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.
Printable View
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
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: )
Hi Red,Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
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 :)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.
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.
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?
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/in...1154952AAdGuUM
"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.
'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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdoreroDio
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.
'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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyrwen
Precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
My thoughts exactly for the above post as well.
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...
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lily Adams
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lily Adams
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.)
I have finally made peace with being able to say, "I don't know."Quote:
Originally Posted by manyreddevils
"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
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”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetxa
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Hence my second statement: "Mountains of evidence don't equal certainty; they equal significant probability."Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
That's the only point I was trying to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
I didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
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 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
(PS - your English is fine)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
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 [if the three posts above me are to be believed]) 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 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?
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!!
Someone forgot to click on the various links posted in this thread proving evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
There have been studies after studies done on evolution!
ditto to above and to add:Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
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 .
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.*
-
"Evidence" does not always speak for itself: it often requires an interpreter. Interpretations may vary.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Evidence does not always prove certainty - it suggests a degree of probability.
Agreed, The Matrix and Mr. Heissenburg really highlighted this for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin;338127Evidence does not always prove certainty - it suggests a [I
Nice - I forgot about the Uncertainty Principle.
Am I missing something here?
It concerns a specific area of high level physics - "physical subatomic phenomena."Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki article provided above
:confused:
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. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
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=YlQcM...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9Ssx...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjfW4...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMfc3...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmUJa...elated&search=
- One can only imagine a similar five-part in-depth lecture by a creationist "scientist" explaining the "goddidit, Ibelieveit, thatsettlesit" theory.:D
That's a really good lecture. I'm about half way through the first part.
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). :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
So true Red zep.