcraft. Because the Jews followed the sanitary and hygiene standards set by God, they were well protected and healthier than the average european who unknowingly promoted the spead of bacteria. The people thought the Jews were the ones who set this plague on them, because less of their people died than the others. So they burnt many
Jews at the stake for suspicion of witchcraft.

Obeying God's laws have their rewards. God knows best, and when He set certain rules, it is for our good that we follow them. Perhaps you should read Leviticus. It contains the laws of God. You will be surprised. God knew, and by His instructions, preserved many of His people- when they obeyed them. :)

[Thorwench]

Leviticus also contains that consequential (for the Brits at least) passage: and he who uncovers the nakedness of his brothers wife" and so forth,
I think you cannot take the bible literally, of course there was not much of the black death in Judaea, the conditions for rats spreading their fleas were not all that favourable to the rats as they were in medievial Europe. (the Romans had proper sewage systems, Renaissance London did not). I don't think you can take the Bible literally (although it IS literature, and very interesting literature indeed) but at the same time you cannot say that science cannot prove ANYTHING, this is clearly a false conclusion. It is certainly right that science cannot prove EVERYTHING, but "cannot prove ANYTHING" just does not follow. From "Socrates is a man" does likewise not follow "ALL men are Socrates". Science can prove that if you put certain chemicals together, heat is generated. You can prove it not only by measurement of temperature (this may count as an observation and you don't like them) but by formulae, i.e. by maths. Anyway, as I said, observation itself is quite a good tool and is, most of the time and for most of the people, pretty reliable. You see the hole in the ground and step around it, you see the sable-tooth tiger and take cover (i.e. you are not eaten), you observe that people get cramps and die after having eaten certain berries, so you tell your tribe not to eat them etc. Your tribe survives, others, who may not have been so attentive, do not. Humankind survived by observation even through ages where no one knew about any Christian or other single and sole God. They even survived on observation before they had a concept of GOD (since their language was not sufficiently developed to have such a concept). Man has always created theories/explanations that could make sense of what he observed. God is one of those, not more, but not less either. If this made sense or if this helped you to survive in a better condition than others, thats fine. (of course you say God wants you to be circumcised or not to eat pig-meat in hot climate, because that gives an authority to the rule it otherwise may not have). As an ancient Jew you couldn't say: you should be circumcised because it prevents germs lodging in your private parts. Those people didn't know that there was such a thing as germs).
What you do with your faith in God (or in anything else) or with science depends not on God or science, but on you. You can believe in God and in evolution, in humans decending from apes, monkeys, small mammals and, in the end, from clusters of carbohydrates. Is this not wonderful too? Is it not marvellous how nature works? I personally don't need a thinking, willing, all loving entity behind the theatre of the universe. If you do, ok, but you still are a highly organised cluster of carbohydrates who has a responsibility towards other highly organised clusters of carbohydrates.

[holograph]

Science and Religion are equally unreliable. I do not understand why you cannot, however, find them compatible. I work in a laboratory hehe. I can tell you that science solely allows humans to explain the human experience through calculable means. How would be have medicine without science? We need science to explore the depths of the human robot. Religion has been used as a replacement to science for thousands of years, meanwhile, it is still necessary to explain what science will never be able to. Hehe, science does not offer the meaning of life or its purpose, it just tried to explore every facet of our physical purpose. Now, if you want to go into the string theory, that is a different story. :)

oh btw i wrote a poem a while back, and i think it's oddly and amusingly fitting:

..."And I know I am able
To aid their poor plight
But God is Charles Darwin
And I’m a termite."

heh think about it.

[Thorwench]

oh I find them entirely compatible because religious truth has to do with believing whereas science at least makes an attempt at knowing. You can, I think, prove lots of thinks but you cannot prove the existence of God, that's why all proofs of God reek of doubt and scientific method. (there are some very beautiful ones though, like Anselm of Canterbury's: "and so we believe that nothing higher than thou is thinkable"). But, what I think this discussion of evolution vs. creation is asking is: Is Genesis true? The compatibility of religion and science requires that you don't take the Bible literally. And of course, science and religion are fruits of the same tree. The first shamans were proto-scientists since they too tried to find and to give a comprehensible explanation of phenomena observed. If, however, it would be required to take the bible literally to be a person who believes in God or who is a Christian, I would be a scientist (which I am anyway).

[Dolwen]

Hello there Thornwench,
Ahhh!(she screams in horror) MUST YOU MENTION MATH! I am just kidding. I wasn't crazy about math in school, but that's really not to the point.
I, and I hope most Christians, have nothing against science. I am not a scientist, but I think science is wonderful and is compatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible. I do have much against evolution. It is not nearly as scientific as it claims.
This is from Websters dictionary
science-1. a systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation.
I agree with your argument about maths to a point, but not completely. When God created the universe, he created the scientific laws that govern it.
I have more to say, but I have dishes to wash.

[Thorwench]

Hi, Dolwen, get a dishwasher. (it's German humour, never mind) Lets get really philosophical here and let us take for granted: God (whenever) created the universe. Now that things have been created (doesn't matter what things, just any things) there is now more than one thing, they are few, you can count them and find relations not between the things, but between their numbers. if you have * and another * this makes: ** you can call their number "2" or call them "3", doesn't matter, they are just signs. What you cannot change is that there are ** of them. GOD HIMSELF CANNOT CHANGE THIS. Whatever world or universe he would create, there would always be ** unless he only made one single thing. But even if he would create only one single thing, there would be * and nought, i.e. 0. Therefore, there would be ** states of existence and everything would become the same as above. That is why God cannot move beyond numbers. Even if he made only immaterial things, like Angels, you still would have entities, which means that they can be counted. Just like in Sesame Street.
So, if the concept of GOD entails that he is all powerful and that he is the creator of everything, the creator you have to do with cannot be GOD. To avoid the refutation of GOD you would have to change the concept, i.e. God is the creator of everything but he is not all powerful. Is such a concept of God compatible with christianity? Or you could say, God is somehow numbers and he created the universe (including, but perhaps not only, man) to his image (or nature): which (also) is numbers. This would be nice, don't you think? It entails the trinity 1 is 3 as well as eternity since numbers are infinite. But if so, we can scientifically explain and prove many things, because they have to do with numbers (oversimplified in evolution: numbers of genoms). And by being scientists, we would even follow God's work.
What's wrong with evolution anyway? Why does it bother you? Why do you think you have to take the Bible literally, you wouldn't do with any other text - you would always interpret. The Bible, especially the New Testament, has not been written by God, it has been written by people giving their accounts of their experience of God. The only thing which is supposedly directly from God is the ten Commandmend tables, and they, alas und luckily for me, have apparently gone lost.

[Adelheid]

But Thorwench,

Aren't you placing God in a box, and limiting Him? If He created math, numbers and all, He is just as capable to change it as not. He rules it, because He made it. Just as an when an inventor creates something, he has the ability to change it because He knows what He is doing. It's not a perfect example, because even an inventor has to create his invention out of something. God created out of nothing. Also, an inventor only knows so much. God knows everything.

The NT (New Testament) or even the OT is written by God. God gave the words to men to put down on paper. The Bible is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. (2 Tim 3:16) Also, the Word of God is pure. (Prov 30:5) God preserved it for generations (even in a pass the message game of 10 people, we could not do as much for 1 sentence, much less 66 books!!!!) It has not been changed, only translated to different languages. Given, sometimes the translation is not exactly the same as the original Hebrew and Greek because there exists no such word in the translated language, but much care has been taken to ensure accuracy.

[Thorwench]

Hi Adelheid, I like your inventor example. It expresses the gist of this latter discussion quite nicely. Has, and is, the world not full of inventors who could not and cannot control their own inventions? Even if your were a creationist you must love this, Adam and Eve going haywire and having to be thrown out od Eden.
Anyways, philosophically speaking, and even theologically speaking it doesnt sound right that God created out of nothingness. There was God, i.e. something. If God created at all, he created out of himself and his creation would be the refutation of nothingness. If there had been nothingness outside of God, God would have been quite limited and finite, Since there was something next to him which he was not. Now this is not what you want, is it?
If however God created out of nothingness because nothingness was within him, I don't know what we are talking about apart from nothing.
If you ask me about putting God in a box, I cannot see why numbers would be such an uncomfortable container. You can stretch in almost every direction ad infinitum but, as always, there are some inherent rules you cannot bend. No one can, not even God. Just like God couldn't decide to be evil or can he? Could he decide to cease to exist? If the answer is no, he is limited, is he then God? Now, I also believe in something, namely that there is a principle that governs everything. But the principle is what it is, it cannot change but it is at work everywhere. I also believe that this principal could be expressed in numbers although we will never know exactly how since we cannot go beyond the scope of our experience and cannot know about what happened before the big bang.
The Bible however, was certainly not written by God, the early Christians held many conventions about what should be in there and what should not. In the beginning, they even could not agree on how to present and how to understand the trinity and even if there was such a thing. They eventually agreed on the version we have now by essentially killing the other Christians who didn't share their opinion or branding them as heretics. The bible texts originate from people who went out to spread the word as they were told. They were more than God's stenographers. The only biblical text, which can be seen as an 1 to 1 account of God's message (received by direct contact/vision) is the Apocalypse. This is what makes the Apokalypse so special.
Anyway, I greatly enjoy this discussion even if I cannot agree with you.

[Gawaine]

It is my understanding that any good theory must be falsifiable. If this is the case, then evolution must make a great theory. Is it 'fact'? Well, despite my relativism, I would say certainly not. There are holes in evolution, it would be silly to ignore them. The 'missing link' is indeed still missing, despite some clamouring to the contrary.

As for intelligent design, it seems absurd to me. A rather last-minute scrapped-together plan by Christian scientists to save face. Again, a theory.

Lastly, creationism. It would take a truely pious fellow to ignore the problems with this one. Whether one believes a divinity created the earth does not negate any one of these creation theories. This one in particular has very little bearing on todays world however. Regardless of whether or not people remember it, it will go down in history along with 'The World is Flat' and 'The Earth Is the Centre Of the Universe' theories of ages past.

Overall, none of the three are 'fact', as another poster mentioned. However, there is far more evidence showing us that evolution is more likely to have occurred rather than the other two theories. Looking at Darwin's evidence, it is certainly not perfect, but it explains much. Again, the idea of 'Why has the missing link not been found yet?' is a troublesome one for evolution, but less troublesome as an invisable father in the sky for me.

[yodan]

Did you ever work on a jig saw puzzle and when you're done there are two or three missing pieces? Happens all the time. Still when you get the thing put together you know what the picture is. That's the way I look at this. Evolution and natural selection are on going processes. I find it amusing that some people who deny evolution, and all it's implications, readily take advantage of scientific advances based on the theory. At the moment it's Bird Flu. The possibility of developing an immunization for bird flu derives from the basic idea of evolution and natural selection. I'm much more concerned with finding my missing cufflinks than THE MISSING LINK. It may be missing to some but I'm sure it wandered around someplace.

Regards,

Yodan

[Gawaine]

Well, yodan, let me also equivically say that there is no doubt at the scientific evidence of evolution of species. In this arguement, with the possibility of divinity (which it is in our nature, it seems, to think about), there is nothing wrong with the logic of creationism based on the omnipotent being at the head of it (a convienent device, no?).

Evolution has happened. We can see it every day, in peice of nature that surrounds us, nevermind just a few species in another era. Humankind routinely engages in evolution through the course of our species

My understanding of the subject ends there. This thread has gotten me interested in the idea, however. Think I shall have to do some studying.

[Thorwench]

Gawaine,
I have a good one for you, it is called "Fly: an experimental life" by Martin Brooks. It is actually about the fruitfly (drosophila) which is heavily used in genetic and related research because it breeds very fast and because all its genomes are known. Although scientific, the book is nicely written and is also entertaining. In addition of paying hommage to drosophila and the knowledge this little insect gave us, it also contains a very comprehensible discussion on the current problems of evolutionist theories.

[Pendragon]

I wrote this for the PB&J Band on the General Chat Thread, but since it's in honor of this thread, I'll also post it here. Remember, my friends, this song is all tongue-in-cheek, mean to be not taken too seriously. It's quite an honor to have been a participant in this long-running thread!

Parody of Margaritaville by Jimmy Buffet

Wastin' Away Again Here In Forumville (In honor of our longest running thread!)

Throwing out ideas,
Through sleepy eyelids,
Hoping that we'll find reward for our toil.
And prayin' this evenin'
People are ruled by reason,
Because this thread not pretty at all when it starts to boil!

Wastin' away again here in Forumville.
Searching for that long-lost train of thought.
If I started to lay blame, I'd never stop naming names:
But in fact: It ain't nobody's fault.

Some think the solution.
Is straight evolution.
Others think it was a Higher Power out there in the blue.
It's a question that sages,
Have pondered all down through the ages,
Somehow I think we better study again because we haven't a clue!

Wastin' away again here in Forumville.
Searching for that long-lost train of thought.
Some might even claim, that the LitNet's to blame:
But I know: It ain't nobody's fault.

We've all blown our cool now.
Got into a few rows.
Some of the ones that we loved had to move it along.
Tell me, is this whole question,
Worth so much stress and rejection?
And did it ever occur to any of us that we all could be wrong?

Wastin' away again here in Forumville.
Searching for that long-lost train of thought.
Some people claim, too much study is to blame:
But learning is fine: It ain't nobody's fault.

Yeah, I know. Could have left it alone. So it's my own fault.

:angel: :angel: ;angel:

[Steve Canyon]

I guess it's been said before on this Forum; haven't taken time to read all. My personal opinion is one I formulated long before I ever heard of Intelligent Design, but that is my belief. To wit: God created, and used evolution as His tool. This is the belief that makes the most sense to me.

[Vedettedujour]

I don't know if anyone is still active on this thread- but I'll post anyway because I feel I need to. First off, there are several misconceptions plaguing this debate.

In more recent posts you have used the term 'Intelligent Design' as if it reffered to something other than creationism when, in fact, they are synonimous.

Another misconception that seems a running element from the first to last post is this idea of 'evidence'. Evidence belongs to no specific point of view- it is merely observations (scientific, historical . . .) that can be interpreted one way or the other. So to say that there is more evidence for evolution is an invalid thesis.

Additionally to say that the Bible is false, is in itself a false statement. The old testament is historically sound (for the moment we will exclude the debated creationist tale) There are even accountings in the Bible that have been long disputed by historians but were, in fact, proved accurate by archaeological finds.
(If you want specifics on any of this, let me know, I just don't want this to go on for too long right now).

Allright, it is late, I will post again later with the rest, but I just wanted to get some of those misconceptions out of the way first.

[Vedettedujour]

More misconceptions. To say that by science you have come to the fact of evolution would be an invalid statement because science is observation. To draw a conclusion not completely and inconclusively supported by the evidence would be unscientific-- and though much evidence exists it will never be conclusive because of the millions (so the scientists say) of years before man existed or was capable of recording history-- anything based on the 'evidence' can only ever be considered an educated guess-- which is by no means conclusive.

Following this logic, you could well say that this must also hold true for creationist ideology-- and yes that is true we also can take the evidence that is available and interpret it to support our view-- which leaves us with a best guess since there was no one around-- however, our beliefs allow us one very important concession-- there was someone there and he did leave a record of what occured.
This returns to my first post . . . the old testament has been found factually accurate-- and Genesis is a book filled with Historical accounts, not parables or songs, but Historical accounts, which brings us to the much disputed beginning of Genesis, a passage considered even by some Christians to be a legend or myth-- how many history texts can you find that include among their endless facts and recountings a random section of fiction with no preface or explanation. That makes no sense, and these first few books of the Bible, read them if you doubt me, are nothing if not methodical, rational, sensical (at times seemingly too much so) and historical accounts.

Next post-- a different interpretation of the 'evidence'.

[Bookworm89]

I believe that an omniscient, omnipotent God created everything. Evolution is just a belief for people who don't want to believe in God. Neither can really be fully scientifically supported: they are based upon faith. To quote Sir Fred Hoyle, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged [through evolutionary processes] is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

[miss tenderness]

so in brief: God did it!


cool one,Stan.
again:

on brief:

God did itYes,He did:thumbs_up

[ShoutGrace]

In more recent posts you have used the term 'Intelligent Design' as if it reffered to something other than creationism when, in fact, they are synonimous.

Define both “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design”, please.

[akfarrar]

I propose taking a look at some of the 'revealed' techniques I find in the 'Awake!' special Issue for September 2006: Is There a CREATOR? (Published by the Jehovah's Witnesses - and with a claimed print-run of over 32 million!)

In fairness to the very charming young men who frequently attempt to engage me in conversation, I must say the first page does say: "Jehovah's Witnesses believe the creation account as recorded in the Bible book of Genesis. However, Jehovah's witnesses are not what you might think of as creationists."

With this in mind, I intend here to look at one of the techniques used by the leaflet to counter the accepted scientific explanation of Evolution. The first is:

The Creation of Straw Men:

Did God Use EVOLUTION to Create Life? (Title, pg. 9)

and

WHAT IS EVOLUTION? One definition of evolution is "A process of change in a certain direction." However, the term is used in several ways. For example, it is used to describe big changes in inanimate things - the development of the universe. In addition, the term is used to describe small changes in living things - the way plants and animals adapt to their environment. The word is most commonly used, though, to describe the theory that life arose from inanimate chemicals, formed into self-replicating cells, and slowly developed into more and more complex creatures, with man being the most intelligent of its productions. This third notion is what is meant by "evolution" as used in this article. (Box at bottom, pg. 9)

A straw man argument is based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position (Wikipedia). It can be a successful way of persuading people, but is not actually very truthful – the argument has not been countered, people have simply been persuaded.

So where is the straw in the examples above?

It is packed around the definition of Evolution.

Evolution is:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
(Quoted : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html )

Two things to notice:

1) There is no mention of the Origin of Life (or Creation if you take the religious view);
2) There is a clear distinction made between the Biological use of the word and other Scientific and everyday uses.

I suspect, judging from the first part of the ‘Awake’ definition, the writer of this argument is very aware of the slight of hand he (or she) is trying to perform here – No scientist would ever claim EVOLUTION created life – life, and its reproduction, needs to exist before evolution can take place.

I also suspect (but do not know enough to state more definitely) that those many members of the Catholic and Anglican Churches, as well as Muslims and Jews, who both believe in an act of creation by Divine Intervention and the theory of Evolution would be a little upset at the representation of their views in such a distorted way.

A second straw man is set up in the article: Is Evolution a FACT? (page 13)

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.

Natural selection leads to the production of new species.

The fossil record documents macro-evolutionary changes in plants and animals.

(The BOLD is in the original – and there is a note to point one, which I don’t reproduce.)


The biggest amount of straw here is in the third point.


The suggestion is that fossils, and only fossils, provide evidence for ‘macro-evolution’.


This is very far from the case.


Four major areas of evidence exist for evolution in general (including macro-evolution):


the Fossil Record

the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms

the geographical distribution of related species

the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations.

(Quoted from: Evidence of Evolution).


By ignoring what is by far the larger amount of evidence, focusing on (what is perceived to be) the weaker and then challenging it, the article attempts to disprove, in the popular mind, evolution as a fact.


It is worth noting I think at this point that Darwin himself used the anatomical similarities between species as a major piece of evidence and to claim the argument for evolution doesn’t include anatomical similarities is downright misleading: But that is the point of a Straw Man – set him up, make sure he can’t fight back, then knock him down.

[Adelheid]

Hi, Pendragon- I like your poem very much!

You know guys- genes CAN mutate and adapt to their environment, BUT, only to a certain degree.

It is absolutely inconceivable and impossible that a creature of the seas should change into a bird, and later change into a land animal. Impossible, I say! Yet that is what people believe?! It is far easier to believe God created the world in 6 days. But when people don't want to believe, they HAVE to make up some excuse and theory, don't they? Sort of to 'prove' that they are right.

Darwin noted the varied beaks of the same type of birds at the pelagos islands. From there his hypothesis began taking shape. The birds are of the same kind, same type. They didn't change into another 'race'. Evolution claims that- not just improbable, but also impossible.

Most of the 'evidence' found to support evolution are rather dodgy. They can be used to support Creation too. It is the way people rationalize. They legalize what they want to think. They establish it, so that others have no other choice but to believe it too. (So that they won't be the ones left out.)

[Guzmán]

They legalize what they want to think. They establish it, so that others have no other choice but to believe it too. (So that they won't be the ones left out.)

You are talking about the Inquisition; right?

[cuppajoe_9]

You know guys- genes CAN mutate and adapt to their environment, BUT, only to a certain degree.What stops them once they reach that degree?


It is absolutely inconceivable and impossible that a creature of the seas should change into a bird, and later change into a land animal.Why?


Most of the 'evidence' found to support evolution are rather dodgy. They can be used to support Creation too.Like what?

[Pendragon]

Hi, Pendragon- I like your poem very much!

Thank you, Adelheid, nice to see you back! :wave:

[Neovia]

Why can't one believe in both of them? It doesn't have to be evolution versus creation; what if God created the world via evolution?

Well, anyway, I'm tired of this kind of discussions. Maybe in future scientists will prove that the world began from gigantic rabbit's **** :).

[kat7]

Why can't one believe in both of them? It doesn't have to be evolution versus creation; what if God created the world via evolution?

Well, anyway, I'm tired of this kind of discussions. Maybe in future scientists will prove that the world began from gigantic rabbit's **** :).

agreed.. one theory does not rule out the other. What gets to me is that evolution is taught as fact, when it is a theory.

[BobbyMacG]

Evolution not creation because God is being per se. Aseitas- of its very nature to exist. God was not created. God's nature is as a super high energy atom which splits to form stars which splits into lower energy atoms to form planets and the splitting continues into low energy animal vegetable and minerals. Therefore God is within all matter....all matter is God.

In my humble opinion.............

[brainstrain]

I noticed several people saying how sceintists recreated the condinitons under which earth was some billion years ago, and (after several weeks and several other variables) some kind of life-forming protein was found

I would like to point out that the conditions of one of the more famous experiments (the name escapes me) were not those of our earth some billion years ago, but the conditions most likely to create that life-forming protein.

I believe that evolution is more likely, but i am undecided...

[Pendragon]

This thread has certainly come a very long way. We have been through the days when people called each other names, questioned each other's sincerity, and generally had an old-fashioned no-holds-barred knockdown, drag-out fight. Things seem much calmer these days. Maybe we all are finally learning something. That would be this: If you sit down and take a moment to first lock prejudice out of the room, then you can actually discuss things. Oh, you may never reach a point where you are going to agree. But you will suddenly stop seeing the other side as your enemy. A question was asked over 2000 years ago: "And what is truth?" To each of us, it means something a little different. It may be based on science; it may be based on Religious faith, but it has a basis somewhere that is very real to each individual. If we go to the discussion bound and determined that if what we hear doesn't fit what we believe to be true then we will just discard that, how can any of us say that we are entering this with an open mind? What we have there is a doorway that is shaped so that only certain things may pass through, in essence, a filter. If we are going to filter out what we don't like, our mind is still closed to a single point of view. Nobody is saying you must believe anything, but listen to things from different aspects. I have found friends that way. We may disagree a little, but we took the time to listen. It's not all that hard. :)

[Pendragon]

Sometimes I wonder why I stir the pot again, buy I can't help myself.

We speak so often of experiments in a closed system, when I have tried to argue against chance, and for Intelligent Design. I used Probability Math and a deck of cards, which as was pointed out, does limit the experiment somewhat.

So we will use the Earth and every living person. Now, if we take that n = a positive integer , so that (n ≥ 1 and ≤ ∞), no closed system, and n represents a human individual:

How can chance possibly consistently produce each n, so that that n is unique? The human individual is so completely individualized. They have unique fingerprints, footprints, voiceprints, retina-scans, and DNA maps that can be used to identify them beyond any reasonable doubt. It is even said by scientists, that a person’s lip prints are unique. There are simply too many factors to trust to chance. This is design, and design so remarkable that to call it anything except Intelligent would be foolish.

And even if the child is born from an egg and sperm germinated in a Petra dish, this child will still have the unique factors. Even a clone would share the unique factors of the host. If we could clone replacement organs, there would be no rejection, it would be in essence that body’s own organs. Just a thought.

And Intelligent Design requires an Intelligence to do the designing. There is where science and God meet. God Bless.

[cuppajoe_9]

So we will use the Earth and every living person. Now, if we take that n = a positive integer , so that (n ≥ 1 and ≤ ∞), no closed system, and n represents a human individual:

How can chance possibly consistently produce each n, so that that n is unique?How can it not? There are an awful lot of positive intergers between 1 and infinity.

[Pendragon]

How can it not? There are an awful lot of positive intergers between 1 and infinity.Quite true. I wasn't taking chances on "you aren't doing your experiment enough" this time! But anything that produces a consistant result is not chance. It is a given thing. :)

[cuppajoe_9]

Quite true. I wasn't taking chances on "you aren't doing your experiment enough" this time! But anything that produces a consistant result is not chance. It is a given thing. :)But getting a different result every time isn't a constant result. There are, according to my friend who takes biology, more than 30,000 human genes. Even if there were only two allels per gene (and there are sometimes dozens), that would mean that the chances of producing a randomly selected human is roughly the same as having a coin come up heads 30,000 times in a row, a number so low that I have no calculator within reach that can express it.

[Pendragon]

But getting a different result every time isn't a constant result. There are, according to my friend who takes biology, more than 30,000 human genes. Even if there were only two allels per gene (and there are sometimes dozens), that would mean that the chances of producing a randomly selected human is roughly the same as having a coin come up heads 30,000 times in a row, a number so low that I have no calculator within reach that can express it.
What I said was that it consistently produces a unique person, which means that each thing must come up on the gene chart responsible for such things as fingerprints, voiceprints, retina-scan, footprint, etc, as a unique marker every time. That is staggering to contemplate. I could see chance creating a template which then repeats itself ad infinitum, but many things which science has created by accident (chance), would be of great use to us, except that they cannot figure out exactly how the original formula was created. When they can, as with Vulcanized Rubber, the basis for our automobile tires, the accident becomes a great discovery. But then, I will never convince one who does not wish to believe in Intelligent Design, and I do not say that you are wrong for your stand. My major point made long ago still stands for us all. “Has it ever occurred to you that YOU could be wrong?”, which applies as much to me as anyone else! Nice day, Cuppa! :)

[cuppajoe_9]

What I said was that it consistently produces a unique person, which means that each thing must come up on the gene chart responsible for such things as fingerprints, voiceprints, retina-scan, footprint, etc, as a unique marker every time. That is staggering to contemplate. Yes, I see what you mean, but I don't think that consistently producing a unique person counts as a consistent result as such. There are so many variables at work that a unique result every time is precisely what you would expect, with or without an intelligent designer rigging the experiment. The number of heads, tails, heads patterns that one can produce from flipping a coin 30,000 times is, according to the cheap calculator softwear that came with this computer, infinity. I've tried to explain to my computer that infinity is not actually a number, but it seems that it is rather thick. And genetic code is only one factor of human uniqueness. Your exampes of fingerprint and retinal scan, for example, are not the result of genetic code at all: but rather are determined and formed by some bizzare process in utero, which is why even identical twins have unique fingerprints and retinal paterns. Even then, fingerprints can be changed by events later in life. I, for example, have no fingerprint on the tip of my left index finger, just a mass of callus.

In fact, this kind of variation is exactly the kind of thing we don't see in things that we do know for certain to be intelligently designed. If my computer, for example was subject to that kind of variety, I would be sending it back to the manufacturer. God, however, is usually seen more in the vein of artist than atisan, and could certainly produce unique works each time if He wanted, but, since uniqueness is just what we would expect from chance, I have trouble seeing human variation as evidence either for or against design. Regardless, said variation is, and you could not possibly have put it better, staggering.


But then, I will never convince one who does not wish to believe in Intelligent Design, and I do not say that you are wrong for your stand. My major point made long ago still stands for us all. “Has it ever occurred to you that YOU could be wrong?”, which applies as much to me as anyone else! Nice day, Cuppa! :)Indeed, I think my more pressing problem might be convincing myself that I might be right before opening my mouth. My very best wishes to you as well, Pen.

[cuppajoe_9]

Some critiques of ID by people who hold far more PhDs than I do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

This is fascinating lecture by Ken Miller, if you have the time, the bandwidth and the inclination to watch (it is over two hours long). Mr. Miller is the author of the textbook which had the infamous "Evolution is theory and not fact" stickers attached to it, before being presented to students for their consideration. Miller is not, as one might expect, an atheist, but rather a Roman Catholic, although I'm not quite sure that this fact qualifies him as a balanced viewpoint, seeing as the Vatican endorses Darwin.

http://download.guardian.co.uk/sys-audio/Guardian/Science/2006/12/11/ScienceWeekly11122006x.mp3

That one's a bit shorter. It's a Guardian podcast talking mainly about the ID controversy on the British Isles. The speakers include an ID proponent from the Truth in Science group, a theistic Darwinist and an atheistic one, who sounds quite a lot like Sir Ian McKellen. McKellen is, of course, the actor who recently charmed the American intelligent design crowd by being a homosexual atheist who appeared in The DaVinci Code and made smart remarks about Jesus on television. There are side discussions of life on Mars, left-handedness and rapping urban birds. Really.

[Guzmán]

Excellent link. The Ken Miller lecture is fantastic. Too bad i couldnt see the whole thing: it is supposedly two hours long yet it only runs up to 51 min?
I cant believe that guy isnt an atheist.

[cuppajoe_9]

I get 117 minutes, but who knows?

[Pendragon]

I, for example, have no fingerprint on the tip of my left index finger, just a mass of callus.


Indeed, I think my more pressing problem might be convincing myself that I might be right before opening my mouth. My very best wishes to you as well, Pen.I regreat to inform you, Cuppa, that you are not unique. Left-index finger? I also have a mass of callus, from a botched skin graft when I got said finger hung in a machine! Makes a good weather predictor, but makes it difficult sometimes to play guitar well!

And you are ever the Gentleman, mon ami. I would that many more were. God bless! :)

[cuppajoe_9]

Ouch! Interestingly, my callused left hand is a result of playing that same instrument to excess. I've met people with the shapes of strings permenantly etched into their fingers, but I'm not quite at that point yet. Most instruments will destroy your hands one way or another, except, for some reason, the piano. Pianists always have beautiful hands.

But I digress...

[Stephanie B.]

In a way evolution proves that God exists. something had to start that large hunk of goo to change into a single cell organism and so on

[cuppajoe_9]

In a way evolution proves that God exists. something had to start that large hunk of goo to change into a single cell organism and so onNo, there are plenty of coherent abiogenic theories.

[Miss Darcy]

In a way evolution proves that God exists. something had to start that large hunk of goo to change into a single cell organism and so on

Does it not, therefore, also prove that a recurring myriad of other gods existed before the present one, each creating the next?

[Wintermute]

Hi Miss Darcy,

Y'all have pretty much debated this to death, so I won't add to it--other than to say that to me, evolution is fact, and does not necessarily preclude a creator. My real reason for posting is to introduce myself (I just joined the forum a few minutes ago). And to tell you that your Aldous Huxley quote is one of my favorites too.

Cheers

[Stephanie B.]

I never specified which god or God it was evidence of and a question for all evolution believers, if evolution is real is it still occurring, and if so where is the evidence?!?!?!?!?! Where are all of the half monkey half human creatures? And why is it that only the evolution theory is taught in schools when it is just that a theory. Honestly without evidence how can i accept it as true?

[Wintermute]

... if evolution is real is it still occurring, and if so where is the evidence?!?!?!?!?! Where are all of the half monkey half human creatures? And why is it that only the evolution theory is taught in schools when it is just that a theory. Honestly without evidence how can i accept it as true?

Hi Stephanie,

I'd suggest that you take this opportunity to learn. Sign up for a biology class at your local college; talk to a biologist; research on your own. The questions you have asked demonstrate your ignorance on the subject. The evidence is there, all you need do is open your eyes and your mind.

But the key is happiness. If your happiness will be diminished by learning some stuff that may contradict what you've always believed, then don't take that step. When you get to the end of your life and look back, the amount of true happiness you've experienced will be all that really matters.

[Guzmán]

I never specified which god or God it was evidence of and a question for all evolution believers, if evolution is real is it still occurring, and if so where is the evidence?!?!?!?!?! Where are all of the half monkey half human creatures? And why is it that only the evolution theory is taught in schools when it is just that a theory. Honestly without evidence how can i accept it as true?

Try watching the video linked in cuppajoes post a few posts ago, there's an explanation at the beginning about theories and facts in science.
Still:
Evolution: Scientific theory
Creationism: Religious belief
Should beliefs be taught in schools instead of theories?
Not in my opinion.

[Stanislaw]

what is the difference between a belief and a theory? aren't both the same thing?

but let me guess...a theory has facts and is 100% true, and cannot be disproven...

and a belief has no facts, is 100% untrue, and cannot be proven...

...I think I believe the same as Galileo, that science and religion are both acceptable. and infact do confirm/blend together...
Let me explain:

In my opinion, science is a tool that can be used by people to examine and explore their world, and explain what has happened. and religion is the metaphor, or story that presents the facts in a means that is universally understandible. by this I mean, that not all people are "scientists", and need to be able to understand there surroundings...

the problem is with extremes, and the inability to accept that what one is saying is wrong, ignorant or biased. both for religeous and scientific fanatics.

The thing is that people should live in a balance or harmony, and accept both, because though they are presented differently, they are the same damned things. :)

[Pendragon]

what is the difference between a belief and a theory? aren't both the same thing?

but let me guess...a theory has facts and is 100% true, and cannot be disproven...

and a belief has no facts, is 100% untrue, and cannot be proven...

...I think I believe the same as Galileo, that science and religion are both acceptable. and infact do confirm/blend together...
Let me explain:

the problem is with extremes, and the inability to accept that what one is saying is wrong, ignorant or biased. both for religeous and scientific fanatics.

The thing is that people should live in a balance or harmony, and accept both, because though they are presented differently, they are the same damned things. :)Let me put my spin on your first two statements, as if I'm not always in over my head enough, Cap'n. :D

1.) A theory has (accepted) facts and is (accepted as) 100% true, (because it) cannot be disproven...

2.) A belief has no (accepted) facts, is (accepted as) 100% untrue, (because it) cannot be proven...

So one is right because you can't prove that it is wrong and one is wrong because you cannot prove that it is right—both are taken on accepted (what science would call "given" facts). i.e. “Given the following circumstances you should get the following results...”

[Stanislaw]

Let me put my spin on your first two statements, as if I'm not always in over my head enough, Cap'n. :D

1.) A theory has (accepted) facts and is (accepted as) 100% true, (because it) cannot be disproven...

2.) A belief has no (accepted) facts, is (accepted as) 100% untrue, (because it) cannot be proven...

So one is right because you can't prove that it is wrong and one is wrong because you cannot prove that it is right—both are taken on accepted (what science would call "given" facts). i.e. “Given the following circumstances you should get the following results...”

I suppose it's just a matter of empirical data...quantity vs qaulity...but...there are some very questionable theories protected, by lack of disproof, and but beliefs, IMO, are the same as tehories...one must believe in the theory or not...both "sides" ( a term I hate since I consider science and religon to be as the same) have theories, with their own concept of fact.

(BTW I am not a scientologist...I just think science and religion, are basically the same things described differently)

[brainstrain]

I'm not really sure what I believe in terms of evolution/creation (both seem unlikely to me. I prefer to not think about it.), but my take on the bible is that it is in NO way different from the hundreds of other religious books.

Yes, it has some historical base, but there is no historical record of Jesus. You'd think a historian or two would've noticed a guy going around doing mircales...Many other religious books have that much historical basing, and much more.

Anyway, I like to keep in mind that in the long run it doesn't matter too much what I think on this subject. It matters a lot, of course, to me, but no very many other people.

The main problem with Christians is that they believe if you don't agree with them on anything (especially creation though) you're going to hell. Don't say that I'm stereotyping, I grew up in a conservative chruch, it's true.

Basically both evolution and creation are unprovable, so I personally do not bother get stressed out about it. Which is my philosphy for life in a nutshell: avoid stress.

unless that stress will provide you with food. or a dog. than its excuseable (gah I really get off topic sometimes...)

Ok, i'm done now =P

[Pendragon]

The main problem with Christians is that they believe if you don't agree with them on anything (especially creation though) you're going to hell. Don't say that I'm stereotyping, I grew up in a conservative chruch, it's true.

Not this one, mon ami. I am not God, I am not qualified to judge you or anyone else. My major statement has always been "Has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong?" which applies alike to everyone, including myself. Many disagree with me. I don't put them in hell, or of necessity believe that's where they are headed. In fact, I find it a little coldhearted. "God is not willing for any to perish, but that all should come to repentance." "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy." Those scriptures mean it is not my choice to make, so why would I make it? That is judgment, which we are forbidden to do. Somehow I think there will be a lot of surprises on Judgment Day, and take into consideration I am a Christian. Many that think they are going to make it may miss, and many that people would throw out will be there. God’s choice, not man’s. God bless. :)

[Stanislaw]

Judgement from the church...the religion...or from the "followers"?

In my exp. its not the church, or even the religion that throws one into the 'hell category' but ones own peers and oneself.

I think it is a terrible misfortion to be born a christian...it seems to me that you are destined for hard times...where as if you don't know anybetter...you just sort of get in via the ignorance card...maybe I'm just misreading the situation, but thats what it looks like to me...If anyone knows better (which I am sure someone here must) I would be grateful if they could explain it to me.

[Triskele]

the christian church is not necessarily one entirely devoted to religious belief, the ethos of this religion is primarily one of community, to be born into a christian household automatically includes you in a family of love that goes around the world, yes, many of the beliefs if find hard to take, intolerant even, but to condemnt the church itself and the religion seems too black and white, yes the church has made many mistakes and will continue to do so, but name an organization/religion/family/individual that has lived for 2000 years without making mistakes. to be born a christian is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it an especially good thing. it is like all other things, what you make of it.

[Stanislaw]

the christian church is not necessarily one entirely devoted to religious belief, the ethos of this religion is primarily one of community, to be born into a christian household automatically includes you in a family of love that goes around the world, yes, many of the beliefs if find hard to take, intolerant even, but to condemnt the church itself and the religion seems too black and white, yes the church has made many mistakes and will continue to do so, but name an organization/religion/family/individual that has lived for 2000 years without making mistakes. to be born a christian is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it an especially good thing. it is like all other things, what you make of it.

I was thinking more in the terms of doctrine, rather than practice...ie...the fables in the bible stating that the rogue...or the ignorant, or the rebel child/person has a greater chance to get into heaven...maybe I am just being to literal, but that seems awfully unfair...as dose the random, but intense testing.

[Whifflingpin]

"but that seems awfully unfair..."

Not unfair, just unfashionable.

It used to be that you demanded/expected higher standards from your own children, because you loved them, than from others.

Nowadays, love is seen as an undemanding mushy slop, that always forgives and never judges. Well, that is OK for breeding jellyfish, but it won't do for the Sons of God.

As Pendragon says, more reasonably, you have to act better than you preach.

.

[mtpspur]

My apologies for accidently voting twice on the poll. I thought since the site did not have a mark that I had ever written anything that I had passed it by. But the computer caught it so I think the results are safe. No hanging chads here.

One thing about evolution/religion that has recently occured to me is simply this. If man has been around for 'x' million years or so why is the written histories of mankind so 'x' not so may years old. I believe the oldest manuscripts saved are only about 10,000 years old. I do not profess to have accurate time years on this.

So the religions of man are fairly well documented in recent times yet the rise from evolution is barely recorded.

Just a thought.

Rich--a believer in the living Christ

[Silv]

http://www.blogd.com/images/805-fsm_niklas_jansson-450.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster)

Before I began forming any decision regarding my choice between Evolution vs. Creationism, I first asked myself if I were able to completely and utterly denounce all the attributes/ideas that either one is advocating.

To a certain extent I believe in science and empirical observations and discoveries - in other words, I believe that we are in some ways related to chimpanzees. Yet, I'm nowhere near that stage where I can simply accept other theories of evolution that say we were once fish. To an even further extent, it is equally puzzling that such things as the "golden ratio" exist in our world and are found in nature. How is it possible that something so well-calculated and precise could exist? The answer I arrived upon for my question is therefore an emphatic no.

Have any of you chanced upon the above picture before, or its concept? According to Wikipedia: The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded in 2005 by Oregon State University physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design (a form of creationism) as an alternative to biological evolution.

Like Bobby Henderson, it is rather difficult for me to have faith in the thought that a supreme being or deity created us. But it is possible. Our present-day science is gravitating towards the experimentation of life forms, DNA, cloning, and such other similar activities. Who is to deny the fact that humans could easily create a life form, yet a life form not intelligible enough to realize it is a mere guinea pig of mankind? Now take that, and multiply it so that you have an entire civilization of these "guinea pigs". Who is to say that humans and all other life forms in this reality are not a part of something similar?

While earlier I mentioned I could not believe solely in either of the theories, I can, however, believe in a mixture of both of them at once. At some point of time, everything that the universe is made up of had to have a beginning. All these elements, matter, entropy: they had to come from somewhere. It is The Beginning of the existence of such "things" that I found troubling. However, suffice to say, something similar to Creationism seems to explain the reasoning behind how these "things" got here better than Evolution. After these "things" came into the story, I am more inclined to believe in Evolution then taking over.

As you can see, the above synthesis is only if I were forced to believe that how the world came into being today is a cause of either Creationism or Evolution. But, this is not so. From what we know, both theories are equally flawed and disputed amongst people. We do not have to believe that it was either Creationism or Evolution that brought us to the present. Therefore, my position in this matter is that I neither believe nor disbelieve in either of the two - I believe that a better reasoning for our existence, one that will incorporate the believable points of Creationism and Evolution and have the evidence to back it up, is ahead of us, waiting to be discovered.

(I guess I would be one of the minority who voted in the poll as believing in "None of the Above" - neither Creationism, nor Evolution)

[Stanislaw]

(I guess I would be one of the minority who voted in the poll as believing in "None of the Above" - neither Creationism, nor Evolution)

Exactly...It's impossible (for me atleast) to pin down one idea...

[Stanislaw]

"but that seems awfully unfair..."

Not unfair, just unfashionable.

It used to be that you demanded/expected higher standards from your own children, because you loved them, than from others.

Nowadays, love is seen as an undemanding mushy slop, that always forgives and never judges. Well, that is OK for breeding jellyfish, but it won't do for the Sons of God.

As Pendragon says, more reasonably, you have to act better than you preach.

.

So...God is demonstrating his love for christians by punishing christians...and treating christians in a harsher fashion?


My apologies for accidently voting twice on the poll. I thought since the site did not have a mark that I had ever written anything that I had passed it by. But the computer caught it so I think the results are safe. No hanging chads here.

One thing about evolution/religion that has recently occured to me is simply this. If man has been around for 'x' million years or so why is the written histories of mankind so 'x' not so may years old. I believe the oldest manuscripts saved are only about 10,000 years old. I do not profess to have accurate time years on this.

So the religions of man are fairly well documented in recent times yet the rise from evolution is barely recorded.

Just a thought.

Rich--a believer in the living Christ

:D awesome observation...easily justified by...er justifications. :D

[Whifflingpin]

"So...God is demonstrating his love for christians by punishing christians...and treating christians in a harsher fashion?"

That is one side of the coin.

Paul to the Hebrews, chapter XII:
"My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if if ye be without chastisement, whereof ye are all partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons."

The other side is:
"The Spirit [of God] itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs: heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."

[Stanislaw]

"So...God is demonstrating his love for christians by punishing christians...and treating christians in a harsher fashion?"

That is one side of the coin.

Paul to the Hebrews, chapter XII:
"My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if if ye be without chastisement, whereof ye are all partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons."

The other side is:
"The Spirit [of God] itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs: heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."

This sounds like an abusive relationship. Christians should be glad for their suffering, because in the next life things will be better...so they should rejoice in their suffering...to me that just seems ill.

[Whifflingpin]

"Christians should be glad for their suffering, because in the next life things will be better...so they should rejoice in their suffering...to me that just seems ill."

Well, I'm not going to argue that it is right - only that it is a paradox not to be dismissed lightly.

Of course I have over-simplified. However, even in the bit that I have quoted there is enough to show that the relationship is not abusive. "joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be gloriied together." Given that most Christians believe that Christ is God, and suffers as god and as a man, it is consistent that humans should share in God's suffering in order to share in God's glory.

That brings us to a point beyond which I have no explanation - I can only suggest that you read Paul's letters to the Romans and to the Hebrews, with a view to understanding what he is saying, rather than looking for reasons to reject what he is saying. When you understand him, then reject him if you like.

[Stanislaw]

okay, I will try...I'm not trying to be confrontational...if that is how I come across...I'm just trying to gain an understanding of something that troubles me in my own religion.

[Whifflingpin]

"okay, I will try...I'm not trying to be confrontational...if that is how I come across...I'm just trying to gain an understanding of something that troubles me in my own religion."

You weren't being confrontational - and my closing comment certainly looks rude, when I re-read it - apologies for that - please take it literally, not as an expression of contempt.

I seem to remember somewhere that you said you were a Roman Catholic. If so, then you should be able to accept the notion that, amongst God's other attributes, He has a capacity for suffering. This idea is madness to non-Christians, but it is an essential part of Christianity.

The implications of God's suffering are far too complex for forum discussions, and they just give me brain-ache. Paul wrestled with the concepts, and you can imagine him beating them into some sort of submission, as he wrote. And all the time, trying to relate off-the-wall theology to every day behaviour.

Anyway, if you are a Christian, you start with the idea that God puts himself through greater suffering than anything that humans endure. So, suffering is something that Christians share with God, not something He inflicts on them. OK - back to Paul, i am out of my depth.

.

[Redzeppelin]

Actually, Whiff, I think you're arguing very well. A quick note on suffering:

Suffering brings human beings to the "end" of themselves - we realize our limits when we suffer, and - since the battle to overcome our love of self is the worst battle a believer struggles with - suffering can bring one to God. Suffering can "purify" the soul by bringing clarity to a person. We're all bugged by the tax audit until our father falls deathly ill - then our perspective gets radically altered in terms of priority; who cares about the audit?

To say "rejoice" in suffering is not to say "enjoy" it, or that God wills it. To be told to "rejoice" means that we are being told that our definition of the value of suffering may not be correct - that rather than a time of mourning because we believe something "bad" is happening, we're being told that there is something (however incomprehensible to us) good about what we are experiencing. Christianity is built on paradox: this is one of them.

[brainstrain]

Actually, Whiff, I think you're arguing very well. A quick note on suffering:

Suffering brings human beings to the "end" of themselves - we realize our limits when we suffer, and - since the battle to overcome our love of self is the worst battle a believer struggles with - suffering can bring one to God. Suffering can "purify" the soul by bringing clarity to a person. We're all bugged by the tax audit until our father falls deathly ill - then our perspective gets radically altered in terms of priority; who cares about the audit?

A very accurate view on suffering (I didn't quote your entire post to save space, it was good though). But in your example, its true that the father's illness will get the son to see how unimportant the audit is in comparison, it has nothing to do with God.

All this does is show that in suffering, humans tend to get their priorities straight. Those who don't are often referred to as vengeful (instead of grieving for their mother's death, they assume someone killed her and become a...a...*the word escapes me* mass murderer *close enough*).

If, however, that person cannot find a way to deal with that suffering then they try to find something to help them. That is the main purpose of religion: to provide comfort in times of suffering. I won't get into my personal views too much, just wanted to point out your slightly flawed example.

nota bene - good luck finding an example that works with my views :sick:

- If the above post makes no sense, tell me. I have nerotic tendencies :lol: comes from being a mild Schizofrenic i suppose.

[brainstrain]

Not this one, mon ami. I am not God, I am not qualified to judge you or anyone else. My major statement has always been "Has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong?" which applies alike to everyone, including myself. Many disagree with me. I don't put them in hell, or of necessity believe that's where they are headed. In fact, I find it a little coldhearted. "God is not willing for any to perish, but that all should come to repentance." "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy." Those scriptures mean it is not my choice to make, so why would I make it? That is judgment, which we are forbidden to do. Somehow I think there will be a lot of surprises on Judgment Day, and take into consideration I am a Christian. Many that think they are going to make it may miss, and many that people would throw out will be there. God’s choice, not man’s. God bless. :)

>_< you're right. That statement was a bit bold, sorry. I really tend to get carried away. I was in a mood that day, i'm considerably better now :D

You say all this assuming there will be a Judgement day. I don't think there will. I've been trying for years to fit religion into my view of the world. I've tried to alter my view of the world, but I can't change who I am to please our culture.

By culture I mean the traditions, stereotypes, and general kind of person which follow a certain religion.

:sick: sorry I just had to fend off my mother, shes been nagging me all day...I have yet to figure out what for. something about email...

anway, I appreciate your open-minded view. It has taken me years to break free of the bonds I was bound by through growing up in surronded by people who...its hard to find a word to describe them. Narrow-minded is a good start though.

I apologize if I am rambling, congealing my many thoughts is difficult...

basically, it has not truthfully occured to any of the people i grew up with that they could be wrong, which makes it difficult for me to adopt a healthy view.

And, a general thought to anyone who reads this: never take for granted beign surronded by people who accept you for who you are. Out of the hundreds of people I know...4 know deep the charade I put on for my church extends. Why? because no matter how narrow-minded they are, i love my family, and if they knew just how anti-christian I am they would never understand...

again, I apologize. In my current state I'll pour out my soul just about anywhere. It shouldn't last more than a few hours ^_^

[Redzeppelin]

A very accurate view on suffering (I didn't quote your entire post to save space, it was good though). But in your example, its true that the father's illness will get the son to see how unimportant the audit is in comparison, it has nothing to do with God.


Right - God is not the automatic "result" of this priority shift, but He becomes an option when we are forced to find meaning in our suffering, because without God, the meaning of suffering, uh, "suffers."

[SoundOnPekes]

One thing about evolution/religion that has recently occured to me is simply this. If man has been around for 'x' million years or so why is the written histories of mankind so 'x' not so may years old. I believe the oldest manuscripts saved are only about 10,000 years old. I do not profess to have accurate time years on this.

Regardless of which side of the debate one is on, it can't be too controversial to suggest that perhaps Man couldn't always write.

[Miss Darcy]

Oh, this thread is still going!

*quietly vanishes into the air*

[Whifflingpin]

"Oh, this thread is still going!"

No - its evolving creatively.

.

[ShoutGrace]

:D But it was also created by a creative mind for a purpose . . . :confused:

[Pendragon]

>_< you're right. That statement was a bit bold, sorry. I really tend to get carried away. I was in a mood that day, i'm considerably better now :D

I apologize if I am rambling, congealing my many thoughts is difficult...

basically, it has not truthfully occured to any of the people i grew up with that they could be wrong, which makes it difficult for me to adopt a healthy view.

And, a general thought to anyone who reads this: never take for granted beign surronded by people who accept you for who you are. Out of the hundreds of people I know...4 know deep the charade I put on for my church extends. Why? because no matter how narrow-minded they are, i love my family, and if they knew just how anti-christian I am they would never understand...

again, I apologize. In my current state I'll pour out my soul just about anywhere. It shouldn't last more than a few hours ^_^No blood, no foul. May I also state that never assume people will always stand by you no matter what. When I had my own problems, my genetic condition that had already caused havoc with panic attacks and whatnot finally took me for good, the people I trusted in churches I preached in across the country deemed me demon-possessed and threw me out. It didnot kill my faith in God. I keep fighting the battle. But I am a changed man. If I can reach one person, I will go for that one. One has become as important as a churchfull. And to reach the world, you must not attack, but reason. You can't show the love of God if you have none of your own, and are ill-mannered towards people. What do you expect them to want that you're selling, when they can get talked about, run down, and called names anywhere? My Native American ancestors would say, "Speaking with forked tongue." God bless. :)

[Pendragon]

Regardless of which side of the debate one is on, it can't be too controversial to suggest that perhaps Man couldn't always write.Quite true. Which is why so many cultures are so rich in oral history. My Native American blood is Cherokee. The tribe could not write until Sequoyah invented the alphabet that written Cherokee uses. :)

[brainstrain]

Right - God is not the automatic "result" of this priority shift, but He becomes an option when we are forced to find meaning in our suffering, because without God, the meaning of suffering, uh, "suffers."

Well put, I agree. The last few days looking through this forum have forever cleasned me of thoughts of becomin an atheist. I still don't know what I believe in, but I know I believe in a God.

I thank not just you, but all the intelligent people on this forum who unknowingly helped me through a very difficult period. Thanks :D

[Redzeppelin]

Well put, I agree. The last few days looking through this forum have forever cleasned me of thoughts of becomin an atheist. I still don't know what I believe in, but I know I believe in a God.

I thank not just you, but all the intelligent people on this forum who unknowingly helped me through a very difficult period. Thanks :D

Wow - how cool. That just made my day. :D


(PS: Shoutgrace: "But it was also created by a creative mind for a purpose . . . " - Nice :thumbs_up

[Pendragon]

Well put, I agree. The last few days looking through this forum have forever cleasned me of thoughts of becomin an atheist. I still don't know what I believe in, but I know I believe in a God.

I thank not just you, but all the intelligent people on this forum who unknowingly helped me through a very difficult period. Thanks :DYou just made a lot of people's day a little brighter. Any help I may be in anyway, don't hesitate to PM me. We all need somebody to lean on sometimes. God bless you as you seek out your path. :)

[cuppajoe_9]

...if evolution is real is it still occurring, and if so where is the evidence?!?!?!?!?!You've heard of HIV? SARS? Avian Flu? All completely new species of virus that have evolved by completely natural means within the past century.
but let me guess...a theory has facts and is 100% true, and cannot be disproven...Wrong wrong wrong, it's so very very wrong. Theories explain facts, and can be disproven. Any scientific theory can, if it is incorrect, be disproven by experiment. The theory of evolution would have to be thrown out if some paleontologist were to, say, find a complete human skeleton in pre-cabrian rock. The theory of gravity could be disproven by an experiment whenin one drops lead weights in a vacuum to see which direction they fall. The Big Bang theory would be thrown out if a red-shift experiment gave conclusive evidence that the universe is not, in fact, expanding. Scientific theories are not monotlithic, carved-in-stone slabs of physical law. They are constantly changing and evolving to account for new evidence and better explainations. The modern scientific concensus on evolution and gravity would be almost indistinguishable to Darwin and Newton were it not for the fact that both of those gentlemen are, in actual fact, dead.
Yet, I'm nowhere near that stage where I can simply accept other theories of evolution that say we were once fish. To an even further extent, it is equally puzzling that such things as the "golden ratio" exist in our world and are found in nature. How is it possible that something so well-calculated and precise could exist? The answer I arrived upon for my question is therefore an emphatic no.First off: there are no widely accepted 'other' theories of evolution that extend our family tree to include chimpanzees, but not fish, that I am aware of. The evidence for our relation to fish is almost exactly the same as the evidence for our relation to chimps: genome comparison, parallel structure and the fossil record. It should be noted that modern fish are our cousins, not our ancestors. We share, with modern fish, a common ancestor, now extinct, which, if you saw it, you would call it a fish. (I know there are a lot of commas, but if you read it a few times I promise that it will make sense).

I'm going to give an explaination of phi a shot, but math is not my dicipline, and I encourage you to find out about it from somebody who knows what they are talking about. To the best of my understanding, phi is simply an efficient ratio that spirals, such as those of snail shells and the like, tend to fall into. The fact that it is a very complicated ratio, and must be expressed using irrational numbers, should not imply design. Pi is a very complicated number. You can, if you wish to waste your money, buy a very thick book consisting of pi to a terrifying number of decimal places, and ending with an elipsis. However, the fact that the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference is dificult to comprehend when expressed mathematically should not imply to anyone that a divine intelligence went through every possible size of circle with a ruler and a calculator to make sure that every circumference divided by diameter makes π every single time, that just happens to be the way geometry works.

[Silv]

First off: there are no widely accepted 'other' theories of evolution that extend our family tree to include chimpanzees, but not fish, that I am aware of. The evidence for our relation to fish is almost exactly the same as the evidence for our relation to chimps: genome comparison, parallel structure and the fossil record. It should be noted that modern fish are our cousins, not our ancestors. We share, with modern fish, a common ancestor, now extinct, which, if you saw it, you would call it a fish. (I know there are a lot of commas, but if you read it a few times I promise that it will make sense).

Hm..I think I should clarify my point. My intended meaning is that I will believe the theory of Evolution up to a certain extent - that is to say, I believe it verily possible for humans to have evolved from chimps, but am more doubtful as to whether that line of evolution stretches all the way back to fish. While it is true that the evidence for the relation follows from the same line of empirical methods used to identify our connection with chimps, you could say that this line grows thinner as we travel further into the past, where evidence then becomes sparse. Hence my doubts for the concept of humans having evolved from fish. It should also be noted that empirical data is not always to be trusted, as it is our observations of the empirical data that determines their meaning; human interpretation may not always be 100% accurate.



...that just happens to be the way geometry works.

By that statement, you are already accepting the fact that "things work because that's how they are", and therefore are assuming that our theories are to be trusted. While you believe in that, at the same time you don't know why it works that way.



However, the fact that the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference is dificult to comprehend when expressed mathematically should not imply to anyone that a divine intelligence went through every possible size of circle with a ruler and a calculator to make sure that every circumference divided by diameter makes π every single time, that just happens to be the way geometry works.

I agree with you that it is "difficult to comprehend" such concepts as well as to prove that such rules hold true for every single case. The other thing we have to know is that it is also for this same reason that we call them mathematical "postulates" - because we have no way of proving them absolutely, and as a result have to just to assume based on reason and logic that they will hold true (because logic and reason tell us this must be the case - yet another dependence on human intelligence which has its own flaws). These are, after all, theories designed by humans as models for the sake of convenience.

What the true way to solve such mysteries as well as how they work still remain veiled and unknown to us. It is because of this that I believe some sort of divine intelligence may be at work here, excluding that belonging to humans such as Einstein and the like. To better explain this, we could recall the example of Copernicus and his heliocentric theory of the solar system. At the time before we could understand and appreciate his theory, we believed Ptolemy's system to be the valid one, and that Copernicus was crazy. Later, we accepted Copernicus's as opposed to Ptolemy's since it soon became evident from our studies. Now, what's to stop someone from coming along and proving us otherwise? The idea is that we have devised all this knowledge for our convenience. 1+1 = 2 is for our convenience, not because we know why or how this came to be, or the reason this math equation holds in our universe. They are not perfect in their descriptions of the laws of nature, which were not created by us.

Therefore, as I said earlier, I believe in certain aspects of Divine Creation and Evolution, but not by all means do I strictly narrow my mind to either one or the other.

//Edit: Typos and re-positioning of paragraphs.

[Wintermute]

However, the fact that the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference is dificult to comprehend when expressed mathematically should not imply to anyone that a divine intelligence went through every possible size of circle with a ruler and a calculator to make sure that every circumference divided by diameter makes π every single time, that just happens to be the way geometry works.

Thank goodness for you rationality Cuppa. I agree completely. And, to infer that a Christian (or any other human construct) god exists because Pi exists is just plain silly in my opinion.

The universe is a wonderful thing. By my [human] logic, there should be nothing--an empty void. Yet here we are, reading, laughing, and loving! To me that indicates that something really amzing is going on. But to take it any further than that is folly. To assume that I'm going to burn in the firey pits of hell because I'm unable to accept that the creator of the universe would send someone to this little planet to get nailed to a cross because things weren't working out as it planned is just plain egotistical. The idea that humanity is central in some sort of grand cosmic plan is just the product of ignorance, ego, hope and a fear of death.

That being said, damn I'm glad I'm alive! What an gloriously beautiful thing we have here! Rejoice!

[Silv]

Thank goodness for you rationality Cuppa. I agree completely. And, to infer that a Christian (or any other human construct) god exists because Pi exists is just plain silly in my opinion.



The idea is that we have devised all this knowledge for our convenience. 1+1 = 2 is for our convenience, not because we know why or how this came to be, or the reason this math equation holds in our universe. They are not perfect in their descriptions of the laws of nature, which were not created by us.

The above quotation of what I said earlier can be applied to what you're saying about Pi, or anything similar. Pi is a number humans found that happens to aid in calculations - a ratio or number that's there for us to work with.

I don't think it's a silly inference to believe that something other than humans was at work in the formation of nature and the universe. It could be Evolution, or it could be Intelligent Design. My point is that it could be anything, and we don't have to restrict ourselves to either Evolution or Creationism.

[Wintermute]

I don't think it's a silly inference to believe that something other than humans was at work in the formation of nature and the universe.

No, I don't either Silv. I think assigning specific attributes or properties to this 'something' based on our hopes and fears is silly. Anything is possible, nothing is certain.

[Silv]

No, I don't either Silv. I think assigning specific attributes or properties to this 'something' based on our hopes and fears is silly. Anything is possible, nothing is certain.

Hm...well, we have to acknowledge that it [life, the world, the universe] exists*, don't we? o.o
If we acknowledge that somehow the universe got here, then it follows that we're acknowledging that something happened, whether it was evolution, creationism, or anything else.

Basing something on our hopes and fears is silly, but in this case we're basing it on what we know: we didn't create the Universe. If we didn't, something, someone, or some process must have. I think that's where we agree, in that it could be anything - anything is possible. :D

*This is assuming none of us here are discussing other things like subjectivism, which would be an argument from ignorance (there's a word for this but I can't remember it at the moment. If anyone does please post it, it's bugging me. XD)

//Edit: Eek. Wrong post. XD *deletes stuff here and goes to "Taming of the Shrew" thread*

[Laindessiel]

Yeah creationism is primarily my belief, but I believe that perhaps evolution was a tool....

so in brief: God did it!

YES, darn it, HE DID!!! HE created everything.

[WriterAtTheSea]

I have posted a link to an nteresting article surrounding this topic... There are a myriad of convictions surrounding these philosophies and some actually embrace the reality of both. Given your interest in the subject matter, I thought you would find this article

While I am a creationist, I also believe in evolution to a point. I do not believe man evolved from apes though.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter5.html

[Laindessiel]

I do not believe man evolved from apes though.

It's what scientists and their relatives say to keep on earning. :sick:

[Wintermute]

It's what scientists and their relatives say to keep on earning. :sick:

So what do the preachers say so that they can keep on earning?

Do you have any idea how much the average research scientist at a university makes?? It ain't making them rich, I can tell you that. Also, by making such an uneducated statement you are condeming all scientists as liars. Why? Real evidence bothers you?

[Wintermute]

YES, darn it, HE DID!!! HE created everything.

Really? Did he (it) create himself?

[Laindessiel]

No. That was supposed to be humorous! And I'm definitely not generalizing all the scientists in different fields, Winter. All I'm saying is that WE don't come from animals, which is what they are saying! It's completely ludicrously ridiculous. We came from the ashes; made by God. (Read the book of Genesis, man.)

[Laindessiel]

Really? Did he (it) create himself?

He is already a "someone" before anything. Nobody can answer where He came from.

[Redzeppelin]

I think assigning specific attributes or properties to this 'something' based on our hopes and fears is silly.

Only if you're right - but what if you're wrong?


Anything is possible, nothing is certain.

Exactly - hence the existence of God becomes possible, and science - perhaps - uncertain.

Silv's point still stands: why should anything be "like it is"? To just say (as cuppa did) that "that just happens to be the way geometry works" creates a problem with the words "that just happens." What is "just happens" - magic? Life "just happens"? The Golden Ration "just happens" to show up everywhere in nature? Ideas about "right" and "wrong" "just happen" to have "evolved" from human experience? The conditions on this planet that make it conducive to life "just happened"? Chemical reactions in my brain "just happen" to create the feeling of joy, sadness, heartache? The answer that much of reality "just happened" to me is equal to any charge against the vague, un-empirically proven ideas of God that atheists level at Christians.

And, finally, Wintermute, what makes it OK for you to dismiss something many people find very profound as "silly"? Is an attempt to trivialize your opponent's argument supposed to be a solid response to the issue - or simply an attempt to devalue your opponent's position and put them on the defensive?

[ShoutGrace]

I do not believe man evolved from apes though.


Who does believe this? Certainly not evolutionists . . . or have I completely misdigested the entire theory? I thought we were supposed to share a common ancestor (?).

By the way, that Leadership U is a great website. They hold WLC's material. ;)

[Scheherazade]

Yeah creationism is primarily my belief, but I believe that perhaps evolution was a tool....

so in brief: God did it!YES, darn it, HE DID!!! HE created everything.Please try to make your points with your arguments, not with the size/color of your fonts.

[cuppajoe_9]

Only if you're right - but what if you're wrong?Then we're wrong. What if you're wrong about Thor, Amon Ra, Huitzilopochtli, Posideon and the Great Green Arkleseizure?

To just say (as cuppa did) that "that just happens to be the way geometry works" creates a problem with the words "that just happens." What problem? All circles are much the same. They have a common ratio between the circumference and the radius. The word (or rather letter) for that ratio is pi. Pi, expressed mathematically, happens to be an irrational number. I'm not sure which part of this implies the existence of deities.

The Golden Ration "just happens" to show up everywhere in nature? No, as I've explained, phi shows up a lot of places in nature (hardly 'everywhere', but in a lot of places) because it is an efficient to build certain structures in that ratio. If you are a gene which builds more efficient structures, you are more likely to propogate yourself. Give it a few hundred thousand generations, and the best genes win out by building more efficient snail shells. 'More efficient', in this context, means 'closer to phi'. It's not a coincidence by any means. Note that I am not a mathematician, so all of the above should be taken with a grain of salt, but I would be willing to bet that the correct explaination is very close to what I just said.

Ideas about "right" and "wrong" "just happen" to have "evolved" from human experience? The conditions on this planet that make it conducive to life "just happened"? Chemical reactions in my brain "just happen" to create the feeling of joy, sadness, heartache?Steven Pinker could explain to you in mind-numbing detail how those things happened. I will not attempt to here, but it is not, by any means, a coincidence.

Who does believe this? Certainly not evolutionists . . . or have I completely misdigested the entire theory? I thought we were supposed to share a common ancestor (?).If you saw that common ancestor walking around on the street you would say "Hey look, there's an ape walking around on the street".

[Pendragon]

So what do the preachers say so that they can keep on earning?

Do you have any idea how much the average research scientist at a university makes?? It ain't making them rich, I can tell you that. Also, by making such an uneducated statement you are condeming all scientists as liars. Why? Real evidence bothers you?Well, do you know what I made/still make as a minister, taking into account that I am, while ordained quite properly, non-denominational? Nothing. I traveled as a evangelist at my expense, and if they took up collections and it covered my expenses and I had extra, OK, and if not, I'd still be back next time. I usually stayed with a family, no four star hotel treatment, and drove as much as 750 miles one way. Now, church is in my home, and whosoever will comes, no one is refused. I ask for nothing. If God ever grants that I can start a church again, I will do so. Until then, we press on. But I'm not the one to argue with scientific fact. Evolution partially explains things for me, but not how they began. For that, God works.

[ShoutGrace]

If you saw that common ancestor walking around on the street you would say "Hey look, there's an ape walking around on the street".

That's me you're quoting, cuppajoe. :D

[cuppajoe_9]

Right, sorry. Long day.

[ShoutGrace]

Just for Redzeppelin's sake. ;) But it is getting late, at that . . .

[Redzeppelin]

Then we're wrong. What if you're wrong about Thor, Amon Ra, Huitzilopochtli, Posideon and the Great Green Arkleseizure?"

There's a difference: if I'm wrong, I've lost little. I die with an illusion and am never conscious of my delusion; but, my life was of value to others (if I lived out my convictions properly). If you're wrong, your loss is eternal. As to the listing of deities, well, I never denied they existed. Whether they do or not doesn't change anything. Why do you think God says in Commandment #1 "thou shalt have no other gods before me"? Those "gods" may be figurative, but neither I nor C.S. Lewis have ruled out the existence of other "gods."


What problem? All circles are much the same. They have a common ratio between the circumference and the radius. The word (or rather letter) for that ratio is pi. Pi, expressed mathematically, happens to be an irrational number. I'm not sure which part of this implies the existence of deities."

Again: I did not post that the existence of this number implied any deity. The presence of the "golden ratio" in biology, art, and mathematics points to something beyond simple chance. That the ratio "just happens" to show up in such varied areas strikes me as suggestive of something guiding the universe beyond blind force.


If you are a gene which builds more efficient structures, you are more likely to propogate yourself. Give it a few hundred thousand generations, and the best genes win out by building more efficient snail shells. 'More efficient', in this context, means 'closer to phi'.

OK - but why pi? Why not some other ratio? Why is pi more efficient? Why should the blind forces of nature construct along these lines?


Steven Pinker could explain to you in mind-numbing detail how those things happened. I will not attempt to here, but it is not, by any means, a coincidence.

Fine. But explaining how something happened does not necessarily mean that the origin of that event is a settled thing. If I walked into a room that had never before been entered by another person and saw a spinning ball that perpetually spun, I could explain what it's doing, but I'd have no idea but mere guesses as to what got it moving in the first place. (And personally, I'm not much interested in how weak that analogy is, so deconstructing it - in my opinion - won't accomplish much.) I think my point is clear.

[cuppajoe_9]

There's a difference: if I'm wrong, I've lost little. I die with an illusion and am never conscious of my delusion; but, my life was of value to others (if I lived out my convictions properly). If you're wrong, your loss is eternal.Pascal's Wager? Surely you jest. My loss is eternal in either case, because an omnipotent God would no that my reasons for believing in him are purely pragmatic and would send me to hell anyway.


The presence of the "golden ratio" in biology, art, and mathematics points to something beyond simple chance. That the ratio "just happens" to show up in such varied areas strikes me as suggestive of something guiding the universe beyond blind force.The laws of physics guide the universe. I've explained the prevalence of phi twice now, and you have simply repeated that you don't understand. It's an efficient ratio, so evolution selects those genes which build stuctures which employ it. As to art: I would imagine that it's considered beautiful precisely because it appears so often in nature.


OK - but why pi [sic]? Why not some other ratio?Meaningless question. You could say exactly the same thing no matter what number value of phi happened to be.


If I walked into a room that had never before been entered by another person and saw a spinning ball that perpetually spun, I could explain what it's doing, but I'd have no idea but mere guesses as to what got it moving in the first place.I have no idea how the universe got kicked off for a start, and neither does anybody else. The Big Bang happened several milliseconds after the universe started, and nobody yet knows what happened just before. Saying "you can't explain how the universe came into existence, so it must've been God" is an argument from ignorance, and not logically valid.

[Redzeppelin]

Pascal's Wager? Surely you jest. My loss is eternal in either case, because an omnipotent God would no [sic] that my reasons for believing in him are purely pragmatic and would send me to hell anyway.

It's different if you die and that's the end than if you die and "wake up" to find that eternal life could have been yours. And, God does not "send" anybody to hell. He allows you to choose (there's that pesky word again!) your destination. One theologian put it nicely: he said that the people who will be in heaven will be people who would enjoy what heaven has to offer. C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce contends that not everybody would like what heaven has to offer. It's a great (quick) read.


The laws of physics guide the universe. I've explained the prevalence of phi twice now, and you have simply repeated that you don't understand. It's an efficient ratio, so evolution selects those genes which build stuctures which employ it. As to art: I would imagine that it's considered beautiful precisely because it appears so often in nature.

You're right - I don't understand. That may be due to my ignorance, or your inability to offer me something that answers my question in an effective, convincing way. I'm not sure which it is - I'm not a math guy, so I should probably step away from the phi debate. My initial comments were in support of Silv's comments. I'm not sure I buy that physics - as a non-sentient natural force - explains the prevalence of phi, but I'm not going to debate that point because I have no authority in that area.


Meaningless question. You could say exactly the same thing no matter what number value of phi happened to be.

Perhaps it is "meaningless", but it was meaningful to me. The number doesn't matter - it's its reoccurrence as a pattern that interests me. Physics can explain some patterns - can it explain them all?


I have no idea how the universe got kicked off for a start, and neither does anybody else. The Big Bang happened several milliseconds after the universe started, and nobody yet knows what happened just before. Saying "you can't explain how the universe came into existence, so it must've been God" is an argument from ignorance, and not logically valid.

Well, as much as you feel you repeat yourself, I feel the same. If you examine my posts, I am not drawing a syllogistic conclusion that the "unknowability" of the origin of the universe points to the existence of God; rather, I'm pointing out that your position is just as etherial as mine - but your language suggests that science's speculations point to a certainty. Like yourself, I think the universe offers clues as to its origins. I'm asking you (or whomever wishes to pick up the argument) to explain why certain things should be the way they are if there is no guiding intelligence to the universe. Finally, who says the Big Bang happened at all? Your statement implies that you do know how at least part of our universe "started."

[Silv]

cuupajoe, I hope you didn't miss out my response to your arguments earlier on - at the bottom of P.78



Steven Pinker could explain to you in mind-numbing detail how those things happened. I will not attempt to here, but it is not, by any means, a coincidence.

So could Ptolemy. I don't see a point here. Pinker can explain to you how those things happened based on human intelligence - what we believe to be true, even the simplest things. He also uses simple theories and concepts which were formulated by us humans. We take a lot of things for granted, believing in our reasoning. Who's to say our reasoning is correct, perfect, and flawless? Is it not just how our brain interprets things in such a way as to make sense out of the world? Unless you're willing to say for sure that human knowledge is absolutely flawless and perfect, then that point is invalid.


My loss is eternal in either case, because an omnipotent God would no that my reasons for believing in him are purely pragmatic and would send me to hell anyway.

Then we're wrong. What if you're wrong about Thor, Amon Ra, Huitzilopochtli, Posideon and the Great Green Arkleseizure?


How do you know whose loss is eternal, and whose isn't? For that matter, how do you know God exists and that he would "send you to hell anyway"? That is a consequence that you believe in - who's right? who's wrong? Do we know for sure?
..Hence the reason I advocate that either of the two theories could work, and that it could be anything.



OK - but why pi? Why not some other ratio? Why is pi more efficient? Why should the blind forces of nature construct along these lines?




The idea is that we have devised all this knowledge for our convenience. 1+1 = 2 is for our convenience, not because we know why or how this came to be, or the reason this math equation holds in our universe. They are not perfect in their descriptions of the laws of nature, which were not created by us.

I think what cuppajoe is saying is that we're just using pi as an example, and that it would be the same case for any other theory or model.



I have no idea how the universe got kicked off for a start, and neither does anybody else. The Big Bang happened several milliseconds after the universe started, and nobody yet knows what happened just before.

All the underlined bits already show uncertainty. We have no more proof of how the universe started than of God existing, or of Evolution having done that. Even the simple notion of believing in the Big Bang is already casting your faith on Evolution, when either of the two cannot be proven valid over the other.


Saying "you can't explain how the universe came into existence, so it must've been God" is an argument from ignorance, and not logically valid.

The above is what Wintermute said earlier:

I agree completely. And, to infer that a Christian (or any other human construct) god exists because Pi exists is just plain silly in my opinion.


To which I replied:

I don't think it's a silly inference to believe that something other than humans was at work in the formation of nature and the universe. It could be Evolution, or it could be Intelligent Design. My point is that it could be anything, and we don't have to restrict ourselves to either Evolution or Creationism.

I also re-explained this point later on:


Hm...well, we have to acknowledge that it [life, the world, the universe] exists*, don't we? o.o
If we acknowledge that somehow the universe got here, then it follows that we're acknowledging that something happened, whether it was evolution, creationism, or anything else.

Basing something on our hopes and fears is silly, but in this case we're basing it on what we know: we didn't create the Universe. If we didn't, something, someone, or some process must have. I think that's where we agree, in that it could be anything - anything is possible. :D

..It is not an argument from ignorance that we did not create the universe. We know humans didn't do it. Therefore, it follows that something, someone, or some other process did it.

As I said before and I'll repeat again, there is not a reason for us to believe strictly in either Evolution or Creationism: anything is possible.

[cuppajoe_9]

One theologian put it nicely: he said that the people who will be in heaven will be people who would enjoy what heaven has to offer. Well it that's all it takes, then what does it matter whether or not I believe in God?


If you examine my posts, I am not drawing a syllogistic conclusion that the "unknowability" of the origin of the universe points to the existence of God; rather, I'm pointing out that your position is just as etherial as mine - but your language suggests that science's speculations point to a certainty.You're putting words into my mouth. I have never said that it is certain that no gods exist, I simply do not believe that no gods exist and, furthermore, all the empirical evidence that I have seen leads me to believe that it is very likely that no gods exist. Nothing is certain.


I'm asking you (or whomever wishes to pick up the argument) to explain why certain things should be the way they are if there is no guiding intelligence to the universe.That question lends itself more to an encyclopaedia than a message board, but I think I've been giving it a shot. Evolution is one important part of the answer. Simple structures combine to form complex structures when their environment demands that they do so.


Finally, who says the Big Bang happened at all? Your statement implies that you do know how at least part of our universe "started."The fact that the universe is expanding says that the Big Bang happened at all. We know that the universe is expanding becuase we can measure the red shift to see what direction stars and galaxies are moving in, and they're all moving away from a common centre. We do know a bit about the origins of the universe, but nothing at all about the actual moment at which the universe began to exist.

[Silv]

*doubletakes* You're an AP ENGLISH TEACHER?

[cuppajoe_9]

From earlier (I did, in fact, miss that response, and I apologize):


[Concerning pi]By that statement, you are already accepting the fact that "things work because that's how they are", and therefore are assuming that our theories are to be trusted.Yes, I am assuming that, and I have a very good reason to: every time I divide the circumference of a circle by the radius, I get 3.14159... If somebody does that and gets 47, then pi has a serious problem, but I'll worry about that when and if it happens.


At the time before we could understand and appreciate his theory, we believed Ptolemy's system to be the valid one, and that Copernicus was crazy. Later, we accepted Copernicus's as opposed to Ptolemy's since it soon became evident from our studies. Now, what's to stop someone from coming along and proving us otherwise?I hope somebody does. However, the fact that future evidence may prove that evolution does not, in fact, happen is no reason to throw up our hands and say "oh well, we'll never know for sure". If we're to find out anything at all about how the universe works, we've got to work with what we have.


So could Ptolemy.Pinker has access to much better evidence and methods than Ptolemy did. The point is that the assertion that ther is no way to explain morality without supernatural thinking is false.


Who's to say our reasoning is correct, perfect, and flawless? Is it not just how our brain interprets things in such a way as to make sense out of the world? Unless you're willing to say for sure that human knowledge is absolutely flawless and perfect, then that point is invalid.You can't use fallibilism as an argument in itself. Maybe my reasoning is wrong, sure, maybe everybody's reasoning is wrong, but you still have to show why it's wrong. Like I said, we have to work with what we have.


How do you know whose loss is eternal, and whose isn't? For that matter, how do you know God exists and that he would "send you to hell anyway"?Well if he wouldn't then Pascal's Wager is invalid anyway, and I remain entirely without a reason to believe in God.


That is a consequence that you believe in...The point is that it isn't a consequence I believe in.


Hence the reason I advocate that either of the two theories could work, and that it could be anything.Of course it could be anything, but it only is one thing. Don't you think we should at least try to find out what that one thing is?


We have no more proof of how the universe started than of God existing, or of Evolution having done that.Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, oh so very emphatically wrong. We DO have evidence for evolution. Mountains of evidence. Huge piles of evidence. Large museums filled with evidence. Wonderfully thick, lucid, well-written books filled with evidence. I can't prove that there is no God, or that there is no Thor, or that there is no Flying Spaghetti monster, true, but do you want me to accept that all of those things are equally likely just because I can't meet your impossible standard of proof?


It is not an argument from ignorance that we did not create the universe. We know humans didn't do it. Therefore, it follows that something, someone, or some other process did it.Correct. However, the second you start to say that this sort of reasoning implies that God did it, you are arguing from ignorance.

[Redzeppelin]

In response to Silv's question: Umm...yes I am. Which would probably explain why I'm taking such a beating here.


Well it that's all it takes, then what does it matter whether or not I believe in God?

*Sigh* - for the sake of brevity I spoke thusly, so as not to turn this thread into a sermon. "Believing in God" is kind of a prerequisite since He's the landlord. The point was about being "sent" to hell - not the requirements for getting into heaven.


You're putting words into my mouth. I have never said that it is certain that no gods exist, I simply do not believe that no gods exist and, furthermore, all the empirical evidence that I have seen leads me to believe that it is very likely that no gods exist. Nothing is certain.

Sorry if I've done this - but my post did not say the "certainty" was connected to the existence of gods. The "certainty" applies to your assertion of the evolutionistic beginnings of the universe.


The fact that the universe is expanding says that the Big Bang happened at all. We know that the universe is expanding becuase we can measure the red shift to see what direction stars and galaxies are moving in, and they're all moving away from a common centre. We do know a bit about the origins of the universe, but nothing at all about the actual moment at which the universe began to exist.

The red shift of which you speak I am aware of - but that expansion does not definitively suggest the Big Bang as an exclusive source of that expansion; it suggests a highly probable source. And, it does not suggest that God was not behind the origin of that Bang.

[cuppajoe_9]

*doubletakes* You're an AP ENGLISH TEACHER?Me? Why yes, as a matter of fact.

[Silv]

BOTH OF YOU? *faints and slides away*

[cuppajoe_9]

"Believing in God" is kind of a prerequisite since He's the landlord. Well, then I really do believe, deep down inside, that the kind of God who allows people to suffer eternally for the crime of atheism is (warning, this will be offensive) an incredibly petty, jealous, controling sort of deity. I presume that will land me in hell anyway. I can't win, so I think I'll just keep being an atheist.


The "certainty" applies to your assertion of the evolutionistic beginnings of the universe.Evolution is a biological theory, not a cosmological one. The evidence for the Big Bang is, again, plentiful, but, as I've said, nothing is a certain as you seem to be demanding.


The red shift of which you speak I am aware of - but that expansion does not definitively suggest the Big Bang as an exclusive source of that expansion; it suggests a highly probable source.And, as I've said, 'highly probable' is the closest we ever come to certainty.


And, it does not suggest that God was not behind the origin of that Bang.And it most certainly does not suggest that he was.

[Redzeppelin]

Man, you're energetic. How do you keep up?


Well, then I really do believe, deep down inside, that the kind of God who allows people to suffer eternally for the crime of atheism is (warning, this will be offensive) an incredibly petty, jealous, controling sort of deity. I presume that will land me in hell anyway. I can't win, so I think I'll just keep being an atheist.

Again: I don't want to turn this into a theological seminary, so I will have to be content with saying that the God you're describing is not one that the Bible describes. Everyone is given a chance (probably more likely many, many chances) to "find" God. Nobody who dies the "second death" (because I don't believe in eternal suffering either for sin that was committed during a finite lifetime) will do so without having been given ample chance to choose otherwise.


Evolution is a biological theory, not a cosmological one. The evidence for the Big Bang is, again, plentiful, but, as I've said, nothing is a certain as you seem to be demanding.

Again: I was only responding to your charge of "putting words" in your mouth. You're quibbling over terminology that I did not attempt to pick up. If I'm a little loose with my terms, forgive me - I'm not even slightly scientifically literate. And, I'm not "demanding" anything - I'm simply asking for clarification. Christians will generally admit that we cannot "prove" God exists - but you rarely hear an atheist admit the same; many speak of evolution and/or cosmological origins as if science has all but nailed them down - a "certainty" so to speak.




And, as I've said, 'highly probable' is the closest we ever come to certainty.

Yep.


And it most certainly does not suggest that he was.

I didn't say it did. I'm pointing out that the process we observe as "red shift" has a number of possible origins besides a spontaneously occurring explosion.

[Silv]

*le sigh* XD I still have a bunch of rhetorical pr&#233;cis to write for Monday. Oh and um, cuppajoe (oO 19? I doubt you're an AP English teacher)..you spelled my sn wrong in all the quotations..o.o


In response to Silv's question: Umm...yes I am. Which would probably explain why I'm taking such a beating here.


Actually, I'm just an AP Lang student.



Yes, I am assuming that, and I have a very good reason to: every time I divide the circumference of a circle by the radius, I get 3.14159... If somebody does that and gets 47, then pi has a serious problem, but I'll worry about that when and if it happens.


Yes but taking again from my earlier example of Copernicus and Ptolemy: both their calculations always led to the same conclusions. However, now we believe in Copernicus's. What I'm saying is that our reason cannot always be trusted.



I hope somebody does. However, the fact that future evidence may prove that evolution does not, in fact, happen is no reason to throw up our hands and say "oh well, we'll never know for sure". If we're to find out anything at all about how the universe works, we've got to work with what we have.

You can't use fallibilism as an argument in itself. Maybe my reasoning is wrong, sure, maybe everybody's reasoning is wrong, but you still have to show why it's wrong. Like I said, we have to work with what we have.

Of course it could be anything, but it only is one thing. Don't you think we should at least try to find out what that one thing is?

We've got to work with what we have - That I agree with. But we don't have to choose to believe in either of the theories we come up with. We can work with them, but we don't have to pick one and stick to it. That's the whole point of working and investigating on them: to come up with further explanations. In order to do that, we should not reject one theory for the other, but should rather keep both in mind.



Pinker has access to much better evidence and methods than Ptolemy did. The point is that the assertion that ther is no way to explain morality without supernatural thinking is false.

We DO have evidence for evolution.

Evidence yes, and all of it is valid only IF we describe it to other humans. Suppose now there is a being of another species and we explain the laws of physics to him and he goes: nono, we believe it works this way..
So we work it out using his methods, and voil&#224;: we arrive at the same conclusion. What then? For that is exactly what happened with Ptolemy and Copernicus until further knowledge was discovered. It's not supernatural thinking per se, it's that "explaining morality" is all taking place in terms of human reasoning. If we believe in human reasoning as being absolute and flawless, then there's no problem. The point is that this evidence is also created for and based on our understanding. You could say, then, that all of this is just models for us to interpret the world - not that the world really and truly works this way. That is something we don't yet know. There's no way of ruling out every single thing that Creationism OR Evolution brings up. Mentioning earlier that you chose Evolution because it's the likelier of the two to have happened doesn't really stand in itself, because you're ignoring all the other points of Creationism that could be valid.



The point is that it isn't a consequence I believe in.

Apologies. Was probably getting my facts mixed up over who believed in what. :blush:


However, the second you start to say that this sort of reasoning implies that God did it, you are arguing from ignorance.


Don't recall implying God did it - if I did, that wasn't my intended meaning. What I do imply is that something, someone, or some process did it (and it could be any of the three, I'm not holding either one of them above the others). It could be anything.

[cuppajoe_9]

Again: I don't want to turn this into a theological seminary, so I will have to be content with saying that the God you're describing is not one that the Bible describes.Maybe not, but it doesn't make Pascal's wager any more valid. Assuming that God and hell exist, people who die atheists either go to hell or they don't. If they don't, then I have no reason to worry about it, and I remain an atheist. If they do, then I think God is a...well, I go to hell anyway.


Christians will generally admit that we cannot "prove" God exists - but you rarely hear an atheist admit the sameThat's not ture, I'm perfectly willing to admit that Christians can't prove that God exists.

Anyway: the point is that when you ask for the evidence that evolution happens, or that the Big Bang is the best explaination for the origin of the universe, I can point you to a large pile of evidence. When I ask for evidence for God's existance, I get arguments from ignorance, Pascal's Wagers, and appeals to religious faith. This tells me that we are dealing with two very different kinds of beliefs.


Oh and um, cuppajoe? You spelled my sn wrong in all the quotations..o.oMy apologies. It's been a long day, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't go back and correct it.


Suppose now there is a being of another species and we explain the laws of physics to him and he goes: nono, we believe it works this way..
So we work it out using his methods, and voil&#224;: we arrive at the same conclusion. What then? Then we were wrong, and we'll have to admit that. As I've said, though, you still have to show why, we're wrong. What you are doing is saying that ID and evolution are on equal footing because evolution may, at some future point, be proven to be false. Yeah, mabye they're both wrong, but it's still on the shoulder's of whoever I'm arguing with to knock down my evidence.


Mentioning earlier that you chose Evolution because it's the likelier of the two to have happened doesn't really stand in itself, because you're ignoring all the other points of Creationism that could be valid.I most certainly am not, I'm adressing those points. No creationist has ever shown me a fatal weakness in evolution, and if he did I would, if I am honest, have to abandon it. It's possible, yes, but I'm still waiting.


Don't recall implying God did it - if I did, that wasn't my intended meaning. Just making sure.


What I do imply is that something, someone, or some process did it (and it could be any of the three, I'm not holding either one of them above the others). It could be anything.Yes, it could. The question is what?

[Silv]

Yes, it could. The question is what?

That is where I arrived at. Yay! :D


I most certainly am not, I'm adressing those points. No creationist has ever shown me a fatal weakness in evolution, and if he did I would, if I am honest, have to abandon it. It's possible, yes, but I'm still waiting.

But do you agree that there are some points - even if few - of creationism that you agree with?

Either way I'm here just to share my view, which is that both theories have their valid and invalid points, and it may be that either one or even none of the two eventually will hold.

[Redzeppelin]

That's not ture [sic], I'm perfectly willing to admit that Christians can't prove that God exists.

Ha ha - I won't insult your considerable intelligence by pointing out my implied object to the word "same."


Anyway: the point is that when you ask for the evidence that evolution happens, or that the Big Bang is the best explaination for the origin of the universe, I can point you to a large pile of evidence. When I ask for evidence for God's existance, I get arguments from ignorance, Pascal's Wagers, and appeals to religious faith. This tells me that we are dealing with two very different kinds of beliefs.

I never asked for evidence of the Big Bang because there is none that definitively proves it happened - at least in the way science claims. It is - to quote you - a "high probability." And, most Christian apologists will flat out tell you there is no real evidence for the existence of God (hence faith); I have not proffered any of my arguments as '"evidence" for anything. You'll not get evidence for the existence of God. What I question is the veracity of your "evidence."



I No creationist has ever shown me a fatal weakness in evolution, and if he did I would, if I am honest, have to abandon it. It's possible, yes, but I'm still waiting.

Who's trying to do that? I'm not seeking a "fatal flaw" in evolution; I'm asking evolution to offer me something reasonable - to defend itself against some questions I have. If a "fatal flaw" could be laid out, well many WAY smarter than me would have already offered it and shut the argument down - but then again, even if we found what we considered a "fatal flaw" - would you "buy" it?

[cuppajoe_9]

But do you agree that there are some points - even if few - of creationism that you agree with?I suppose that we agree that organisms are complex, and that the bacterial flagellum is really neat and that the sky is blue and that chocolate is delicious, yes, but I still think that evolution happens.


Who's trying to do that? Michael Behe springs to mind. I wasn't refering to you in that comment.


...but then again, even if we found what we considered a "fatal flaw" - would you "buy" it?Good question. That would entirely depend on what it was. If they finally came up with a structure that actually is irriducibly complex (none have so far been discovered), then I would admit that the theory needs to be reviewed. If an organism was discovered that coded for proteins using a molecule other than DNA, I would have to seriously reconsider the validity of the theory. If it was, say, a human skeleton found in pre-cambrian rock, and then dated by several radioactive decay tests and found to be the same age as the mater around it, I would have to completely abandon evolution.

[Redzeppelin]

Good question. That would entirely depend on what it was. If they finally came up with a structure that actually is irriducibly complex (none have so far been discovered), then I would admit that the theory needs to be reviewed. If an organism was discovered that coded for proteins using a molecule other than DNA, I would have to seriously reconsider the validity of the theory. If it was, say, a human skeleton found in pre-cambrian rock, and then dated by several radioactive decay tests and found to be the same age as the mater around it, I would have to completely abandon evolution.


Interesting. See, I have a hard time believing that science couldn't come up with an explanation for the "fatal flaws" you listed. In my mind, if science can explain how we got here, well - then it should be able to come up with a pretty convincing explanation for anything.

[Silv]

yes, but I still think that evolution happens.


Well then, you believe in some points of Creationism, therefore you cannot completely refute it. In other words, you believe in Evolution, but you also believe in Creationism - though arguably, to a lesser degree. But, you have taken to refuting Creationism and all that it stands for. You're actually casting aside a list of points belonging to Creationism that you yourself can't object against. If you can't completely disagree with certain points of Creationism, you can't rule it out and simply go with Evolution.

For me, again, I'm not leaning towards either one or the other.

[Redzeppelin]

*yawn* - ok I'm off to bed. You guys are way too energetic for me. I'll check in tomorrow and see where the arguments have gone. Thanks for the discussion :yawnb:

[cuppajoe_9]

Interesting. See, I have a hard time believing that science couldn't come up with an explanation for the "fatal flaws" you listed.Of course it could (hopefully), but that explaination wouldn't be Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.


Well then, you believe in some points of Creationism, therefore you cannot completely refute it. Non sequiter. I probably agree with some points of phrenology (your head is located on top of your neck, for example), but that doesn't mean phrenology isn't complete nonsense.


In other words, you believe in Evolution, but you also believe in Creationism - though arguably, to a lesser degree.No I don't, because creationism is the theory that the earth was designed by some sort of deity. I do not believe any part of that sentence. Just because creationists occasionaly have to make some statement that has something to do with reality, it doesn't mean that their basic premise is correct. I certainly can reject creationism and accept evolution, because one theory explains the evidence, and the other doesn't.

[Pendragon]

And, as I've said, 'highly probable' is the closest we ever come to certainty.

Thank you, Joe. You may not realize it, but this seems to be something many people have a hard time understanding. Science takes what facts it can collect, and since there are no eyewitnesses to question, have to draw their conclusions based on that evidence, which sometimes is fragmentary and a real "toss-up". So "most likely", "most highly probable", and "best guess" often have to win out. It is still based on facts, there are simply parts of the puzzle that are missing at the moment or unclear. When they become available or the fog clears, the statement may change. But this type of fragmentary evidence is what convicts criminals and solves crimes. The tiny pieces hold truth, but it is hard to get it out of them. Some investigations take years, but truth will out. Doesn't stop my belief in God, but I do admire science! :)

[Whifflingpin]

Life is too short to follow all this discussion, but I noticed this comment from Cuppajoe:
"The fact that the universe is expanding says that the Big Bang happened at all. We know that the universe is expanding becuase we can measure the red shift to see what direction stars and galaxies are moving in, and they're all moving away from a common centre."

Would the observable phenomena be the same if the universe were pulsating - but currently in an expansion phase?

The question has nothing to do with the discussion, but I'm just curious.

[cuppajoe_9]

Thank you, Joe. You may not realize it, but this seems to be something many people have a hard time understanding. Well, it seems that many people don't want to understand it, and I can see their point. Absolute certainty is comforting, and I imagine that having it suddenly taken away would leave one reeling.


Would the observable phenomena be the same if the universe were pulsating - but currently in an expansion phase?The red shift would look the same, but a lot of other things wouldn't. The main problem with the Big Crunch theory, in my limited understanding, is that the universe is a bit lopsided, with relatively large clusters of mass in some parts and vast expanes of nothing in others. This means that if an when the universe stops expanding and starts contracting it will not colapse back into a singularity as neat as the one that apparently initiated the last Big Bang. I have also read that the expansion of the Universe appears to be be accelerating, rather than slowing down, which means that, if it continues, the universe will not colapse back into itself, but instead be torn apart at the atomic level. Exciting things happening in astrophysics these days.

[Redzeppelin]

Of course it could (hopefully), but that explaination wouldn't be Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

Right - but it wouldn't point to God either, so our argument would more than likely continue on (and on and on and on).


Just because creationists occasionaly have to make some statement that has something to do with reality, it doesn't mean that their basic premise is correct. I certainly can reject creationism and accept evolution, because one theory explains the evidence, and the other doesn't.

In your opinion. In mine, not so. As I've said before, once we choose our position, the "evidence" for it (whether "scientific" or not) becomes convincing. Your evidence would only become convincing to me if I decided that God wasn't real - but I wouldn't make that decision because of any "evidence" you could offer me. I'm inclined to believe the same is true vice versa.

You know, Joe, I respect your arguing, but your rather patronizing tone tends to get abrasive after a while. I'm here in the cooperative spirit of debate, but comments like these are attempts to belittle the position of creationists. I'm pretty sure nothing in my posts is nearly as condescending as your language often sounds. You dismiss people's questions/comments as "meaningless" and "nonsequiter," make jokes out of points someone makes or split hairs over their language (when it's a pretty sure bet you understand the intended point). This all makes you a very intimidating debate partner - but is that what you want?

I can respect your position - it's well argued and you have a ready command of endless factoids to defend it. Bravo - but please don't act as if creationists only "occasionally" make a statement "that has something to do with reality." There are respected Christian scientists who do good research and have drawn valid conclusions. The "reality" comment is based on the idea that your position is "reality" while ours is some fantasy. Our world view is every bit as valid to us as is yours to you - but you come off pretty flippant about our position. I could easily be as partonizing about some of the things evolutionists postulate about the origins of human beings - but I don't think that's conducive to a cooperative discussion. And before you fire back about how your "evidence" makes your reality correct, I would remind you that your evidence is no more convincing to me than mine is to you. Sometimes, my friend, I think the "health" of a discussion is maintained not so much by always having a ready retort as it is by communicating a willingness to accord honor to your opponent's position. Humans are emotional as well as rational - and any good debater knows that rock solid evidence can fall on deaf ears if those ears are being patronized or insulted. Just a thought :)

[cuppajoe_9]

I imagine I can get pretty irritating, and I apologise, and that comment was not directed to you. I was reacting to the position that I am unable to reject creationism because creationists and I agree on a very few points, a fairly condescending position in itself, in my opinion. I was in no way thinking of you when I made that statement, but rather to those Intelligent Design scientists who persist in pushing ideas such as irreducible complexity when, in actual fact, they have been unable to come up with anything fitting their own definition of irriducibly complex in nature. There certainly are respectable arguments for creation, but those are not them. Again, I apologise if I've offended you.

[Redzeppelin]

No real offense taken. I know I'm capable of coming on strong as well- and I enjoy how you keep me on my toes. But perhaps because I'm a bit older (twice your age if I'm guessing correctly) I'm less interested in "winning" an argument than in winning my opponent's respect (not to say that you are guilty of the first - just clarifying my priorities). I would rather lose every argument I posed but feel like I'm among friends who love a good argument than to win a debate at the cost of a potential intellectual friendship (much more valuable to me than any "point" I could make).

I understand you point thoroughly. Thanks - I appreciate the time you took to respond. I look forward to our future discussions (I'm sure there'll be many :) ).

[Laindessiel]

Please try to make your points with your arguments, not with the size/color of your fonts.

Uncle Pen explains this quite thoroughly and reasonably. Please, I don't want a debate. As my Secret Santa clue says, "I try to veer away from the religious threads because I don't want no arguments."

That is, I try. Sometimes, I can't help it. And besides, if I see someone on my side and if I agree completely with what he/she says, why add to the ruckus?

I know that arguments and discussions will take you to greater heights to make you understand and comprehend fully about the subject, but as I said, I'll leave it to my companions.

I'm a creationist, that is all.

[Pendragon]

I imagine I can get pretty irritating, and I apologise, and that comment was not directed to you. I was reacting to the position that I am unable to reject creationism because creationists and I agree on a very few points, a fairly condescending position in itself, in my opinion. I was in no way thinking of you when I made that statement, but rather to those Intelligent Design scientists who persist in pushing ideas such as irreducible complexity when, in actual fact, they have been unable to come up with anything fitting their own definition of irriducibly complex in nature. There certainly are respectable arguments for creation, but those are not them. Again, I apologise if I've offended you. Joe, mon ami, I image we all seem a bit irritating from time to time as we defend our positions, and try to see the other's points without making offensive remarks when we get frustrated. We are all only human. But we have continued to be gentlemen with each other, and that counts for a lot. Don't worry yourself. You manage to be very unoffensive while sticking to your guns, and that in itself is admirable. Respect for those one disagrees with is sadly lacking in many these days. My hat is off to you, a philosopher and a gentleman! :)

[Scheherazade]

Uncle Pen explains this quite thoroughly and reasonably. Please, I don't want a debate. As my Secret Santa clue says, "I try to veer away from the religious threads because I don't want no arguments."

That is, I try. Sometimes, I can't help it. And besides, if I see someone on my side and if I agree completely with what he/she says, why add to the ruckus?

I know that arguments and discussions will take you to greater heights to make you understand and comprehend fully about the subject, but as I said, I'll leave it to my companions.

I'm a creationist, that is all.Lain,

We all respect your right (not) to take part in these discussions and / or to believe in whatever theory that suits your belief system.

However, whenever you do decide to take part and express your (dis)agreement, please do not rely on bigger fonts to make your points in this part of the Forum, where the discussions are often heated and people's sensitivities are at their highest.

[Stanislaw]

Please try to make your points with your arguments, not with the size/color of your fonts.

sorry...that was in my younger brasher days...:D

[Laindessiel]

Lain,

We all respect your right (not) to take part in these discussions and / or to believe in whatever theory that suits your belief system.

However, whenever you do decide to take part and express your (dis)agreement, please do not rely on bigger fonts to make your points in this part of the Forum, where the discussions are often heated and people's sensitivities are at their highest.

I'm sorry Scher. Got a bit carried away. Never to do it again. :)

[dramasnot6]

No. That was supposed to be humorous! And I'm definitely not generalizing all the scientists in different fields, Winter. All I'm saying is that WE don't come from animals, which is what they are saying! It's completely ludicrously ridiculous. We came from the ashes; made by God. (Read the book of Genesis, man.)

What would explain the millions of genetic links and similarities to other primates then? Is it just a coincedence we share over 98% of our DNA with them?

[Whifflingpin]

"Is it just a coincidence we share over 98% of our DNA with them?"

Although I happen to accept that evolution has occurred, and that Genesis is not a material description of the origin of species, I don't think that the "98% of DNA" argument proves anything at all. If God created all living species instantaneously out of dust, there is no reason why He should not have endowed them with similar DNA. 98% of the functionality of living things is the same, after all.

[dramasnot6]

If God created everyone out of dust, why do some consider themselves not to be animals like all other creatures? What else could we be?

[Whifflingpin]

I don't think anyone denies that we are animals. It appears, however that we differ from other animals in a unique way.

The difference can be described in many ways, but it is clear that we have some mental/emotional/spiritual capacity that, as far as we can tell, is not shared by any other animal species. For example, we have the ability to see a joke, or discuss ethics, or consciously to reflect upon ourselves and our origin.

If this capacity is unique in kind, then it is difficult to see how it may be arrived at by evolution.

[Pendragon]

If God created everyone out of dust, why do some consider themselves not to be animals like all other creatures? What else could we be?Many think animals have no souls, and that man does, so he is superior. I don't completely agree with them, but they will still believe what they want. An animals such as a dog, cat, or other pet has been known to risk death delibertly to save its owner's life. Sounds like love to me...

[Whifflingpin]

"An animals such as a dog, cat, or other pet has been known to risk death delibertly to save its owner's life. Sounds like love to me..."

I wouldn't want to argue with your conclusion, and certainly not to get involved with discussion on souls. But, in this respect, I think it is likely that only humans would have the capacity to risk their lives knowingly to save strangers, or even enemies.

[Redzeppelin]

If God created everyone out of dust, why do some consider themselves not to be animals like all other creatures? What else could we be?

Perhaps the ability to reason - our ability to contemplate ourselves, our lives, our universe (kind of like the conversation we're having now :) ). Animals (as far as I'm aware) are not self-aware in that they have self-consciousness. As well, the Bible makes a clear distinction between humans and animals - that we (not the animals) were created "in God's image."

The answer is we are divinely created human beings.

[Lioness_Heart]

um... I don't want to offend anyone, but isn't evolution kind of proved? Like with the Galapagos birds and stuff?

[Redzeppelin]

"Proved"? Hardly. Evolution is termed a "theory" because it is based upon speculations. That some things in nature appear to point in evolution's direction doesn't "prove" anything. The only way you can "prove" evolution is to find the "transitional forms" that theorists theorize occurred to bring us where we are. And, from what I've heard, even Darwin admitted that evolution worked at a "micro" level, but not a "marcro" level.

Science would like us to believe it's proved, and people routinely talk about it as if it is. It's not. There is some convincing evidence on evolution's side of the table, but evolution still can't answer all questions.

[Scheherazade]

The creationists had at least 2000 years to make their cases whereas the Evolutionists only couple of hundred years. Considering the short time they have had, I think they are doing a pretty good job and closer to be a fact than Creationist theory, me thinks.

[Redzeppelin]

The creationists had at least 2000 years to make their cases whereas the Evolutionists only couple of hundred years. Considering the short time they have had, I think they are doing a pretty good job and closer to be a fact than Creationist theory, me thinks.

Perhaps. But do you think it really took 2000 years to come up with the Genesis narrative? One of the primary reasons it seems that atheists reject the creation story is that it sounds too much like an unbelievable fairy tale - I don't think fairy tales take 2000 years to compose. (Besides, it's only fairy-tale-ish if one assumes that nothing beyond humanity and nature exists.)

"Fact" is an interesting term - evolution appears "closer to fact" because it jives with how WE view the world. To a child, the idea that the sun "sets" (moves downward towards the horizon) is far more believable than the reality that it doesn't move anywhere - the earth turns away from it - but, based on observation, that's what it appears to do. We accept that which conforms to our view. When an atheist says evolution is more "factual," all the atheist is really saying is "this is more believable to me because the evidence supports my world view." I don't believe any evidence exists that is capable of convincing either side of the coin that the other is "right": first you make a choice to believe, then you "see" the "evidence."

[Scheherazade]

Perhaps. But do you think it really took 2000 years to come up with the Genesis narrative? One of the primary reasons it seems that atheists reject the creation story is that it sounds too much like an unbelievable fairy tale - I don't think fairy tales take 2000 years to compose. (Besides, it's only fairy-tale-ish if one assumes that nothing beyond humanity and nature exists.)I did not say that they took 2000 years to compose their theory. I said they had 2000 years to make their point.

And yes, Evolutions are still 'composing' their theories and facts but as a teacher which one would you find more worthwhile? A work which is done in a very short time through some inspiration or a work which is based on long research and keeps improving with new facts?

[cuppajoe_9]

The only way you can "prove" evolution is to find the "transitional forms" that theorists theorize occurred to bring us where we are.There are quite a few discovered transitional forms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils.
And, from what I've heard, even Darwin admitted that evolution worked at a "micro" level, but not a "marcro" level.I'm not sure where you heard this, but it's absolutely not true. On the Origin of Species is almost entirely devoted to evidence for marcro level evolution.

[Redzeppelin]

I did not say that they took 2000 years to compose their theory. I said they had 2000 years to make their point.

Fair enough - I didn't read your post as carefully as I should.


And yes, Evolutions are still 'composing' their theories and facts but as a teacher which one would you find more worthwhile? A work which is done in a very short time through some inspiration or a work which is based on long research and keeps improving with new facts?

But the choices you provided are two books that may have been written for very different purposes, very different audiences. I don't want my science books written by "inspiration" and I don't want my literature based on "research and facts" (which is not an invitation to go "Oh, so the Bible's just literature then, eh?") The Bible was never meant to do what a science book does - just as The Old Man and the Sea isn't meant to be a fishing manual. When evolutionists pit their "evidence" against the Genesis narrative they tend to go "See? How ridiculous is that?" - but the comparison is not completely fair because God did not intend for the Bible to be a science book. If God decided to write a science book, I'm certain it would make our own scientific masterpieces look silly and simplistic by comparison. But God's not interested in that. Evidence that points towards something is not necessarily evidence that connects to something.


There are quite a few discovered transitional forms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils.I.


I'm not sure where you heard this, but it's absolutely not true. On the Origin of Species is almost entirely devoted to evidence for marcro level evolution.

OK - slam-dunk. You'd been quiet lately, so I thought I could get away with some fast-and-loose comments. My info is probably outdated hearsay - which I'll only partly apologize for because I'm not in the habit of doing research to post in these threads. I'm certainly no expert on this stuff - but I've read articles that suggest that the accurate commentary Darwin makes on micro-evolution was extrapolated into macro-evolution, and that the extrapolation is not valid: just because something happens at the micro level does not inevitably suggest that that same process goes "macro" in the same (or even comprable) way.

As I've said before: you have loads of evidence - I can't compete with it, primarily because God did not leave us "evidence" with which to debate non-believers with. He never intended us to convince non-believers of anything - except, perhaps, that living the Christian life was something of value.

[Pendragon]

OK - slam-dunk. You'd been quiet lately, so I thought I could get away with some fast-and-loose comments. My info is probably outdated hearsay - which I'll only partly apologize for because I'm not in the habit of doing research to post in these threads. I'm certainly no expert on this stuff - but I've read articles that suggest that the accurate commentary Darwin makes on micro-evolution was extrapolated into macro-evolution, and that the extrapolation is not valid: just because something happens at the micro level does not inevitably suggest that that same process goes "macro" in the same (or even comprable) way.

Alas, Red, mon ami, when it comes to a debate you have to be prepared to present your side and expect that it will be micro-examined by the other. You must also be prepared to cross-examine the other, which you will never be able to do without research. Have you never heard the old proverb, "know thine enemy?" If you don't know what they will most likely say in return to your statement or how to try to counter, you are defeated before you start. And on a subject like this "fast-and-loose comments" will be picked up by the opposing side and tossed back to you. Think before you post, and then think some more. :)

[Whifflingpin]

"Think before you post"

That's cheating, and takes all the fun out.

[Redzeppelin]

Alas, Red, mon ami, when it comes to a debate you have to be prepared to present your side and expect that it will be micro-examined by the other. You must also be prepared to cross-examine the other, which you will never be able to do without research. Have you never heard the old proverb, "know thine enemy?" If you don't know what they will most likely say in return to your statement or how to try to counter, you are defeated before you start. And on a subject like this "fast-and-loose comments" will be picked up by the opposing side and tossed back to you. Think before you post, and then think some more. :)

Thank you, Pen - I don't have a problem getting nailed like that. I admitted that I asked for it, and I knew my comment was on shaky ground. That's OK with me. I'm quite prepared to be micro-analyzed and to admit when my point is less (sometimes far less) than valid. I'm not convinced, however, that every poster here has gone out and "done the research" - whether that means reading scientific journals or the Bible. If this were a formal debate, then yeah, I'd have done some reading - but I do this for relaxation and fun. Nonetheless, it wouldn't hurt to "bone up" on some of the endless info cuppajoe seems to have access to.

[Scheherazade]

but the comparison is not completely fair because God did not intend for the Bible to be a science book. If God decided to write a science book, I'm certain it would make our own scientific masterpieces look silly and simplistic by comparison. But God's not interested in that. Evidence that points towards something is not necessarily evidence that connects to something. Then, people should not bringing up the Creationist theory as a scientific fact and say 'God did it!' when we are talking about our material existence and physical origins in this world. We should be able to make the distinction between physical and spiritual existence.

Oh, looking forward to the day when God finally decides to present us with such a book as you mentioned. Would have saved lots of trouble on earth, don't you think?

[The Jackle]

Well, when christ comes back upon this earth in the second comming ill ask him to write one. Anyway the creation theroy will always be in stalemate with the evolution theroy.There is an theroy that God started it all off in eden but when man was expelled for sins against god that God enabled animals and plants to change in order for them to populate the earth.That theroy is in my opinion most senceable, however the everlotion vs creation is currently more of an Atheiest Vs Belivers argument hence the stalement will continue.

[cuppajoe_9]

...however the everlotion vs creation is currently more of an Atheiest Vs Belivers argument hence the stalement will continue.It's not at all a God vs. No-God debate. Plenty of theists support biological evolution. The Vatican endorses Darwin nowadays (though they've never been big literalists) and Ken Miller, one of the most respeced cell-biologists in the field, is a practicing Roman Catholic.

[Redzeppelin]

Then, people should not bringing up the Creationist theory as a scientific fact and say 'God did it!' when we are talking about our material existence and physical origins in this world. We should be able to make the distinction between physical and spiritual existence.

Who here is doing that? I don't think I've ever claimed it was a "scientific fact" - I'm pretty sure I've just been saying that I believe the Genesis account is a factual account. I've never asked anybody to accept it as "scientific fact" because the Bible does not present it as such. But - if I see correctly, this thread is titled "Evolution vs Creation." That tells me that two distinct views are being contrasted - one a view based on the claims of human observation, the other on divine revelation. As such, I'm not really bothered that I can't counter modern science's claims with science of my own - if I could, well, then why bother with God at all? I don't ask anybody here to believe what I believe, or to accept my position as fact. I do not believe that it is possible to offer the atheist anything even remotely as "convincing" evidence-wise as can be pointed my way by the evolutionist. So? Does that disqualify me from claiming that I believe my view to be factual?


Oh, looking forward to the day when God finally decides to present us with such a book as you mentioned. Would have saved lots of trouble on earth, don't you think?

Do I detect some sarcasm here? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this particular publication to be issued - if you've read the Bible, you might have noticed that God has more pressing issues than providing science books for those who are skeptical. Saved what trouble? That there might be people who wouldn't believe Him without "scientific proof"? I don't see the trouble. There's plenty of reality that believers and nonbelievers alike accept without "factual" proof.

Here's an idea: why don't you share what exactly it would take for you to believe in God? What would He have to do to convince you He's "real"?

[Pendragon]

You know, I have been with this thread or following its progress for a long time. It is going nowhere. The people who believe Creationism still aren’t going to budge. The people who believe in the Big Bang and Evolution only, (no Intelligent Design), aren’t going to change either. And the ones who can see both sides and meet somewhere between—God as Creator and Evolution as things adapt to an ever-changing world—we aren’t going to move from that point as well. Stick a fork in this thread, I think we’re done! ;) :) :D

[lumiere08]

As a newcomer to this forum, I confess being stunned at the results of the poll I saw, having then quickly scanned this discussion.

What is the foundation for adhering to creationism? Surely, it cannot be simply "belief." Belief itself has to be founded on some principle. If we accept that belief is founded on the superiority of the position which can most consistently account for the widest range of observations, surely this case has been won hands down by evolution!

Let me ask for a more specific explanation. How does the creationist view account, for example, for species extinction, of which there is unrefuted evidence? On a personal level, I have been to several places in the world (e.g. Madagascar) where discovery of species and its recorded extinction has occured in our lifetimes. I am at a loss to see how creationism consistently accounts for these and other similar episodes of change in the biosphere.

I can anticipate the counter-arguments, but would be curious to see the creationist argument come out of the closet clearly and transparently.:D

[Lily Adams]

You know, I have been with this thread or following its progress for a long time. It is going nowhere. The people who believe Creationism still aren’t going to budge. The people who believe in the Big Bang and Evolution only, (no Intelligent Design), aren’t going to change either. And the ones who can see both sides and meet somewhere between—God as Creator and Evolution as things adapt to an ever-changing world—we aren’t going to move from that point as well. Stick a fork in this thread, I think we’re done! ;) :) :D


Cereally. But this topic was really fun and interesting to read for the past half an hour for me...quit it, everyone, your'e distracting me from my homework! :lol: I kid, I kid! What a great topic!

[Redzeppelin]

What is the foundation for adhering to creationism? Surely, it cannot be simply "belief." Belief itself has to be founded on some principle. If we accept that belief is founded on the superiority of the position which can most consistently account for the widest range of observations, surely this case has been won hands down by evolution!

Only if you wish to treat Creationism as a "theory," subject to laws of human logic and reason. The idea of a Divine Being like God contradicts what human reason would reasonably speculate in terms of existence. In other words, since our "reason" is based on what we observe as "reality," then it makes sense that the idea of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being is nothing less than absurd. So, your parameters for ascertaining the strongest position is flawed from the beginning. Evolution only wins "hands down" if one is a naturalist and views the universe as composed of nothing but matter.

Your premise that belief is founded on principle is certainly not a given. There's plenty of things people believe without having some "principle" standing as its foundation.


Let me ask for a more specific explanation. How does the creationist view account, for example, for species extinction, of which there is unrefuted evidence? On a personal level, I have been to several places in the world (e.g. Madagascar) where discovery of species and its recorded extinction has occured in our lifetimes. I am at a loss to see how creationism consistently accounts for these and other similar episodes of change in the biosphere.

Evolutionists' demand that Creationism account for all of science's discoveries, hypotheses and conclusions is their attempt to make us fight on their territory - the field of observable science. While I think Intelligent Design is making some headway in that direction, I still challenge this mindset that we have to provide answers for everything that contradicts the Bible. Only God knows those answers because He created everything. The idea that something is only "real" if it's irrefutably proven is fascinating - do you have empirical proof that your parents really loved you? Do you have empirical proof that we went to the moon? Do you have empirical proof that your mind is composed of a "conscious" and "unconscious"? Even if you dismiss these question, the point persists: there is plenty of reality that we accept without absolute "proof." Even evolution's arguments are still inductive in nature.



I can anticipate the counter-arguments, but would be curious to see the creationist argument come out of the closet clearly and transparently.:D

Then perhaps you should go back and read through this thread - I'm pretty sure we've laid out our position quite clearly.

[lumiere08]

Only if you wish to treat Creationism as a "theory," subject to laws of human logic and reason. The idea of a Divine Being like God contradicts what human reason would reasonably speculate in terms of existence. In other words, since our "reason" is based on what we observe as "reality," then it makes sense that the idea of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being is nothing less than absurd. So, your parameters for ascertaining the strongest position is flawed from the beginning. Evolution only wins "hands down" if one is a naturalist and views the universe as composed of nothing but matter.

Your premise that belief is founded on principle is certainly not a given. There's plenty of things people believe without having some "principle" standing as its foundation. [QUOTE]

OK, if a Divine being exists and is responsible for all creation, why did this Divine being create human reason? I never understood how Creationists deal with this one.

I find it astounding that an one can say that belief does not have to based on principle. If this is a serious claim, I wonder whether the implication is that Creationists are renouncing human reason as a faculty for understanding the world.

[QUOTE]Evolutionists' demand that Creationism account for all of science's discoveries, hypotheses and conclusions is their attempt to make us fight on their territory - the field of observable science. While I think Intelligent Design is making some headway in that direction, I still challenge this mindset that we have to provide answers for everything that contradicts the Bible. Only God knows those answers because He created everything. The idea that something is only "real" if it's irrefutably proven is fascinating - do you have empirical proof that your parents really loved you? Do you have empirical proof that we went to the moon? Do you have empirical proof that your mind is composed of a "conscious" and "unconscious"? Even if you dismiss these question, the point persists: there is plenty of reality that we accept without absolute "proof." Even evolution's arguments are still inductive in nature.


Thank you for you comment. It is unfortunate, in my view, for Creationists to become defensive towards demands to explaining how potent their views are in terms of explanatory capacity, to the point of rejecting any standard of proof. To renounce any standard of "proof" is simply an abdication of willingness to engage in an open debate. Certainly, there are reasonable standards of proof which can respond affirmatively to questions such as whether your parents loved you or we went to the moon (these questions are different questions of whether consciousness" and "uncosnciousness" exists). I also see no problem with so-called inductive proof. Are you implying that Creationsts have deductive proof? Or perhaps that proof is an irrelevant standard for the Creationist argument?

I still find no response to the problem of species extinction and how Creationism account for this.


Then perhaps you should go back and read through this thread - I'm pretty sure we've laid out our position quite clearly.

Actually, I did. Unfortunately, I did not find it illuminating in terms of argument. Sorry. It may be that there cannot be a debate on this because there is simply a lack of willingness to agree on standards for a debate.

[Redzeppelin]

OK, if a Divine being exists and is responsible for all creation, why did this Divine being create human reason? I never understood how Creationists deal with this one.

He created human reason for the same reason you probably think it exists - to process the world around us, examine it, draw conslusions about the world. He gave us "reason" because He desired us to be independent thinking creatures. In fact, the existence of reason is an argument for God - because without God, then what agent would you attribute to the existence of the rational faculty in human beings?


I find it astounding that an one can say that belief does not have to based on principle. If this is a serious claim, I wonder whether the implication is that Creationists are renouncing human reason as a faculty for understanding the world.

Define "principle." I believe that Shakespeare is one of the greatest writers of all time. To what "principle" should I attribute this belief?

We are not renouncing "human reason as a faculty for understanding the world" at all; I am rejecting it as sufficient to understand God - since He's the basis of the creationist claim, then understanding Him cannot be separated from understanding the account of creation that the Bible gives us. I'm simply telling you that human reason will ultimately fail in its attempt to ravel out God; as such, His creation - an expression of Him, His power and creative ability - will ultimately transcend human reason. I'm not invalidating human reason - I'm claiming its limits.



Thank you for you comment. It is unfortunate, in my view, for Creationists to become defensive towards demands to explaining how potent their views are in terms of explanatory capacity, to the point of rejecting any standard of proof. To renounce any standard of "proof" is simply an abdication of willingness to engage in an open debate. Certainly, there are reasonable standards of proof which can respond affirmatively to questions such as whether your parents loved you or we went to the moon (these questions are different questions of whether consciousness" and "uncosnciousness" exists). I also see no problem with so-called inductive proof. Are you implying that Creationsts have deductive proof? Or perhaps that proof is an irrelevant standard for the Creationist argument?.

Don't know where you got "defensive" from.

This debate has no end - largely because the standard of proof the evolutionist demands to "convince" him/her that creationism is correct does not exist (at least not yet; but I'm not sure it ever will). The Bible wasn't written as s scientific treatise: it is the revelation of God's character. You talk of "standards of proof" - but the problem is that God is not that which can be "proven." But of course, neither can evolution. Despite its impressive finds, science has not definitively proven anything. You want us to engage, but to what end? So you can simply dismiss everything we say, because ultimately, our argument falls back on a premise you will always reject: God says so, and we believe God. What argument would actually convince you that creationism is correct? I don't think there is one. You can't convince anybody of anything when each party is basing his argument on a different foundation.




It may be that there cannot be a debate on this because there is simply a lack of willingness to agree on standards for a debate.

Probably the only thing you've said that I agree upon.

[lumiere08]

Thanks again.



[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;316270]He created human reason for the same reason you probably think it exists - to process the world around us, examine it, draw conslusions about the world. He gave us "reason" because He desired us to be independent thinking creatures. In fact, the existence of reason is an argument for God - because without God, then what agent would you attribute to the existence of the rational faculty in human beings?




(1) But, it would seem to me, you are arguing this faculty of reason whose existence you accept, is irrelevant to the process of accepting a belief.

(2) The existence of reason by itself is not a necessry argument for God. You can explain the existence of reasons in many ways -- why do you claim that God is the only explanation?


We are not renouncing "human reason as a faculty for understanding the world" at all; I am rejecting it as sufficient to understand God - since He's the basis of the creationist claim, then understanding Him cannot be separated from understanding the account of creation that the Bible gives us. I'm simply telling you that human reason will ultimately fail in its attempt to ravel out God; as such, His creation - an expression of Him, His power and creative ability - will ultimately transcend human reason. I'm not invalidating human reason - I'm claiming its limits.



Again, my question is whether reason plays ANY role in establishing the existence of God, in the Creationist view, according to you. What is this role, if any? Your comment above "...reason will ultiamtely fail in its attempt to ravel out God..." suggests that reason is anathema to belief in God.


Still no answer to how Creationism accounts for species extinction -- perhaps it doesn't?
:D

[Redzeppelin]

(1) But, it would seem to me, you are arguing this faculty of reason whose existence you accept, is irrelevant to the process of accepting a belief.

(2) The existence of reason by itself is not a necessry argument for God. You can explain the existence of reasons in many ways -- why do you claim that God is the only explanation?

1) I didn't say "irrelevant" - I'm saying that it is not a prerequisite. Human beings believe plenty of things that go against reason. Think about some of the great inventors of the past - how many of them were thought to be reasonable? Orvil and Wilber Wright come to mind. People thought their belief that human flight was possible was sheer insanity - Harvard professors predicted that humans would never fly - and Harvard professors are supposed to be reasonable, rational beings, aren't they?

2) I didn't claim God was the "only" explanation - I said I believe the existence of reason supports the idea that God exists.





Again, my question is whether reason plays ANY role in establishing the existence of God, in the Creationist view, according to you. What is this role, if any? Your comment above "...reason will ultiamtely fail in its attempt to ravel out God..." suggests that reason is anathema to belief in God.

It suggests no such thing. Reason and God are not opposites. I said: reason will ultimately fail in its attempt to explain/comprehend God. Reason has its place in life - I'm not dismissing its value; I am - as I said earlier - claiming its limits.



Still no answer to how Creationism accounts for species extinction -- perhaps it doesn't?

I'm probably going to give a really stupid answer here. Species get extinct because we kill them. Did I miss something? Why should an event in the far past explain why species disappear today?

[lumiere08]

1) I didn't say "irrelevant" - I'm saying that it is not a prerequisite. Human beings believe plenty of things that go against reason. Think about some of the great inventors of the past - how many of them were thought to be reasonable? Orvil and Wilber Wright come to mind. People thought their belief that human flight was possible was sheer insanity - Harvard professors predicted that humans would never fly - and Harvard professors are supposed to be reasonable, rational beings, aren't they?

2) I didn't claim God was the "only" explanation - I said I believe the existence of reason supports the idea that God exists.

(1) Belief and reason are NOT incompatible. Belief leads to pursuit of specific hypotheses and these can be tested against reasonable standards of proof. Our belief in a heliocentric solar system and the workings of Newtonian physics and/o relativity leads to specific predictions which can be tested. We expected the sun to rise tommorow, the tides to change, the moon to change phases, and all these things happen. These predictions can be tested and validated, and a consistent explanatory framework can be develop whose proposition can explain a wider and wider range of phenomena unless and until it is itself invalidated by new observations. Such is the agency of human reason.

Bu itself, the belief that "God" created the universe and living creatures cannot be similarly tested. Unless it yields specific predctions which can be tested and the results fo these tests are then used to refine and build up a consistent explanatory framework.

Human reason is a faculty which enables humans to logically and empirically develop an understanding of the world based on beliefs which lead to verifiable propositions. It provides a method by which humans can compare different belief systems based of standards of proof. It is an "open" instead of a "closed" system of thinking, a "closed" system being impervious to external logic and empirical invalidation.

The Creationist view, it seems, sells itself this way. You can't test what it says, so you must accept it simply because someone else accepts it, and you cannot really compare it to some other belief. If instead of God, I said that the universe was created and operated by the breath of the supreme Creator, would this belief be any less valid than the claim it was God?

2) You still have not explained how the existence of reason supports the belief in the existence of God. Unless you simply believe this and also believe it cannot be explained.


It suggests no such thing. Reason and God are not opposites. I said: reason will ultimately fail in its attempt to explain/comprehend God. Reason has its place in life - I'm not dismissing its value; I am - as I said earlier - claiming its limits.


But belief, unsubtantiated and untested, has its limits, too. You have not really produced an argument here for a superior reason in accepting a belief in God over the use of reason (which, of course, would appear to have it "limits" if it does not explain what you want it to explain)


I'm probably going to give a really stupid answer here. Species get extinct because we kill them. Did I miss something? Why should an event in the far past explain why species disappear today?

Well, species became extinct long, long, long before humans emerged to kill them. Plenty of incontrovertible evidence to that effect. The question for the Creationist is this: If God created species, why would he want some of them to become extinct? Actually, until empirical evidence started pouring in in the nineteenth century evidencing species extinction, most people (e.g. Thomas Jefferson, who was an amateur scientists) were not aware of extinction, nor would they understand why a Supreme Creator would will it. Species extinction has created a real quandry for the Creationist argument -- and I am wondering how the Creationists are dealing with it, if other than simply to dismiss it.:D

[lumiere08]

Don't know where you got "defensive" from.

Sorry, I had meant, but overlooked, in my previous post, to reply to this point above too.

The "defensiveness" of the Creationist argument, as you have laid it out, seems to come from an unwillingness, if not incapacity, to submit to a standard of proof. It seems the Creationist argument is that proof is unnecessary. The unfortunate consequence is that this type of argument can lead to naked intellectual terrorism, rather than enlightenment.

The Creationist argument seems to build on maligning reason as imperfect and limited. However, if the faculty of reason is used to its fullest, we can enter into a community enterprise where the "rules of the game" for accepting propostions are agreed upon, and we can test, prove and disprove propositions.

Such is the method of the evolutionist framework. It can test its propositions. Einstein himself used a mathematical framework to develop relativity which yielded testable propositions (it took several years for astronomical observations to test some of these). So startling were some of his predictions that Einstein himself refused to accept some of them -- like the one that the universe was expanding, which observational astronomy verified much later (leading Einstein to later admit his "greatest blunder" for not believing his own theory!).

Sadly, the Creationist argument remains a "closed" system impervious to such open validation, as further developed in my previous post.

Hence, its defensiveness.

;)