Evolution vs. Creation [Archive] - Page 6 - Literature Network Forums

Redzeppelin

01-14-2007, 11:33 AM

It seems that in order to persist, the Creationist argument must survive by a continual assault on the faculty of reason. Reason, in the Creationist creed which has been laid out, is faulty, limited, and imperfect. Oddly, it is also at least part of the Creationist proof of God's existence -- a leap of faith I frankly find baffling.

One of the reasons that I think Pendragon tried to end this thread above is being demonstrated in this conversation - I feel like we're both just repeating ourselves. Your posts essentially repeat themselves: the Creationist position goes contrary to reason; hence the evolutionist position has a more substantial basis for belief because it is not contrary to reason. In a nutshell, that's what I'm hearing. My position, that I have to keep repeating is this: Creation is a product of a Divine Being - a being who, based on the account He gives of Himself in the Bible, is omnipotent, omniscient and eternal. Those three adjectives describe a being that humans cannot fully comprehend because the terminology used to describe Him contradicts the characteristics of the world we observe (and science is based upon the observable world - whether "observable" means with the naked eye or other measuring devices). The creationist argument will never really be satisfying to an evolutionist because the evolutionist demands "scientific proof" for our claims - but how do you provide "proof" for a being that exists beyond human comprehension? You're right: the "leap of faith" involved is "baffling" - if you read the Bible, you would see that Christianity - at its base - offers a rather revolutionary vision of life - one that is almost paradoxical to human reason and human nature. To believe that all of reality can be apprehended through reason strikes me as absurd as my claims may seem to you. The human heart is pretty resistant to "logic," "reason," "rationality." The existence of love is almost an argument against reason - don't tell me that the romantic episodes of your life were chosen and based on your logic, your reason, your rational faculties. (Which, by the way, points back to the examples I listed earlier that you neglected to address.)

This Creationist argument is built on a misleading foundation and total misunderstanding of the nature of human reason. Logic and empiricism -- the basis of the Evolutionist argument -- do not demand an unswerving intellectual loyalty impervious to refutation. The Evolutionist argument instead allows a standard for falsification and invalidation -- and in doing so, leads to more potent explanatory power.
:)

Evolution does require the same "leap of faith" that Creationism does. Ultimately, no matter how much "evidence" science amasses to support its position, ultimately it doesn't know - because we weren't there at the beginning. As such, since science cannot go back in time, the best it can do is search nature for clues and fashion those into a convincing hypothesis. As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between our positions is the basis of our choice: you have chosen science as your authority; I choose God. Neither of us chose our position because it was proven to us - we chose the one that we felt, believed was true.

As far as reason being evidence for God: if the universe is nothing more than measurable material, then there is no reason for human thought to say anything of truth - because the naturalist view of the universe indicates that there is only nature. If there is only nature, then the thoughts in my head are merely the consequence of chemical reactions, neuroelectric charges randomly firing in the brain, etc. How can these events produce truth? The naturalist argument "eats itself" because there is no reason that science (a product of random, uncontrollable chemical/biological processes in the brains of scientists) should believe its own claims because those claims were determined by physical/chemical/biological processes.

I'm fine if you'd like to go around in circles some more, but really - the choice to choose creation comes after choosing God. That's why we can't convince you of our position - you deny the very reason that creation is real to us.

brainstrain

01-15-2007, 12:46 PM

I see some people doubting the point of continuing this thread. Well, is that really your choice? If you're tired of discussing it, then don't! And leave this arguement to the next generation of LitNeters ^_^

Redzeppelin

01-15-2007, 01:00 PM

Thanks for the advice.

Pendragon

01-15-2007, 01:25 PM

Certainly, mes amis, if you wish to continue to beat the dead horse, continue to do so, it cannot make it any less dead. I still see nothing that has not been brought up before, discussed, even violently argued about with both sides (to their like disgrace) calling names. It is not really a discussion, as in "Let me hear your point of view and I'll consider it carefully." It is simply put an all or none situation, with no room for people like myself who can actually find reason to believe both in a Creator and Evolution. I go to far for the Creationist and not far enough for the Evolutionist. So we are at an impasse. No one is listening, but everyone is talking. :nod:

yingqiee

01-27-2007, 11:24 AM

Dear Pendragon,
I agree with your point of view:

Please forgive if I repeat something that has been said before; I did not read all the previous posts. I believe evolution occurs, because all animals definitely change over time. For example, the progression of increasingly "human-like" humanoids that have been found. However, I believe that Darwin's theory that we all come from 1 ancestor is flawed. According to Morowitz, a professor at Yale, even with optimistically rapid rates of reaction, the calculated time for JUST BACTERIUM to form from random interaction of particles as implied by Darwin's original theory exceeds not only the 4.5 billion years of the Earth, but also the 15 billion years of the entire universe.

Hence, I find that while evolution in the sense of organisms changing slowly over the years is true, Darwin's original (please note that i mean "original") theory has little scientific backing. Hence, creationism and evolution can coexist; i.e. A superior entity created something(s), and that something(s) slowly evolved into the somethings now.

Redzeppelin

01-28-2007, 01:30 AM

Hence, creationism and evolution can coexist; i.e. A superior entity created something(s), and that something(s) slowly evolved into the somethings now.

This would strike me as a great answer if the Biblical account didn't fully contradict it.

yingqiee

01-28-2007, 03:30 AM

Redzeppelin

01-28-2007, 11:54 AM

Apparently, according to Schroeder, Genesis was meant to be read like a poem. Hence, 7 days might not be literally seven days and the world from my point of view as a Christian(which might not reflect that of other Christians) may not have been created in "7 days". (IMHO)

Well, perhaps. But who is Schroeder, and what makes his/her claim authoritative? How did s/he establish how Genesis was "meant" to be read?

Granted: there are things in the Bible that are meant figuratively, but one would assume that God would (knowing the human brain and language as He does) make it fairly clear where we should take Him figuratively and literally. Schroeder (and other like-minded critics) strike me as individuals who wish to harmonize the Genesis account with science. Why? Why must the actions of God (who exists outside nature) harmonize with nature? Why is it so hard to believe that any Being capable of bringing the world into existence could do it in a week?

yingqiee

01-29-2007, 06:37 AM

Dr Gerald Schroeder used to be a professor of nuclear physics at MIT. The information I posted was taken from his book, "The Science of God". I guess that ultimately I can't prove my position, because accoprding to current scientific theory, nothing can be proven; it can only be disproven. However, I am inclined to think that Genesis possesses certain figurative elements due to other sources, like this: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html While I agree with you that God is most certainly omnipotent, and need not harmonize with nature, I believe that God decided to act (at least mostly) according to the laws of nature, due to the large emphasis on obtaining knowledge in the Bible(my interpretation)

e.g.
Proverbs 8:1
Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?

and also due to the verses in Job e.g.

Job 39:1 Knowest thou the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth? or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?

which I interpret as God laying out certain rules for the way the Earth works, and hence (this is my inference) how it was created.

I personally feel that although science is not crucial to understanding God, God does not mind if we discover more about the world around us and how it works and was created. However, we do not need to place excessive faith in Science, because as seen in history, many scientific theories get refuted after a while. However, the Bible has been around for ages and I personally feel that nothing can refute it. I tried myself to look for contradictions in it, and I examined those on the many web pages on the net. Their "contradictions" are simply interpretations out of context, for example, : http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tellalie.html ("contradiction" and refutation are both there. I'm too lazy to answer some on this forum :) )

In the end, I think that ultimate knowledge is not about the physical world around us and how it works(scientific knowledge) but about God and how He works(that I feel can only be obtained from a very personal relationship with Him and not through science, because while the Bible did not really say anything about how we should gain knowledge about how the world works, it does say that we ought to learn more about God through a relationship with God sustained through prayer, etc.)

Redzeppelin

01-29-2007, 11:57 PM

While I agree with you that God is most certainly omnipotent, and need not harmonize with nature, I believe that God decided to act (at least mostly) according to the laws of nature

Then why not just say so in the original account? Why say "6 days" if God really means "6 million years"? Why be intentionally misleading about something that is crucial (in my opinion) to our picture of Who God Is? Schroeder's a smart guy all right - who wants to argue with MIT? But his explanation sounds like an attempt to harmonize science and the Bible at the expense of what God told us.

God created the "laws of nature" for us - not for Himself. The laws of nature that govern the world didn't exist until He created them. Why take the long way?

yingqiee

01-30-2007, 08:11 AM

Redzeppelin

01-30-2007, 06:01 PM

Like I said earlier, I think that that parts of the original book of Genesis was like poetry, implying that it may not have been intended to be literal: http://www.bibleresourcecenter.org/vsItemDisplay.dsp&objectID=710B2DD1-01B3-4937-AA0B9600D8C429E0&method=display
I believe the original poetic effect was lost in certain bible translations, and I think that time may work differently for God as opposed to us humans. Hence, the 6 days as stated by the Bible(from God's point of view) relative to us may have been of a different value.

Right: and I'm willing to admit that this may very well be true. What I'm asking is based on logic (I guess): if you were God, and you had to provide your believers with a sort of "manual" that was supposed to guide their lives and their choices and their beliefs, why not be direct about things that do not gain any power by being metaphorical? How do 6 million years become 6 days in a translation error? I guess I'm asking whether or not God says what He means. Granted: some parts of the Bible are metaphoric or parable-based - but the context often makes that clear. What context (besides the desire to harmonize science with God) makes Genesis figurative instead of literal? It's identity as poetry does not imply that it must be figurative in nature. Hebrew poetry, in fact, is generally distinguished by its structure more than traditional poetic devices (such as analogy, etc).

Personally, in the end, I see no reason to argue about how the earth was created with a Christian; I think that God would rather us asking Him what to do with our lives as opposed to asking Him how the world was created. I just did not like it that posters were dismissing arguments for Creationism as being "an assault on the faculty of reason" when their arguments against Creationism were worse.

I agree. But I do think it matters how things came into being because each method says something different about who God is. While the time-table for creation is not necessarily a crucial issue (I think there will be those in heaven with all kinds of interpretations), I do think it matters.

MattG

01-30-2007, 07:22 PM

Why not jump right into the fray for my first post here?

I believe in God but generally dislike organized religion. My beliefs would definitely tend toward Christianity, but I'm not a card carrying member of a church.

I also believe that evolutionary theory has a lot of merit and that as a whole it doesn't really conflict with my other beliefs unless I start making unfounded leaps in logic.

I believe in both things to a point so I'm thinking I'll pick 'other'.

-SF

Whifflingpin

01-30-2007, 08:49 PM

Redzeppelin: "Hebrew poetry, in fact, is generally distinguished by its structure more than traditional poetic devices (such as analogy, etc)."

"Moab is my wash-pot and over Edom will I cast out my shoe"

"He maketh me to lie down by still waters"

"Your hair is like a flock of goats, frisking down the slopes of Gilead"

Are these poetic devices merely tricks of translation? The psalms, the Song, even the prophets are full of poetical and rhetorical device - is all that down to St Jerome?

Redzeppelin

01-30-2007, 11:16 PM

Hebrew poetry, in fact, is generally distinguished by its structure more than traditional poetic devices (such as analogy, etc).

My post makes it clear that I did not say figurative devices are totally absent from Hebrew poetry. My use of "generally" makes that point clear. Either way: poetic language does not necessarily mean that something should be interpreted figuratively.

Whifflingpin

01-31-2007, 04:14 PM

Redzeppelin: "I did not say figurative devices are totally absent from Hebrew poetry. My use of "generally" makes that point clear. "

My objection is precisely to your use of the word "generally." I am quite aware that it does not mean "totally," but Hebrew poetry is very rich in figurative language, and to imply otherwise (as use of "generally" does) is misleading. I have just browsed through the psalms, and every one of them contained metaphors or similes, at least. The Song of Solomon is almost one vast collection of similes, and may indeed be pure allegory.

Not only are such poetic devices used in passages designed as poetry, but the prophets speak largely using "the traditional poetic devices." Isaiah looks forward to a time when swords are beaten into ploughshares, and lions lie down with lambs. There is not one of them that speaks without recourse to figurative language.

So - in general - traditional poetic devices (such as analogy, etc.) are a major feature of Hebrew writings, poetic and other.

Please note, I am not arguing against your assertion that Genesis should be taken literally - only against one part of your supporting argument. The fact that excited Hebrews rarely spoke without resorting to figuative language does not mean that any particular passage may not be taken literally if you so wish.

Redzeppelin

01-31-2007, 04:44 PM

Fine. Perhaps I need to recheck my source (it's been a while since I read it). I'm not bent on pushing this point, because the real point is that poetry does not necessarily imply a figurative reality. Metaphoric language that implies something TOTALLY different than the truth the poet intends to express without establishing a context that points to how the metaphor points to the truth is badly written poetry. I do not think God is a bad poet (and, I assume that anybody writing under the inspiration of God would do a reasonably clear job of it).

WriterAtTheSea

02-09-2007, 05:37 AM

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. ;)

Anthropologists by the bucket loads (lol) believe that. At least the few that I have known do. I think you might have mis-digested your pepperoni pizza with green peppers, sausage and onions... (Just kidding) I thought we were supposed to share a common ancestor too... But it is not the apes... surely not... Sigh, it simply cannot be! :crash:

Yeah, Leadership U is fascinating. :thumbs_up

Stanislaw

02-09-2007, 07:12 AM

Pendragon

02-11-2007, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by yingqiee
Hence, creationism and evolution can coexist; i.e. A superior entity created something(s), and that something(s) slowly evolved into the somethings now.

This would strike me as a great answer if the Biblical account didn't fully contradict it.

I am so tired of this subject that it is unbelievable, yet no one seems to want to build the poor old horse a coffin and bury it. Red, mon ami, the wording of Genesis leaves room for a lot of time. First of all, it states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. And the Earth was with out form, and void, and darkness moved upon the face of the deep. This is Prior to the seven days of creation, for the next thing stated is that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said "Let there be light.", and there was light. Then He divided the light from darkness and called it day and night, the first day.

How long did the Earth hang there void? It doesn't say. But there is a verse that states that a thousand years is a day with the Lord and a day as a thousand years. So The time span could be measured in thousand year increments, for the six days of creation, then God rested, recall for a day-- so tack on another possible thousand years.

Please do not try to tell me that the events described in Genesis 2 are but repeats of Genesis 1. In Genesis 1, God speaks, and it happens. In Genesis 2, He forms the stuff out of the things that make up the Earth, which is why we are carbon-based lifeforms. He now plants the grasses and trees, forms man and the animals. How long were they in Eden? The Bible doesn't say, but they were there for a time, because God came down in the cool of the eve to talk with them.

Genealogy in the Bible starts with the fall. That's when time as we know it began.

You can disagree, and that is your privilege. But don't claim there is no evidence there for the other side, that God created, and animals and man have evolved since into what we are now. We Are not all one race, are we? Yet we started with Adam and Eve. People moved to different areas, the great land mass (dry land) broke apart, stranding some in various places, and adapt or die.

Take a place like Madagascar. Why does it have so many life forms found nowhere else? The Galapagos? Borneo? See!?

God Bless.

Pen.

Redzeppelin

02-11-2007, 11:09 AM

I am so tired of this subject that it is unbelievable, yet no one seems to want to build the poor old horse a coffin and bury it. Red, mon ami, the wording of Genesis leaves room for a lot of time. First of all, it states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. And the Earth was with out form, and void, and darkness moved upon the face of the deep. This is Prior to the seven days of creation, for the next thing stated is that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said "Let there be light.", and there was light. Then He divided the light from darkness and called it day and night, the first day.

How long did the Earth hang there void? It doesn't say. But there is a verse that states that a thousand years is a day with the Lord and a day as a thousand years. So The time span could be measured in thousand year increments, for the six days of creation, then God rested, recall for a day-- so tack on another possible thousand years.

You can disagree, and that is your privilege. But don't claim there is no evidence there for the other side, that God created, and animals and man have evolved since into what we are now. We Are not all one race, are we? Yet we started with Adam and Eve. People moved to different areas, the great land mass (dry land) broke apart, stranding some in various places, and adapt or die.

Pen - I respect that you're tired of this argument; perhaps some of us haven't been engaged in it long enough yet to reach a similar feeling as yours. As well, I'm not here to "win" - I'm here to listen to the arguments and understand how others see them as valid and to explain (as best I can) how I see mine to be valid. I do not intend to convert anybody here - I believe that discussion and debate is less about winning than it is about understanding the opponent's position and evaluating it and examining my own position for areas of weakness.

As far as the theory you presented, yes - I'm aware of the "gap theory" (which states that an indeterminate period of time elapsed between Gen 1:1 and 1:2) as well as the "day age" theory (a day = 1000 years) and I do not buy either of them. They may both be right, the may both be not. As a literary critic, I have difficulty playing around with the biblical narrative and interpreting certain things based on a lack of certain language. Speculating on what an omission means is very tricky in my book. I don't want to get into competing interpretations with you - you clearly are much more knowledgable than I in terms of the Bible - but I like to think that God speaks literally unless there is more to be gained by figurative speaking because figurative speaking requires interpretation.

Honestly, I don't know. If God meant for the creation narrative to imply thousands of years or multiple creations, why not make that clear - as opposed to requiring us to interpret the "silences"?

JGL57

02-11-2007, 02:32 PM

...Honestly, I don't know. If God meant for the creation narrative to imply thousands of years or multiple creations, why not make that clear - as opposed to requiring us to interpret the "silences"?

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that abortion is murder?

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that slavery is morally wrong?

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that homosexual behavior is especially heinous?

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that evolution is incompatible with creationism, and that Genesis "days" mean 24 hr. long days?

- if, indeed, all of this is of the greatest importance, as many fundie Christians believe?

Also, why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T.m that no Christian, at any time, under any circumstances, should ever be converted at the edge of a sword, and failing that, be killed in the name of Jesus? IOW, why did not say at something straightforward to kick the legs from under the inquisitions, witch-burnings, Jew murders, genocidal crusades, Catholic/Protestant murders, and other tortures and murders - all in the Name of Jesus? He just couldn't be put out - had better things to do - what?

To put it mildly - and in a nutshell - the bible is less than clear on a lot of important issues.

Redzeppelin

02-11-2007, 03:12 PM

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that abortion is murder?

You mean it's not obvious that abortion is murder? You needed to be told that?

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that slavery is morally wrong?

Jesus was not a social revolutionary. He did not come to "fix" society or address all of its problems. Slavery is incompatible with Biblical principles - that's why Christians were generally supportive of ending slavery here in America.

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that homosexual behavior is especially heinous?

God made it clear in both the OT and in the NT through the words of Paul.

Why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T., that evolution is incompatible with creationism, and that Genesis "days" mean 24 hr. long days? - if, indeed, all of this is of the greatest importance, as many fundie Christians believe?

Why does Jesus have to say all this? These things were not his priority - saving human souls was. Here:

"And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." Genesis 1:3-5

Which part of that is unclear?

Also, why doesn't the bible make clear, in the words of Jesus, in the N.T.m that no Christian, at any time, under any circumstances, should ever be converted at the edge of a sword, and failing that, be killed in the name of Jesus? IOW, why did not say at something straightforward to kick the legs from under the inquisitions, witch-burnings, Jew murders, genocidal crusades, Catholic/Protestant murders, and other tortures and murders - all in the Name of Jesus? He just couldn't be put out - had better things to do - what?

To put it mildly - and in a nutshell - the bible is less than clear on a lot of important issues.

Your questions, understandable as they are, reveal that you do not have even the slightest understanding of Christ's mission on earth; as well, they imply that you've not read very closely the book you are choosing to criticize. As a matter of fact, Christ did have "better" things to do - saving humanity from the consequences of its sin. Christ was not a social revolutionary; He did not come here to correct society's ills with a neat listing of new commandments. He came here to show us a better way of living, and to offer us the gift of eternal life - all of us. A careful examination of the NT clearly reveals principles that are to guide us in making decisions about abortion, slavery, etc. Christ did not have to address every social/personal problem in order for us to understand how to address them - behaviors inconsistent with the principles put forth in the Bible ought not be done. Period.

For those of us who have spent years studying the Bible, we find that it can be quite clear. That doesn't mean that there aren't points of confusion, but that clarity can be found in the Bible - provided one is being led by the Holy Spirit. Non-believers reading without God's guidance may very well be confused by certain things that make perfect sense to believers.

ennison

02-11-2007, 04:05 PM

Someone above said that atheists were often looked on as 'hedonistic sociopaths'

Hedonists I can live with. Sociopaths are different but you don't judge a sociopath by what he/she says but by actions and if the sociopathic behaviour is based on or justified by a set of beliefs then it is normal to be suspicious of these beliefs - theist or a-theist. But of course being sociopathic it may be that a claim to justify actions by beliefs is only a lie or smokescreen for a deeper underlying malaise. Sin is what I believe that refers to. I doubt if many people are persuaded one way or the other by what is posted here but feel themselves more akin to poster A than poster B or C and so on. Maybe later a thought might take root that was first aired here - who knows. People are touchy and would rather not face up to unpleasant truths about things that have been done by their co-believers and frequently find themselves adopting apparently rigid positions in order not to give an inch in argument. It is usually easier to discuss these matters with those who have similar beliefs - everything else is argument.

Iago

02-11-2007, 04:16 PM

Slavery is incompatible with Biblical principles - that's why Christians were generally supportive of ending slavery here in America.

I just picked that one randomly, coz it's easy to address quickly ;)

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

For those of us who have spent years studying the Bible, we find that it can be quite clear.
;) ;) ;)

ennison

02-11-2007, 04:32 PM

Point? There is a passage in the OT that refers to men making their own laws (end of Judges) Are you suggesting that we base our Biblical authority on old Jewish laws or are you suggesting that the abolitionists did not get support from the Bible or are you saying they were mistaken. Dash and I so need a slave right now too..... if only these Wilberforces and others had been more knowledgeable about what the Bible REALLY said

JGL57

02-11-2007, 10:32 PM

... You mean it's not obvious that abortion is murder? You needed to be told that?..

Yes I do - so do 80 per cent of extant Americans, and most of the world - especially during the first month or two, and especially in the first week or two. It would have been helpful if Jesus (not Paul) had said "from the moment of conception, before the fertilized ovum is even implanted, or when there is only a blastocyst smaller than the eye can see - or words to that effect. Again, if this is such an important issue, why did not Jesus (not Paul) address it? Abortions, BTW, are not a modern phenomenon - they performed them back then also.

...Jesus was not a social revolutionary. He did not come to "fix" society or address all of its problems. Slavery is incompatible with Biblical principles - that's why Christians were generally supportive of ending slavery here in America...

That's a copout. Jesus took the time to whip the thieves out of the temple, yet he didn't have time to address one of the more heinous sins of man against man? Slavery is less a sin than dishonoring one's parents? Or coveting one's neighbor's ***? Or committing adultery? Why do civilized nations today generally have laws against slavery but not against most of the 10 commandments, including adultery and coveting? By any decent standards the "moral" teachings of the bible, including the N.T., are totally out of whack.

...God made it clear in both the OT and in the NT through the words of Paul...

Again, a copout. If homosexuality is SUCH a big deal one would think Jesus (in addition to Paul) would have uttered a few lines specifically denouncing it. It certainly is a big deal to many Christians today. Why the lack of emphasis on this "sin" by extant Christians but not by Jesus? He took time to forgive the women caught in adultery - his famous "Let he who is without sin" speech, but didn't think it worth the time to address the leading "sin" issue of today? I thought Jesus, as the alleged son of god, was prescient?

...Why does Jesus have to say all this? These things were not his priority - saving human souls was. Here:

"And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." Genesis 1:3-5 ...

...Which part of that is unclear?..

As poetic expression, nothing. As science it is crap, as the sun was created on the fourth day, four days after god began separating light and dark. The ancients would wrote Genesis was primitives regarding their understandings of natural processes - they didn't even understand that the sun is the light, and the earth rotation causes the night.

...Your questions, understandable as they are, reveal that you do not have even the slightest understanding of Christ's mission on earth; as well, they imply that you've not read very closely the book you are choosing to criticize. As a matter of fact, Christ did have "better" things to do - saving humanity from the consequences of its sin. Christ was not a social revolutionary; He did not come here to correct society's ills with a neat listing of new commandments. He came here to show us a better way of living, and to offer us the gift of eternal life - all of us. A careful examination of the NT clearly reveals principles that are to guide us in making decisions about abortion, slavery, etc. Christ did not have to address every social/personal problem in order for us to understand how to address them - behaviors inconsistent with the principles put forth in the Bible ought not be done. Period...For those of us who have spent years studying the Bible, we find that it can be quite clear. That doesn't mean that there aren't points of confusion, but that clarity can be found in the Bible - provided one is being led by the Holy Spirit. Non-believers reading without God's guidance may very well be confused by certain things that make perfect sense to believers...

Right. You and yours are right and everyone else - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and thousands of other religions, plus atheists, agnostics, secular Humanists, etc. are all wrong. Because you and a privileged few have plugged into the true god and have the ability to understand the biblical messages from god that the majority of us lack because..... You say so. Those many Christians who do not interpret the bible your way are just wrong and not under the guidance of the "holy spirit" because....you say so. Everything you say and believe is true and correct because.... you say so.

Yeah - I get it. Everyone should never contradict you because you know exactly what you're talking about because....you say so. You speak for god, the creator the universe because....you say so. Your interpretation of the bible is the correct on because....you say so.

Well - isn't that special.

Scheherazade

02-11-2007, 10:35 PM

*** Please carry on your discussions without personalising them. ***

Redzeppelin

02-12-2007, 11:27 AM

Right. You and yours are right and everyone else - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and thousands of other religions, plus atheists, agnostics, secular Humanists, etc. are all wrong. Because you and a privileged few have plugged into the true god and have the ability to understand the biblical messages from god that the majority of us lack because..... You say so. Those many Christians who do not interpret the bible your way are just wrong and not under the guidance of the "holy spirit" because....you say so. Everything you say and believe is true and correct because.... you say so.

Yeah - I get it. Everyone should never contradict you because you know exactly what you're talking about because....you say so. You speak for god, the creator the universe because....you say so. Your interpretation of the bible is the correct on because....you say so.

Well - isn't that special.

I am sorry that my answer has bothered you so. I was simply trying to answer your question. I am not the privileged "mouthpiece" for God, but all believers are called to defend the faith. Anybody who is truly searching for truth can read the Bible and it will "speak" to them - but its meanings become clearer when one allows the guidance of the Holy Spirit to inform his/her reading. Nothing is because "I say so" - I tell things as I understand them from years of reading the Bible and asking God to open my eyes and heart into the true understanding the Bible has to offer. If one reads the Bible merely to rebut it or scoff at it, then yes, it will appear fairly ridiculous. Certainly you understand how the attitude one has towards someone/something "shapes" our view? That my love for my wife or children makes them lovely to me - while you might find my wife unattractive and my children obnoxious and unlovable. The Bible and God are the same way: the attitude with which one approaches them will largely decide how they appear. There is no secret, esoteric knowledge - but there is understanding given to those who earnestly seek to understand for the right reasons.

Jesus was not a social revolutionary; He only had so much time on this earth and His primary mission was to save humanity from the consequences of sin and the Law. Other social problems He left up to us to deal with, along with the guidance offered by scriptures. Yes - He could have made a few issues less "gray" - but then again, how much of life exists in the black and white you seem to desire? Just because Jesus didn't say something doesn't mean it has no validity - you can't extract Christ out of the Bible and say the rest of it is invalid: either it all is valid, or none of it is. It is sufficient that God, Paul or some other writer made a statement.

I'd like to have a peaceful discussion, but I'm losing hope that that's possible.

Pendragon

02-12-2007, 01:07 PM

Wintermute

02-12-2007, 01:26 PM

... Either could be wrong. Neither wrong could also be correct. No unimpeachable proof, just a universe of endless posibilities. Why do we tie ourselves to a single viewpoint? "With God, all things are possible."

Hi Pen,

Hehe, looks like you may be up here on the fence with me. Anything is possible, nothing is certain, imo.
Cheers

JGL57

02-12-2007, 02:05 PM

Hi Pen,

Hehe, looks like you may be up here on the fence with me. Anything is possible, nothing is certain, imo.
Cheers

What reasonable person wouldn't agree that "anything is possible, nothing is certain"? But not all assumptions are equal. Knowlege is not UTTERLY subjective. All ideas are not equal, just because no human can know anything for absolute certain.

Science over the centuries demonstrates the truth of certain theories beyond any reasonable doubt - Atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, heliocentricity - just to name a few.

Evolution is in this category of proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If the Darwinian concept is greatly modified or somehow overthrown in years to come, it will scientists producing a better scientific theory through scientific methods - it won't come from a vision of the Virgin Mary or Jesus or Allah, etc.

People are free to "believe" in whatever the heck they wish - invisible pixies hiding behind tree stumps in the forest, if that makes them happy. Who should care if such people obey the law?But science tries to actually understand the universe, not interpret it according to some faith-based initiative of dogmatic adherence to two thousand year old "science".

Live and let live works here - when people know their places and actually live and let live, not just say the words. E.g., when school board members pronounce on what science is or isn't, even thought they are laymen, and inject politics (it's really politics, not religion) into science, then we have a problem.

Every judge to date - pretty much - has thrown the creationists out of the business of interfering with science classes. Believers in creationism have changed the language used recently name to promoting "Intelligent Design", but they are not fooling anybody - a wolf in sheeps' clothing is still a wolf.

If scientists don't get to teach science in Sunday school in churches on some equal time basis, then creationists don't get to push their foolishness on public school science classes - just like astrologers can't sell their garbage in public school astronomy classes.

THAT is the issue. And if the scientific community doesn't win this particular fight, and similar fights, then it may very well be back to the dark ages for us all.

Let science be science and religion be religion. That's the best that can happen, giving the circumstances of our society, composed as it is of such a huge number of people who are as ignorant of science as I am of 15th century French literature.

Wintermute

02-12-2007, 02:31 PM

Evolution is in this category of proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If the Darwinian concept is greatly modified or somehow overthrown in years to come, it will scientists producing a better scientific theory through scientific methods - it won't come from a vision of the Virgin Mary or Jesus or Allah, etc.

Agreed. My mistake, I was talking about the more foggy questions like, "does an intelligent universe creator exist?" ...forgot which thread I was in. My bad.

Yes, I've seen enough evidence to be completely convinced that evolution is fact. There is definatly a ton more evidence than an Adam & Eve like scenerio.

Redzeppelin

02-12-2007, 05:59 PM

Science over the centuries demonstrates the truth of certain theories beyond any reasonable doubt - Atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, heliocentricity - just to name a few.

Evolution is in this category of proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

Would you mind directing me to the source of this statement? Do you have a published reference that evolution is "proved beyond any reasonable doubt," or is that simply your opinion/preferrence?

Atomic theory, germ theory of disease and heliocentricity all deal with things/processes that continuously occur/exist, and are therefore observable NOW; evolution provides a theory as to how things began and progressed in the far removed past - totally unobservable in the present and understood only through speculation based upon clues found in nature. Evolution is in a different category than the others listed.

The source, please?

Guzmán

02-12-2007, 08:02 PM

Would you mind directing me to the source of this statement? Do you have a published reference that evolution is "proved beyond any reasonable doubt," or is that simply your opinion/preferrence?

Atomic theory, germ theory of disease and heliocentricity all deal with things/processes that continuously occur/exist, and are therefore observable NOW; evolution provides a theory as to how things began and progressed in the far removed past - totally unobservable in the present and understood only through speculation based upon clues found in nature. Evolution is in a different category than the others listed.

The source, please?

Hey there. By mere coincidence i just adressed a while ago the issue about evolution being observable and the whole controversy about it on the "Atheists..." thread. Maybe you could check out what I wrote and give me your opinion. I look forward to your response.

Matrim Cuathon

02-12-2007, 09:09 PM

well normally i take an ignorant position for fun to attack the close minded christians i know but i think i will limitedly use my actual opinion here.

there really isnt a way to debate this effectively. people have to have doubts on their own whether they be atheist agnostic or religious before any sort of discussion benefits them. this topic is pretty much a watse of time in achieving any actual sort of conversion of the opponenet. im quite happy to see some more or less intelligent debate which is a nice change from waht i am used to. in my opinion the best evidence of god not existing is the affect that atheist and even religous scientists have created. heliocentricity and germ theory seem to me to be very powerful arguements for the bible being wrong. the church ahs been forced quite a bit to alter its claims when good and supportive evidence for a theory turns up. the constant revision of a system (the chruch especially) which claims to have the answers to every issue in comparison with science which agrees that many of its ideas are geusses suggests that either god is not real or that the bible wasnt inspired by god. i cant agree with the idea about them not udnerstanding issues and thus god waiting to allow them to discover them.

darkmage2003

02-13-2007, 02:57 AM

Personal bias: I don't like to think that we're evolved from monkeys. That's kind of disturbing.

I will situate this now. I am a Christian and I believe in Creationism. However, that does not mean that evolution isn't real. The power of evolution is all around us. People adapt by forcing nature to adapt to us, nature changes to accept us, animals feed off of our wastes (trash type, I mean).

Now Matrim, I want you to think about this: the Bible was finished over 1700 years ago. Can you really expect medical science to be the same back then as it is now? Also, according to what I've heard (though I do not assume that what the person said is God's own opinion), the "unclean" animals were deemed thus for the safety of humans. If you undercook pork, you can die. If you don't prepare shellfish and certain other seafood, you'll die. The list goes on and on. Since the people of the time could not prepare the food correctly back then, they would have died had they eaten it. However, by the time Christ came to save us, people could properly prepare the food.

And when you say "the church", do you mean the Catholic Church or Christianity as a whole? Because "the church", as used in the Bible, refers to all Christians as one body.

And although society groups Christianity and Protestantism together, I personally think that they're not one in the same. The beliefs and requirements are much, much different. Such as the belief that the virgin Mary is holy. By definition, she'd have to be sinless if she were to be considered holy. There's other stuff too.

Pendragon

02-13-2007, 09:27 AM

It is perfectly reasonable to doubt that the animal life evolved from “Primordial Soup”, as they call it, given the vast diversity of life on this planet. And if Darwin was correct, why has evolution as he described it passed up some things that remain unchanged, while others change so rapidly that we can’t keep up with them? It is also perfectly reasonable for people to doubt the existence of an all-powerful God when they see so much go wrong in the world. In the end, it is all a question of what you choose to believe. Choice is the gift of mankind that sets him above the animal. God bless.

Wintermute

02-13-2007, 10:32 AM

Choice is the gift of mankind that sets him above the animal. God bless.

When our cat Indy jumps in bed with us at night, she makes a choice--should she curl up next to me or my wife? Her decision varies based on some thought process of her own.

Also, if one assumes choice to be a 'gift', then one must also assume something gave the gift--which kind of limits one's choice, no?

JGL57

02-13-2007, 01:21 PM

When our cat Indy jumps in bed with us at night, she makes a choice--should she curl up next to me or my wife? Her decision varies based on some thought process of her own.

Also, if one assumes choice to be a 'gift', then one must also assume something gave the gift--which kind of limits one's choice, no?

Maybe "gift" is the wrong metaphor. Maybe the universe is a free lunch. No reason that it can't be.

Where's your god then, Moses?

ennison

02-13-2007, 05:18 PM

Well if one takes 'choice' to be along the lines of .... If not A Then B, I'd have to say yes it's fairly obvious that animals work at that level. My sheepdogs do anyway. But perhaps what Pendragon means is a more complex form of choice, which involves moral decisions and the choosing between the good and the better. My sheepdogs cannot do that but mind you I reckon we are not all that consistently good at doing that ourselves.

Stanislaw

02-14-2007, 06:14 AM

One thought here. People keep talking about empirical proof. I find that defined as provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. Now we come to something called burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with the person presenting the case, not the ones to whom the case is being presented. With something this big, there can be no room for simple preponderance of the evidence. This needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. The fact is, there are holes in evolution theory. There are problems with Creation, some that are not going to go away. The burden of proof lies with those who present the evidence. The other side doesn't have to do anything. There is no empirical evidence one way or another. There is what we call “most likely.” There is what we call "Faith." Either could be wrong. Neither wrong could also be correct. No unimpeachable proof, just a universe of endless posibilities. Why do we tie ourselves to a single viewpoint? "With God, all things are possible."

:D well said

What reasonable person wouldn't agree that "anything is possible, nothing is certain"? But not all assumptions are equal. Knowlege is not UTTERLY subjective. All ideas are not equal, just because no human can know anything for absolute certain.

Science over the centuries demonstrates the truth of certain theories beyond any reasonable doubt - Atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, heliocentricity - just to name a few.

Evolution is in this category of proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If the Darwinian concept is greatly modified or somehow overthrown in years to come, it will scientists producing a better scientific theory through scientific methods - it won't come from a vision of the Virgin Mary or Jesus or Allah, etc.

People are free to "believe" in whatever the heck they wish - invisible pixies hiding behind tree stumps in the forest, if that makes them happy. Who should care if such people obey the law?But science tries to actually understand the universe, not interpret it according to some faith-based initiative of dogmatic adherence to two thousand year old "science".

Live and let live works here - when people know their places and actually live and let live, not just say the words. E.g., when school board members pronounce on what science is or isn't, even thought they are laymen, and inject politics (it's really politics, not religion) into science, then we have a problem.

Every judge to date - pretty much - has thrown the creationists out of the business of interfering with science classes. Believers in creationism have changed the language used recently name to promoting "Intelligent Design", but they are not fooling anybody - a wolf in sheeps' clothing is still a wolf.

If scientists don't get to teach science in Sunday school in churches on some equal time basis, then creationists don't get to push their foolishness on public school science classes - just like astrologers can't sell their garbage in public school astronomy classes.

THAT is the issue. And if the scientific community doesn't win this particular fight, and similar fights, then it may very well be back to the dark ages for us all.

Let science be science and religion be religion. That's the best that can happen, giving the circumstances of our society, composed as it is of such a huge number of people who are as ignorant of science as I am of 15th century French literature.

:rolleyes: science and religion don't really have to be seperate...they are not opposites, nor are they completely different:

Both require blind faith.
Both require people.
Both compliment eachother.

and...science has not proven what has created the universe. and...theories...theories...theories...nothing human is a fact.

Maybe "gift" is the wrong metaphor. Maybe the universe is a free lunch. No reason that it can't be.

Where's your god then, Moses?

*sigh* your right...this has proven to me that religion is useless...science is correct...oh but wait...it can't be correct either because its not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt since perception using the senses is involved...

I guess it could be said that we don't exist...or maybe...just maybe...theres something else...I know its whacked out...but possibly theres something that answers the most basic question...something that ties all the theories together...but thats impossible...

ranzy

02-14-2007, 08:35 AM

:

:rolleyes: science and religion don't really have to be seperate...they are not opposites, nor are they completely different:

Both require blind faith.

Science does not require blind faith. Science requires proofs, theories and explanations. If scientists had blind faith as regards scientific theories, science wouldn't change a bit through time and we would still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe.

Pendragon

02-14-2007, 10:02 AM

There is a difference between conscious choice and instinctive or learned behavior. Your cat has learned that it can sleep on the bed and it merely curls up where it feels most comfortable.

BTW, JLG57, please do not compare me to Moses. I am not worthy to hold Moses’ staff for him.

The truth is where you find it. “Seek, and ye shall find.” If you are convinced of what you believe, let me say this: It should be strong enough a conviction that you will stand for it against all odds. Do not waver from point to point, remain with what you believe. God bless.

I think I have meddled enough in a thread I washed my hands of long ago. :)

Stanislaw

02-14-2007, 01:00 PM

Science does not require blind faith. Science requires proofs, theories and explanations. If scientists had blind faith as regards scientific theories, science wouldn't change a bit through time and we would still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe.

Blind faith in a theory, and supposedly an open mind to accpet a change, i am not so sure.

There is a great degree of faith required for a great many theories.

Redzeppelin

02-14-2007, 02:09 PM

There is a great degree of faith required for a great many theories.

Absolutely. Science can only prove certain things beyond a shadow of a doubt. Some things it has a pretty good argument (and proof!) for - but other things are based upon the best estimate/measurement/speculation/"facts" currently available. Those things do not consitute absolutely verifiable "proof" - for some of science's claims, faith (in science and its claims) needs to be exercised.

JGL57

02-14-2007, 05:21 PM

Absolutely. Science can only prove certain things beyond a shadow of a doubt. Some things it has a pretty good argument (and proof!) for - but other things are based upon the best estimate/measurement/speculation/"facts" currently available. Those things do not consitute absolutely verifiable "proof" - for some of science's claims, faith (in science and its claims) needs to be exercised.

Yes, science proves scientific theories true beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not provide certainty to people who demand certainty, or they will just fall back on the religion that was instilled in them as children - because it offers certainly and thus is comforting to their fragile egos.

This is really just so sad. Science is what it is. If it can't give you what you desire - who's fault is that? I think it is the religionist, demanding something from science that it never promised in the first place.

As I indicted in previous posts, too many people do not even understand what science is all about. And all most of them know about religion is their own religion which was inculcated into their brains as children.

If a person wants a feeling of certainty, then pick a church and go. If a person wants to actually know something about reality, I would suggest they get into science. Viewing science through the eyes of religion is goofy.

Have a nice day.

ranzy

02-14-2007, 05:40 PM

Blind faith in a theory, and supposedly an open mind to accpet a change, i am not so sure.

There is a great degree of faith required for a great many theories.

It is true just if you don't know enough of the argument to have a real opinion about it. I think maybe I'm not expressing myself very well (btw english is not my mother tongue). Let me make an example: I don't know much about physics so if you talk me about the relativity theory either I don't accept it or I accept it with an act of blind faith. But if you study in depth relativity (or evolution or whatever) no act of blind faith is required. You have to decide rationally if the proofs the scientists bring in support of their theory are enough and the theory works or you can bring forward other arguments that prove that that theory is wrong.
If you say that science requires blind faith, this would stop this whole discussion about evolution. Because being faith something that doesn't have to be rational, it cannot be discussed. It must be accepted as it is.

Redzeppelin

02-14-2007, 10:58 PM

Yes, science proves scientific theories true beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not provide certainty to people who demand certainty,

These two statements contradict each other. Which is it?

or they will just fall back on the religion that was instilled in them as children - because it offers certainly and thus is comforting to their fragile egos.

Can you make your point without trying to insult people, please?

This is really just so sad. Science is what it is. If it can't give you what you desire - who's fault is that? I think it is the religionist, demanding something from science that it never promised in the first place.

As I indicted in previous posts, too many people do not even understand what science is all about. And all most of them know about religion is their own religion which was inculcated into their brains as children.

If a person wants a feeling of certainty, then pick a church and go. If a person wants to actually know something about reality, I would suggest they get into science. Viewing science through the eyes of religion is goofy.

Have a nice day.

Do you even read my posts? I'm not asking science to do anything. I'm not complaining that it doesn't offer "certainty," I'm pointing out that its inability to do so in all cases makes it similar to religion: both require faith, and some questions simply cannot be answered with definitive, unequivocal evidence. In terms of "reality" - science and religion offer two different versions (which are not always contradictory of each other). Just because you don't understand one doesn't mean it's any less "real." It just means you don't get it.

Virgil

02-14-2007, 11:20 PM

Stanislaw

02-15-2007, 04:50 AM

I don't usually enter religious discussions, especially when the break down to "I'm right-your wrong" dichotomy, but since this one has trned on science, of which I know a little something about, let me venture in, not to pick a side but to throw in my perspective.

As someone who believes in God and is an engineer who works with physics, I believe that science itself is the hand of God. I will also say that we do not have a complete understanding of science. Perhaps humanity will never have a complete understanding. To me the more we learn of science, the more firmly I believe that all this could not have been randomly generated. I proudly stand on this with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

I agree with whoever above said that science and God are not mutually eclusive.

Thankyou. That is what I have been attempting to say...

...I follow Galileo and Copernik, both were devote in their fatih, but also studied science. They both believed that science was a means to understand God's creation...even Darwin stated as such.

...but my point about science is more one of philosophy, we require our senese to determine empirical value, and our senses can easily be decieved.

...however time for a little sharing of my personal belief: everything can be true, it just all dempends on you point of view and how true it is for you...ie, in you mind it is the truth, so for you it is true, it really depends upon perspective...

...also, real scientinst admit they don't know everything...

...time for a pointed comment: not all realigeous people are dumb to science, some infact hold degrees and work in the sciences. So claiming ignorance based on association is blatent biggotry.

Wintermute

02-15-2007, 08:54 AM

I agree with whoever above said that science and God are not mutually eclusive.

As an agnostic, I can say with certainty: You might be right! The question is, which God? The Christian one? The Hindi one? Zeus? Ra?

No one can say for certain that a universal creator exists or not (imo). But one can certainly postulate the attributes of such an entity assuming it exists. And, to date, none of the gods I've learned about have the properties I can accept. Perhaps God is a little 'more' than its current status in earthly religions? I certainly hope so.

ennison

02-15-2007, 09:10 AM

Practising Catholic
Devout Baptist
Confirmed Atheist
Uconvinced Agnostic

OH and Contradictory Calvinist - That's me ... well up-to-a-point

Stanislaw

02-15-2007, 10:46 AM

As an agnostic, I can say with certainty: You might be right! The question is, which God? The Christian one? The Hindi one? Zeus? Ra?

No one can say for certain that a universal creator exists or not (imo). But one can certainly postulate the attributes of such an entity assuming it exists. And, to date, none of the gods I've learned about have the properties I can accept. Perhaps God is a little 'more' than its current status in earthly religions? I certainly hope so.

well...think of it this way, God is a bad label, infact, any earthly label is bad, because, atleast in my humble opinion, God cannot be defined by Human definitions, God is perfect beyond human definition.

Hence why there are many different religions, perhaps, they are all right, yet not 100% there, maybe together an aproximate can be reached...but people aren't ready to percieve such an Idea yet.

JGL57

02-15-2007, 02:26 PM

These two statements contradict each other. Which is it?...

No they don't. Beyond a reasonable doubt and certainty are anything but the same. If you aren't just trying to be a contrarian and really don't understand this fact, then I am going to have to insult your intelligence by questioning it.

Can you make your point without trying to insult people, please?...

You react to someone effectively questioning and criticizing your fondest wishes by thinking they are just trying to insult you?

No further comment needed here. I will let others draw their own conclusions.

Do you even read my posts? I'm not asking science to do anything. I'm not complaining that it doesn't offer "certainty," I'm pointing out that its inability to do so in all cases makes it similar to religion: both require faith, and some questions simply cannot be answered with definitive, unequivocal evidence. In terms of "reality" - science and religion offer two different versions (which are not always contradictory of each other). Just because you don't understand one doesn't mean it's any less "real." It just means you don't get it.

I hate to have to go over all this - one more time - but you seem incapable of understanding the difference between science and religion. That is sad, in a way, but if you are happy in your world, then I am happy for you.

For those of us who DO know the difference, we will continue to fight for keeping religion out of science. Sunday school is not the subjective logical equivalent of science class. Science is based on facts in evidence and the attempt to be as objective as humanly possible in understanding the facts. Religion is about emotional comfort. That is the primary reason for the "faith" in things unseen, unproved and non-provable, and outside of scientific examination.

Redzeppelin

02-15-2007, 06:07 PM

No they don't. Beyond a reasonable doubt and certainty are anything but the same. If you aren't just trying to be a contrarian and really don't understand this fact, then I am going to have to insult your intelligence by questioning it.

You're right. I stand corrected.

You react to someone effectively questioning and criticizing your fondest wishes by thinking they are just trying to insult you?

I'm not "wishing" anything. And, not everybody is capable of seeing how they come across. Unfortuanate, but true.

I hate to have to go over all this - one more time - but you seem incapable of understanding the difference between science and religion. That is sad, in a way, but if you are happy in your world, then I am happy for you.

I'm quite clear on the difference. The fact that you disagree with my opinion doesn't make me wrong - it just means we disagree. I personally don't think you have the faintest idea as to what religion is about beyond the most basic, stereotypical hearsay.

For those of us who DO know the difference, we will continue to fight for keeping religion out of science. Sunday school is not the subjective logical equivalent of science class. Science is based on facts in evidence and the attempt to be as objective as humanly possible in understanding the facts. Religion is about emotional comfort. That is the primary reason for the "faith" in things unseen, unproved and non-provable, and outside of scientific examination

Who are you crusading against? I don't recall advocating doing anything to the science curriculum. Religion is far more profound than you can understand. I'm sorry you don't get it. Science is a good, useful thing - and it has much truth for the world. But it too is not without a certain degree of faith that is required of us to believe that it is true.

JGL57

02-15-2007, 06:33 PM

Science is a good, useful thing - and it has much truth for the world. But it too is not without a certain degree of faith that is required of us to believe that it is true.

You keep harping on this point. I don't know what your point supposedly is. All human beings are fallible. No human ever has all the data, but must work with a finite amount of the infinitely available data. Only lunatics claim god-like knowledge of anything.

Thus - every concept will trace back to an assumption, or a conclusion based on a series of assumptions.

And on this fact you wish to equate religion with science? You wish to conflate the pragmatic naturalistic assumption of scientific reasoning with the "faith" of religion to just conclude, well, everything is just a matter of "faith"?

That's ridiculous and yet you keep pushing this like it some profound insight or something.

Scientists don't just believe stuff. Religionists just believe stuff. Scientists prove understandings to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how science progresses. Religion stays stuck in the mud at step one - and stays there until and unless it is dragged kicking and screaming into a new century, one century at a time, by scientific progress.

Religion gave us demon possession. Science gave us vaccines and antibiotics. Do I need to give you a couple hundred other examples to prove my point, or will that suffice?

Logos

02-15-2007, 07:38 PM

Pendragon

02-16-2007, 11:43 AM

A Creationist and an Evolutionist discovered the bones of an ancient humanoid in a cave. They began a long argument over how old the bones were, how far along the evolutionary chart this being might be, and how it came to be in the first place. The argument became rather heated as each man warmed to his topic. Suddenly, there was a macabre interruption. A skeletal hand fell upon the shoulder of each man. "Come on, guys!" The dead man said. "Give a man a proper burial, won't you? It's too noisy up here!" :lol:

Maybe this will ease the tension... :)

Redzeppelin

02-16-2007, 12:20 PM

I sure do appreciate your posts, Pen.

I see part of the problem this way: the discussion about creationism vs. evolution is really a discussion as to whether or not God exists. I'm quite OK with the fact that - when all is said and done - I might discover that I was terribly wrong in my choice to interpret Genesis literally and that the "day=age" theory was correct, or that God set evolution into motion. Neither of those really changes the core of my belief system. Whether the world was created in 6 days or 6 millenium isn't a "deal breaking" belief of mine. The fact that I defend the biblical narrative is based more on my belief as to who God is than whether or not we should interpret Genesis 1 & 2 literally or figuratively.

I think evolution overall has lots of holes in it - BUT that science has (since Darwin's time) made some amazing discoveries that do clearly appear to put the biblical narrative into question. I get that. I can easily concede that point. What seems to get lost in the shuffle is the idea that Christians believe in God as the creator - and that if He is who He says He is, then it is perfectly possible that the Genesis narrative is literal. When atheists scoff at this idea, they are not really trying to understand; I can't seem to get across the idea that if the non-believer tried to imagine - just for a minute - that such a being could exist, that it would follow that a belief in the biblical narrative is not as insane as it seems to appear. The numerous facts and evidence put forth to support evolution are certainly impressive, but they cannot shake my faith in God. They may shake my faith in a literal 6 day creation, but not God.

Think of it this way: I don't know your wife/husband - I have no relationship with them. Let's assume that you have a close, intimate relationship with him/her. How much of my questioning of your partner's integrity would you give credence to? Yes, I've got some hearsay and some circumstancial evidence, but no pictures, no eyewitnesses, no "smoking gun." Again: how quickly would you doubt that person? And what if that person was unquestionably honest and faithful. How serious would you take my attempts to bring your belief into doubt? Because my example is a human relationship, I know it can be attacked, but the principle behind it is what I'm appealing to. Because the Christian sees the Bible as an authority, we take seriously the description of who God is - as such, we tend to give credence to things that non-believers may simply scoff at as blindness.

JGL57

02-16-2007, 10:00 PM

In creation vs. evolution we have

Creationism: the naked or unsubstantiated belief in an invisible and immaterial magical person who is infinitely complex, who was not created him or herself and has existed forever, and about 6,000 years ago started speaking complex entities into existence out of nothing, e.g., the earth, the moon, the sun, a human being, a frog, a whale, a kangaroo, etc., as in "Let there be light, let there be fish, let there be crawling things," etc.

This magical person created day and night on the first day, and the sun on the fourth day (think about that for a while and see if your head explodes). The first man was created fully grown, with no previous history (did he have a navel?) out of dirt and hot air. The first woman was created fully adult too, with no previous history (did she have a navel?) out of a bone taken from the guy's side while he was in a coma. They, as were all animals (even ants and anteaters?) were immortal at first, but a talking snake gave them a bum steer, so death came into the world.

Also, these Neanderthals or Australopithicuses or whatever they were suddenly realized that they were naked and the monkeys and whatnot could see their "areas" so they put on leaf dresses. Then they had two sons, then one killed the other, then there was a huge amount of incest, since there was no one to date except your sister, so then the world was populated. But the invisible person in the sky got crabby again and drowned them all except for eight people who escaped in a boatload of very stinky unhappy animals, then the world started over again from scratch - about 4,500 years ago. There followed a lot of first cousin sex - no one else to date again.

So then Ham looked at his naked father and laughed and the Negroes were cursed to be slaves, then the Jews started committing genocide on all their neighbors, etc., etc. (The really crazy stuff didn't start until god knocked up a human female and wound up sacrificing himself to himself, but that's another story - see the N.T.).

vs.

Evolution: a singularity of unimaginative small dimensions and incomprehensible density exploded - the so-called Big Bang. (Put aside the fact that space and time started at that point, there may be an infinite number of such Big Bangs, etc.) Skip ahead about 10 billion years. The solar system evolved, then singular-celled life evolved on earth around 3.8 billion years ago.

Skip ahead about 3 billion years after enough waste oxygen builds up, then other life evolves that breathes the oxygen (grossing out the anaerobic bacteria, but screw them - they're losers). Skip ahead to only a few hundred million years ago and some plant (a trifid?) crawled up on land, followed by an animal (a monkey-fish-squirrel?), then larger animals, finally some apes got kicked out of the trees for not sharing their bananas, walked out from the forest to the savanna, and eventually evolved into humans over 10 or so million years.

Cave drawings dating back 100,00 years revealed humans had already invented religion by then (animism and shamanism, foreshadowing the far more sexy monotheism) because they had evolved egos and egos MUST be fed. Present day "evolution scientists" have found several hundred million fossils of various species of life forms, 99 per cent of which are extinct and have been extinct for a time many orders of magnitude longer than that of human existence ("creation scientists" believe Adam an Eve rode dinosaurs to church, and god planted the other fake fossils in the proper strata to make Richard Dawkins and his ilk look stupid, become unbelievers and eventually go to hell - because god is a Calvinist xxx.
----

Now, granted, these are rather truncated versions of our two choices and, also granted, I took a lot of poetic license in delineating some of the details, but I think everyone can see what each side has to offer, regarding objectivity, disinterested examination of the evidence, following many different lines of evidence to a logical conclusion, and so forth.

For further information, in order to understand the issues in more depth, I recommend

1. reading the KJV bible for understanding the creationism theory (you'll have the basic idea down after reading the first book, Genesis, but do read at least the entire OT - after reading how often the Jews committed genocide on their neighbors, you may no longer wonder where Hitler got the idea.

and

2. reading the seven or so books explaining evolution written by Richard Dawkins - the best one in my opinion is "The Ancestor’s Tale". Also, for the overachiever, I think the 15 or so books on evolution by Stephen J. Gould are very good - my favorite of his is "Full House".

hyperborean

02-17-2007, 12:10 AM

This is one long thread filled with strong ideas.

Well for starters, "adam and eve" is a false bible story. This has been admitted by the church. It's supposed to be a typical life lesson story dealing with how one should never disobey the divine. If you want to get technical, the apple in the story symbolically represents knowledge (a good course in theology or philosophy will clear that one up).

My question is, why deny science and place one's beliefs in a made up bible story? Do you honestly think God used his finger to zap Adam and Eve onto the earth? How would one explain fossils left by prehistoric creatures?

This link I'm about to post is another reason behind the downfall of western culture: http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/home.asp

Pendragon

02-17-2007, 10:26 AM

So then Ham looked at his naked father and laughed and the Negroes were cursed to be slaves Mon ami, there is nothing in the Bible that states this. This was a doctrine brought about by highly prejudiced master race people who wished to make what they were doing Biblically correct, so they claimed that the "Mark of Cain" was that God made him a black man. Nothing in the Bible supports this at all, and slavery is a horrible thing, which is why there was a time when anyone could walk free or reclaim property freely. It was called the year of Jubilee. You had to chose it, not say, "Oh, I'm OK, here, The Master treats me fine." Because then you were a slave by choice.

JGL57

02-17-2007, 03:50 PM

...there is nothing in the Bible that states this. This was a doctrine brought about by highly prejudiced master race people who wished to make what they were doing Biblically correct, so they claimed that the "Mark of Cain" was that God made him a black man. Nothing in the Bible supports this at all, and slavery is a horrible thing...

No argument from me that slavery was (and is in present day Africa) a horrible thing that should be condemned outright by all who claim to have any moral sensitivity whatsoever.

That being said, does the bible condone slavery? That’s a question that I suppose could be debated forever. There are fundamentalist christians who believe the bible does indeed record the fact that god condemned blacks to servitude because of the "sin" of their common ancestor, Ham. Many other christians, I suppose the majority these days, argue that is not true, as you do.

Obviously the whole idea of god cursing an entire race is an absurd idea. I can only report that many christians in the past, and many still today believe this to be true. You can argue with other christians regarding this issue. I don't have a dog in that fight. (As I said I took a bit of poetic license in describing both the religious creation notion and scientific theory of evolution.)

kilted exile

02-17-2007, 11:16 PM

Contradictory Calvinist

I think there's a bit of that in every Scotsman actually

Redzeppelin

02-17-2007, 11:17 PM

Evolution: a singularity of unimaginative small dimensions and incomprehensible density exploded - the so-called Big Bang. (Put aside the fact that space and time started at that point, there may be an infinite number of such Big Bangs, etc.) Skip ahead about 10 billion years. The solar system evolved, then singular-celled life evolved on earth around 3.8 billion years ago.

Skip ahead about 3 billion years after enough waste oxygen builds up, then other life evolves that breathes the oxygen (grossing out the anaerobic bacteria, but screw them - they're losers). Skip ahead to only a few hundred million years ago and some plant (a trifid?) crawled up on land, followed by an animal (a monkey-fish-squirrel?), then larger animals, finally some apes got kicked out of the trees for not sharing their bananas, walked out from the forest to the savanna, and eventually evolved into humans over 10 or so million years.

This story strikes me as just as fantastic as the highly simplified and biased rendition of Creation originally given above it. As far as I'm concerned, this rendition is just as fantastic as the one I believe in - except this one was fabricated by a human (so that makes it more credible, I guess).

Ultimately, none of what is printed above is provable. Just like Creation. Neither is provable.

hyperborean

02-18-2007, 02:10 AM

Hey, but at least the fundamentals of creation theories are based off empirical evidence, and not on what some imaginary construct had to say.

Pendragon

02-18-2007, 10:38 AM

Indulge my meddling again for a moment. This term keeps coming up: empirical evidence . This is evidence that can be proven by experiments.

Now, I think it was my amigo, Robin, who pointed out, that given infinity, chance had to be the starting point behind creation. I will not argue with this point. The math would be something like this:

If x = chance, and y = ∞, then xy = The Big Bang.

The problem would be gaining empirical evidence . There exists no way to run an infinite experiment to see if this is indeed, true. What we have is an accepted fact . Something that we know, but can’t prove.

Now, the same goes for a person who believes, as I do, in God; in Intelligent Design. Given infinity as possibilities, God has to exist.

If x = God, and y = ∞, then xy = God Exists.

Can I prove it to the skeptic? Not a chance.

So with Science we take the best shot at it we can give, it comes down to “This is what we believe happened, based on the fragmentary evidence that we have.” Best guess. Most likely. Not empirical evidence .

With God we come down to a matter of Faith, what one believes.

Hebrews chapter 11. 1-3

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

For by it the elders obtained a good report.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

Faith believes it. It cannot provide empirical evidence .

So why do we argue so vehemently? Take the two, put them together, and you may have a clearer picture of what took place at the dawn of time. But it will still lack empirical evidence . We would still be taking our best shot at the target. God bless.

Redzeppelin

02-18-2007, 12:14 PM

Well said my friend.

Hey, but at least the fundamentals of creation theories are based off empirical evidence, and not on what some imaginary construct had to say.

Here's what I find interesting. In my posts, I never suggest that evolution is silly, imaginary, absurd or even untrue: I simply try to do some "equalizing" by suggesting that a certain amount of faith, assumption and speculation exists in the evolutionistic explanation as to how the universe and life on earth originated. I'm willing to accept that some parts of evolution theory may have some credence; what's fascinating is that some/many atheists will often not bother to at least allow that our view is possible in the least. Pen's post nicely articulates that anything - given infinity - can be possible. The fact that life exists at all (against odds calculated by scientists that are pretty astounding from what I recall) is just as miraculous as the idea that a Supreme Being was behind the beginning of Life.

My point? Hyperboren (like others who argue similarly) immediately tries to refute our position by invoking the "imaginary" nature of the basis of our argument (God) - but as far as I see, the astronomical numbers and coincedences required to believe in evolution are so unreal as to seem almost equally imaginary.

hyperborean

02-18-2007, 03:20 PM

ennison

02-18-2007, 04:03 PM

Science? Modern witchcraft. One bunch will tell you today 'Eat X and live longer' A few months later another bunch of scientists say 'Don't eat X it's bad for you' Depends who is paying them and what they stand to gain. Moral principles? Don't fit in their test-tubes. Gerron believe scientists and you'll believe anything. They said it was ok to feed powdered cattle to cattle since we're all just molecules after all!! So now we've got bovine brain disease that can jump species. Aye gullible aint in the dictionary of the 'enlightened scientists'

hyperborean

02-18-2007, 05:17 PM

"feed powdered cattle to cattle" and "gullibility" has to do with the validity of evolution?

"Faith is a wondrous thing; it is not only capable of moving mountains, but also of making you believe that a herring is a race horse."
-Arthur Koestler

I personally believe "dyrwen" put the words together the best. Some of you should read the beginning of this thread.

The point is: Evolution has a lot of documented evidence for it, much more than the contrary evidence, and is therefore regarded as factual theory more so than just some humdrum explanation for the way things are. Show some evidence of creationism not directly quoted from the Bible and maybe you'll make more of a case for it.

Redzeppelin

02-18-2007, 08:22 PM

You guys make it seem as if this is a black and white issue. Unlike Creationism, Evolution is not some ballpark theory that requires "faith" for comprehension.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

"only a miniscule 0.15% of the 480,000 biologists and geologists accept creationism".

And that proves what, exactly? Because the majority endorses something it becomes true or authoritative? I'm willing to guess that an equally small percentage of Christians believe we evolved from monkeys - so?

I suggest looking over the website and maybe you'll realize why almost every scientist rejects creationism. I myself believe in a divine being, but that being didn't zap the earth into immediate existence.

"Almost every scientist" eh?

You were all brought up believing in what you were told was true. I however, value science over faith.

Absolutely absurd. You stereotype Christians - plenty came to the faith as adults, and many from agnostic or atheistic backgrounds. Try to be at least a bit more discerning in your sweeping generalizations.

I shall quote Nietzsche once more: "Faith: not wanting to know what is true"

Quoting Nietzsche to Christians is the equivalent of Christians quoting the Bible to atheists. Not very convincing or authoritative.

hyperborean

02-18-2007, 08:35 PM

The fact that Nietzsche was more intelligent than any Christian that ever lived would be authoritative enough.

You call me "discerning" when it comes to my view of Christians. Well that's what happens when ALL of your points come from a strong Christian perspective. It's like trying to argue with a wall. As I'm typing this I still can't believe I'm arguing with a Christian over creationism. Believing that Adam and Eve were zapped here is absurd...especially when Adam and Eve is openly admitted as a false bible story (along with Noah's Ark).

JGL57

02-18-2007, 10:28 PM

And that proves what, exactly? Because the majority endorses something it becomes true or authoritative? I'm willing to guess that an equally small percentage of Christians believe we evolved from monkeys...

I'll let hyperborean debate the other issues with you if he wants, but I would point out that the above is provably wrong. All the recent scientific polls always show a sizable plurality of Christians who do indeed believe humans evolved from previous "monkey-like" species (as opposed, of course, to any extant species of monkey). You will retract this "guess" as inaccurate - right?

Redzeppelin

02-18-2007, 11:40 PM

The fact that Nietzsche was more intelligent than any Christian that ever lived would be authoritative enough.

Please. That statement is unprovable and quite silly to say the least.

You call me "discerning" when it comes to my view of Christians.

No: I advised you to try and be a bit more discerning. Sweeping generalizations like the one you presented (which are obviously wrong) decrease your credibility.

It's like trying to argue with a wall.

I know the feeling :brickwall

As I'm typing this I still can't believe I'm arguing with a Christian over creationism. Believing that Adam and Eve were zapped here is absurd...especially when Adam and Eve is openly admitted as a false bible story (along with Noah's Ark).

"Openly admitted" by certain factions or groups - but not Christianity as a whole. I find it interesting that you speak of such things as if they are established facts, but that's not so. Why don't you supply all these sources that say as you claim?

I'll let hyperborean debate the other issues with you if he wants, but I would point out that the above is provably wrong. All the recent scientific polls always show a sizable plurality of Christians who do indeed believe humans evolved from previous "monkey-like" species (as opposed, of course, to any extant species of monkey). You will retract this "guess" as inaccurate - right?

Why don't you supply me with a link to these "recent scientific polls" so I can see for myself? And no - no need to retract anything. A guess does not claim to be correct - it claims an unsubstantiated belief. Supply proof and I'll consider retracting.

JGL57

02-19-2007, 12:53 AM

...Why don't you supply me with a link to these "recent scientific polls" so I can see for myself? And no - no need to retract anything. A guess does not claim to be correct - it claims an unsubstantiated belief. Supply proof and I'll consider retracting.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

According to this poll back in 1991 about 46 per cent of theists in the U.S. (I assume the over-whelming majority of which are christian) do indeed believe humans evolved from monkey-like species over millions of years.

You can post your retraction of your uneducated "guess" now.

And why not at least consider refraining from posting anymore such "guesses" in the future - ones based solely on wishes or fantasy - "guesses" that any person who reads a daily newspaper will recognize immediately as just plain wrong?

hyperborean

02-19-2007, 01:23 AM

Please. That statement is unprovable and quite silly to say the least.

Name one theologian that revolutionized philosophical ideas like he has.

"Openly admitted" by certain factions or groups - but not Christianity as a whole. I find it interesting that you speak of such things as if they are established facts, but that's not so. Why don't you supply all these sources that say as you claim?

It's not like the Church went public and said "adam and eve is fake". It's one of those things an educated Christian understands. They even teach this in CCD and sunday school nowadays.

Here's some links to show you what I'm talking about:

http://www.animationinsider.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18235
-make sure you read the comments made by "Ayria" and especially "Vendetta" on the second page

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_adamandeve.html (you might not like this one)

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=freespace&Number=649990&page=8&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1&vc=1

You really have to stop taking Genesis so literally.

Stanislaw

02-19-2007, 05:36 AM

I'm right, your wrong, I big, your little, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Lets try another tact.

science is wrong cause its silly, screwy, weirdy, imaginary, annoying, annoyance.

religion is right because we say it is.

or...

religion is wrong cause its silly, screwy, weirdy, imaginary, annoying, annoyance.

science is right because we say it is.

anyother ideas are stupid.

Post your "Im so sorry I was wrong and you are right, infact you must be some sort of geniouse and I a moron"...

I'm still waiting:

Stanislaw

02-19-2007, 05:42 AM

Questions:

1. How does science prove religion wrong?

2. How does religion prove science wrong?

3. Why is there such a lack of respect generated for the followers of science, and for the followers of religion?

Nightshade

02-19-2007, 05:46 AM

The fact that Nietzsche was more intelligent than any Christian that ever lived would be authoritative enough.

Sorry but honestly, how can you expect anyone o take yoyu seriopusly when you make an argumen like that?

Heck the bible is deemed even by non christians as the single most revloutionary world changing book far reaching in its effects philisophical and practicle to ever have appeared in the world. And I say this not only as a muslim who has my own book and rules but as someone who is studying to be librarian.

The secret to be taken seriously never ever make sweeping geralised assumptions. I belive Einstien was a christian, as was Da Vinci. Robert Winston is devout Jew. Who else.....
well you can see where IM going with this I hope.

Post your "Im so sorry I was wrong and you are right, infact you must be some sort of geniouse and I a moron"...

I'm still waiting:
And stan dont hold your breath on that one.

atiguhya padma

02-19-2007, 07:25 AM

Hyperborean said: <"adam and eve" is a false bible story. This has been admitted by the church.>

Which church was that exactly. I know this is a forum for literature, but I do think we need to be a bit more specific and accurate when we are making statements and presenting them as facts.

Redzeppelin said: <Ultimately, none of what is printed above is provable. Just like Creation. Neither is provable.>

Well, first we need to be a bit more certain about what we mean as provable. If we mean something 100% beyond dispute, then there is very little that is provable. If we mean something that is highly probable, then there is plenty that is provable. If we mean something that is demonstrable then again there is plenty. It seems to me that science, unlike religion, is in the business of demonstrating probability. With regard to the explanations of the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life, I don't think religion has ever provided an explanation designed upon probabilities.

Pendragon said:

<Given infinity as possibilities, God has to exist.>

That is not true. As I understand it, given infinity, anything that can happen, musy happen at some point. If something is possible in an infinite time, then it will occur. You need to show that God is possible before you can claim that infinity proves his existence. Regarding God's possibility, if you look at the attributes that have been traditionally been given for him, it is pretty obvious that they are not all compatible. A concept that contradicts itself or isincompatible requires a lot more than infinity to be true.

<The problem would be gaining empirical evidence . There exists no way to run an infinite experiment to see if this is indeed, true. What we have is an accepted fact . Something that we know, but can’t prove.>

You seem to equate provability with empirical evidence. This is incorrect. A mathematical equation can be true without reference to empirical evidence. When Hume claimed that miracles can be dismissed because it is more efficient, or more plausible to accept a physical explanation for any event than a miraculous one, he was referring to probability.

<So why do we argue so vehemently? Take the two, put them together, and you may have a clearer picture of what took place at the dawn of time. But it will still lack empirical evidence . We would still be taking our best shot at the target.>

Taking a belief system from pre-scientific peoples and applying it to the whole system of scientific thought regarding the Universe's origins reduces the strength of the scientific explanation. Can't you see that? Why don't we take the beliefs expressed by the ancient Greeks add it to evolution theory and see what we get? It would be a contradictory mess. A religious belief of the world's beginning created by people a couple of thousand years ago is a ridiculous way of explaining the universe in the 21st century. What can they tell me about the solar system? about the temperature of the core of stars? of the rate at which the universe is expanding? They couldn't even get it right with objects near to the earth like the sun, could they?

Nightshade said:

<Heck the bible is deemed even by non christians as the single most revloutionary world changing book far reaching in its effects philisophical>

Really? I am agraduate in philosophy. Pls enlighten me about the original contribution that the Bible has made to my subject.

<I belive Einstien was a christian, as was Da Vinci. Robert Winston is devout Jew.>

Firstly, I think you are wrong about Einstein. Secondly, all these three being both scientists and christians, they were/are qualified to scientifically evaluate religion. We constantly hear from christian apologists that science and religion are compatible. It strikes me as odd that Einstein didn't scientifically defend religion. It strikes me as odd that Robert Winston seems so impotent when pressed to scientifically justify his religious beliefs by Richard Dawkins. As Dawkins has said, there are some religious claims, that were they true, would leave indisputable evidence that science would be able to corroborate. Let us take the idea that God interferes with the Universe. This would be a scientifically measurable event. Yet no scientist has ever come close to measuring such an event. This leaves most religious scientists with the option of either retreating into desim or holding some mythos form of religious belief: Either God set the ball rolling and then became an armchair viewer, or religion is simply a nice story that helps the cohesion of social groups.

Stanislaw

02-19-2007, 07:51 AM

Really? I am agraduate in philosophy. Pls enlighten me about the original contribution that the Bible has made to my subject.

er, it is primarily the basis for western thinking.

hyperborean

02-19-2007, 10:28 AM

This thread is going nowhere. I think some of you forgot to click on any of the links I provided. You can't compare creationism to evolution. One is based entirely on "faith" and the other is based on what we as humans have researched (and have found evidence for). You guys make it seem like Darwin was an idiot. You guys also make it seem as if there is no evidence supporting evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
Any shred of evidence that supports evolution gives it more credibility than creationism, because evolution is not a theory based strictly on myth.

You can't compare the imaginary to the practical. Like I said before, most Christians are aware of how adam and eve is a "parable". If you seriously take adam and eve literally then that must mean you take Noah's Ark (one of the more unpractical stories in the bible) seriously. As smart as some of you people are, I'm surprised to see that all you believe in creationism.

Here's a video stream that's interesting:
http://www.hhmi.org:8080/ramgen/evolution_religion_225.rm

Stanislaw

02-19-2007, 10:53 AM

I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it.

Redzeppelin

02-19-2007, 11:27 AM

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
According to this poll back in 1991 about 46 per cent of theists in the U.S. (I assume the over-whelming majority of which are christian) do indeed believe humans evolved from monkey-like species over millions of years.

The only 1991 poll listed on this page concerns the general public - not exclusively Christians. As well, the only 1991 poll on this page indicates that the Creationist view was held by 47% in the "Everybody" category. While my guess was wrong, your numbers do not add up either. As well, I indicated "monkeys" while you have conveniently added "monkey-like": there's a difference. The poll indicates nothing about developing from monkeys, which was the focus of my comment (I specifically avoided saying "evolution" because I'm aware that a portion of Christianity believes in some form of that).

In 1997, the poll indicates that a little less than half still believed in Creationism (44%) and only a tiny number (10%) believe in Naturalistic evolution (that which I am primarily arguing against).

As far as the poll from the Christianity section of About.com - those results are not clear in how they were tabulated; as well, the sample was very small (2904 votes) - highly unrepresentative of mainstream Christianity. Below this poll is the following disclaimer: "Needless to say, Internet surfers are are not necessarily typical of the general public."

You can post your retraction of your uneducated "guess" now.

Why? Here's what I said: "I'm willing to guess that an equally small percentage of Christians believe we evolved from monkeys - so?" Where on that page did you find anything that contradicted that idea? Here's an interesting note from the page:

Auctioneer Gary Corwin said: "I believe that the Lord God created everything, just like the Bible says, I don’t think we came from apes." [Author's note: 95% of scientists support evolution and have reached a consensus that humans did not come from apes either; they believe that humans and apes have a common ancestor.

As far as I'm concerned, my numbers may be off (it was a guess, after all) but I don't think you've made a solid "hit" of any sort.

And why not at least consider refraining from posting anymore such "guesses" in the future - ones based solely on wishes or fantasy - "guesses" that any person who reads a daily newspaper will recognize immediately as just plain wrong?

I am free to post whatever I wish that conforms to the forum rules. I could easily respond that your commentary about the Bible and Christianity (to any well-read Christian) is equally uninformed.

Name one theologian that revolutionized philosophical ideas like he has.

Irrelevant. That's an "apples vs oranges" comment. Your original comment dealt with "intelligence" rather than philosophic thought - now you've changed the comparison - faulty reasoning. CS Lewis revolutionized Christian apologetics and it was said that an atheist never bested him in a debate.

It's not like the Church went public and said "adam and eve is fake". It's one of those things an educated Christian understands. They even teach this in CCD and sunday school nowadays.

Oh - it's a conspiracy thing. I get it. Only those "in the know" understand. Utterly ridiculous. Whenever I post such things about Christianity and how unbelievers cannot fully understand the message of the Bible I get criticized for saying such things. Now you do too.

You really have to stop taking Genesis so literally.

Why? Because you said so? You're kidding, right? I don't recall asking either you or JGL for advice as to what I "have" to do. Perhaps you could table your unsolicited "advice" and concentrate on your argument?

atiguhya padma

02-19-2007, 12:06 PM

Pendragon

02-19-2007, 12:27 PM

The fact that Nietzsche was more intelligent than any Christian that ever lived would be authoritative enough.

You know, I respect Nietzsche as a philosopher, and many of his statements that at first glace seem to be attacks on Christianity are more "live up to what you claim." But this statement is inflammatory, questioning the intelligence of a great number of Christian scholars, and should not have been allowed. That said, might I remind you that Nietzsche died mentally unstable?

atiguhya padma

02-19-2007, 12:37 PM

<That said, might I remind you that Nietzsche died mentally unstable?>

What point are you trying to make? That people who die mentally unstable are unintelligent?!?

Pendragon

02-19-2007, 12:48 PM

That is not true. As I understand it, given infinity, anything that can happen, musy happen at some point. If something is possible in an infinite time, then it will occur. You need to show that God is possible before you can claim that infinity proves his existence. Regarding God's possibility, if you look at the attributes that have been traditionally been given for him, it is pretty obvious that they are not all compatible. A concept that contradicts itself or isincompatible requires a lot more than infinity to be true.

This is a circular argument. You understand that given infinity, Anything can, and even must happen. Your words. But then you say I must prove that God is possible. We are talking Infinity here, where Anything is possible, so God is possible. Compatibility is not a question, because Infinity makes it possible. Ergo, Infinity makes God's esistance as much a fact as anything else. Because the concept is beyond your own way of thinking doesn't put it beyond Infinity. That is like making A the proof of B, then turning around and making B the proof of A.

You seem to equate provability with empirical evidence. This is incorrect. A mathematical equation can be true without reference to empirical evidence. When Hume claimed that miracles can be dismissed because it is more efficient, or more plausible to accept a physical explanation for any event than a miraculous one, he was referring to probability.

Taking a belief system from pre-scientific peoples and applying it to the whole system of scientific thought regarding the Universe's origins reduces the strength of the scientific explanation. Can't you see that? Why don't we take the beliefs expressed by the ancient Greeks add it to evolution theory and see what we get? It would be a contradictory mess. A religious belief of the world's beginning created by people a couple of thousand years ago is a ridiculous way of explaining the universe in the 21st century. What can they tell me about the solar system? about the temperature of the core of stars? of the rate at which the universe is expanding? They couldn't even get it right with objects near to the earth like the sun, could they?

I only talked about empirical proof because that's what everyone seems hung up on. The dismisal of things without giving any reason besides "improbbable" is certainly the easy way out, for either side, that is for sure.

And since we learn that what we think is correct is often mistaken upon further research or new discovery, are we doing that much better a job? We devote time to the study of the tempetature at the core of stars when we don't yet understand the complexity of the Earth around us.

Oh, and how much Science has been put to a search for Atlantis, which was in a book written by Plato, I believe?

hyperborean

02-19-2007, 12:48 PM

I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it.

That's what I believe as well. I'm arguing that God didn't create humans in the beginning and from scratch. He created the universe which led to evolution of microscopic organisms which led to us.

that said, might I remind you that Nietzsche died mentally unstable?

Did he write his great works while he was mentally unstable? I didn't think so. At least he is one that created his own philosophy and questioned faulty metaphysics + religion. He didn't live his life according to some "book"...a book filled with myths that weren't meant to be translated literally.

Pendragon

02-19-2007, 12:59 PM

<That said, might I remind you that Nietzsche died mentally unstable?>

What point are you trying to make? That people who die mentally unstable are unintelligent?!?
No. Simply that it doesn't happen overnight.

atiguhya padma

02-19-2007, 01:05 PM

atiguhya padma

02-19-2007, 01:11 PM

<And since we learn that what we think is correct is often mistaken upon further research or new discovery, are we doing that much better a job? >

The great thing about science, is that it is constantly open to revision and updating, if the evidence suggests this is necessary. Unlike most religion I might add. Furthermore, what would you suggest? That we abandon all knowledge that doesn't claim to be absolute? That we ditch any methodologies which are mutable, open to improvement? What kind of world do you live in?

hyperborean

02-19-2007, 01:15 PM

atiguhya padma

02-19-2007, 01:21 PM

Stanislaw said: <I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it. >

Hyperborean said: <That's what I believe as well. I'm arguing that God didn't create humans in the beginning and from scratch. He created the universe which led to evolution of microscopic organisms which led to us. >

Once you have accepted evolution, why do you need to find some design behind it? What are you actually adding to the theory by postulating that God designed evolution?

hyperborean

02-19-2007, 01:26 PM

I believe in the divine. You can accept evolution and believe in the divine.

atiguhya padma

02-19-2007, 01:40 PM

You can accept the divine and evolution if you so choose. It adds no value to either in my opinion. Furthermore, as evoltuionary processes reveal a cold, cruel world, the world of Tennyson's In Memoriam, belief in evolution does make some kind of negative statement about the divine. I find it difficult to accept the rosy-spectacled lover of benign nature, of the spiritual, divine in nature, when it is so obviously indifferent to suffering, pain and misfortune.

Children born with genetic deformties, that mean their bodies are time bombs, programmed to kill them in a year, two three etc, are surely evidence of an indifferent blind natural process of evolution in the world, rather than a divine benevolent overseeing designer of evolution. Quite frankly, if there were a God who created evolution, then I can see very little benevolence in him/her. If a scientist created the evolutionary process in a garden of eden type world, I'm sure we would condemn that scientist as the most evil human that ever existed.

Stanislaw

02-19-2007, 01:45 PM

<er, it is primarily the basis for western thinking.>

I think you'll find that Greek philosophy is primarily the basis for Christian thinking.

To claim that some texts from ancient Palestine are the basis for western thinking is unbelievably christocentric of you. For starters, lets ask where virtually all the languages of the West came from. Then I suggest you start looking at where the knowledge that inspired the Greek philosophies came from.

Firstly, Hi atiguhya, long time...

Secondly...Its crazy to deny the influence of the bible (both hebrew and new testamnet) on western cultural development. In literature, history, science, and even mathematics. Western culture has been heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs, and writings. "In God we Trust".

Stanislaw said: <I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it. >

Hyperborean said: <That's what I believe as well. I'm arguing that God didn't create humans in the beginning and from scratch. He created the universe which led to evolution of microscopic organisms which led to us. >

Once you have accepted evolution, why do you need to find some design behind it? What are you actually adding to the theory by postulating that God designed evolution?

well... eventually, God comes into play, unless you believe that people create the universe in the future by travelling back in time and thus existance is just a gigantic cirlce...which started just cause...gotta be a beggining somewhere.

I believe in the divine. You can accept evolution and believe in the divine.

indeed. :thumbs_up

atiguhya padma

02-19-2007, 01:59 PM

atiguhya padma

02-19-2007, 02:05 PM

Stan,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not deny that the Bible had an influence on western cultural development. My criticism was based on the claim that the Bible was the basis for western cultural development. In all areas of western culture, you can find roots way before the biblical writings.

Nightshade

02-19-2007, 02:13 PM

er, it is primarily the basis for western thinking.

I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen, I'm saying God caused it.
:thumbs_up :D

You can accept the divine and evolution if you so choose. It adds no value to either in my opinion. Furthermore, as evoltuionary processes reveal a cold, cruel world, the world of Tennyson's In Memoriam, belief in evolution does make some kind of negative statement about the divine. I find it difficult to accept the rosy-spectacled lover of benign nature, of the spiritual, divine in nature, when it is so obviously indifferent to suffering, pain and misfortune.

Children born with genetic deformties, that mean their bodies are time bombs, programmed to kill them in a year, two three etc, are surely evidence of an indifferent blind natural process of evolution in the world, rather than a divine benevolent overseeing designer of evolution. Quite frankly, if there were a God who created evolution, then I can see very little benevolence in him/her. If a scientist created the evolutionary process in a garden of eden type world, I'm sure we would condemn that scientist as the most evil human that ever existed.
Can I just point out somthing sure God is kind and benevoulent but hes also a pretty harsh task masters ( by human standerds ) and theres good reason for this. Also belivieng in God includes putting your faith to test Im mean look at Job ( wait it is Job in english who lost all 12 of his chikedren and had disatser after disaster occur to him in a year so he went from a rich succesful man to practically a begger with no family?). And then there is the belief that if they die as children they go straight to heaven no questions asked, some would call tha a mercy.

But stan mathamtics? That wasnt the christians it was the antient muslims hence algebra being called algebra after Al-Gaber ibn Hayan. But yeah christianity is reponsible for the spread of alot of things but just at this moment other than the printing press fabioulous arctechture I cant really think right now but I do know christianity and even all the major abrahamic religiouns have all played big and even massive roles in getting us where we are today and I think thats somthing all the people who nessereily belive in them should rember that no matter what you actually think about them the ideas of the people before us our 'intellectual heritage' as it were is responsible for more than you might like to think.

JGL57

02-19-2007, 04:32 PM

The only 1991 poll listed on this page concerns the general public - not exclusively Christians. As well, the only 1991 poll on this page indicates that the Creationist view was held by 47% in the "Everybody" category. While my guess was wrong, your numbers do not add up either. As well, I indicated "monkeys" while you have conveniently added "monkey-like": there's a difference. The poll indicates nothing about developing from monkeys, which was the focus of my comment (I specifically avoided saying "evolution" because I'm aware that a portion of Christianity believes in some form of that).

In 1997, the poll indicates that a little less than half still believed in Creationism (44%) and only a tiny number (10%) believe in Naturalistic evolution (that which I am primarily arguing against).

As far as the poll from the Christianity section of About.com - those results are not clear in how they were tabulated; as well, the sample was very small (2904 votes) - highly unrepresentative of mainstream Christianity. Below this poll is the following disclaimer: "Needless to say, Internet surfers are are not necessarily typical of the general public."

Why? Here's what I said: "I'm willing to guess that an equally small percentage of Christians believe we evolved from monkeys - so?" Where on that page did you find anything that contradicted that idea? Here's an interesting note from the page:

Auctioneer Gary Corwin said: "I believe that the Lord God created everything, just like the Bible says, I don’t think we came from apes." [Author's note: 95% of scientists support evolution and have reached a consensus that humans did not come from apes either; they believe that humans and apes have a common ancestor.

As far as I'm concerned, my numbers may be off (it was a guess, after all) but I don't think you've made a solid "hit" of any sort.

I am free to post whatever I wish that conforms to the forum rules. I could easily respond that your commentary about the Bible and Christianity (to any well-read Christian) is equally uninformed.

Irrelevant. That's an "apples vs oranges" comment. Your original comment dealt with "intelligence" rather than philosophic thought - now you've changed the comparison - faulty reasoning. CS Lewis revolutionized Christian apologetics and it was said that an atheist never bested him in a debate.

Oh - it's a conspiracy thing. I get it. Only those "in the know" understand. Utterly ridiculous. Whenever I post such things about Christianity and how unbelievers cannot fully understand the message of the Bible I get criticized for saying such things. Now you do too.

Why? Because you said so? You're kidding, right? I don't recall asking either you or JGL for advice as to what I "have" to do. Perhaps you could table your unsolicited "advice" and concentrate on your argument?

All this is the biggest load of sophistry I have ever seen on any internet forum.

The poll was scientific to within some small degree of accuracy. Most theists in the U.S. are christians. 47 + 40 divided by 40 = 47 per cent of theists, mostly christians, believe humans evolved. There is no one who claims that humans evolved from present day monkeys. Your claim was that less than one per cent of christians in the U.S. believe humans evolved from a monkey. Obviously, this means a common ancester.

Thus your "guess" is wrong. Polls show that a sizeable minority, not less than one per cent, of christians in the U.S. believe humans evolved from a monkey-like ancester (essentially a monkey).

Your "guess" has been proven wrong. Period. In black and white. The fact that you can't even admit this means that you have a problem that I, as a non-psychiatrist, cannot help you with.

I cannot deal with overt dishonesty like this. If all christians are as dishonest as you are then I've no doubt it is a false religion.

I will be ignoring your posts from now on.

hyperborean

02-19-2007, 04:36 PM

this thread is going to become interesting once zeppelin returns.

Redzeppelin

02-19-2007, 06:44 PM

All this is the biggest load of sophistry I have ever seen on any internet forum.

You mean I have excelled at something? Is there an award for this category?

The poll was scientific to within some small degree of accuracy. Most theists in the U.S. are christians. 47 + 40 divided by 40 = 47 per cent of theists, mostly christians, believe humans evolved. There is no one who claims that humans evolved from present day monkeys. Your claim was that less than one per cent of christians in the U.S. believe humans evolved from a monkey. Obviously, this means a common ancester.

Not necessarily.

Thus your "guess" is wrong. Polls show that a sizeable minority, not less than one per cent, of christians in the U.S. believe humans evolved from a monkey-like ancester (essentially a monkey).

Oh OK, if it makes you feel better, here: my guess was silly and inaccurate.

Your "guess" has been proven wrong. Period. In black and white. The fact that you can't even admit this means that you have a problem that I, as a non-psychiatrist, cannot help you with.

OK - I said something careless (which means you and I may be more alike than we may wish to admit ;) ) - it's not the first time nor will it be the last.

(I pretty much doubt you could help me even if you were a psychiatrist. My absurd belief in an invisible deity already qualifies me for the insane asylum.)

I cannot deal with overt dishonesty like this.

On the contrary: I believe with unequivocal certainty that everything I say is true.

If all christians are as dishonest as you are then I've no doubt it is a false religion.

You mean you hadn't figured this out before talking to me?

I will be ignoring your posts from now on.

Two possible responses:
1. Promise?
2. Is this called a forfeit?

this thread is going to become interesting once zeppelin returns.

Wow - is this another compliment? You two really need to stop. I actually thought the thread was quite interesting whether I was around or not.

Pendragon

02-19-2007, 07:26 PM

<This is a circular argument. You understand that given infinity, Anything can, and even must happen. >

I actually said anything THAT can happen, not anything can happen. If something is impossible, no matter whether the Universe be infinite or not, it cannot happen. How does limitless time make something contradictory possible? If something is impossible it is impossible now and every other now til infinity. Just by adding an infinite number of nows does alter the possibility of something impossible.

OK. Then by that channel of thinking, that giving limitless time CANNOT make the IMPOSSIBLE happen, then I will chose to put no faith in any principle of science based on chance. When science wishes to disprove claims of anything supernatural taking place, the first thing they do is calculate the odds of it happening by mere chance. "Eliminate the 'chance factor', and maybe we have solid fact with which to work." That seems to be the major maxim, and I do not disagree. But it is fine to allow infinite tries to make chance take place, but not something you do not wish to believe in anyway. OK. Just so we know where we stand.

<Oh, and how much Science has been put to a search for Atlantis, which was in a book written by Plato, I believe?>

Big deal. Plato, in the Timaeus, writes of a fable about Atlantis. Again, what is your point? Furthermore, the reason why so little science has been put into a search for Atlantis, is because scientists don't tend to waste their time on fables and myths like Atlantis and the Creation story. Leave that to the people who do not care about evidence-based theories.The point was not how little Science has wasted on this, but how much. I see countless references to it by very serious scientists, they try to pinpoint the location, (including the lastest, South China Seas :rolleyes: ), they rave over the Bimini Road, etc. Did anyone ever research and see if Plato ever traveled at all?

I have messed around enough. Good luck, folks!

Stanislaw

02-20-2007, 06:13 AM

Hi Stan,

I'm not sure that I understand your claim about the future. As for beginnings to space and time, well God can't possibly provide an answer: if you can't explain God's existence other than to say he/she is eternal, you may as well save time and just say the Universe is eternal.

Well...thats where the blind faith comes in...some say God, Some say Nirvana, some say nothing.

Stan,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not deny that the Bible had an influence on western cultural development. My criticism was based on the claim that the Bible was the basis for western cultural development. In all areas of western culture, you can find roots way before the biblical writings.

Well, I'll give that, it was poorly worded, I didn't exactly say what I meant, the Greek, and pre-greek influences are clear, even in Biblical interpretations.

atiguhya padma

02-20-2007, 01:51 PM

<OK. Then by that channel of thinking, that giving limitless time CANNOT make the IMPOSSIBLE happen, then I will chose to put no faith in any principle of science based on chance.>

If something happens based on chance, then it disproves its impossibility does it not? If something is impossible, it simply cannot happen, no matter what mix of chance and infinity your recipe concocts.

<When science wishes to disprove claims of anything supernatural taking place, the first thing they do is calculate the odds of it happening by mere chance.>

If something happens in nature, no matter how wild the probability of it happening, then, in my book, it ceases to be considered supernatural. In fact, I think the term supernatural seems to me to be a nonsense term. I've just looked it up in the dictionary, and fail to understand what it can mean: "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." How can something in the natural world be above or beyond nature? Its existence in our world must make it natural. Being unexplained by natural law or phenomena says more about our own understanding/ignorance of the natural world then it does about the natural world itself. So it appears to me that the term supernatural is merely used to describe ignorance. Peoples of the past must have described all kinds of natural phenomena as supernatural.

<"Eliminate the 'chance factor', and maybe we have solid fact with which to work." That seems to be the major maxim, and I do not disagree.>

I don't really know what you are talking about here.

<But it is fine to allow infinite tries to make chance take place, but not something you do not wish to believe in anyway. OK. Just so we know where we stand. >

I'm confused about this too I'm afraid. What do you mean about infinite tries and chance taking place? Chance doesn't take place. Chance is a calculation based on things that take place. Infinite tries do not an impossibility make. Supposing we say that God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. This is obviously a contradiction in terms. No matter how much time you allow, I'm afraid it will still be a contradiction in terms.

Science, as I understand it, takes the most efficient explanation for physical events. So the most sufficient explanation that requires the least amount of improbable factors will be favoured. Any physical explanation of the Universe will be more probable than a religious explanation. If only because reference will be made to evidences of what we empirically already have discovered. Any explanation relying on deism or theism, is dependent on postulations that cannot be weighed up in terms of probability. Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous. I may as well say that xfgmnsad made the Universe. It will have as much meaning.

hyperborean

02-20-2007, 04:04 PM

Science, as I understand it, takes the most efficient explanation for physical events. So the most sufficient explanation that requires the least amount of improbable factors will be favoured. Any physical explanation of the Universe will be more probable than a religious explanation. If only because reference will be made to evidences of what we empirically already have discovered. Any explanation relying on deism or theism, is dependent on postulations that cannot be weighed up in terms of probability. Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous. I may as well say that xfgmnsad made the Universe. It will have as much meaning.

Exactly. This should end the argument.

Redzeppelin

02-20-2007, 04:44 PM

If something happens based on chance, then it disproves its impossibility does it not? If something is impossible, it simply cannot happen, no matter what mix of chance and infinity your recipe concocts.

That depends upon a number of factors. Many experts once contended that manned flight was "impossible."

If something happens in nature, no matter how wild the probability of it happening, then, in my book, it ceases to be considered supernatural. In fact, I think the term supernatural seems to me to be a nonsense term. I've just looked it up in the dictionary, and fail to understand what it can mean: "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." How can something in the natural world be above or beyond nature? Its existence in our world must make it natural. Being unexplained by natural law or phenomena says more about our own understanding/ignorance of the natural world then it does about the natural world itself. So it appears to me that the term supernatural is merely used to describe ignorance. Peoples of the past must have described all kinds of natural phenomena as supernatural.

Something that happens once, in violation of the known laws of nature cannot be defined as "natural." If we had precise records of the sun for the last 5000 years and only once was it recorded that it traversed the sky from west to east, we would call that "supernatural." What you're suggesting is based on ignorance of perhaps an unknown law, but when things occur in opposition to known laws without any way to explain them, it seems perfectly logical to call them "beyond natural" events because they are aberrations.

Infinite tries do not an impossibility make.

But infinity opens up the door for an inconsistent result of an experiment. Inductive reasoning tells us that because 1000 rocks thrown at 1000 windows shatter said windows that it's a pretty safe bet to say that rocks thrown at windows shatter them. However, who is to say that on the 10,345th try that the same rock thrown does not break a window? Now you have an exception. That's the nature of inductive logic: you're working with probability. An infinite number of tries opens up the possibility for exception.

Supposing we say that God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. This is obviously a contradiction in terms. No matter how much time you allow, I'm afraid it will still be a contradiction in terms.

But since your example deals with logic as applied to the system of language, you have provided an example that is not comparable to the idea that infinity makes the existence of God possible.

Science, as I understand it, takes the most efficient explanation for physical events. So the most sufficient explanation that requires the least amount of improbable factors will be favoured. Any physical explanation of the Universe will be more probable than a religious explanation. If only because reference will be made to evidences of what we empirically already have discovered. Any explanation relying on deism or theism, is dependent on postulations that cannot be weighed up in terms of probability. Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous. I may as well say that xfgmnsad made the Universe. It will have as much meaning.

Science is reassuring to us because it speaks in a limited language that we can understand. Because it is limited by the humans that create/implement it, of course it seems more reasonable because - for the most part (at least until we start discussing some of the odds for evolutionary development) - it gives us facts and numbers we can comprehend. The idea that a Supreme Being created the universe actually gives the simplest answer - it is science's answer that requires astronomical numbers and coincedences. The term "improbable" is used to describe plenty of things we can't conceive of - but many people throughout history could not conceive of many of the most basic tools we have the advantage of today. Nonetheless, science possesses it's own catelog of facts that are less than verified, and require a certain amount of faith in that they present some rather improbable numbers and statistics to prove its points - many of which are based on the speculative nature of inductive reasoning.

Science seems more believable simply because it has limits, like we do. Once we start dealing with a Being that has always existed and is all powerful, well, we wish to dismiss that because we can't conceive of it so it must not be true. How much of our modern technology could a medieval peasant conceive of?

Exactly. This should end the argument.

Oh darn. Was I supposed to stop now?

davidvall

02-20-2007, 04:53 PM

As if it is really that difficult to be honest in spite of our inclinations and predispositions. Who does not want to be the best? Who does not want to rely on their own understanding? I think it is so very presumptuous of any man or woman to think that they have the answer to the origination of the cosmos. Some believe in a transcendent God, while others believe in the miracle of life unintended. Either way they are both clearly walks of faith. Some shroud themselves in religion, while others do the same with the covering of science; both clearly human constructs create to provide answers to questions that cannot be answered. But still, the argument continues, and the clash magnifies the human condition of the purely imperfect. In truth, I comes down to the reality that mankind longs to clean on to some understanding, even if the pursuit divides. Do we not all need to stand strong against an opponent? Our existence is the mark of a momentary lifespan riddled with unsatiation.

hyperborean

02-20-2007, 05:00 PM

ennison

02-20-2007, 05:05 PM

"feed powdered cattle to cattle" and "gullibility" has to do with the validity of evolution?
Scientific theories are treated as indisputable fact by those who make science and its agents their god and priests. Some post here. Some of us are not so gullible.

Wintermute

02-20-2007, 05:30 PM

Scientific theories are treated as indisputable fact by those who make science and its agents their god and priests.
This is nonsense. Could you please provide one example of anyone that says science is god or that the folks that dedicate their lives to better understanding the universe are its priests? Please, what tripe!

What was the last science course you had, and where did you take it? Here's what they teach at the University of Rochester (http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html), but its pretty much the same everywhere:

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

Now where does it say that scientific theories are to be treated as indisputable facts.

Redzeppelin

02-20-2007, 06:00 PM

Theism is based on beliefs and faith...things that cannot be proven in the physical universe. Any shred of evidence given off by science is more concrete than creationism because it can be proven in the physical realm. God is imaginary...it does not physically exist...it's a conjecture. I can't believe this is even an argument.

The fact that it is an argument (and has been for a number of decades [at minimum]) should be enough to show that your simple reduction of the debate into "there's no evidence for God so there" is insufficient and does not take into account the inductive nature of science which can only prove so much and must rely upon a certain degree of educated speculation to draw its conclusions. Note that I am not arguing for the existence of God so much as I am asking you to consider the "holes" (however small) that science contains within it. To repeat myself: science can prove pretty irrefutably many, many things - but evolution it cannot. It can put forth a reasonably convincing case - but that's not definitive.

Secondly, your quick dismissal of this argument is only valid if every aspect of life can be understood and explained by scientific processes and "evidence." Please don't expect me to believe that every single aspect of the life you live, the attitudes you have, the beliefs you hold are due to "evidence." You yourself (if I recall correctly and correct me if I'm wrong) have indicated that you believe in a Divine Being - got proof (or a "shred of evidence") for that particular belief? By your own reasoning, that is an absurd belief because it cannot be proved.

hyperborean

02-20-2007, 06:25 PM

I believe in a divine being but I don't base my reason off it. I don't have a divine being influencing my actions and decisions. In fact, I don't care if there is a divine being or not.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm just read it

You make it seem as if evolution is just a "guess"...as if we have no evidence whatsoever. What's "not definitive" is the fact that you base your theory of human existence off a parable/myth in the bible.

It's sick to watch some of you educated people lower yourselves down to creationism. http://anthropology.net/user/kambiz_kamrani/blog/2006/08/26/why_doesnt_america_believe_in_evolution

Redzeppelin

02-20-2007, 07:05 PM

I believe in a divine being but I don't base my reason off it. I don't have a divine being influencing my actions and decisions. In fact, I don't care if there is a divine being or not.

Then why bother to believe in one at all?

You make it seem as if evolution is just a "guess"...as if we have no evidence whatsoever.

Since you apparently didn't read my post closely, here it is again with key words highlighted and Cliff's Notes-like interpolations placed for your convenience:

Note that I am not arguing for the existence of God so much as I am asking you to consider the "holes" (however small) that science contains within it [i.e. that science must base certain conclusions on clues and educated guesses based on available evidence]. To repeat myself: science can prove pretty irrefutably many, many things - but evolution it cannot [prove irrefutably, that is, because we weren't there to see it and the theory cannot be tested]. It can put forth a reasonably convincing case - but that's not definitive [in terms of being undeniably true based on presentable evidence].

In other words: I never said it was a "guess." I said that the best science can do in terms of evolution is 90%+ (that's pretty generous of me, don't you think?).

(If JGL is reading this: 90%+ is a guess, by the way :) Let me know if my numbers are off).

What's "not definitive" is the fact that you base your theory of human existence off a parable/myth in the bible.

That and some other things - some of which that occur within the human heart. Dismiss away: there is more to life than facts and that which you can see. In fact, all the great literature of the world (along with most spiritual texts) emphasize again and again that there is much more to life than what can be seen, measured, observed. Such concrete reasoning that "only what I see exists" is often considered a characteristic of infantile thinking (which, by the way, I'm not applying to present company).

It's sick to watch some of you educated people lower yourselves down to creationism.

Well, I'm sure you'll get used to it someday. I've managed to tolerate evolutionists'/atheists' "lowering" of me into the crowning evolutionary step of pond scum and primates pretty well (though I will admit that it's an acquired taste :D ).

hyperborean

02-20-2007, 10:54 PM

There really isn't a point in debating this. Once someone believes something (and they set their heart on it) it's very difficult to change their views (this goes for both sides of the argument).

I don't know, guess I'm more stubborn than anything. Personally I don't see creationism as much of a choice when it comes to "versus" evolution, since it isn't even in the same league. One is about the creation of everything, the other is about the evolution of life after it existed. They've nothing to do with eachother, outside of the fact that creationists seem to enjoy proding at evolution because it is somehow a threat to their beliefs when it doesn't even involve the origin of life until one continues asking the "why" question throughout about science.

Hopefully that made some sense.

It doesn't get clearer than that.

Redzeppelin

02-21-2007, 02:00 AM

There really isn't a point in debating this. Once someone believes something (and they set their heart on it) it's very difficult to change their views (this goes for both sides of the argument).

It doesn't get clearer than that.

"Clear" doesn't necessarily = convincing.

At the risk of making you think I'm just trying to be contrary: I didn't know that the only point of debating was to change someone's mind. I was under the impression that part of debate was simply laying out the arguments and evaluating them, learning what the arguments against your position are and evaluating your own position in light of the opposition. I certainly had no illusion that any of my arguments would convert anybody here. I engage in debate here to hear what others say and see if they'll consider my position or my points. So yeah, if you're here to "win" well that is a waste of time.

Stanislaw

02-21-2007, 06:02 AM

Pendragon

02-21-2007, 10:06 AM

Therefore, the argument that God made the Universe is as sound as all and any argument, no matter how ridiculous. Well, I really don't know how we got here, but I'll take it! It was what I was trying to say, perhaps in a terrible choice of words. Obviously, evolution is taking place still, as things adapt to an ever-changing world. The beginning was all I ever wonder about to begin with. Pure evolution, man and ape from a common ancestor, I cannot see, yet I concede the possibility, since everything is possible with God.

atiguhya padma

02-21-2007, 01:49 PM

<Well, I really don't know how we got here, but I'll take it! It was what I was trying to say, perhaps in a terrible choice of words. Obviously, evolution is taking place still, as things adapt to an ever-changing world. The beginning was all I ever wonder about to begin with. Pure evolution, man and ape from a common ancestor, I cannot see, yet I concede the possibility, since everything is possible with God.>

Looks like I was rather slapdash in my choice of language. I was not in any way trying to suggest that evolution is on a par with religious arguments. Any argument for anything in nthe physical Universe that is not evidence-based on physical events is a fruitless argument in my opinion. You can wish all kinds of arguments into existence, but only evidence-based arguments will have any weight to them.

Redzeppelin

02-21-2007, 09:29 PM

Any argument for anything in nthe physical Universe that is not evidence-based on physical events is a fruitless argument in my opinion. You can wish all kinds of arguments into existence, but only evidence-based arguments will have any weight to them.

I suppose I could "split a hair" and challenge the term evidence. What kind of "evidence" do you consider authoritative?

Pendragon

02-21-2007, 09:46 PM

Whew. This is why the argument persists. If one endeavors to accept both science and God, the evolutionist says "Not good enough. You still have something in the mix that cannot be measured, quantified, etc., and until we can do that, we will not believe in it." And yet, the idea of infinity doesn't seem to bother you at all. Who can measure the limits of infinity? With a universe that is still expanding, who can quantify the borders? With technology making more and more of the once impossible possible, the lines between what can happen and what is pure fiction begin to blur. So, now, having made the statement that God is possible, you wish to crawfish on that statement. Why? You were right to begin with, you know...

You know that the value of PI is approximately 3.14159265358... Have you ever tried to actually prove it? It is much harder to do so than it sounds, because you must prove every step you use as you go. But there isn't a doubt in your mind that this is correct. Nor in mine. Proof isn't always easy to gain. And not everything in science is proven, some is accepted without need of proof. I don't tell science they are wrong on everything, or even the vast majority of things. But I believe in God, and for me, I require no proof. And for me, chance will never prove evolution's beginnings. You can't prove chance. Maybe it happened. Maybe it didn't. 50-50. I still accept that things evolve and change. I am not the enemy, AP. Never was, never will be. Here's to you! :thumbs_up

hyperborean

02-21-2007, 10:09 PM

zeppelin, I know what you mean about debating and such, but this argument can go on forever. It's not even worth debating because the same points are brought up over again.

Good points, pendragon. Sometimes it's scary to think about how vast the universe really is. Actually most astronomers believe in God because of this. read this article: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=231

Redzeppelin

02-21-2007, 10:20 PM

zeppelin, I know what you mean about debating and such, but this argument can go on forever. It's not even worth debating because the same points are brought up over again.

Right: the fact that it probably will go on "forever" tells me that there is no simple answer (or even definitive answer in terms of "winning") that will end it.

I think the dialogue is useful if (and only if) both sides are willing to listen to the other and consider the positions rather than rejecting them out-of-hand without even trying to see the reason behind the position. If that's going on (which happens more often than not) then, yes, the debate become two voices talking over each other.

I assume that people simply disappear from the thread when they tire of this perpetual debate.

AdoreroDio

02-21-2007, 10:34 PM

JGL57

02-22-2007, 03:22 AM

Hi all! I believe in God the father ...

What makes god a father - does he have a penis?

...and that he created the world in 7 days....

If god is omnipotent, then why so long? The omnipotent god down the street can create a universe in Planck time.

... any important questions and/or arguments have been posted? It would be helpful so that I could join "the fun"...

No, it's the same old same old. Apparently god can do anything except evolve.

Wintermute

02-22-2007, 07:05 AM

What makes god a father - does he have a penis?

If it does, that makes my question of what was it doing for infinity before it decided to create the universe 13 billion years ago even more pertinant...imo. Another thing I wonder about: Is God to be considered and extraterrestrial?

Stanislaw

02-22-2007, 07:20 AM

Hi all! I believe in God the father and that he created the world in 7 days.
And...I really don't want to read the last 92 pages of argument or even the last 2 pages so could someone update me on where the argument is at it's current point (what is being currently discussed), where the argument is heading, any important questions and/or arguments have been posted? It would be helpful so that I could join "the fun".

basically...science is right...no religion is right...no science is right.......:crash:

If it does, that makes my question of what was it doing for infinity before it decided to create the universe 13 billion years ago even more pertinant...imo. Another thing I wonder about: Is God to be considered and extraterrestrial?

Well...here comes the issue, again...it seems the goal is not to attack a divine being...but the christian ideal of this divine being...where all the animosity is being directed towards christian perspectives.

Scientist are supposed to be open...well for the most part they are open to the idea of a divine...however, very closed in regards to christianity...its like they want to punish christians for the punishments delt by early christians.

Wintermute

02-22-2007, 09:00 AM

Well...here comes the issue, again...it seems the goal is not to attack a divine being...but the christian ideal of this divine being...where all the animosity is being directed towards christian perspectives.

Scientist are supposed to be open...well for the most part they are open to the idea of a divine...however, very closed in regards to christianity...its like they want to punish christians for the punishments delt by early christians.

Hi Stanislaw,

As an agnostic:

If I have any animosity, it should be directed at any group that claims with certainty to know what is going on in the universe--that includes Chrisitians, Atheists, and Scientists (although I've met few that do). In my universe, certainty leads to zealotry which leads to violence and unnecessary meanness.

Note: I reserve the right to retract this the instant I see a burning bush, hear God clearly speaking to me in the method of its choice, or witness absolute evidence that would proove that one group is right and all the rest have gone astray.

atiguhya padma

02-22-2007, 09:01 AM

It seems to me that as science increases our knowledge of our world, life and the Universe, so those who pedalled some truth merely based on what they want to believe, recede into fuzzy areas of our knowledge, places where we do not have the full picture. As has been said, science increases our understanding, measuring things which were once immeasurable due to previous technological limits. However, science, when it unravels these mysteries, tends to move further away from religion, not nearer to it. Religion can only hide in the shadows of our knowledge, feeding off ignorance and misunderstanding. When was the last time some important religious hypothesis was proved? Of course, the ignorant will always obfuscate and mystify with unverifiable claims and untestable hypotheses.

Stanislaw

02-22-2007, 09:44 AM

I don't know...I'm just saying...be open minded enough to accept the possibilities...maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but, keep an open mind.

Pendragon

02-22-2007, 10:00 AM

Good article, hyperborean. Thank you. I am glad that some scientists can keep their work heads and still believe in God. Thet don't let it cloud their work, but then hold to their belief. As it should be. :)

Redzeppelin

02-22-2007, 11:04 AM

What makes god a father - does he have a penis?

Ha ha. One may be a "father" and be missing his genitalia. The word "father" has a number of different meanings, only one of which that means "male parent." I assume you understand such things. I also assume you "get" the idea that God must speak to us in the very limited medium we call the human language. As such, He is - to an extent - "straight-jacketed" by the limits of our language to express things/concepts/Beings that transcend our temporal humanity. Please don't make me think you don't get this most basic point.

If god is omnipotent, then why so long? The omnipotent god down the street can create a universe in Planck time.

This idea presents the rather absurd idea that "faster" is necessarily "better." As well, this belief totally bypasses the idea that God - as a Being concerned with order - may have had a specific reason to create in a certain number of days. If human beings are sensitive to the symbolism of ritual and ceremony, I would assume that God would consider such things - especially if there was to be record of His creative actions.

No, it's the same old same old. Apparently god can do anything except evolve.

That which is perfect need not "evolve" - only inferior creations need to "improve" (like science).

It seems to me that as science increases our knowledge of our world, life and the Universe, so those who pedalled some truth merely based on what they want to believe, recede into fuzzy areas of our knowledge, places where we do not have the full picture.

Why don't you give this tired reasoning a rest? You merely assume that holy writings are merely the scribblings of deluded human beings. You don't really know - you just believe thusly. Your refusal to believe doesn't make you right - it just means you don't believe.

As has been said, science increases our understanding, measuring things which were once immeasurable due to previous technological limits. However, science, when it unravels these mysteries, tends to move further away from religion, not nearer to it. Religion can only hide in the shadows of our knowledge, feeding off ignorance and misunderstanding. When was the last time some important religious hypothesis was proved? Of course, the ignorant will always obfuscate and mystify with unverifiable claims and untestable hypotheses.

You are free to "worship" science all you wish. That science and religion seem to contradict each other (I say "seem" because we do not know what discoveries lay around the corner that might move the two closer together) doesn't necessarily mean one is right and the other wrong. Your idolization of "evidence" and "proof" holds no real water because - as I have said before, asked you to respond to and you have ignored thus far - there are plenty of things that people (believers and non alike) believe to be true that they have no verifiable "evidence" to support that belief.

Second, science clarifies things - yes: but science also reveals new problems, new complications. It presents us with a mixed blessing. We have medications that do great things - but many of them have significant side-effects that can harm us even to the point of killing us. Cars are an important part of our lives - but they are polluting our atmosphere and are involved in one of the leading causes of death in the United States. You speak of science in glowing terms - but it has not brought about any Utopic existence here on earth. It solves problems, but creates new ones at the same time.

Again: your terming those "ignorant" who don't base their lives on "evidence" is silly - unless you wish to share how every single belief you have is based upon incontrovertible "proof." As far as Christians are concerned, those who base their idea of "truth" only on what they can see are seriously handicapped in their ability to understand reality.

atiguhya padma

02-22-2007, 11:22 AM

atiguhya padma

02-22-2007, 01:52 PM

<Can I just point out somthing sure God is kind and benevoulent but hes also a pretty harsh task masters ( by human standerds ) and theres good reason for this. Also belivieng in God includes putting your faith to test Im mean look at Job ( wait it is Job in english who lost all 12 of his chikedren and had disatser after disaster occur to him in a year so he went from a rich succesful man to practically a begger with no family?). And then there is the belief that if they die as children they go straight to heaven no questions asked, some would call tha a mercy.>

I do find it quite amazing how religious people can justify such rubbish. Listen, if it was OK for children to die and go to heaven no questions asked; if that was benevolent, then anyone who was altruistic enough not to care where they ended up (ie in hell), could go on a murderous spree killing the world's children and sending them all to heaven as innocents. When God destroys a community because he doesn't like their sexual orientation, you believers somehow justify such actions, yet if a man destroysd an equal amount of people for the same reason, he seems quite evil (or maube some of you would actually commend such an act). The fact is morality isn't relative to who does what. Either killing people is wrong or it isn't. Either homophobia is wrong or it isn't. It doesn't matter whether you are God or man, an act is either moral, immoral or amoral.

I say, a child whose skin peels of his body everyday because of a genetic deformity that will eventually kill him or her, is not blessed at all, no matter where that child goes. Only a sick mind could devise a form of torture that will lead to everlasting happiness. Only a confused or naive mind could condone such a belief.

Redzeppelin

02-22-2007, 02:49 PM

I do not worship science. I would have thought it was pretty clear by now that I consider all worshippers tobe deluded. You seem to live in a world of worship, not me. I recognise science as the best range of methods we have for identifying how the universe is.

Did you not see the quotation marks around the word "worship"? Do you understand what that writing convention means (when you put quotation marks around a word)? I assumed (wrongly, apparently) that it was clear I did not mean the word literally. I recognize science as one of the best range of methods we have for identifying how the universe is.

You say "seem" because we do not know what discoveries lie around the corner. What kind of argument is that? I assume you use "seem" all the time, for everything then? I say God seems to be a giraffe, after all, we don't know what we might discover just around the corner.

I say "seems" because science has had to reverse itself a number of times because new equipment/discoveries rendered the former scientific understanding obsolete or flat-out wrong. The argument is based on the history of scientific discovery; had science never been wrong or had to correct/contradict a former position, then my statement is absurd. As it is, it is perfectly logical.

Your idea that God "seems" like a giraffe is based on what? Because the only recorded account of what He's like is in the Bible - and nothing in it conforms to your rather absurd imagining. As well, because God is unchanging in His nature, we can assume the picture of Him (incomplete as it is) presented by the Bible is accurate and not subject to revision (except in how we understand Him).

Science does indeed reveal new complications, new problems. As I have send before, science unlike religion, is a living system of knowledge, a deepening understanding of our universe. If it did not reveal developments in our thought, it would not be worth spending our time on it. If you believe the only truths worth exploring or defending are absolutes, then you must be either a fool or a total sceptic, after all, everything "seems" true remember?

The Bible is a living record as well - it continues to speak to generation after generation. While its words don't change (though we do have different translations which do shed light on certain truths), their relevance continues to change with the times.

Where did I say anything about absolutes? As well, where did I indicate that "everything" seems true? I don't believe that at all. There are plenty of things that don't seem true to me and some that I don't believe to be true at all.

As far as the name-calling - depending upon who you ask in this forum, probably either term is applicable. I'm not worried about how you categorize me.

On the contrary, equating evidence with incontrovertible proof is naive.

That's true - but to listen to many atheists/evolutionists, you'd think that they see the two terms as synonymous. I'm only arguing for the limitations of science. It's got them, and those limitations mean that its "certainty" is up for questioning and revision. That tiny degree of uncertainty means that to dismiss my position because it doesn't provide evidence is hypocritical. The argument that you pose that "Any argument for anything in the physical Universe that is not evidence-based on physical events is a fruitless argument in my opinion" may not be arguing incontrovertibility, but it sure seems to look that direction - as if physical evidence establishes the truth of something.

So tell me, what do you base your idea of truth on? And are there any truths that do not just "seem" true?

I use probably the very same tools you use to assess the world and its truths. The difference is that I'm not chained to the idea that "if I can't see it, it's not real" (which your leaning on physical evidence implies). I accept that certain truths about life, love, and human nature cannot be apprehended through "scientific method." I believe that many of the greatest "truths" we accept about life (and especially human nature) are tentative at best - often reasonable, but not necessarily definitive.

Plenty of so-called "truths" do not "seem" true to me - and plenty of others do not merely "seem" but are untrue absolutely.

Redzeppelin

02-22-2007, 04:41 PM

I do find it quite amazing how religious people can justify such rubbish.

Trust me, we feel the same way about some of the ideas/hypophesis/comments/arguments thrown our way from your side of the fence too. We just exchange the word "intelligent" for "religious."

Listen, if it was OK for children to die and go to heaven no questions asked; if that was benevolent, then anyone who was altruistic enough not to care where they ended up (ie in hell), could go on a murderous spree killing the world's children and sending them all to heaven as innocents.

But the record of God's character - the Bible - does not condone this behavior. That's why the Bible is so important - it establishes the parameters of Christian behavior. Your example is, therefore, invalid.

When God destroys a community because he doesn't like their sexual orientation, you believers somehow justify such actions, yet if a man destroysd an equal amount of people for the same reason, he seems quite evil (or maube some of you would actually commend such an act).

There are two errors in this logic. Number one, God is perfect in his goodness, His love, His justice and His mercy. Human beings are not. So, just on that differentiation, the two cannot be compared. We may question a human being's motives and actions - but how do you question those of a perfect Being? Number two: these kinds of comments proceed from the idea that God's justice is random, as opposed to correct and just and in response to established law. It has nothing to do with what God "likes" - the Bible clearly tells us that our greatest acts of service and holiness are mere "rags" compared to the holiness of God. Furthermore, this logic tends to imply that all behaviors (i.e. lifestyle choices) are equal and that God's justice is whim or caprice; what if His justice is based on the way things ARE? Perhaps God's justice is mercy. I think the end of Sodom was pretty harsh - but I'm not God, and I don't know all the things that went into His decision (but I do know that He would have been willing to spare the city if even 10 righteous people could be found). God's decisions are not based so much on what He "likes" or "prefers" but upon what He has established reality to be. I wonder how opposed to capital punishment you'd be for child-rapists or murderers who torture their victims? In God's eyes, all sin is equally destructive - so in His heirarchy, homosexuality is equally as destructive as murder. I'm not asking you to agree; I'm just telling you how God says He views our behaviors. Just because we may view homosexuality as a harmless non-issue does not mean that He who created everything can't see things differently.

Real Christians do not rejoice in the suffering or death of any of God's children.

The fact is morality isn't relative to who does what. Either killing people is wrong or it isn't. Either homophobia is wrong or it isn't. It doesn't matter whether you are God or man, an act is either moral, immoral or amoral.

This sounds pretty black/white - absolute (wasn't I getting criticized for being "absolute" a few posts ago?). Morality isn't relative, but I believe that even God understands mitigating circumstances. As well, are you saying that all killing is wrong, always? Really? I do not see my killing of the maniac intent on raping/torturing my wife as inappropriate in the least.

I say, a child whose skin peels of his body everyday because of a genetic deformity that will eventually kill him or her, is not blessed at all, no matter where that child goes. Only a sick mind could devise a form of torture that will lead to everlasting happiness. Only a confused or naive mind could condone such a belief.

God would agree that such a life is not a blessing; but He would counter that eternity in heaven is fair compensation for the troubles we have had to endure. Don't think that means that God is cavalier or indifferent - it means that someday, all our sufferings here will vanish in the light of eternity by His side.

Again: as far as "confused" and "naive" is concerned, we Christians feel the same way about some of the thought processes we hear argued towards us from your side of the fence.

Pendragon

02-22-2007, 05:30 PM

Redzeppelin

02-22-2007, 06:32 PM

And so it goes… The horse is dead, no amount of beating will make it get up and go. Bury the poor creature; the stench is stifling. When we get reduced to name-calling, we cease to be intelligent adults, regardless of our argument, and are behaving like kindergarteners. Time-out, please. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/verschiedene/f015.gif

Oh, Pen, I so agree. But the debate will go on whether you or I engage or not. If all of the current posters vanished, a new slew would take our place. Carpe diem, buddy.

(PS - I don't like the name-calling either, but I can't custom pick my opponents, so I'll just continue to put up with it :D )

kilted exile

02-22-2007, 07:37 PM

In God's eyes, all sin is equally destructive - so in His heirarchy, homosexuality is equally as destructive as murder. I'm not asking you to agree; I'm just telling you how God says He views our behaviors. Just because we may view homosexuality as a harmless non-issue does not mean that He who created everything can't see things differently.

Just a quick point, if I am wrong and there is a god, and if he thinks likes this I dont think I'd enjoy heaven too much, rather take my chances in the other place.

hyperborean

02-22-2007, 08:14 PM

Redzeppelin

02-22-2007, 08:24 PM

Just a quick point, if I am wrong and there is a god, and if he thinks likes this I dont think I'd enjoy heaven too much, rather take my chances in the other place.

Lightly said - because if you really believed that Hell existed, you might say differently. I find it fascinating that people will often make this statement - "I'd rather suffer in Hell than be with a God like this" as if political correctness is worth sacrificing your soul for.

Your comment is based on the idea that our idea of the implications of a homosexual lifestyle are more enlightened/informed/realistic/whatever than that of a Supreme Being. We can trumpet "politically correct" ideas all we want - what I'm asking you to entertain is the idea that our evaluation of a specific thing may not be correct.

Try this: just pretend for a minute that a Being exists that is PERFECT in its mind and heart - that it is the embodiment of all that is good and right and just and fair and merciful and compassionate - but to a degree of perfection that humans can never, ever reach. Assuming such a being exists, shouldn't we have reason to consider what this Being defines as right and wrong? To speak as you have is - in my opinion - to treat God as if He is just another person who says "I don't like homosexuals" (which, by the way is not something He would ever say). God is not a magnified human being - He is a Supreme Being - one who is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Once you accept that, then you have to consider that He may very well know better than we as to what is good and bad, right and wrong.

In fact, I think the idea that God sees all sin as equal is actually comforting - it means that none of us is better than anybody else; as well, it also means that there is no sin so terrible that places a person outside of the forgiveness of God. The bad part is that everybody now finds themselves in need of forgiveness, no matter how "virtuous" the life.

Redzeppelin

02-22-2007, 08:34 PM

Speaking of sins...

Sin is an imaginary burden. Repenting to a priest (that believes he has some sort of special connection to God) is ridiculous. If in fact you want God's "forgiveness" then just pray...you don't have to speak with a man that thinks he's higher than you.

Instead of calling these burdens "sins", rename them "flaws". Replicate what Dante did and correct your character. Only then will you reach the stars.

I don't believe in confessing to a priest (or other mediator) either.

But: I don't think sin is "imaginary." "Flaws"? Murder, rape, theft, manipulation - these are flaws? I doubt it. ""Flaw" implies some imperfection - "sin" implies a conscious choice. Let's not remove moral responsibility from people, please.

hyperborean

02-22-2007, 08:35 PM

The fact that "God sees all sin as equal" is ridiculous. Living by that logical makes perfect sense [sarcasm added]...let me shoot a man and have it treated the same as another man who just masturbated. That's why I think the concept of "sin" is sign of individual weakness. I don't need God's opinion for the severity of my actions.

Redzeppelin

02-22-2007, 09:34 PM

The fact that "God sees all sin as equal" is ridiculous. Living by that logical makes perfect sense [sarcasm added]...let me shot a man and have it treated the same as another man who just masturbated. That's why I think the concept of "sin" is sign of individual weakness. I don't need God's opinion for the severity of my actions.

Great. I didn't present the idea because I thought it would meet universal approval. As the NT says - whoever breaks the least of the laws has broken them all because all sin is - at its core - rebellion against God. It's interesting that you focus on the "bad" part and skip the good part I added - which is that God equally forgives ALL. Unlike humans, He has no problem extending forgiveness to even the "worst" offenders.

Either way, the fact that God sees all sin the same does not mean He expects us to do so; what it means is that we are to be very careful about using the "severity" of sins to judge other people - it means that we Christians need to be aware that just because we (generally) don't commit "major" sins (murder, rape, theft, etc) that we are not in need of saving and of God's forgiveness; it means that our human tendency to judge those "worse" than us is mitigated by our realization that - in God's eyes - we're no better.

I don't understand the logic that a "concept" (sin) is an "individual weakness"? How can that be? And, what would you like to call moral transgressions (besides "flaws")?

Jay

02-23-2007, 07:38 AM

Please try to stay on topic. Discussing all kinds of sins doesn't contribute to the topic. If you want to discuss this issue further, please feel free to create another thread.

atiguhya padma

02-23-2007, 11:31 AM

Redzeppelin,

Who ever said science was certain? As I have made clear, it is because of its flexibility with regard to discovering the nature of the Universe, that makes science so useful. It doesn't deal with certainties. That's what religion likes to think it deals with.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of science. It is accumulative. It is adaptive, open to revision. It doesn't hide in obscurities or dogmas. It is largely based upon probability, replication and testability. Maybe you need to distinguish between scientism and science.

<Plenty of so-called "truths" do not "seem" true to me - and plenty of others do not merely "seem" but are untrue absolutely.>

How do you decide what is untrue absolutely? I thought you had said earlier that we do not know what is around the corner, so how can we know what is and is not absolute? Something absolute is true now, in the past and for the duration of time isn't it?

<I use probably the very same tools you use to assess the world and its truths.>

So when you accept a statement made in a 2-3,000 year old book by someone whose history you only know from their alleged writings, that is supposed to somehow equate to me accepting a claim made today in a book of science that is open to peer review, and if you can be foolish enough to need to verify every statement made in the book, open to physical verification too. Are you really trying to convince me that these are really two similar methods? Furthermore, I would not trust any scientific statement made 2-3,000 years ago without referring to modern science. What kind of subject puts such old-fashioned views at the forefront of its world outlook? Not one I would care to endorse.

<The difference is that I'm not chained to the idea that "if I can't see it, it's not real" (which your leaning on physical evidence implies).>

It does not imply that at all. You know sound, touch, and all the other senses are physical too. In fact, as we live in a physical Universe, everything within it is physical.

Redzeppelin

02-23-2007, 12:00 PM

Please try to stay on topic. Discussing all kinds of sins doesn't contribute to the topic. If you want to discuss this issue further, please feel free to create another thread.

My apologies. atiguhya padma broached the topic and I felt it necessary to correct his misunderstanding. It was not my intention to bring the topic up, but atiguhya and hyperborean made them an issue. I'll drop it.

hyperborean

02-23-2007, 02:30 PM

Sin is an imaginary burden. def: commit a sin; violate a law of God. The only reason why I disagree because I don't let God govern my life. I govern myself which gives me individual freewill. This is when the slave-master morality comes into play.

When one has committed a wrong doing that was against that individual's morals or society's morals, I wouldn't classify it as a sin, but instead an imperfection of character. Thus, that individual shall mend that imperfection in order to move forward towards the goal of overcoming oneself. Worrying about what that divine figure has to sa, or if that action will take away that precious ticket into heaven, is just silly.

Redzeppelin

02-23-2007, 02:47 PM

Redzeppelin,

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of science.

Maybe you need to distinguish between scientism and science.

and if you can be foolish enough to need to verify every statement made in the book, open to physical verification too.

What kind of subject puts such old-fashioned views at the forefront of its world outlook? Not one I would care to endorse.

As much as I enjoy debate, this one’s turning tedious (and I’m sure you feel the same) because we keep talking past each other. Rather than deal with your points (unless you have a burden for me to repeat myself), allow me try to succinctly put a cap on this argument:

The discussion about Creation vs. Evolution is really a discussion as to whether or not God exists – that and nothing else (this is my opinion – arguing with it won’t change it). Here’s why I say this: I believe in a Supreme Being whom I know as “God” – He is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present; He is good, merciful, kind, just, compassionate, and most of all – loving. From that basis, all other things fall into place. For example, the Bible – rather than a book of “myths” put together by deluded human beings, becomes a living text – the transcendent word of God Himself – His thoughts (not humanity’s) put down on paper by an inspired human hand. As such, any account the Bible gives (including the Creation) I must now see as having Divine Authority behind it – which is what establishes its credibility to me – not the validation of various scholars and historians.

Once you accept that God is who the Bible says He is – that His knowledge, intellect and understanding are perfect, as are His love, justice and mercy - it then follows that what He says now has authority for the believer – an authority that ultimately trumps social/cultural trend, “political correctness” and – if necessary – even the unproven claims of science. Science is a good thing – I believe in science. But I believe more in God – and that’s the crux of this disagreement, because if you don’t believe in God, then the Creationist position collapses like a house of cards. If God doesn’t exist, then yes: the Christian position is silly and fully incredible.

For the Christian, God’s authority is the final arbiter of things. That doesn’t mean I’m always right – but it means that (as far as my imperfect mind is capable of understanding) I trust that God is who He says He is – and if He is who He says He is – then He obviously is smarter than I, wiser than I and is in a better position to tell me the nature of reality than anybody or anything else – even the sophisticated tools of science (which are products of imperfect human hands) for the simple reason that I believe He created reality (and I believe thusly because the book which I believe carries Divine Authority says He created reality).

Honestly, I’m impressed by the mountains of evidence evolutionist’s have, but I’m not interested in scouring the web for counter-arguments from Christian Science websites because – ultimately – we will both invalidate the other’s “evidence” because of the different foundations they rest on and the corresponding authority we ascribe to each. I’m tired of the argument – not because of you, but because of the circularity of our posts – a circularity I’ve repeated with a number of atheists who generally say the same thing to me in return.

The bottom line is belief in God. No amount of scientific evidence will erase that. It may alter my idea about life here on earth, it may not. But God it cannot touch.

I thank you for your comments and counter-arguments. You are clearly a sharp thinker, but – as Pendragon has posted in this forum more than once – I feel like I’m just beating the same dead horse over and over. I’m not asking you to believe me: I’m asking you to consider the foundation of my position – that God is real and Supreme. If you won’t even consider that that is a possibility, then we can learn nothing from each other because you will simply consider me a deluded madman instead of an intelligent and reasonable being – and why debate if we’re not interested in learning?

Final word: just because you don’t believe God exists doesn’t mean He doesn’t. Remember: you could be wrong and you have no way to prove God doesn’t exist – just like I don’t have anyway to prove evolution didn’t happen.

(PS - I know myself well enough to know that I won't permanently absent myself from this debate, but right now it's just an endless circle and I feel stupid repeating myself again and again and again. :sick: )

Wintermute

02-23-2007, 03:04 PM

Final word: just because you don’t believe God exists doesn’t mean He doesn’t. Remember: you could be wrong and you have no way to prove God doesn’t exist – just like I don’t have anyway to prove evolution didn’t happen.

Hi Red,

Sounds like you're becoming more agnostic! So, you are not 100% certain that God exists? If that's the case, then I'm with you. Its the absolute certainty that many proclaim that bothers me the most. Regardless, thanks for a lively discussion.

Redzeppelin

02-23-2007, 06:08 PM

Hi Red,

Sounds like you're becoming more agnostic! So, you are not 100% certain that God exists? If that's the case, then I'm with you. Its the absolute certainty that many proclaim that bothers me the most. Regardless, thanks for a lively discussion.

Well, actually, I do believe w/ 100% certainty that God exists - what I do not believe is that anybody else should accept that 100% certainty. I can no more prove that God exists than the atheist can prove evolution happened - there is no way to prove 100% certainty of either. I can acknowledge that God is not provable - what I want the evolutionist to acknowledge is that evolution is no more "provable" (at least to the level of certainty that many seem to claim). Mountains of evidence don't equal certainty; they equal significant probability.

Either way, I do appreciate your stance on uncertainty - because much of life we assume to be true is actually based on unquestioned assumptions. Less of life is "provable" than we're willing to acknowledge.

Thank you for your thoughtful proddings - they've kept me on my toes :)

kilted exile

02-23-2007, 07:14 PM

I can acknowledge that God is not provable - what I want the evolutionist to acknowledge is that evolution is no more "provable" (at least to the level of certainty that many seem to claim). Mountains of evidence don't equal certainty; they equal significant probability.

I think this is the part where a lot of proponents of evolution (ok, me) get annoyed. I have no problem with people wanting to believe the world was created in 7 days, Methusala lived to whatever age etc.

Where I begin to get annoyed is when it is suggested that there is the same amount of evidence for either theory, there is not. For the theory of Creationism there is the Bible and faith.

For the theory of Evolution there is a large amount of scientific evidence (in the form of fossils, closeness in DNA, observances of speciation taking place in other organisms etc), however we are still in need of the "missing link" and that is why we call it a theory. As far as certainty goes, the theory as it stands may not be 100% - we may find something that fundamentally rejects the theory, however more likely we will find something which leads to either a slight alteration to the currently accepted process or in the case of the missing link proves the theory once and for all. (Just now I would say I am 90% certain the evolution theory as it is just now is correct - further findings will effect this percentage)

I wouldnt mind if proponents of Creationism just said until definitive proof of evolution is found I choose to believe the bible instead, but please dont suggest the amount of evidence is similar.

hyperborean

02-23-2007, 08:49 PM

This topic is more of if you believe in God, but I would like to point out that a lot of people who believe in the evolution theory also believe in the divine.

But yea, this topic is going in circles.

AdoreroDio

02-23-2007, 08:52 PM

Lily Adams

02-24-2007, 03:40 AM

And where is this "evidence" that you speak of Miss AdoreroDio? Evidence that these Biblical people existed? Tell me, please. I want to know. Show me.

The answer to the "But they've found fish fossils in mounatins!"statement is here: It's down a little ways. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Just because fish fossils have been found in mountains doesn't mean that there was necessarily a "flood" caused by God there. There was just an ocean in that particular spot. What about places on land where they can't find fish fossils, hmm?

About the "missing link" debate, it's simple. There was no "missing link" in the first place. It was just dreamed up by someone who didn't believe in evolution and didn't want to admit they were wrong, etc.

Yahoo! Answers has the answer! http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060801154952AAdGuUM

"Please don't assume there is no evidence on the side of God existing and creating the world."? I don't think most of us are assuming now are we, that's why we're here. We're here giving evidence that Evolution is a fact.

ennison

02-24-2007, 07:37 AM

'Now where does it say that scientific theories are to be treated as indisputable facts.'
The whole tenor of your 'argument' is that scientific proof is indisputable. One does not have to declare a god to have one, nor attend any University to be frequently unimpressed by their arrogant and gullible products

kilted exile

02-24-2007, 11:21 AM

I disagree with your statement of Creationism having less evidence then evolutionism. And on the side of creationism we don't just have the Bible and faith because historical documents have been found that prove biblical people actually lived. There is historical evidence that Jesus walked this earth, and that so did Moses and other major Biblical figures. There is also proof of the "great flood". Please don't assume there is no evidence on the side of God existing and creating the world. Also, did you ever consider that "the missing link" hasn't been found because it doesn't exist?

This is not about whether biblical figures lived, I have no doubt that there was a man called Jesus, I am not willing to believe however that he was a son of God. He may have been a thinker, religious leader, social activist, concerned citizen - This is not in debate, what evidence other than the bible/faith (which I have no problem of) for the theory of Creationism is the main point.

hyperborean

02-24-2007, 03:23 PM

It's about time we have some members like lily adams sticking up for evolution.

Evolution (physical evidence proving it) vs Creationism (no physical evidence proving it, just faith). What gets me aggravated are the people that are Christian who strictly believe in creationism. I'm going to repost this link in case some of you didn't see it: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

You can still believe in God, but you can't deny evolution at this point.

ennison

02-24-2007, 03:54 PM

'Evolution (physical evidence proving it)' The evidence is being interpreted as an act of faith in evolution whereas most is only evidence of change - a common sense idea that almost everyone agrees with. This thread is somewhat tiresome as it seems to produce little result and I feel mighty sympathetic to Rezep frequently ploughing his lonely furrow. I probably agree with nine tenths of what he says. I have resolved this issue to my own satisfaction years ago - and no I do not believe the universe was created in 144 hours though I believe it could have been and as far as human existence is concerned we could obliterate our relationship totally and permanently with this universe in a lot less than 144 hours. Thanks to wonderful wonderful science and its never-get-it-wrong acolytes

hyperborean

02-24-2007, 05:19 PM

Evolution is a fact that is explained by theory because that's how science works. Whether you accept or reject it is up to you. Creationism is a belief that is explained by the Bible alone. Whether you believe in it or not is also up to you. The point is: In evolution the evidence is put into data both physical and theoretical, which have been analyzed and made sense of for years over, constantly changing so as to be more accurate over time. In creationism the evidence is testimonial evidence displayed through the Bible which may or may not be the word of God. There's no "evidence" of creationism displayed in any manner, outside of attempts to disprove evolution. The entire creationist argument is centered 99% on disproving evolution, instead of proving its own "theory" of creationism because, as most might say, we're not meant to understand God's plan for creation. Or if you want to be blunt: 'I don't know, but I believe you're wrong anyway' mentality.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, based on my experience with how each side works. Evolutionary biologists almost never take creationism seriously for good reason: They've got evidence of their theory, whereas all creationism has sought to do is pop illogical and emotionally driven holes in evolution that have nothing to do with the theory itself.

It doesn't get clearer than that. This thread is filled with comments from Christians that "beat around the bush". You cannot discredit evolution if your own theory is based on absolute faith.

Lily Adams

02-24-2007, 07:55 PM

This is not about whether biblical figures lived, I have no doubt that there was a man called Jesus, I am not willing to believe however that he was a son of God. He may have been a thinker, religious leader, social activist, concerned citizen - This is not in debate, what evidence other than the bible/faith (which I have no problem of) for the theory of Creationism is the main point.

Precisely.

My thoughts exactly for the above post as well.

quartzer

02-24-2007, 08:31 PM

I voted for evolution as the ongoing random process initiated 14 billion years ago in the "big bang", as a result of which began not only all matter and energy in this universe, but also its physical characteristics which must be precisely as they are for us to be here asking this question.

Here's a random thought: space and time being relative, God's "day" might be two billion earth years long to us, but only 24 earth hours long to It...

Pendragon

02-24-2007, 10:02 PM

The answer to the "But they've found fish fossils in mounatins!"statement is here: It's down a little ways. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Just because fish fossils have been found in mountains doesn't mean that there was necessarily a "flood" caused by God there. There was just an ocean in that particular spot. What about places on land where they can't find fish fossils, hmm?

I wondered when someone would think about this. I know a good place in my mountains here to get fossil seashells and things. I have some of my nicer finds as paperweights. I will not argue the point, as anything I say will be dismissed, but IMO the rock strata seems to argue against the ocean floor, as the fossil bed is narrow, but I love the ocean, and know scallop shells when I see them!

About the "missing link" debate, it's simple. There was no "missing link" in the first place. It was just dreamed up by someone who didn't believe in evolution and didn't want to admit they were wrong, etc.

No. It wasn't dreamed up by anyone who didn't believe in evolution. It was because there is no direct link from apes to humans that science could discover. The steps progressed in a fairly logical chain until the leap from ape to man. They speak of a "common ancestor". They never found it. So there is a missing link.

manyreddevils

02-24-2007, 11:03 PM

hmm.
seems like everyone has some expert or other who's willing to confirm what they believe. well, i don't believe in experts. so there. nor am i terribly fond of words that end in "-ism". Only lead to trouble, in my experience.
i don't know a whole lot about the scientific details, or the scriptural support, or whatever. perhaps it is possible that God created a suspiciously phallic spaghetti monster and gave it dominion over a world teeming with apes and walking fish. maybe it's possible that God doesn't exist at all, and the dreams of millions of sweaty-palmed, poorly respirated young men will one day come true and X-men will walk the earth in all their spandex and glory.
my only point, if there is one, is that atheism

a) seems really lame if it's true. (and those who claim it are consistent in their beliefs, or lack thereof) it's kind of tough to argue for free will, and the subsequent dignity of mankind, unless you acknowledge something from outside the physical series of action-reaction. it also kind of reduces any semblance of worth or beauty in human experience to biological processes, facts that can be or mean no more than what they are.

b) provides within itself nothing to suggest i should believe it, even if it's true. why shouldn't i believe something completely "irrational", just because it is? materialism can state facts, but doesn't seem to give you a lot to do with them. (i.e. why should i believe facts? survival value? why should humans, merely one more organism, and a destructive one at that, out of millions survive?)

c) gives me a headache when i talk with people who are arguing about it.

My philosophy is that no one has it completely right. You're only wrong if you think that you do. Searching for truth and beauty and happiness isn't something you get out of your system by the time you graduate college. I guarantee you that no one alive has found it completely. So keep looking, and for God(or whomever)'s sake, don't try to impose whatever you think you know on other people. If it's as great as all that, you won't have to.

(if i've digressed here, i apologize. the last thing i want to be is "that guy." He's pretty lame.)

Jetxa

02-24-2007, 11:38 PM

My philosophy is that no one has it completely right. You're only wrong if you think that you do.

I have finally made peace with being able to say, "I don't know."

"I've got a great adventure ahead of me; the search for what God is, what I am, the meaning of my life. That should take a whole lifetime and the searching will be enough." ~ Unknown

Pendragon

02-25-2007, 10:28 AM

I have finally made peace with being able to say, "I don't know."

The single most sensible statement I have heard in a long time. There is no shame in saying, “I do not know.” Nor is there shame in saying “I cannot explain this.” An honest answer is better than a flurry of righteous indignation, or scientific facts tossed about that in the end are still “best guess”.

Let science do its job, we cannot do without it. Science uncovers many valuable things that make life easier for us, a man is curious, so Science endeavors to satisfy that hunger.

Man has always looked for a higher power, a God. Let Religion have its place. Faith is the focal point that keeps many from a life of letting their baser side take over and rule them.

The world and all that is in it exists. Maybe instead of fighting over how it came to be, we should carpe diem, and enjoy what is here. Life is too short to spend it fighting.

God bless. :nod:

Redzeppelin

02-25-2007, 11:33 AM

Where I begin to get annoyed is when it is suggested that there is the same amount of evidence for either theory, there is not. For the theory of Creationism there is the Bible and faith.

Hi there. I suggested no such thing. Here's what I said: "what I want the evolutionist to acknowledge is that evolution is no more "provable" (at least to the level of certainty that many seem to claim)." Nothing in that statement implies that the evidence is "equal." Both theories are ultimately unprovable - that's all I was saying.

For the theory of Evolution there is a large amount of scientific evidence (in the form of fossils, closeness in DNA, observances of speciation taking place in other organisms etc), however we are still in need of the "missing link" and that is why we call it a theory.

Hence my second statement: "Mountains of evidence don't equal certainty; they equal significant probability."

As far as certainty goes, the theory as it stands may not be 100% -

That's the only point I was trying to make.

I wouldnt mind if proponents of Creationism just said until definitive proof of evolution is found I choose to believe the bible instead, but please dont suggest the amount of evidence is similar.

I didn't.

kilted exile

02-25-2007, 12:18 PM

Redzeppelin

02-25-2007, 01:24 PM

Zep, I realise you clarified your statement (hence why I left it in the part where I quoted you) my main issue is that as a rule believers dont.

I realise I worded things poorly, but what do you expect - I failed English.

No harm, no foul, buddy. Of the many non-believers whom I converse with, you are one of the more courteous. Thanks :)

(PS - your English is fine)

hyperborean

02-25-2007, 03:13 PM

"what I want the evolutionist to acknowledge is that evolution is no more "provable"

I know this has been said over and over again, but the fact remains that evolution does have physical evidence supporting it. There is nothing to debunk here. One theory has evidence and the other doesn't. That's it...believe in what you want to believe and carry forward. I don't know how this thread is still thriving with rebuttals.

Matrim Cuathon

02-25-2007, 03:19 PM

I know this has been said over and over again, but the fact remains that evolution does have physical evidence supporting it. There is nothing to debunk here. One theory has evidence and the other doesn't. That's it...believe in what you want to believe and carry forward. I don't know how this thread is still thriving with rebuttals.

yes! evolution has been proved as well as any theory may be. and you can gain the same results yourself where as in creationism all you have is one book which you can never prove to someone without god actually coming and saying its true.

Redzeppelin

02-25-2007, 06:18 PM

Do you think you all could pause the victory party just long enough to post for us poor under-evolved Christians (who apparently have finally lost this futile battle ) as to where we can read this definitive "proof" that evolution is a fact as opposed to a theory (because Christians are well aware that the [I]theory has evidence to support it)? If you could do so, then things would quiet down here because then we deluded believers could escape this endless debate to go hang our heads in utter defeat. The source, please?

ennison

02-25-2007, 06:28 PM

the irony being that those types are actually the least evolved, intellectually

OH The irony escapes me but I'm delighted to be intellectually unevolved as well as no kin to monkeys.

Your standard of proof is not as good as you believe it to be.

I promised myself not to bother posting here again but there you go fish haven't evolved enough yet either. They too still rise to the bait!!

hyperborean

02-25-2007, 06:31 PM

Logos

02-27-2007, 11:53 AM

Mod note to all:

Posts have been deleted. I am not closing this topic, that happens to be one of the more successful long-standing ones in the Religious Texts area, just because people are (again) getting into the

'my faith/dogma/catma/religion/belief/argument/phrenology/philosophy/opinion/shoe-size/facts/proof etc etc is/are better/superior to/than yours'.

Please stick to the topic and do not discuss each other or resort to hyperbole, ad hominem, or inflammatory posts, or Religious Texts forum time-outs will be issued.

ditto to above and to add:

I've cleaned up this topic so now opening the floodgates again :goof:

Please do not use inflammatory words like "pig" in reference or allusion to specific members here or people of a certain faith in general or your post will be deleted.

Please do not quote such posts or it will be deleted.

Please read the general forum rules (link in my sigline) and the specific Religious Texts forum rules (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410).

If you have a problem with a mod decision, send them a private message regarding it, as it says in the rules

*Keep it off the boards.*

-

Redzeppelin

02-27-2007, 04:43 PM

Someone forgot to click on the various links posted in this thread proving evidence.

There have been studies after studies done on evolution!

"Evidence" does not always speak for itself: it often requires an interpreter. Interpretations may vary.

Evidence does not always prove certainty - it suggests a degree of probability.

Wintermute

02-27-2007, 05:09 PM

degree of probability.[/I]

Agreed, The Matrix and Mr. Heissenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)really highlighted this for me.

Redzeppelin

02-27-2007, 05:57 PM

Nice - I forgot about the Uncertainty Principle.

ShoutGrace

02-27-2007, 06:01 PM

Am I missing something here?

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a mathematical limit on the accuracy with which it is possible to measure everything there is to know about a physical system. In its simplest form, it applies to the position and momentum of a single particle, and implies that if we continue increasing the accuracy with which one of these is measured, there will come a point at which the other must be measured with less accuracy.

It concerns a specific area of high level physics - "physical subatomic phenomena."

:confused:

hyperborean

02-27-2007, 08:30 PM

I will no longer battle straw man tactics in this thread.

JGL57

03-01-2007, 03:21 PM

I will no longer battle straw man tactics in this thread.

I also - there are those who just prefer dust and hot air to monkeys - and that is pretty much that. :D

BTW, have you read "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins? I think it would be a great book to recommend to any friends you may have that are scientifically and intellectually inclined but perhaps weak in their knowledge of evolutionary theory. Or for those who prefer video-based education:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlQcMRq0oug&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9SsxUX_NQc&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjfW4kA_dOU&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMfc3J1wX2U&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmUJak3cYdI&mode=related&search=

- One can only imagine a similar five-part in-depth lecture by a creationist "scientist" explaining the "goddidit, Ibelieveit, thatsettlesit" theory.:D

hyperborean

03-01-2007, 03:57 PM

That's a really good lecture. I'm about half way through the first part.

Redzeppelin

03-01-2007, 05:08 PM

One can only imagine a similar five-part in-depth lecture by a creationist "scientist" explaining the "goddidit, Ibelieveit, thatsettlesit" theory.:D

That series will be appearing right after the "Things exploded - the earth cooled - by astronomical odds life (somehow) emerged - crawled up onto land - here we are" theory (also known colloquially as the "Nobody knows what did it - scientists say so - I believe it - That settles it" theory). :D

ennison

03-01-2007, 05:35 PM

So true Red zep.

JGL57

03-01-2007, 05:47 PM

That's a really good lecture. I'm about half way through the first part.

I have watched the first three of the lectures. It is interesting to see Dawkins make that "from ages 8 to 80" cliche come alive, i.e., he explains evoltion in simple enough terms that a bright child can understand but it is still interesting for the adults who are interesting in learning.

Lily Adams

03-10-2007, 01:39 AM

I'll have to take a look at those, thanks, JGL57.

I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but what about dinosaurs? We have yet to find any kind of human remains that trace back to before 64 million years ago because we aren't that old. And the Bible said nothing about dinosaurs roaming around with Adam and Eve nor was their extinction mentioned, which I think would be a big enough event to be worthy enough to be put in the ultimate book. And neanderthals?

My apologies about the lack of contribution to this thread. I have been busy, and I am usually just an observer when it comes to forums.

ennison

03-10-2007, 06:40 AM

Neanderthals are just humans stigmatised by evolutionists
Dinosaurs weren't roaming around with Adam.
I don't know how long a day is to God agus tha mi coma.
Must leave to work. I know how long my day is - very short!

Adudaewen

03-10-2007, 07:14 AM

I don't pretend to know everything about the Bible, however I do seem to remember several referances to Leviathans in the Bible which some scholars have said may refer to dinosaurs. The fact that they are not longer here today may have something to do with the change in climate after the flood. Or simply because humans hunted them to extinction. How many species of animals have we never seen because of that very reason. And there are dinosaurs still among us. Crocodillians, iguanas, komodo dragons. Who's to say these are actually dinosaurs, just for some reason we cannot fathom, the only species of dinosaurs to survive. I am a firm believer in Creation, for the simple reason, that when I look at the splendor of the world, I don't see a random event, I see cohesiveness, order, a plan.
Also, we are living on a dying planet. If evolution were true, we would be getting better, elevating to perfection, because in essence that is what evolution's function is. To shed weakness, to adapt, to perfect until no weakness exists. That's the theory behind survival of the fittest, isn't it?

Matrim Cuathon

03-10-2007, 11:01 AM

actually science can explain the order of the universe more ligically and reasonably than god.

as for evolution, do you understand any science at all? humans have become the dominant species. we live on a dying planet becuase humans have ruined it. when and if humans die off, new species will take over. the dinosaurs are a good example. they took over, but they had a weakness, so they died, evolution tryed again and got people. now we will see if we have a weakness. if we do, it will go again. if we die off, we simply werent the fittest.

Lily Adams

03-10-2007, 10:42 PM

Neanderthals were in fact humans, but they were of different species. That's a fact. We don't even know if they could talk. Not to mention their skulls were quite different looking from ours.

So ennison, are you saying that dinosaurs are in fact younger than us?

Leviathans are actually, according to the Bible, water creatures. So what about Mr. T-Rex and his land friends? Like I said, we haven't found (and will never find) human remians as old as dinosaur remains. It's pretty obvious there is a relation between dinosaurs and iguanas, etc. becuase they are all reptiles, but then that connects with evolution, doesn't it? Dinosaurs also evolved into birds. There are clear similarities between them. Not to mention that leviathans are also called "whales".

In response to your "we should be getting better" comment, evolution takes place over millions of years. So it's a bit of a slow process. If we don't blow ourselves up in the near future, maybe we'll see some changes in a few million years. Evolution is driven by natural selection, and you can't naturally select if some bone head if going to decide to blow us up or if the Earth "collapses" so to speak because of our constant waste and abuse, so we all pay for it. So there's a response to what you're already probably thinking.

Matrim Cuathon

03-11-2007, 08:46 AM

Redzeppelin

03-12-2007, 12:25 AM

actually science can explain the order of the universe more ligically and reasonably than god.

Not without the use of numbers and coincedences so astronomical in nature as to become almost as incomprehensible as God.

as for evolution, do you understand any science at all? humans have become the dominant species. we live on a dying planet becuase humans have ruined it. when and if humans die off, new species will take over. the dinosaurs are a good example. they took over, but they had a weakness, so they died, evolution tryed again and got people. now we will see if we have a weakness. if we do, it will go again. if we die off, we simply werent the fittest.

Another tired argument. We disagree with the validity of some of science's conclusions and suddenly we don't "understand" it. Nice. I'd be willing to counter with "Do you understand the Bible or God at all?" I'm pretty certain that the Christians posting here are fairly familiar with the science behind evolution; just because we question the validity of some of its assumptions and conclusions doesn't mean we don't get it. We may just not completely "buy" it. But how much of our position do you get?

Reccura

03-12-2007, 02:04 AM

so you believe in Creation then?

Stanislaw

03-12-2007, 06:42 AM

besides, humans have somewhat short circuited evolution. we keep the failures alive with medicine, surgery, wheelchairs and such. other examples are glasses, which i have, and hearing aids. im not saying this is wrong necessarily, but it does damage evolution somewhat. its hard to evolve when the failures return to the genepool instead of dying off without reproducing.

well, there is an idea that humanshave evolved intellectually to utilize tools to sustain themselves, imo, evolution is not limited to the physical, but to the intellectual as well, smarter species will survive.

(before you go ranting, I am a bio major, not a fanatic, I have chrisitian beliefs, but I have thouroghly studied the evolutionary theory.) In the terms of physical, and even mental, humans are starting/have been stagnating. and it seems that projected, we are not going much further, unless there is some major catastrophe. And as for dying planet...you are correct, our planet has never been healthier, harmfull mutations have never been less, and I for one am damn proud of the fact that we humans have managed to cleanup the toxic environment created by thosed damned suv driving dinosaurs.

Also, we are living on a dying planet. If evolution were true, we would be getting better, elevating to perfection, because in essence that is what evolution's function is. To shed weakness, to adapt, to perfect until no weakness exists. That's the theory behind survival of the fittest, isn't it?

Scheherazade

03-12-2007, 06:58 AM

Some of the recent posts have been edited/deleted due to their inflammatory nature or they quoted such posts.

Matrim> Next time you personally insult others in your posts or use unacceptable language in your arguments, you will be banned from the Religious Text discussions temporarily or permanently.

Please re-read the Forum Rules: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410

atiguhya padma

03-12-2007, 07:09 AM

Like Matrim says, a dying planet is extremely unlikely. Life is very hard to eradicate. In the past 96% of life has been eradicated in one catastrophic era (in the Permian-Triassic extinction around 251 million years ago), yet today life still flourishes.

<Not without the use of numbers and coincedences so astronomical in nature as to become almost as incomprehensible as God.>

Redzeppelin saying god is incomprehensible?? Will wonders ever cease? The astronomical figures you talk about are nowhere near the astronomical chance of there being a god. As I have said before, given an infinite number of Universes, or an infinite time, whatever is possible will happen. As this Universe has happened, then everything within it, no matter how improbable, can be explained by the postulation of an astronomical amount of Universe-forming in the past. It is a much better argument than god creating the Universe, because, as we are only trying to explain what already exists, we have all the evidence before us, and just require a more reasonable hypothesis than the existence of god.

Sometimes, the level of ignorance on this thread regarding evolution can be very frustrating. Someone said that survival of the fittest was all about reaching perfection. That is a prime example. The phrase survival of the fittest was not coined by Darwin, but by Spencer, who used it to promote his dubious social philosophy. Darwin was very much against it.

The most perfect species do not always survive. Survival is more about generalisation (jack of all trades) than specialisation (experts). When you become a specialist, you narrow down your survival parameters. A generalist like man, is more likely to survive because his conditions for survival are much more flexible and adaptive. We can live on any continent, in any land mass on earth. That can be said of few species.

<Another tired argument. We disagree with the validity of some of science's conclusions and suddenly we don't "understand" it. Nice. I'd be willing to counter with "Do you understand the Bible or God at all?" I'm pretty certain that the Christians posting here are fairly familiar with the science behind evolution; just because we question the validity of some of its assumptions and conclusions doesn't mean we don't get it. We may just not completely "buy" it. But how much of our position do you get?>

It would help if you put forward a coherent argument for why you disagree with the validity of some of science's findings. It would also help if you could give good reasons for disagreeing with scientific findings that do not impinge on your religious beliefs, as this would counteract any claim of bias. Equating a poor understanding of god (which you have already called incomprehensible) and the bible with a poor understanding of science is just typical of religious people who try to use the success of science to bolster their own ridiculous beliefs. The Bible and the whole of science are not equivalent I'm afraid - dream on!

AP

Stanislaw

03-12-2007, 07:26 AM

Redzeppelin

03-12-2007, 05:19 PM

Redzeppelin saying god is incomprehensible?? Will wonders ever cease?

"Incomprehensible" ultimately because His existence is defined in terms that humans cannot comprehend (i.e all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present and always existing). Temporal as we are, such terms are beyond our ability to comprehend. Hence "incomprehensible." However, that does not mean God is completely unknowable: the Bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit gives us certain revelations as to the nature of God. That we can know, to a limited extent.

The astronomical figures you talk about are nowhere near the astronomical chance of there being a god.

And what exactly are the odds that God does/not exist? Anybody calculated that? I kind of see the issue as 50/50. That's probably simplistic, but I'm not a numbers guy.

As I have said before, given an infinite number of Universes, or an infinite time, whatever is possible will happen. As this Universe has happened, then everything within it, no matter how improbable, can be explained by the postulation of an astronomical amount of Universe-forming in the past.

Based on the ASSUMPTION that there are an infinite number of universes and/or an infinite amount of time has passed - neither of which is empirically provable; such ideas are based along the same lines of faith that Christians use to point to the existence of God.

It is a much better argument than god creating the Universe, because, as we are only trying to explain what already exists, we have all the evidence before us, and just require a more reasonable hypothesis than the existence of god.

If you had "all the evidence" then there would be no argument in this thread. Evolution has yet to bridge certain gaps in its theory. You position strikes you as "reasonable" because it seems so to you; to me, the astronomical numbers, coincedences and random occurences that needed to align to make human life possible is just as absurd in the leaps of faith I'm required to make to accept such ideas.

It would help if you put forward a coherent argument for why you disagree with the validity of some of science's findings. It would also help if you could give good reasons for disagreeing with scientific findings that do not impinge on your religious beliefs, as this would counteract any claim of bias. Equating a poor understanding of god (which you have already called incomprehensible) and the bible with a poor understanding of science is just typical of religious people who try to use the success of science to bolster their own ridiculous beliefs. The Bible and the whole of science are not equivalent I'm afraid - dream on!

The problem is that I really cannot put forth an argument to counter science - for a number of reasons. I'm appealing to the idea that evolutionists tend to identify creationists as "ignorant" of science simply because we choose - by faith - to believe what God tells us - God who - if He is who He says He is - must know more than we do (even with all our cool scientific toys). Science has made definitive claims as to the nature of reality in the past, and many of those ideas have been proven wrong. Every generation of scientists uses the best technology available, but new technology often reveals "layers" of reality that render prior judgments invalid.

I do not disagree with science in total: I question its conclusions as to the origins of the universe and life on earth. Both of those ideas require a certain faith because neither is observable or provable: evolution attempts to do a CSI-style autopsy - here's the body - how'd it get here? But the universe is much more complicated, and the clues lying around for us to see do not have to point to the conclusions that science has arrived at. "Evidence" quite often requires interpretation. And, once interpretation enters the picture, we now have to deal with subjective tools and attitudes. Welcome to uncertainty.

hyperborean

03-12-2007, 06:43 PM

However, that does not mean God is completely unknowable: the Bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit gives us certain revelations as to the nature of God.

The bible is about FAITH. You can't compare faith with science. I can't wait to hear the straw man comeback for this one.

My own theology professor once said "heaven and god are imaginary. FAITH makes it real". There shouldn't be an argument here...the topic should be renamed "Do you believe in Evolution?". Not "Evolution vs Creationism [faith]". But then again, that wouldn't classify this topic as one to be in the "religion texts forum". I clearly remembering reading the rules about respecting other people's beliefs. Well, how can we do that if evolution contradicts Christian creationism?

coincidences and random occurences that needed to align to make human life possible is just as absurd in the leaps of faith I'm required to make to accept such ideas.

I wouldn't call dinosaur bones and mutations..."coincidences".

evolution - any change in a population's allele frequencies over time

Pretty simple, isn't it? It's hard to believe all the fuss that's been caused over such a simple concept. Of course the controversy isn't over the fact that some genes become more common in organisms over time (and others become less common), it is due to the inferred long range consequences of these changes. The real controversy is over the concept of common ancestry (that all life on earth is descended from a single species).

Let's stop letting our personal faith influence evolution's validity. If you people insist on trying to debunk evolution, then lets have a secular debate.

Redzeppelin

03-12-2007, 11:10 PM

The bible is about FAITH. You can't compare faith with science. I can't wait to hear the straw man comeback for this one..

You're right - they're both tools for navigating reality. That's why evolutionists who attack the Bible for not providing "hard science" have everything backwards. The Bible wasn't meant to be a science book on existence. Imagine evolution told in a narrative form instead of a scientific theory.

My own theology professor once said "heaven and god are imaginary. FAITH makes it real". There shouldn't be an argument here...the topic should be renamed "Do you believe in Evolution?". Not "Evolution vs Creationism [faith]". But then again, that wouldn't classify this topic as one to be in the "religion texts forum". I clearly remembering reading the rules about respecting other people's beliefs. Well, how can we do that if evolution contradicts Christian creationism?

"Theology professor?" Theology of what?

Contradicting our beliefs isn't disrespectful because we're here contradicting yours. Its the manner that things are said in that become the issue.

I wouldn't call dinosaur bones and mutations..."coincidences".

Neither would I; those were not the specific aspects of evolution to which I was referring.

Let's stop letting our personal faith influence evolution's validity. If you people insist on trying to debunk evolution, then lets have a secular debate.

What?

hyperborean

03-12-2007, 11:44 PM

Redzeppelin

03-13-2007, 12:15 AM

I haven't seen one fair argument proving evolution wrong in this topic yet besides the comments where you say "bible is right...god inspired the writers...parables are fact...and so on". Let's hear a good argument debunking evolution. Come on, I want to hear it. Enough straw man; let's see some real debating that doesn't use "faith" as ammunition.

Have you not been paying attention to my posts? I've never set out to "debunk" evolution because, frankly, I can't. That doesn't hurt me to say, because the other side of the coin is you can't "debunk" my belief either: both are equally unprovable. I have simply asked the evolutionists to acknowledge the role that faith, uncertainty, and interpretation play out in evolution as well as creationism (which few evolutionists seem willing to do). You keep claiming "straw man" but you have not explained how I'm using such a tactic. Where am I setting up a weaker argument instead of dealing with the one at hand? Identify what it is you keep claiming to be victimized by.

Wintermute

03-13-2007, 08:31 AM

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;343133] That doesn't hurt me to say, because the other side of the coin is you can't "debunk" my belief either: both are equally unprovable. [QUOTE]

Hi Red,

I agree, that debunking someone's faith is not possible. By definition, as we've discussed elsewhere, faith implies 100% certainty. How is it possible to debunk 100% certainty?

But, I do think that evolution is more provable than an omnipotent creator, and that anthropologists are well on their way to doing so. I'm personally convinced. But not certain. :)

Just curious. Would certainty about human evolution diminsh your faith in any way? I hope not. To me, assuming a creator, evolution would be one of its most astounding creations.

Cheers.

Btw, I like your old avatar better, this one looks a lil'...staunch.

Matrim Cuathon

03-13-2007, 08:57 AM

evolution has been proved as much as most other scientific theories...

Adudaewen

03-13-2007, 11:18 AM

The bible is about FAITH. You can't compare faith with science. .

That is a good point. However, one can certainly counter that belief in evolution is based on faith as well. You put your faith in science, I put my faith in God.
To me, I think the idea that all life started from a single celled organism millions or billions of years ago would take a bit of faith on the part of the person who believes it. Humans have made leaps and bounds by acts of faith. Do you not believe that Copernicus or Einstein or any other of the thousands of founding fathers of science had only simple facts to lean on? Did they not have to depend on faith, to believe they were right when all of the scientific world believed they were madmen?
Now I think it is very important to clarify here that what I am talking about is macro evolution, evolution from one species to a new one. We see micro evolution every day, from the variety of breeds of dogs/cats to viruses that evolve as antivirals are introduced. There is a difference. I am not debating micro evolution, I am debating macro evolution. Perhaps I am "ignorant" when it comes to the science (faith) of evolution, yet I have seen enough evidence to tell me that evolutionists don't have an answer for everything. A lot of the missing link theories just don't make logical sense to me. A lizard turning into a bird is a leap of faith. One would think that the evolution process would never succeed for the simple reason that the links in between would be very vulnerable to attack from predators. And why can we not find a sufficient number of missing link fossils. If as many creature have totally evolved as what scientists are saying there would be millions of missing links. How many stages do you think it would take to turn a fish into a lizard or a lizard into a bird, or an ape into a human? Is that not a belief based on faith because we have never seen it with waking eyes?
Also I would bring up Nebraska Man. In 1922, geologists made an amazing discovery on the plains of Nebraska when they found several teeth they classified as being from an ape/human missing link they named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii. These scientists made several drawings of "Nebraska Man" and made depictions of a society of early human beings from this, declaring it to be "the" missing link. Only later would they find out that the tooth actually belonged to an extinct species of pig called peccary. That was enough to show me that believing in evolution is as much a leap of faith as believing in creation.
I am certainly not saying that by reading this post, someone is going to "see the light" and change their mind about evolution, just as I am not going to be easily swayed by arguments from an evolutionary standpoint. I am simply stating that though I do believe in creation, I am not an ignorant hick. I have studied and delved and learned and researched, and to me Creation makes a heck of a lot more sense than evolution. Just take that into consideration before you discount us as ignorant or pity us as fools.

Matrim Cuathon

03-13-2007, 12:56 PM

in response to your examples about einstein and such, why would they need faith? they put the ideas out there, and if they were wrong, big deal. the said what the math and expirement stold them and if they got it wrong, well, science doesnt claim to know everything.

Wintermute

03-13-2007, 01:09 PM

I am simply stating that though I do believe in creation, I am not an ignorant hick. I have studied and delved and learned and researched, and to me Creation makes a heck of a lot more sense than evolution. Just take that into consideration before you discount us as ignorant or pity us as fools.

Hi there Adu,

If you were an ignorant hick you wouldn't be here. All of your postings that I have read have been well written and loaded with compassion for everyone's points of view.

Do you consider evolutionary and creationist theories to be counter arguments to each other? I'm not sure that I do. It seems like evolution (on earth and elsewhere) could be an absolutely amazing idea of a universal, omnipotent creator. Now if we limit ourselves the a Christian creator, where earth-bound humans are the center of its (his) creation, then I can see how there may be room for disagreement.

Redzeppelin

03-13-2007, 01:56 PM

Hi Red,

I agree, that debunking someone's faith is not possible. By definition, as we've discussed elsewhere, faith implies 100% certainty. How is it possible to debunk 100% certainty?

This may be a whole different thread, but I wonder how much we actually can be 100% certain of. Much of philosophy (especially after Descartes) deals with the issue of perception and reality - and I think that much of what we believe to be certain (especially that which we view through our eyes [the easiest of our 5 senses to fool]) is subject to the limits/distortions that perception (and bias) are prone to, as well as the necessary process of interpretation - which itself is prone to subjectivity (which Adudaewen's post nicely pointed out w/ the example of the Nebraska Man - well done Adudaewen! :) ).

But, I do think that evolution is more provable than an omnipotent creator, and that anthropologists are well on their way to doing so. I'm personally convinced. But not certain. :)

It has more observable "evidence" - but even that evidence is prone to the subjectivity/bias of interpretation (Nebraska Man!)

Just curious. Would certainty about human evolution diminsh your faith in any way? I hope not. To me, assuming a creator, evolution would be one of its most astounding creations.

No. It is possible that evolution was a tool God used. If the Bible is wrong in its rendition, or it spoke figuratively instead of literally, my faith is not shaken, because few (if any) people come to God because doing so makes logical, reasonable sense. CS Lewis himself - a staunch atheist prior to his conversion - called himself "the most reluctant convert," one who was dragged "kicking and screaming" into the faith. Christian thought is full of paradox - I'm not worried one bit.

Btw, I like your old avatar better, this one looks a lil'...staunch.

Thanks - in honor of all the Crusades "slamming" in the atheist thread, I've adopted the seal of the Knights Templar. "God wills it!" :D

evolution has been proved as much as most other scientific theories...

Sure - no argument there - it has been as proven as much as a theory probably can be proven. But a 90% proven theory is still a theory. (Please don't quibble on my percentage - I pulled it out of the air. If you wish to tell me that evolution is 99% proven [an incredible statement] I'll still respond that 1% of uncertainty is enough for me).

hyperborean

03-13-2007, 03:16 PM

in honor of all the Crusades "slamming" in the atheist thread, I've adopted the seal of the Knights Templar. "God wills it!" :D

I'm sure an imaginary construct wants you to defend him :lol:

Crusades...people living and dying for God. Their philosophy went against everything the golden age of man promoted: living for their nation. Your avatar represents the downfall of man...nice.

manolia

03-13-2007, 03:21 PM

However, one can certainly counter that belief in evolution is based on faith as well. You put your faith in science, I put my faith in God. .

No. Science has nothing to do with faith i'm afraid. Science has to do with indications. A scientist has a powerfull instrument in his hands which is called "experiment" with which one can ascertain if the indication one has are leading to a certain conclusion.
And talking about faith, one can't worship science. I really can't imagine myself worshipping concrete and steel:lol: (being a civil engineer).

To me, I think the idea that all life started from a single celled organism millions or billions of years ago would take a bit of faith on the part of the person who believes it..

Really then do tell me is it easier for one to believe instead that the universe which is immense -i think we agree on that- could have been actually created in a few days by a benevolent force and simply kept on going from day zero till today unchanged? I am not forming a particular opinion since i am clueless to the particulars concerning the origin of the universe and everything, but i believe that human, being small and insignificant, can't possibly know (find out) the answer to these questions. And i can't help but wonder at the assurance of God-believers that they know the answer to all those difficult questions (maybe this is the easy way ,to attribute all the things you can't understand to a Higher Power.)

Do you not believe that Copernicus or Einstein or any other of the thousands of founding fathers of science had only simple facts to lean on? Did they not have to depend on faith, to believe they were right when all of the scientific world believed they were madmen? ..

The fact that the contemporaries of Einstein could not comprehend his genius doen't prove anything. This often happens to superior people. They are often understood and aknowledged after death. And again i believe that it wasn't faith that kept Einstein going but merely observation of the natural enviroment, inspiration and at last experiments. Some will say that inspiration is divine..well i agree metaphorically speaking.

Now I think it is very important to clarify here that what I am talking about is macro evolution, evolution from one species to a new one. We see micro evolution every day, ..

I can't understand how can one partly accept the evolution proccess. Either you accept it either you don't. Either it is there either not. I have read your post several times in order to understand what you mean. If i have misunderstood please do enlighten me.

And why can we not find a sufficient number of missing link fossils. If as many creature have totally evolved as what scientists are saying there would be millions of missing links. ..

What about environmental and climatological changes? We all know about Ice Age, glaciers, volcanoe eruptions, basaltic flows, earthquakes and in sort we know that our beloved planet has undergone many changes since the beginning. I believe nobody disputes that. I think that pretty much explains that many species that (potentialy) walked (crawled whatever) the earth are irretrievably lost and not a single piece of them is ever to be found. In fact i believe that Palaiontologist are lucky to have found these they already have. Now imagine how many for example skeletons or remains of each known dinosaur we have. Just a few, when i believe there was a big number of each species once.

I live in a country full of ancient ruins. Many ancient cities are yet to be found. Archaiologists based on ancient texts (Homer ,Herodotos) are still trying to locate many of them a task which is very hard due to the afore mentioned changes. Now, these cities are relative young compared to the fossils we are talking!

I have been a silent viewer for a long time in this thread. Your post being decent, civil and well written tempted me to post my opinion in juxtaposition to yours. I hope you don't mind my doing that. As you can see i don't reject God. I just have my doubts in many things- not only concerning God of course. I hope you are in no way offended by what i write. If you are, i feel sorry in advance.

Redzeppelin

03-13-2007, 03:24 PM

I'm sure an imaginary construct wants you to defend him :lol:

Ha - "imaginary" for now. We'll see.

Crusades...people living and dying for God. Their philosophy went against everything the golden age of man promoted: living for their nation. Your avatar represents the downfall of man...nice.

Oh stop. The politics behind the Crusades was suspect, but the philosophy and the performance of the Knights Templar in battle was unquestioned; even Saladin had great respect for these men. Find something else to do besides analyze my avatar. I know all the symbolism behind yours too, but consider such speculation a waste of time and not germane to the topic at hand. Argument, anyone?

hyperborean

03-13-2007, 03:31 PM

Redzeppelin

03-13-2007, 04:59 PM

Ok, going back to topic.

Well you say that believing in evolution is "faith" as well. Here's the problem. Any shred of physical evidence backing up evolution makes it more credible than creationism. Yes, there is some faith, but there is also physical evidence. Creationism is pure faith.

Not at all. Christians think they have plenty of evidence for what they believe - but it is generally not evidence that evolutionist's take as credible. Your assertion that "any shred of physical evidence" makes a theory more credible is certainly true if one accepts that physical evidence is the ultimate proof of the "reality" of something. I contend that it is not always so. And, your "shred" of evidence may prove our point as well. That's what we call interpretation: you have yours and we have ours, and it's difficult to disprove interpretations based upon differing foundations/philosophies/mind-sets/biases. Because I don't have a picture of God creating the world, or His email address or a fossil of some sort, my position is deemed weaker than yours - because you have some observable clues that you've interpreted to mean what you'd like them to mean (I again refer to Nebraska Man - a perfect example of seeing what we wish to see in our evidence). We creationists believe that the incredible complexity of the human body is plenty of evidence that a creator is behind the real world. That our body "just happened" to develop the way it has is absurd. Complexity does not come out of simplicity or chaos. Our universe tends towards a decay, a simplification of material reality into its most basic forms. If I leave a car out in the desert, it will eventually turn to rust, dust and whatever base components it was made of: it will not proceed to develop into a more complex mode of transportation.

Matrim Cuathon

03-13-2007, 09:51 PM

Stanislaw

03-14-2007, 07:06 AM

evolution has been proved as much as most other scientific theories...

um, thats more of an opinion...gravity has much more proof than evolution...so thats not true.

Hi there Adu,

If you were an ignorant hick you wouldn't be here. All of your postings that I have read have been well written and loaded with compassion for everyone's points of view.

Do you consider evolutionary and creationist theories to be counter arguments to each other? I'm not sure that I do. It seems like evolution (on earth and elsewhere) could be an absolutely amazing idea of a universal, omnipotent creator. Now if we limit ourselves the a Christian creator, where earth-bound humans are the center of its (his) creation, then I can see how there may be room for disagreement.

exactly! evolution doesn't prove that there is no god, something started it all...

I'm sure an imaginary construct wants you to defend him :lol:

Crusades...people living and dying for God. Their philosophy went against everything the golden age of man promoted: living for their nation. Your avatar represents the downfall of man...nice.

actually, I beleive the crusades were pre reneissance. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

And the idea of the Templar was to fight for their belief, what they held as truth (well atleast in the idealistic idea, but the crusades were also a means of controlling the unruly gemranic knights, to focus their aggressions and to unite against a common enemy) but, the ideal is not far off from a secularistic ideal of the right to bare arms...

Ok, going back to topic.

Well you say that believing in evolution is "faith" as well. Here's the problem. Any shred of physical evidence backing up evolution makes it more credible than creationism. Yes, there is some faith, but there is also physical evidence. Creationism is pure faith.

well...evolution has a book as proof, creationism has a book as proof...

again, that is incorrect, you are avoiding any presented proofs for creationism...

Matrim Cuathon

03-14-2007, 08:40 AM

its not a proof. anyone can recreate the data for evolution. no one can find out for themselves if the bible is true.

Wintermute

03-14-2007, 10:37 AM

well...evolution has a book as proof, creationism has a book as proof...

Hehe, this nonsense almost makes me believe in God. The theory of evolution is based in part on the principal of survival of the fittest, and this statement certainly contradicts this predicate.

There is a ton more proof for evolution than 'a book', lol. Check it out. I dare you!

Stanislaw

03-14-2007, 11:06 AM

Hehe, this nonsense almost makes me believe in God. The theory of evolution is based in part on the principal of survival of the fittest, and this statement certainly contradicts this predicate.

There is a ton more proof for evolution than 'a book', lol. Check it out. I dare you!

*double sigh* dare me to discover something I already know?

the point I was making is that, there is a physical proof for creation as there is for evolution...there is a book, and infact many books, that indicate a divine creator...but these are not counted...I was just saying, that to state that there is no proof is bunk. So there is human proof of a divine creator, its just not counted... If there was no proof, there would be no tales of creation, and therefore, we wouldn't even be having this chat.

Consider the definition of proof.

Stanislaw

03-14-2007, 11:11 AM

its not a proof. anyone can recreate the data for evolution. no one can find out for themselves if the bible is true.

they could die. :D

There is also a universal idea o creationism, something included in each society, seperate from eachother, maybe the proof for a creationistic ideal lies in anthropology.

Redzeppelin

03-14-2007, 01:35 PM

omg... you just stated so many (incorrect) opinions as fact. by its nature the universe tends towards complexity. you cant use cars as an example. if you leave life in a desert it adapts to live there more efficiently. i hate when christians use ridculous arguements like that. cars are not designed to do that. when you leave a plant in a desert, or a tree in the forest it grows. from a tiny seed.

Fair enough - I knew the car analogy would get slammed - but it was only used as an example of the degrading force of nature - things left alone collapse into a simpler state. Your plant/tree example is clever, but flawed in two ways: 1) the seed came from the tree - that's how it got encoded with the proper information; as such, the "simple" seed came from the complex tree - so simplicity (relatively speaking - I don't think a seed is less complex than a tree except in appearance) came from complexity; 2)The tree, left on its own, will eventually die and decay into basic elements; that it has "offspring" to perpetuate itself doesn't change the fact that the brief progression from simple to complex is eventually reversed.

they could die. :D .

Oh that is so good.

Wintermute

03-14-2007, 02:08 PM

*double sigh* dare me to discover something I already know?

the point I was making is that, there is a physical proof for creation as there is for evolution...there is a book, and infact many books, that indicate a divine creator...but these are not counted...I was just saying, that to state that there is no proof is bunk. So there is human proof of a divine creator, its just not counted... If there was no proof, there would be no tales of creation, and therefore, we wouldn't even be having this chat.

Consider the definition of proof.

the point I was making is that books are proof of nothing! Goodness! I could write a book this afternoon saying that I could turn water into wine. That don't make it so! Books, including the bible, are only proof that someone knew how to write.

Now, as for your last sentence: If there was no proof, there would be no tales of creation, and therefore, we wouldn't even be having this chat.

Do the tales of Zeus, Ra, Quisquadle, Thor, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Bugs Bunny, Paul Bunyan and Babe, etc. constitute proof of their existance!! Please!

hyperborean

03-14-2007, 03:30 PM

the point I was making is that books are proof of nothing! Goodness! I could write a book this afternoon saying that I could turn water into wine. That don't make it so! Books, including the bible, are only proof that someone knew how to write.

Now, as for your last sentence: If there was no proof, there would be no tales of creation, and therefore, we wouldn't even be having this chat.

Do the tales of Zeus, Ra, Quisquadle, Thor, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Bugs Bunny, Paul Bunyan and Babe, etc. constitute proof of their existence!! Please!

Exactly. This argument can go on forever because all these conservative Christians actually believe that the tale of Adam and Eve is a historical fact. This topic displays the downfall of western civilization.

Stanislaw

03-14-2007, 03:45 PM

the point I was making is that books are proof of nothing! Goodness! I could write a book this afternoon saying that I could turn water into wine. That don't make it so! Books, including the bible, are only proof that someone knew how to write.

Now, as for your last sentence: If there was no proof, there would be no tales of creation, and therefore, we wouldn't even be having this chat.

Do the tales of Zeus, Ra, Quisquadle, Thor, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Bugs Bunny, Paul Bunyan and Babe, etc. constitute proof of their existance!! Please!

These tales are not universal...where as every culture has a creation myth, with similar ideals.

Stanislaw

03-14-2007, 03:49 PM

Exactly. This argument can go on forever because all these conservative Christians actually believe that the tale of Adam and Eve is a historical fact. This topic displays the downfall of western civilization.

Exactly. This argument can go on forever because all these liberal scientists actually believe that the tale of Adam and Eve is a historical falsehood. This topic displays the downfall of western civilization.

hmm

I think the difference between sicentists and christians (don't include muslims, or any other group...their myths are probably more true than christian ones) is that one group lends a possiblity to everything, and the other still wants revenge...you can decide which you are.

Redzeppelin

03-14-2007, 04:05 PM

Exactly. This argument can go on forever because all these conservative Christians actually believe that the tale of Adam and Eve is a historical fact. This topic displays the downfall of western civilization.

Prove the story of the Garden of Eden is a hoax, please. You'll have about as much luck as proving that I evolved from pond scum.

"Downfall" - that's funny. Evidence, please?

hyperborean

03-14-2007, 04:51 PM

Redzeppelin

03-14-2007, 05:50 PM

Well hmmmm...god is imaginary...there is no proof of his existence...you follow a bible that was edited and filtered by the government. You have ZERO evidence proving that adam and eve is a real story.

You're right: I never claimed I had evidence. I asked you for yours. Claiming that something you have no perception of as "imaginary" is not an argument - it is a refusal to recognize something. Any ancient manuscript is in the same position as the Bible - how many of those are you willing to dismiss? Evolution is as imaginary to me - despite your mounds of evidence. Fill in all the gaps and I might be interested.

As well, I've already covered the fact that the Bible won't speak to those who's only desire is to slice it up. It's truths will remain hidden. Sorry.

hyperborean

03-14-2007, 06:29 PM

So, what do you creationists have to say about fossils? Especially fossils of Homo Erectus and the Neanderthals.

Redzeppelin

03-14-2007, 10:20 PM

So, what do you creationists have to say about fossils? Especially fossils of Homo Erectus and the Neanderthals.

Uh, things died, their bones got buried, turned to stone and got dug up by someone who examined them and interpreted these fossils to say something that they may/may not actually say? What would you like me to say about them?

Lily Adams

03-14-2007, 10:28 PM

I think we want some elaboration. You didn't answer the question. I'd love to hear the Creationist view on this; I did mention this before and I didn't get a response from anyone.

Can we quit making this so personal? Both sides. It's bugging me. I'd just like to hear the Creationist side and the Evolutionist side. That's it. No insults, no spitting in each other's faces, just the argument itself.

hyperborean

03-14-2007, 11:27 PM

See, lily, they can't answer the question because it goes against their "beliefs". They dismiss and avoid posts presenting evidence. All in all, it's beating around the bush.

Adudaewen

03-15-2007, 12:39 AM

So, what do you creationists have to say about fossils? Especially fossils of Homo Erectus and the Neanderthals.
In all seriousness, what if these particular individuals are simply unattractive people? I have an uncle that when he dies, I want to have sole access to his skull so I can boil it and I bet he'd probably look a little bit like a neanderthal. I also have an old high school teacher that we used to jokingly call "The Missing Link" because she has a very ape like face, reminiscent of a gorilla. What if these fossils they are finding are just unfortuante looking humans? I'm not saying this merely to be glib, but it is a possibility. As a person who believes in Creation, I believe in fossils. These creatures did exist, but for whatever reason, be it changes in the atmosphere, hunting or something else I cannot devine, they are now extinct. I don't really know how else to answer such a broad question. Is there something specific about fossils? Just to say "what about fossils" is a really broad question that I'm not sure I can answer simply for the reason that I'm not sure what you are looking for.

in response to your examples about einstein and such, why would they need faith? they put the ideas out there, and if they were wrong, big deal. the said what the math and expirement stold them and if they got it wrong, well, science doesnt claim to know everything.
I'm not talking about faith simply from a religious standpoint. Faith can mean faith in God, or faith in an idea. Do you really think that early scientists didn't need faith to get their ideas off the ground? A person has to have faith in an idea to spend as much time and effort to prove it as these men did. You say that if "they were wrong, big deal". What if the evolutionists were one day proven wrong? Would that not shake the very foundation you base your ideas on? Wouldn't that shake every idea to its very core? If someone would with out a doubt prove that Creation was false, that would change everything for me. If science doesn't claim to know everything, why then is it so impossible for scientists to entertain the idea of Creation? It does take faith, either way. But don't think of faith simply as a Christian attribute. All people have faith, just in different things.

Hi there Adu,
If you were an ignorant hick you wouldn't be here. All of your postings that I have read have been well written and loaded with compassion for everyone's points of view.
Thanks, I appreciate that.

Do you consider evolutionary and creationist theories to be counter arguments to each other? I'm not sure that I do. It seems like evolution (on earth and elsewhere) could be an absolutely amazing idea of a universal, omnipotent creator. Now if we limit ourselves the a Christian creator, where earth-bound humans are the center of its (his) creation, then I can see how there may be room for disagreement.
I do consider them to be counter arguments. Creation is based on Devine Inspiration and Intellignet Design while evolution is based on an amazing set of coincidences that jumpstarted the origins of the earth. One has God, one doesn't. So yes, I do consider them to be mutually exclusive.

(which Adudaewen's post nicely pointed out w/ the example of the Nebraska Man - well done Adudaewen! :) ).
Thanx Red!

No. Science has nothing to do with faith i'm afraid. Science has to do with indications. A scientist has a powerfull instrument in his hands which is called "experiment" with which one can ascertain if the indication one has are leading to a certain conclusion.
And talking about faith, one can't worship science. I really can't imagine myself worshipping concrete and steel:lol: (being a civil engineer).
Worship: noun
1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
The problem is too many people misunderstand the words faith and worship. All people have faith and do worship. I know many people who regard science with the same reverance and faith as I do God. So yes, one could potentially worship steel and concrete. :) Just perhaps not yourself. I should have been more clear on my word usage, I see.

I can't understand how can one partly accept the evolution proccess. Either you accept it either you don't. Either it is there either not. I have read your post several times in order to understand what you mean. If i have misunderstood please do enlighten me.
I see them as seperate because one is a change(evolution) from one species to another, and one is an adaptation within the same species. I hope that clarifies my answer a little. I have seen micro evolution. It is tangible and concrete. Macro evolution, on the other hand is something that no person has ever seen evidence of in the living world.(outside of the fossil record that is)

I have been a silent viewer for a long time in this thread. Your post being decent, civil and well written tempted me to post my opinion in juxtaposition to yours. I hope you don't mind my doing that. As you can see i don't reject God. I just have my doubts in many things- not only concerning God of course. I hope you are in no way offended by what i write. If you are, i feel sorry in advance.
I am certainly not offended and I appreciate your respect and tact in your post. I believe that one thing that makes human beings so strong is our ability to disagree. It forces us to take a good look at our beliefs and defend them. If you can't defend it, you can't truly believe in it. So I thank you for your candor and I hope I was able to answer some of your questions.

Redzeppelin

03-15-2007, 01:24 AM

I think we want some elaboration. You didn't answer the question. I'd love to hear the Creationist view on this; I did mention this before and I didn't get a response from anyone.

You're right. I didn't answer the question. I don't have an answer. I teach English for a living and I'm not a biblical scholar. Yes, I could go search the web for a Christian response as to the existence of fossils (and I do recall an explanation) and then post it here, but then what? The evolutionists would scoff at the explanation, dismiss it and then we're right back where we started. This argument cannot and will not be "won" and certainly not by "evidence." Both belief systems involve uncertainties and faith - but because the evolutionist believes he has more "evidence" (as if what you can see is the measure of reality) that his position is the stronger one and ours is plain silly.

Stanislaw

03-15-2007, 03:06 AM

Well hmmmm...god is imaginary...there is no proof of his existence...you follow a bible that was edited and filtered by the government. You have ZERO evidence proving that adam and eve is a real story.

Read this: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/zim/zim_251adamandeve.html
...and then we'll continue the conversation. Debunk the archaeological evidence presented in that article.

and nothing presented in a newspaper, journal or book is edited...
and just because you say there is zero, does not make it so... I can say you have zero evidence, but it wont change the facts.

See, lily, they can't answer the question because it goes against their "beliefs". They dismiss and avoid posts presenting evidence. All in all, it's beating around the bush.

no I guess your right...let me domonstrate:
www.hatetheatheist.com - guess the athiests are wrong!

how do you counteract hard earned internet proof!!!
you have zero evidence
teh monkeys own you

how can a debate go on, if one side refuses to acknowledge the othersides proofs, and instead plays ostritch and calls ZERO?

Matrim Cuathon

03-15-2007, 07:54 AM

Stanislaw

03-15-2007, 11:29 AM

youve finally figured it out stanislaw. you can never have a real debate about this. i cant aknowledge the chrisitans "proof" becuase i dont consider it proof.
debates are logical entities. like in a courtroom. religion is not a logical function. you cannot prove that god does not exist because thats not how the religion works. you can show loads of logical examples, but religious people have faith.

we cant really effectively debate this anyway, becuase we are not phyicists or bible scholars. an amateur debate about religion will never have a satisfactory conclusion, even if there is one to be had.

well, we could drink beer and call it a conversation.

and science is rooted in logic aswell, governed by different method theoretical and physical. but the debate lies in the philisophical, philosophy offers an effective bridge between the two, between humanities and sciences.

Matrim Cuathon

03-15-2007, 01:06 PM

you cant debate religion, its fun, but you will never have a satisfactory answer.
you cant argue away faith. someone has to have doubts on their own. they have to have a chink in their religious armor. the whole point is that we cant understand God. you cant use science or even fact to debate that. in the end people want it to be real and they can simply say that God is above science.
faith is not rational.

Adudaewen

03-15-2007, 04:59 PM

faith is not rational.

Faith is not rational to you, you mean. To a person who has faith, it is rational/logical.

ra·tion·al
adj.
1.Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2.Of sound mind; sane.
3.Consistent with or based on reason; logical:

There's a difference between (reasoned) faith, and blind faith.

Matrim Cuathon

03-15-2007, 06:02 PM

Redzeppelin

03-17-2007, 12:35 AM

no, i mean faith is not rational. i know the definition of the word perfectly well.
to an insane person their actions are raitonal and logical. this means nothing, proves nothing. maybe the "insane" person has it right. but wait there is only one, they must be crazy. many christians call cults crazy for some of the things they do. the only difference betweena cult and a religion is that one has more people.

"Rationality" is a term that deals with what you're using as a basis for "normal" or "reality." To the Christian, God is ultimate reality and this world a deceptive "illusion" of sorts. So, from where we're standing, a rejection of God is a rejection of ultimate reality - and is, therefore, irrational behavior. You won't agree, because you base your idea of "normal" or "reality" on what you can see - the observable world; as such, our focus on the unseen world appears "irrational" to you. Don't you get it? There is no total escape from the limits of subjectivity. As far as Christians are concerned, you are the one who is being fooled - but you're being fooled by what you can see.

Matrim Cuathon

03-17-2007, 08:48 AM

hyperborean

03-17-2007, 11:20 AM

i know what you think. i bring forth the example of an insane person. the points of veiw are so out of phase you cant really argue whether god is real.

i just like to pick apart arguements or have others pick apart mine.

No matter what you say, Christians will find a way to loop things around and pick apart at your argument. When people believe in something so strongly, they will do anything to defend it; it's as if they are crusades.

I agree that there are angry atheists out there that do the same, but it doesn't compare to how Christians straw man the theory of evolution, as if it was made up by some crazy scientist. And, I don't want to hear the "well you guys keep trying to ridicule our faith, so we are going to defend ourselves and try to say that evolution is based on faith too".

Why not be a Christian who believes in evolution? If God created the beginning then why couldn't have created the big bang? If we have archaeological evidence proving that we evolved from a prehistorical primate species then why continue to believe in the parable we call "adam and eve"? Yes, the parable man made up before science could explain things.

Ok, so let's just call the guys with PhDs studying this everyday, "madmen". Let's call the history and discovery channel crazy for putting them on television. Can you people put the bible down for one second and open your eyes? God gave you "freewill" didn't he? Well, use it and discover the truths about the universe for yourself, instead of worshiping a book written by hundreds of powerful, corrupt men.

ennison

03-17-2007, 03:56 PM

If there were awards for grace and persistence under pressure I'd nominate you Red.

Adudaewen

03-18-2007, 03:01 AM

If there were awards for grace and persistence under pressure I'd nominate you Red.
I second that. You and I seem cut from the same cloth, though you are infinitly more eloquent. ;)

Redzeppelin

03-18-2007, 12:24 PM

I second that. You and I seem cut from the same cloth, though you are infinitly more eloquent. ;)

ennison and Adudaewen - you are too kind. Thank you for the encouragement. (I need it!)

No matter what you say, Christians will find a way to loop things around and pick apart at your argument. When people believe in something so strongly, they will do anything to defend it; it's as if they are crusades. .

A criticism equally valid for the evolutionist. Both sides of the debate function on predisposed ideas about reality. The evolutionist just fancies that he's more "objective" but that is not so. Facts, "evidence" and the like do not always speak for themselves, and scientists of both sides (evolution and ID) proceed from their separate foundations to argue different conclusions from the same evidence. Evolutionists are equally dogmatic in their opinions.

I agree that there are angry atheists out there that do the same, but it doesn't compare to how Christians straw man the theory of evolution, as if it was made up by some crazy scientist. And, I don't want to hear the "well you guys keep trying to ridicule our faith, so we are going to defend ourselves and try to say that evolution is based on faith too".

It does seem crazy to the Christian to assert that something came out of nothing - which is what evolution (sans God) must finally assert. Matter cannot come from nothing. Pursued to its logical conclusion, evolution must explain the existence of matter. To say that it has "always existed" is to give an answer that really answers nothing because it asserts a reality that cannot be explained, nor can it be proven (kind of like God -:) ).

Why not be a Christian who believes in evolution? If God created the beginning then why couldn't have created the big bang? If we have archaeological evidence proving that we evolved from a prehistorical primate species then why continue to believe in the parable we call "adam and eve"? Yes, the parable man made up before science could explain things.

A Christian can believe in the two if he wishes (Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome project does) - but to do so requires a rejection of what the Bible says - and that position does risk undermining the authority of the scriptures because I believe that the Bible is a unified whole; once you dismiss part of is, the integrity of the rest is now in question. As I said above - some "evidence" is subject to interpretation - which is a subjective tool applied within the context of a particular bias. Example: as a literary critic and a Christian, I am not predisposed to accept Queer Theory interpretations of Shakespeare's plays and sonnets; I've read the arguments, and they're well-articulated - but I do not buy them because the Queer Threory critics applied a critical tool of analysis which involves a foundation which I find to be invalid - a foundation based on the critic's bais towards homosexuality. Ditto for interpreting fossils and such.

Ok, so let's just call the guys with PhDs studying this everyday, "madmen". Let's call the history and discovery channel crazy for putting them on television. Can you people put the bible down for one second and open your eyes? God gave you "freewill" didn't he? Well, use it and discover the truths about the universe for yourself, instead of worshiping a book written by hundreds of powerful, corrupt men.

I wouldn't call them "madmen" but I would call them human - in that they have their prejudices as do I. Please don't cite TV as an authority on anything. Finally, please stop the worn-out and exceedingly tired cliche that Christians are "blind" and that those of you who reject Christianity are somehow more blessed with enlightenment, or "open eyes" or a more "rational, critical" view of the world. Why is it that our position is due to blindness of some sort and yours isn't? We have freewill; that's why we freely have chosen to believe as we do. Do not commit the immature stereotype that the Christian is a blind drone who only believes what s/he's been taught. Our minds work fine - they just disagree with your conclusions - but what a clever argumentative fallacy to identify us as being inferior thinkers because we don't accept your position. Very clever, but not good debate technique.

We don't "worship" the Bible - we worship its Writer. You have no proof of your assertions about that book, and scholarship has asserted that its reliability is higher than many other texts from the same time period of which the authority of which is unquestioned. Better do some research instead of tossing out generalizations that really don't hold water. The accuracy of the Biblical texts has been analyzed and verified by scholars.