Creation or Evolustionists theory [Archive]

IMMensaMind

09-02-2009, 08:36 PM

Believe it or not I have an instinctive belief that the universe was "made" by something (not necessarily an intelligence..but certainly some phenomenon beyond our understanding). It seems self evident that "something" can never come from "nothing"..but this brings us back to that damn infinite regress paradox. The question "Where did the maker come from?" shatters the issue into a million pieces for me and puts it beyond rational discussion.

I struggle with your position, as I consider it close to breaking through to where I am. How can you instinctively believe that our universe was "made" (and i agree), but then not be at peace with the equally logical belief that what made it was Intelligent? It is purely logical to conclude that something not intelligent cannot create something complex out of nothing.

It would have to be intelligent! Further, our own Science has established that both Time and Space had to simultaneously spring into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. That means that what preceded it would have to be, by definition, infinity, thus eliminating your infinite regress paradox argument.

Making something unnecessary is different from eliminating it as a possibility.

e.g., Laptops have made desktops unnecessary. (A limited example, but you get what I mean)

Waiting on your replies to my other two posts...

Also, I flagged Gavica's post for ya. ;)

Thanks - it was certainly an asshatish response I thought. Those pictures are old regardless. My oldest is now almost as tall as my wife, for crissakes. :nod:

IMMensaMind

09-02-2009, 08:41 PM

Why will no alternate answer never be forthcoming?? You can predict the future now?

No, as I've said - and as has already been acknowledged - Science only has the power to determine constructs within its own environment. It has to be wielded under the auspices of the Laws of Nature. Those Laws didn't exist pre-Big Bang. Thus: Science cannot and will not be applicable to any discussion/research/discovery prior. Faith is needed there; metaphysics is required there.

Just because it seems impossible to find out today, does not mean it will be impossible to find out tomorrow. Just last century our understanding of space and time radically changed. Why are you absolutely certain it won't happen again?

Because the 2nd law of thermodynamics demands that we had a beginning, along with Time and Space. That gives Science a hard boundary over which it cannot cross.

darkfrog

09-02-2009, 08:44 PM

You cannot establish this as fact, because you cannot quantify the effect that something which you do not acknowledge has. It requires complete understanding of everything about our existence to do so, and you cannot establish that.
Are you serious?
I don't need to establish the non-existence of a god as fact to not believe in one.

Strawman - again. I'm getting tired of the strawmen in here. If you have to conjure an argument in order to defeat it, you should instead investigate the weakness of your defenses. If it's a straw man, then restate your claim and be clear. I'm sorry I misconstrued it but it appeared you were using the idea of the Big Bang, including Hawking's comments to establish that there must have been a creator of the universe and it should be obvious to anyone. Are you now not saying that?

I said that I stick by my beliefs because they are rational and defensible. I am the one being targeted with vitriol and disdain. I have not uttered such a tone against anyone else. It it obvious I am just defending the legitimacy of my views here.
I am not attacking you. Please keep your comments to me about me.

This statement makes no sense. You think that Science has made belief in God unnecessary, but you also think that it's different than saying that it has eliminated the possibility of a God?If you can't grasp the distinction, I'm not sure what else I can say to help you.
It is well believed that Darwin made the idea of a god unnecessary, even many religious people have said this as an accusation. However, science hasn't eliminated the ability to believe in a god as demonstrated by the millions of theists that accept evolution.

Let's say I can make an engine that can run on water. I have made gasoline unnecessary but I have not eliminated the fact that gasoline can still be used to run engines. In the same way eliminating the necessity for a god to intervene does not eliminate the possibility that one has done such. Science cannot speak to those things outside the realm of observation and experimentation. Just because I don't see a need for supernatural interference doesn't make that possibility nonexistent.

My personal beliefs about how the world works should have no bearing on yours or anyone else.

You're parsing, and contorting yourself. Earlier in this thread (like 70 pages ago), you and others were denying that Science was being used to this end.

Now you're contradicting what you said - and exposing that my earlier assertion was totally correct.
There is no contradiction, it is a figment of your imagination. Look at redmaxx's sig line. Science does not attempt to disprove god. It does happen to be a by-product for some individuals.

BTW, nice looking family. :look:

IMMensaMind

09-02-2009, 08:48 PM

You could use the same reasoning to discredit ANY scientific theory.

How? This argument is particularly applicable to the assertion that we've all evolved from nothing, and did so with no deistic involvement.

As I've said, every theory has its boundaries. Evolution does not deal with the start of life any more than Plate Tectonics deals with the initial formation and initial movement of plates.

I both agree and disagree here. The pure study of evolution can merely make observations about what is taking place in the present; what may happen in the future, and what may have happened in the past. Blanks in knowledge, however, are often filled in with political and loaded statements, such as the one darkfrog made, saying that Science has made belief in God unnecessary (which is baseless, IMO).

Those people's statements then beg the question: if they are correct, how can they prove it? They'd have to establish the nature of the origin of life, and explain it without involvement of a powerful outlier entity. That's not possible.

So, when you try and discredit it by pointing out something it does not address, you're not commenting on evolution at all.

As you should have seen throughout this thread, I'm not addressing the pure science of anything. I'm addressing the political motives of those who are attempting to use science as a bullhorn for their own socio-political reasons.

Edit: Evolution deals with how life changes. If there is no life, it obviously cannot change. So, asking "how did life spring from non-life?" is not a question about evolution because it doesn't deal with life changing, it deals with life forming.

This is a mischaracterization of what I've stated, and uses tortured logic. Evolution is the study of the advancement of life, not merely the changing of it. It is not a random process, because clearly things like sentience developed from non-sentience, and did so without programming - a fully natural process (if we are to believe the positions of the secular evolutionist). As such, it begs the question: if life is advancing, where did it start, and how did it start, if it was purely natural?

IMMensaMind

09-02-2009, 08:51 PM

Are you serious?
I don't need to establish the non-existence of a god as fact to not believe in one.
If it's a straw man, then restate your claim and be clear. I'm sorry I misconstrued it but it appeared you were using the idea of the Big Bang, including Hawking's comments to establish that there must have been a creator of the universe and it should be obvious to anyone. Are you now not saying that?

I am not attacking you. Please keep your comments to me about me.

If you can't grasp the distinction, I'm not sure what else I can say to help you.
It is well believed that Darwin made the idea of a god unnecessary, even many religious people have said this as an accusation. However, science hasn't eliminated the ability to believe in a god as demonstrated by the millions of theists that accept evolution.

Let's say I can make an engine that can run on water. I have made gasoline unnecessary but I have not eliminated the fact that gasoline can still be used to run engines. In the same way eliminating the necessity for a god to intervene does not eliminate the possibility that one has done such. Science cannot speak to those things outside the realm of observation and experimentation. Just because I don't see a need for supernatural interference doesn't make that possibility nonexistent.

My personal beliefs about how the world works should have no bearing on yours or anyone else.

There is no contradiction, it is a figment of your imagination. Look at redmaxx's sig line. Science does not attempt to disprove god. It does happen to be a by-product for some individuals.

BTW, nice looking family. :look:

Thanks for the compliment.

Let me circumvent the rest:

Do you respect those who believe in God, and do you understand why it is logical to do so?

Libertarian

09-02-2009, 08:54 PM

It is purely logical to conclude that something not intelligent cannot create something complex out of nothing.

True, it is supremely logical to assume that something never comes from nothing..including an intelligent and complex creator. I can't budge on that.

IMMensaMind

09-02-2009, 08:56 PM

Something never comes from nothing..including an intelligent and complex creator. I can't budge on that.

You're not comprehending what it means to have the power to create Time.

karkaputto

09-02-2009, 08:59 PM

i don't think anybody comprehends what it means to have the power to create time

myoung321

09-02-2009, 09:00 PM

Thanks for the compliment.

Let me circumvent the rest:

Do you respect those who believe in God, and do you understand why it is logical to do so?

There is nothing "logical" about believing in fantasy... would you respect me if I told you I believed in a invisible winged giant that grants wishes?

IMMensaMind

09-02-2009, 09:01 PM

There is nothing "logical" about believing in fantasy... would you respect me if I told you I believed in a invisible winged giant that grants wishes?

If you're going to hop into a conversation, at least have the discipline to see if that question - or one like it - has already been asked, and answered.

Libertarian

09-02-2009, 09:02 PM

i don't think anybody comprehends what it means to have the power to create time

lol..thats more or less what I said about 20 posts ago..It is beyond all frames of reference and impossible to even begin discussing rationally.

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=22661977&postcount=2303

IMMensaMind

09-02-2009, 09:02 PM

i don't think anybody comprehends what it means to have the power to create time

My point in making the statement is that anything with the power to do so would be Infinite, and not have a creator Itself.

darkfrog

09-02-2009, 09:11 PM

Thanks for the compliment.

Let me circumvent the rest:

Do you respect those who believe in God, and do you understand why it is logical to do so?Of course!
I have as much as said so in this thread. I have struggled with my own spirituality. I grew up Jewish and was observant for many years, I even taught Sunday School.
However, none of that had anything to do with science or logic. My belief never hinged on whether or not it was scientifically possible for a god to exist since I realized that any discussion of such a being is outside the realm of science. Science doesn't invalidate my belief in a supreme being but it does give possible ways for the world to exist without one.

I guess this is why I have taken offense to your characterization of me as one that wants to destroy or eliminate God by the use of science. This is why I have asked you understand how some of the top biological scientists today, like Ken Miller, can be a devout Catholic and still accept Darwinian evolution.

Mixels

09-02-2009, 09:29 PM

You call it a mistake, but you offer nothing to prove the assertion. Your definition of good continues to conflate the actions of two separate beings. It doesn't really matter if God knew or not, it's not his action.
I have proven the assertion. Are you cleverly ignoring my argument or genuinely failing to understand it? I'm not sure how I can be more clear. I didn't say it was a mistake exactly. I said either God made a mistake, God is capable of doing and has done great evil, or the entire thing is an inherently paradoxical sham. There is no conflation in saying so. Adam and Eve were responsible for their actions, but God was responsible for Adam's and Eve's state of mind. Things happening the way the Bible explains them, sure, Adam and Eve screwed up. The paradox is that Adam and Eve should not have screwed up--that they should not have had the capacity to do so, in much the same way that God does not.

Again, they weren't predisposed to it. They were offered a choice. Would you prefer that they were automatons?
Making Adam and Eve entirely good would not have made them automatons, unless you think that God is an automaton.

:nono2: That wasn't your prerequisite. Your prerequisite was foreknowledge, which, as a parent, you have. You do know they will make bad choices.
What? I didn't have a prerequisite; it was your analogy. It was bad one, at that. I pointed out the flaw in the analogy, in that parents : children is not comparable to God : humanity because God had the ability to mold his creation and because God, according to Judeo-Christian dogma, knew exactly what would happen creating man the way that he did. Parents do not have either luxury. Even if we do know our kids will make bad choices, we cannot know what those choices will be, nor do we have the ability to mold our children in such a way that they will certainly become entirely good people. God != parents.

You've struck upon the original sin. Man thinking he's equal to God.
Why isn't man equal to God? What would be wrong with that? If you created a living being and you were entirely confident of your own utter goodness, wouldn't you want to make that being just as good and as powerful as you? To do otherwise is to put [more] evil in the world.

They're two different things.
I got that. I'm saying that if God were entirely good and all-powerful, they would not be. I've already explained why. I've yet to hear your reason why you might think they would not.

superdan54

09-02-2009, 11:11 PM

True, it is supremely logical to assume that something never comes from nothing..including an intelligent and complex creator. I can't budge on that.

Yes, but our mindset is constrained to only understand natural law, the Conservation of matter being one of them. However the spiritual realm, if it exists, does not apply to said natural laws, so where does the logic fail?

Still, the issue is that man was not made as good as God. Why not?

...

Regardless, there is no inherent paradox in the idea of God creating man as perfectly good, nor is there one in the idea of God creating man as all-powerful. There is actually no inherent paradox in the idea of God creating other Gods, if everything Christianity tells us about the chum is to be held as true. Well, I suppose there is a dilemma in that it is clearly implied that God would never do such a thing, but then that begs the unthinkable question: why not?

Honestly, I think this falls into the logical limitations of omnipotence argument I presented. The common thought experiment is whether God can make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. The answer is no because God's theoretical omnipotent strength is an actual infinite (sometimes denoted as aleph). The mass of a rock can only be potentially infinite, approaching infinity, but can never have the all-encompassing value of all infinite mass, and even in a physical sense is limited to 10^80 atoms. Likewise God's goodness is all-encompassing aleph, thus he cannot make something as good as himself, nor has he expressed any desire to do so, for aleph glory is reserved for Him alone.

Libertarian

09-02-2009, 11:19 PM

Yes, but our mindset is constrained to only understand natural law, the Conservation of matter being one of them. However the spiritual realm, if it exists, does not apply to said natural laws, so where does the logic fail?

When you start theorizing about unseen, unknown (and unknowable) "realms", logic doesn't fail...It flies out the window.

superdan54

09-02-2009, 11:23 PM

When you start theorizing about unseen, unknown (and unknowable) "realms", logic doesn't fail...It flies out the window.

So you agree that believing in an eternal multiverse as the source of all Creation is illogical then, right?

Libertarian

09-02-2009, 11:52 PM

So you agree that believing in an eternal multiverse as the source of all Creation is illogical then, right?

The multiverse theory is interesting but to assert it as true would certainly be illogical given we have no evidence for it. It also has the same infinite regression gap that every other version of creation has..so yes if someone asserted the source of all creation is a multiverse that has "just been there" forever and ever, their position would hold no more merit than those who believe Zeus, Shiva, or Yahweh have "just been there" forever.

Being ignorant of the "source" of all creation is not a comfortable position and I don't like being in it, but I've come to accept it as necessary. It hasn't been a comfortable position for humanity to be in either..which is why we've invented hundreds of different religions over the centuries to give us some "closure" on the issue. I would like a solid answer for the true foundation of everything.. This is why I love theoretical physics and scientific attempts to probe the deepest mysteries of nature (string theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory), etc) The effort to find the fundamental truths and the fundamental substance everything is made of is really fascinating and can amount to a pretty "Holy" experience once you start to grasp it. ;) For agnostics or atheists, the relentless pursuit of truth is as close as we can come to "religion", and I don't understand why theists see this as such a threat. There should be no conflict between us. If you believe in some traditional religion with an all-powerful creator, you should consider scientific progress a path to "know the mind of God." After all, we are merely using the faculties HE gave us to seek answers and learn about his creation. Is that really a sin? It's time for religious people to discard old dogmas, stop resisting change, and stop denying new evidence when it conflicts with a particular interpretation of an ancient scripture. I know this is a tall order, but imagine how much better the world would be if all of humanity could unite behind the quest for absolute TRUTH..using our God-given tools of reason and rationality to seek it together..

Let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya. :hug:

Epiphyte

09-03-2009, 05:54 AM

No, as I've said - and as has already been acknowledged - Science only has the power to determine constructs within its own environment. It has to be wielded under the auspices of the Laws of Nature. Those Laws didn't exist pre-Big Bang. Thus: Science cannot and will not be applicable to any discussion/research/discovery prior. Faith is needed there; metaphysics is required there.

Because the 2nd law of thermodynamics demands that we had a beginning, along with Time and Space. That gives Science a hard boundary over which it cannot cross.

Yes, it does seem impossible now, but the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics may be revised. Is there some reason why it can never change? As I said, time and gravity seemed a lot simpler at the start of last century, they changed. You cannot say any scientific idea is forever absolutely true. Every idea can change with new observations.

How? This argument is particularly applicable to the assertion that we've all evolved from nothing, and did so with no deistic involvement.

Any observation can "beg the question" of why there is a Universe to observe at all. Evolution begs the question of the creation of life which begs the question of creation of the Universe. Gravity begs the question of "why is there gravity at all?" Plate tectonics begs the question of "why are there plates in the first place?"

Evolution is the study of the advancement of life, not merely the changing of it. It is not a random process, because clearly things like sentience developed from non-sentience, and did so without programming - a fully natural process (if we are to believe the positions of the secular evolutionist). As such, it begs the question: if life is advancing, where did it start, and how did it start, if it was purely natural?

Life has to already exist for evolution to be applicable. You can't have "advancement", or change in life without life already being present.

Antibiotic resistance readily presents itself in microbes where anti-biotic resistance previously was not present. Looks to be the same with wings, sentience, and tails according to the fossil record.

The theory of gravity offers an explanation of how masses interact. Does it beg the question of why is there mass? Yes, but that doesn't weaken gravity as a theory because it does not address that question.

IMMensaMind

09-03-2009, 06:52 AM

Yes, it does seem impossible now, but the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics may be revised. Is there some reason why it can never change? As I said, time and gravity seemed a lot simpler at the start of last century, they changed. You cannot say any scientific idea is forever absolutely true. Every idea can change with new observations.

Any observation can "beg the question" of why there is a Universe to observe at all. Evolution begs the question of the creation of life which begs the question of creation of the Universe. Gravity begs the question of "why is there gravity at all?" Plate tectonics begs the question of "why are there plates in the first place?"

Life has to already exist for evolution to be applicable. You can't have "advancement", or change in life without life already being present.

Antibiotic resistance readily presents itself in microbes where anti-biotic resistance previously was not present. Looks to be the same with wings, sentience, and tails according to the fossil record.

The theory of gravity offers an explanation of how masses interact. Does it beg the question of why is there mass? Yes, but that doesn't weaken gravity as a theory because it does not address that question.

I'm in a hurry here, but I'll answer your last paragraph: I'm not looking to weaken the theory - I'm looking to weaken those who would employ the theory to mean things that it does not mean - like darkfrog's attempt to claim that the Science has made believing in God not necessary.

I believe the opposite. Science is uncovering such wonders of nature as to make the belief in God even more compelling - which is why that reaction is exactly what Libertarian sees.

In point of fact, it seems to magnify the predilections of the observer. That's why Science itself isn't the threat: the motivations of man are.

Epiphyte

09-03-2009, 07:21 AM

darkfrog

09-03-2009, 07:44 AM

I'm in a hurry here, but I'll answer your last paragraph: I'm not looking to weaken the theory - I'm looking to weaken those who would employ the theory to mean things that it does not mean - like darkfrog's attempt to claim that the Science has made believing in God not necessary.

I believe the opposite. Science is uncovering such wonders of nature as to make the belief in God even more compelling - which is why that reaction is exactly what Libertarian sees.

In point of fact, it seems to magnify the predilections of the observer. That's why Science itself isn't the threat: the motivations of man are.
You seem to continue to be threatened by my contention that belief in God is not necessary but I think you are extrapolating it to areas that I never meant. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to think that I am also saying that people shouldn't believe in God.
I guess the best way to explain the difference is to understand that I don't think that belief is or should be contingent on what we know about the natural world. As superdan pointed out, the idea of God transcends the physical into an area that science cannot delve. I am merely saying the same thing that even many religious people have claimed over the last century that science, by giving us natural explanations for things that previously were attributed to God, it allows the idea that the world can exist without a deity.
As Christopher Hitchens said in the Templeton Foundation conversation (http://www.templeton.org/belief/), "Religion, remember, is theism not deism. Faith cannot rest itself on the argument that there might or might not be a prime mover. Faith must believe in answered prayers, divinely ordained morality, heavenly warrant for circumcision, the occurrence of miracles or what you will. Physics and chemistry and biology and paleontology and archeology have, at a minimum, given us explanations for what used to be mysterious, and furnished us with hypotheses that are at least as good as, or very much better than, the ones offered by any believers in other and inexplicable dimensions."
However, I don't see why you continue to see this as a threat as belief is a personal thing. If some people find solace in science as the explanation for how things are, others can find comfort in their spiritual connection with the god of their choice. Neither mine or any other atheists belief or lack of belief should be an impediment to you, superdan, talgot or anyone else to believe what you want to believe.

darkfrog

09-03-2009, 07:48 AM

I think you would agree that belief in God has never been necessary.
He obviously doesn't because he has been arguing against that idea for the last 20 pages. :lol:

Mixels

09-03-2009, 09:43 AM

Honestly, I think this falls into the logical limitations of omnipotence argument I presented. The common thought experiment is whether God can make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. The answer is no because God's theoretical omnipotent strength is an actual infinite (sometimes denoted as aleph). The mass of a rock can only be potentially infinite, approaching infinity, but can never have the all-encompassing value of all infinite mass, and even in a physical sense is limited to 10^80 atoms. Likewise God's goodness is all-encompassing aleph, thus he cannot make something as good as himself, nor has he expressed any desire to do so, for aleph glory is reserved for Him alone.

I understand what you're saying, but there are still issues. First of all, God's ability to create a rock so large he cannot lift it is an inherent paradox. This is one of the arguments atheists commonly cite against God's omnipotence, actually. Paradoxes are a philosopher's best friend.

Regardless, God's omnipotence is a requisite of the Judeo-Christian perspective on God. If God is not omnipotent, this entire argument is moot because the most principle aspect of God's alleged existence will have been proven false, meaning if some really ridiculously powerful God-like being does exist, we have no business worshiping it because we really have no clue who or what it is.

Further, though, I don't see anything inherently paradoxical about the idea of God creating a human that is just as good (or just as powerful) as he is. Can you point out how your general argument against God's omnipotence applies here? Are you trying to claim that the impossibility of God's omnipotence implies that God may not have been powerful or capable enough to actually do as I suggest?

I think you would agree that belief in God has never been necessary. Advances in science have just made it easier to live a life without consideration of God. Centuries ago human's saw phenomena on a daily basis that would have been positively baffling without the explanation provided by there being a God (lightning, stars, the sun and moon, platypus :lol: , etc.).

The fact that we have delved to such esoteric ideas as singularities in this discussion supports the idea that for many people, consideration of God may not be necessary. You would probably say that they are not asking deep enough questions, right? I would agree.

Here's what I see as the big problem. Science has provided explanations of many mysteries and revealed many more, but religion has not kept up with science and is still hung up on supernatural explanations of the old mysteries.

Just wait a few hundred years. When we science types work out how life and death work, we'll get a nice big gold star. You just watch. Well, watch as a ghost. If you're into that sort of thing.

Homefrrie

09-03-2009, 10:14 AM

And in saying so, you're admitting that you follow Science as a religion: you have blind faith that such will be the outcome, though you have no way of knowing.

It's what I've been saying, and equally legitimate as any belief in God. Belief in God, and belief in Science, are not mutually exclusive. You do not hear those who believe in God attempting to crush Scientific research; you instead hear two other things:

1) You hear secularists attempting to use Science to delegitimize belief in God, as darkfrog admitted (and you also insinuate);

2) You hear those who believe in God objecting to those attempts.

You just created - out of blind faith - something which could easily be claimed to parallel any article of faith in any religion that you deride as unsubstantiated. You, in short, just offered a tenet of a contrived secular religion.

You are no different than anyone else who believes something simply because they want to.

I don't follow Science as a religion. I follow Science as a hobby, and believe that Science will continue to uncover facts about our universe. I don't have blind faith, but I do have faith. History has shown me that human advancement in Science has occurred, and I have faith that advancement will continue. That faith cannot be considered 'blind'.

And in no way am I attempting to delegitimize anyones belief in God. Like many others have said, we have the freedom to believe whatever we want. I am merely stating a hypothesis, which you chose to ignore. If/when we find other life forms, and they tell people how the universe was created, and present you with written history similar to our own in respect to Jesus, would you continue with your current beliefs, or would you possibly change your beliefs based on what that other life form considers true?

I believe in what can presented me to as fact. I believe in asteroids because they've landed on Earth. I believe in stellar objects because science has presented facts to prove they exist. I have FAITH that there are other forms of life outside of our galaxy, because probability tells me that faith is not without reason.

You are no different than anyone else who believes something simply because factual evidence has been tested and proven it to be true.

Fixed

IMMensaMind

09-03-2009, 10:59 AM

I think you would agree that belief in God has never been necessary.

I guess it depends upon what is necessary to you. I think that you'll hear from those who believe in God that they've constructed a circumstance around which their belief has merit, including the belief that they are "redeemed" through such a belief. In that case, such a belief is very necessary. That is, also, a reflection of my own belief system.

Advances in science have just made it easier to live a life without consideration of God. Centuries ago human's saw phenomena on a daily basis that would have been positively baffling without the explanation provided by there being a God (lightning, stars, the sun and moon, platypus :lol: , etc.).

I think I disagree here. I don't think we have fewer questions and wonderments than we did before, I think that we may even have more - they're just at a higher level. It's all a frame of reference thing. I do think, though, that your view may be (and I don't mean this in a personal way) heightening the arrogance of Man, elevating his importance and power to affect our surroundings. Anytime Man believes that he can disregard belief in a Higher Power, that means that Man is elevating his pride.

That is not a good thing in my estimation. Your response may be that you find all this new discovery of our universe the opposite: humbling. I may agree some people react that way (though I find that it would create humility only in people like Libertarian, who is amazed by the vastness of Creation, and instinctively believes that a Creator exists and was responsible), but my worry isn't some people. It's those who will go megalomanic in reaction.

The fact that we have delved to such esoteric ideas as singularities in this discussion supports the idea that for many people, consideration of God may not be necessary. You would probably say that they are not asking deep enough questions, right? I would agree.

Before, I was hearing that Science may be a way to "know the nature of God" that we may, through our discoveries, be finding a way to "get closer" to God. Here, you seem to imply the opposite.

That's what I'm saying, and why I believe that Secularism can be very dangerous. Essentially, we can agree (as it's evidence even in this thread), that some people use awareness and increased knowledge of our surroundings to become more humble, and to feel a greater insight into God, and the power of God, and some people use it to distance themselves from the very idea of God, and polarize themselves and all they can influence from those who choose to believe in God.

They are aligning themselves in an effort to both defeat the idea of God, and in the process, every religion. Such an effort will not and can not end well.

Here's what I see as the big problem. Science has provided explanations of many mysteries and revealed many more, but religion has not kept up with science and is still hung up on supernatural explanations of the old mysteries.

Explain, and example. I need an example to address what you see as a "big problem".

IMMensaMind

09-03-2009, 11:02 AM

He obviously doesn't because he has been arguing against that idea for the last 20 pages. :lol:

Keep in mind that you are on the opposite end of that spectrum - and the preceding post explains where I see a danger in these polarizations. Whereas believers can evangelize, there is no mainstream effort to stigmatize or demonize people who do not believe in God. In fact, the mainstream media is utterly absent expressions and celebrations of faith - though the opposite ideology is on display all over (shows which feature demons, vampires, witches, gays, etc).

My own belief system and my own instinct tells me that these opposing ideologies are on a crash course.

Mixels

09-03-2009, 11:11 AM

Keep in mind that you are on the opposite end of that spectrum - and the preceding post explains where I see a danger in these polarizations. Whereas believers can evangelize, there is no mainstream effort to stigmatize or demonize people who do not believe in God. In fact, the mainstream media is utterly absent expressions and celebrations of faith - though the opposite ideology is on display all over (shows which feature demons, vampires, witches, gays, etc).

My own belief system and my own instinct tells me that these opposing ideologies are on a crash course.

Careful with the references to gays, Mr. We Don't Demonize Other Human Beings.

Besides, even though there are no attempts in the mass media to stigmatize non-believers, I'm not sure exactly how "back-water" you could call it. There is definitely a popular trend present in every church I've ever learned about to draw a very clear line between believers and non-believers. Much of the time, this line actually is drawn by demonizing non-believers--you know, agents of the devil and such. You would not believe the number of Christians I have had conversations about religion with who somehow genuinely came to the conclusion that I either was possessed by or actually was Satan, attempting to deceive them. Again, not all Christians will do this, but many will, and many churches encourage it.

Epiphyte

09-03-2009, 11:15 AM

Anytime Man believes that he can disregard belief in a Higher Power, that means that Man is elevating his pride.

I think one could say that any religion attempts to understand God. Surely that's also an elevation of pride, to think one can even begin to understand God.

That's what I'm saying, and why I believe that Secularism can be very dangerous. Essentially, we can agree (as it's evidence even in this thread), that some people use awareness and increased knowledge of our surroundings to become more humble, and to feel a greater insight into God, and the power of God, and some people use it to distance themselves from the very idea of God, and polarize themselves and all they can influence from those who choose to believe in God.

They are aligning themselves in an effort to both defeat the idea of God, and in the process, every religion. Such an effort will not and can not end well.

Although I think we're in general agreement here, I don't like the dichotomy you set up with one side interpreting the vast Universe and being humbled by God's power while giving a negative stereotype of atheists on the other side. It's also possible to be humbled by the vastness of the Universe and how small we are without consideration of God.

Explain, and example. I need an example to address what you see as a "big problem".

The geologic time scale vs. the creationist time scale would be one.

darkfrog

09-03-2009, 11:18 AM

Careful with the references to gays, Mr. We Don't Demonize Other Human Beings.

Besides, even though there are no attempts in the mass media to stigmatize non-believers, I'm not sure exactly how "back-water" you could call it. There is definitely a popular trend present in every church I've ever learned about to draw a very clear line between believers and non-believers. Much of the time, this line actually is drawn by demonizing non-believers--you know, agents of the devil and such. You would not believe the number of Christians I have had conversations about religion with who somehow genuinely came to the conclusion that I either was possessed by or actually was Satan, attempting to deceive them. Again, not all Christians will do this, but many will, and many churches encourage it.:iagree:
And the belief that secular thought is a danger to society is just another way of stigmatizing atheism.

Mixels

09-03-2009, 11:24 AM

:iagree:
And the belief that secular thought is a danger to society is just another way of stigmatizing atheism.

Yeah, I read that response after I finished writing my post. I should have edited but didn't. :iagree: It's also a little hypocritical, now that I think about it, given the very long and disgracefully violent history of religion in general. Since secularism doesn't have much of a written history, though, it's hard to compare. I expect we're all equally dangerous when our core values are threatened--especially if we feel that the implications of those threats could harm or endanger our loved ones.

IMMensaMind

09-03-2009, 11:27 AM

You seem to continue to be threatened by my contention that belief in God is not necessary but I think you are extrapolating it to areas that I never meant. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to think that I am also saying that people shouldn't believe in God.

Even a scintilla of disdain in your reactions to posts from any believer in God (and you're no where near as guilty of such displays of emotion as other posters are) belies that undercurrent of belief.

If you show disdain for a believer, you are implying that people shouldn't believe. If you think it is crazy to believe, you are saying the same thing.

I guess the best way to explain the difference is to understand that I don't think that belief is or should be contingent on what we know about the natural world.

Our beliefs are formulated by things and people in our surroundings. It is the only input we have. Even our own psychological structures support the notion of God, which is where (if the notion of God wasn't interjected by God Himself - as described in the Old Testament, where He had interaction with people that formed the basis of today's belief) this belief arose.

BTW: I do notice conscious, sub-, or unconscious efforts on your part to affect the premise here: you interject the word "natural", when this discussion holds that at issue. It may not be "natural" at all, but created...but...carry on...:lol:

As superdan pointed out, the idea of God transcends the physical into an area that science cannot delve.

Which means that Science cannot be solely relied upon - which was the core contention of my debate many pages ago!...

I am merely saying the same thing that even many religious people have claimed over the last century that science, by giving us natural explanations for things that previously were attributed to God, it allows the idea that the world can exist without a deity.

See, here I think you merge multiple beliefs into one amalgam, and do so illegitimately. True: there may be people who threw up their hands and said: "See! The sun rises due to The Lord!" - and call it a day. The secularist merely points out the discovery of our planets as round, and in orbit, and explains to those, saying "no: the Sun rises because we're in orbit around it".

That grants short shrift, however, to both parties: the first party may still be correct, as there is no way to account for whatever involvement or hidden mechanism may be at play causing the reactions of the planetary bodies to do so, and no suitable explanation for how these planets came into being with which to begin (which is why we're discussing the Big Bang), and the second party may find itself content merely to have more understanding, and miss the potential wonder and grandeur of a higher purpose in those actions.

In short, while we can, via secular science, gain access to a greater understanding of how these phenomenon take place, we are not addressing why these phenomenon take place. The why gives the meaning.

It addresses the "why are we here?" aspect of our collective psyches - a question which screams to be addressed. Some people either have no such voice, or have deeply suppressed it, which I find pyschologically dysfunctional, and potentially harmful. This is strictly my own personal opinion. I believe we are wired to believe in Higher Powers, and I believe there is a reason for that.

The former, though, is why people like Epiphyte (IIRC) can say "evolution takes place for no purpose whatsoever". I find such a response very hollow; unfulfilling, and the cause of less trust in those who would have such ideology.

As Christopher Hitchens said in the Templeton Foundation conversation (http://www.templeton.org/belief/), "Religion, remember, is theism not deism.

Which is why I've attempted to restrain this topic to deism. Theism is much too convoluted, and requires the acceptance of the premise of deism with which to begin.

Faith cannot rest itself on the argument that there might or might not be a prime mover. Faith must believe in answered prayers, divinely ordained morality, heavenly warrant for circumcision, the occurrence of miracles or what you will.

I'm not sure why this contention should hold water. It sounds merely like someone who wants to understand the nature of Faith without having any himself. I believe in God though I do not recollect any of my prayers being answered - though it is certainly possible that what I am and have are as a result of just that; and whatnot.

Faith can be purely blind, and unrewarded. That, perhaps, is what makes faith valuable. How difficult could having faith possibly be, if all prayers were answered, all morality acquired from outside; all miracles commonplace? The charter of faith itself would be challenged.

One believes something as a weaker alternative to knowing something. Only the most faithful can bolster, cajole and tease their beliefs to such a powerful level as to reach "knowing" - at which point they make of themselves much more a juicy target for the likes of you. :D

Physics and chemistry and biology and paleontology and archeology have, at a minimum, given us explanations for what used to be mysterious, and furnished us with hypotheses that are at least as good as, or very much better than, the ones offered by any believers in other and inexplicable dimensions."

I think this is representative of so many atheists who utterly miss the point. The "how" is nifty - certainly. The why, however, is the sizzle which sells the steak. I think these conversations are confused by the two different goals the adversaries may have in the debate: while I find the "how" very interesting, what really appeals to me is the frosting on it - the why.

The metaphysicist within me and others constantly ask the secularist the why question, and we only hear in response - when the knowledge is available - the how. The two ships cross in the night, each lobbing grenades at each other, oblivious to the cross purposes.

Science is for answering "how". The problem is when secularists also use that as some poor substitute for why. There. I've said it 4 different ways now.

However, I don't see why you continue to see this as a threat as belief is a personal thing.

Because history has shown us that people of faith can be stigmatized, persecuted, suffer, and die at the hands of those without it.

If some people find solace in science as the explanation for how things are, others can find comfort in their spiritual connection with the god of their choice. Neither mine or any other atheists belief or lack of belief should be an impediment to you, superdan, talgot or anyone else to believe what you want to believe.

If that were all there were to it, this thread would not have lasted 150 pages.

IMMensaMind

09-03-2009, 11:31 AM

I understand what you're saying, but there are still issues. First of all, God's ability to create a rock so large he cannot lift it is an inherent paradox. This is one of the arguments atheists commonly cite against God's omnipotence, actually. Paradoxes are a philosopher's best friend.

Regardless, God's omnipotence is a requisite of the Judeo-Christian perspective on God. If God is not omnipotent, this entire argument is moot because the most principle aspect of God's alleged existence will have been proven false, meaning if some really ridiculously powerful God-like being does exist, we have no business worshiping it because we really have no clue who or what it is.

Further, though, I don't see anything inherently paradoxical about the idea of God creating a human that is just as good (or just as powerful) as he is. Can you point out how your general argument against God's omnipotence applies here? Are you trying to claim that the impossibility of God's omnipotence implies that God may not have been powerful or capable enough to actually do as I suggest?

Just wait a few hundred years. When we science types work out how life and death work, we'll get a nice big gold star. You just watch. Well, watch as a ghost. If you're into that sort of thing.

I bolded this to substantiate exactly what I've been saying. I'll also point out that Mixels is exhibiting his own brand of faith here; Faith in Science as a Religion.

There is no difference. He believes that Science will provide for him something which it hasn't accomplished, but he believes it nonetheless. It makes him no different than anyone of belief who finds solace in Deism of any stripe, to find solace in a similar manner.

Either way, what Mixels will then be prixy to - if that faith-based proclamation ever comes to fruition - is the HOW of life and death.

But he will still be utterly vacant as to why.

Mixels

09-03-2009, 11:35 AM

I bolded this to substantiate exactly what I've been saying. I'll also point out that Mixels is exhibiting his own brand of faith here; Faith in Science as a Religion.

There is no difference. He believes that Science will provide for him something which it hasn't accomplished, but he believes it nonetheless. It makes him no different than anyone of belief who finds solace in Deism of any stripe, to find solace in a similar manner.

Either way, what Mixels will then be prixy to - if that faith-based proclamation ever comes to fruition - is the HOW of life and death.

But he will still be utterly vacant as to why.

I don't believe science will provide me with those answers. I assume it will, because that is something that very much interests biologists and technologists alike and because our ability to learn from observation has yet to come across any kind of permanent impasse, but since I am neither a biologist nor an engineer, I really don't care. Nice straw man, by the way. Do you still get crows? Who built it for you?

Edit: Why? Oh, you're in for a treat on this one: I don't care about that, either. (By the by, the question of "why" necessitates intent, which in this case necessitates a creator. Since I don't believe in a creator, I don't believe there is a "why" to life--at least not one that we don't create for ourselves.)

IMMensaMind

09-03-2009, 11:41 AM

I don't follow Science as a religion. I follow Science as a hobby, and believe that Science will continue to uncover facts about our universe. I don't have blind faith, but I do have faith. History has shown me that human advancement in Science has occurred, and I have faith that advancement will continue. That faith cannot be considered 'blind'.

I think you are in denial of exactly what your own faith means, and demands. There are those who believe in God, and go to Church, but are far from zealous. They, too, could call their persuasion a 'hobby', if they wish, but what it really is is an escape; a habit; a communal activity - whatever it is. The point is that they do it, motivated at least partially by trust in the act.

Just like you are with Science. It is your faith and religion. I think you're stuck on the eschatological definition of religion, when in point of fact it's unimportant upon what an individual's religion is based. What matters is solely what type of morays it supports.

If your belief system results in you being unable to stop other's stigmatization of a person of faith, I find it harmful. If your belief system renders you unable to support politicians who defend the right to free expression of religion through speech or practice, I find it harmful.

If you cannot understand that the concept of "separation of church and state" is a contrived position intended to attack free expression, I find it harmful. If you are so lightly afflicted with lack of caring as to manifest rudeness or disgust in those of an opposite view......I find it harmful.

And so on.

And in no way am I attempting to delegitimize anyones belief in God.

Good - except that you still manifest denial, because simply acting crude and snarky to those of faith is itself an attempt to delegitimize.

Do you support a public school offering an elective course on the Bible? Your answer really defines the veracity of your statement.

Like many others have said, we have the freedom to believe whatever we want. I am merely stating a hypothesis, which you chose to ignore.

My 10,000 words in this thread seem to bely your claim.

If/when we find other life forms, and they tell people how the universe was created, and present you with written history similar to our own in respect to Jesus, would you continue with your current beliefs, or would you possibly change your beliefs based on what that other life form considers true?

False Dichotomy - and not at all what I was arguing regardless. My argument would be supported by a Superior Intelligence arriving and announcing (with evidence) that they planted the seeds of life on this planet, and it became Man and all Things, thus substantianting the claims of the IDers.

I believe in what can presented me to as fact.

That is not "belief". That is knowledge. The implications of the difference is where the meat and potatoes of these arguments reside.

I believe in asteroids because they've landed on Earth. I believe in stellar objects because science has presented facts to prove they exist. I have FAITH that there are other forms of life outside of our galaxy, because probability tells me that faith is not without reason.

Then by that same law of probability, you'd have to support the notion of ID, as the claim is simply that there is an Intelligence which is capable of Creating All Things.

Because surely within an Infinity such a Being must exist. Right? Or have, in all your musings on probability, neatly compartmentalized the concept that other forms of life couldn't possibly involved a being of such a level of Superiority? Or One which could Lord over it all? ;)

Fixed

Warped - thus: broken.

IMMensaMind

09-03-2009, 11:54 AM

I don't believe science will provide me with those answers. I assume it will, because that is something that very much interests biologists and technologists alike and because our ability to learn from observation has yet to come across any kind of permanent impasse, but since I am neither a biologist nor an engineer, I really don't care. Nice straw man, by the way. Do you still get crows? Who built it for you?

I need you to up the level of care in your argument. Read what I bolded and explain to me how it makes any sense at all that you deny believing Science will provide you with answers while simultaneously assuming it will. :confuse3:

Edit: Why? Oh, you're in for a treat on this one: I don't care about that, either. (By the by, the question of "why" necessitates intent, which in this case necessitates a creator. Since I don't believe in a creator, I don't believe there is a "why" to life--at least not one that we don't create for ourselves.)

You don't believe there's a "why" - I know that; it's been my contention. Do you ever wonder why a child has the capacity to ask that question, but you do not? :look:

Being unable to ask why is the quintessential expression of closed-mindedness. It's such a hollow existence to operate with the premise that there is no reason for anything - because it follows that if you find no reason for anything, then there is no reason for you, either.

And no consequence; no limitations/taboos/etc. It results in the very breakdown of culture. I believe everyone who participates in society is affected by the morays of those surrounding them; they rub off. People who do not believe in God, and by extension do not believe in a purpose to everything, are still, to varying degrees, constricted/affected/influenced by the morays established by the remainder of their culture, most of whom do believe in God, and in Purpose. To the degree that they shed the manifestations of these morays aligns in exact proportion to the degree to which such individuals become a threat to those increasingly unlike them.

People who do not believe in God and attain power are the highest (lowest?) examples of such threats. People who do not believe in God and attain tyrannical power (read: outside of a Republic or Democracy - put in order of effective restraint of power) are the greatest threat. History is full of these: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc.

It is my position that those in society who do not believe in a "why", but operate without threat to their fellow man, are living with internal contradictions. This can manifest itself in myriad ways, including bitterness and anger, or self-loathing, psychological problems, etc. Some strong people don't manifest at all. Rarely do they float through life without eventually displaying these problems.

It's those who do not believe in a purpose and operate without those internal contradictions that are truly capable of tremendous harm to others.

I don't expect you to understand what I just wrote. I mostly expressed it for those who do. You'll note that those who believe in God have not been antagonistic to those who don't. The reverse, clearly, isn't true.

This fits the explanation I've given above.

redmaxx

09-03-2009, 11:57 AM

I need you to up the level of care in your argument. Read what I bolded and explain to me how it makes any sense at all that you deny believing Science will provide you with answers while simultaneously assuming it will. :confuse3:

I don't know that you're going to get anywhere. Mixels did the same thing about assigning responsibility to God for Adam and Eve's actions, several times.

IMMensaMind

09-03-2009, 12:00 PM

I don't know that you're going to get anywhere. Mixels did the same thing about assigning responsibility to God for Adam and Eve's actions, several times.

C'est La Vie. These arguments do not bring about conversion to an alternate set of beliefs quickly, so they are engaged for their long-term effect, and for those who lurk.

Homefrrie

09-03-2009, 12:14 PM

I think you are in denial of exactly what your own faith means, and demands. There are those who believe in God, and go to Church, but are far from zealous. They, too, could call their persuasion a 'hobby', if they wish, but what it really is is an escape; a habit; a communal activity - whatever it is. The point is that they do it, motivated at least partially by trust in the act.

Just like you are with Science. It is your faith and religion. I think you're stuck on the eschatological definition of religion, when in point of fact it's unimportant upon what an individual's religion is based. What matters is solely what type of morays it supports.

If your belief system results in you being unable to stop other's stigmatization of a person of faith, I find it harmful. If your belief system renders you unable to support politicians who defend the right to free expression of religion through speech or practice, I find it harmful.

My belief system tells me not to believe anything until it has been proven to me with factual evidence. If someone tells me the Spaghetti monster created everything we know, I want proof.

If you cannot understand that the concept of "separation of church and state" is a contrived position intended to attack free expression, I find it harmful.

And so on.

Good. Do you support a public school offering an elective course on the Bible? Your answer really defines the veracity of your statement.

As long as there are elective courses in every other religion, I don't see any harm in that. I don't see why a public school should offer an elective on the Bible, but deny a similar course on the Koran. I would however have a problem with said course being mandatory.

My 10,000 words in this thread seem to bely your claim.

False Dichotomy - and not at all what I was arguing regardless. My argument would be supported by a Superior Intelligence arriving and announcing (with evidence) that they planted the seeds of life on this planet, and it became Man and all Things, thus substantianting the claims of the IDers.

That is not "belief". That is knowledge. The implications of the difference is where the meat and potatoes of these arguments reside.

Then by that same law of probability, you'd have to support the notion of ID, as the claim is simply that there is an Intelligence which is capable of Creating All Things.

Because surely within an Infinity such a Being must exist. Right? Or have, in all your musings on probability, neatly compartmentalized the concept that other forms of life couldn't possibly involved a being of such a level of Superiority? Or One which could Lord over it all?

Why must such a being exist? If we do not fully understand everything around us yet, then I dont understand how one can make the assumption that an ID'er(s) must exist?

Do I deny that such a being exists? No I don't. I'm open to any/all suggestions as to when/why/how, but like I said... until those suggestions are proven to me, I'll reserve judgement.

Mixels

09-03-2009, 12:21 PM

I need you to up the level of care in your argument. Read what I bolded and explain to me how it makes any sense at all that you deny believing Science will provide you with answers while simultaneously assuming it will. :confuse3:
Simple: I believe that it very likely will provide those answers to the human race. This isn't a binary, you know: I'm genuinely somewhere in-between believing it will and believing it won't. And, as I said, it very likely will not provide those answers to me. I'll be dead. The quip about ghosts was sarcasm, in case you missed it.

You don't believe there's a "why" - I know that; it's been my contention. Do you ever wonder why a child has the capacity to ask that question, but you do not? :look:

Being unable to ask why is the quintessential expression of closed-mindedness. It's such a hollow existence to operate with the premise that there is no reason for anything - because it follows that if you find no reason for anything, then there is no reason for you, either.
Did you read what I wrote? At all? I never once said anything even close to what you seem to think I did.

And no consequence; no limitations/taboos/etc. It results in the very breakdown of culture. I believe everyone who participates in society is affected by the morays of those surrounding them; they rub off. People who do not believe in God, and by extension do not believe in a purpose to everything, are still, to varying degrees, constricted/affected/influenced by the morays established by the remainder of their culture, most of whom do believe in God, and in Purpose. To the degree that they shed the manifestations of these morays aligns in exact proportion to the degree to which such individuals become a threat to those increasingly unlike them.
We are big kids, you know. We understand how to play nice. And, like you, we have a vested interest in doing so. Our disbelief in God does not turn us off to the benefits of a civilized culture. We do not warmonger, we do not murder, we do not rape simply because we do not answer to a higher power. Many of us--though admittedly not all, as is the case with Christians and other (called extremists in the context of politics) groups--are humanitarians. We are philosophers, artists, lovers, mathematicians, leaders, teachers, and servicemen, just like believers. Like it or not, civility can exist without belief in God. How you reconcile yourself with that is your business, but to disregard that reality completely is to create the volatile scenario you so strongly fear. Do not preempt a violence that does not exist, unless your goal is for another blood bath to stain the pages of that good book of yours.

People who do not believe in God and attain power are the highest (lowest?) examples of such threats. People who do not believe in God and attain tyrannical power (read: outside of a Republic or Democracy - put in order of effective restraint of power) are the greatest threat. History is full of these: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc.
Do you really want me to make a list of the Christian leaders that share that same sort of infamy? We are a violent people. That violence is not restricted to either secularist agendas or religious ones. It is universal, and our object as civilized individuals is to defeat it. Both secularists and religious followers have proven successful in this pursuit time and time again.

It is my position that those in society who do not believe in a "why", but operate without threat to their fellow man, are living with internal contradictions. This can manifest itself in myriad ways, including bitterness and anger, or self-loathing, psychological problems, etc. Some strong people don't manifest at all. Rarely do they float through life without eventually displaying these problems.
Ok. And how many of those people do you genuinely think are out there? Or are you using the idea of "asking why" as a euphemism for believing in God?

It's those who do not believe in a purpose and operate without those internal contradictions that are truly capable of tremendous harm to others.
Want to bet?

I don't expect you to understand what I just wrote. I mostly expressed it for those who do. You'll note that those who believe in God have not been antagonistic to those who don't. The reverse, clearly, isn't true.

This fits the explanation I've given above.
Are you kidding? I know you're not, but I feel an impulsive need to force myself to believe that you are.

darkfrog

09-03-2009, 02:07 PM

Even a scintilla of disdain in your reactions to posts from any believer in God (and you're no where near as guilty of such displays of emotion as other posters are) belies that undercurrent of belief.

If you show disdain for a believer, you are implying that people shouldn't believe. If you think it is crazy to believe, you are saying the same thing.

Link to where I show disdain to believers. I think I have been very respectful of other people's spiritual beliefs.
e in our surroundings. It is the only input we have. Even our own psychological structures support the notion of God, which is where (if the notion of God wasn't interjected by God Himself - as described in the Old Testament, where He had interaction with people that formed the basis of today's belief) this belief arose.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. It is a very human thing to believe in a god. That however could be psychological like you said, not necessarily because the the true existence of such a god. It is also within our makeup to follow strong leaders, to be curious and look for answers, to wonder about things we cannot know like what happens after we die.
BTW: I do notice conscious, sub-, or unconscious efforts on your part to affect the premise here: you interject the word "natural", when this discussion holds that at issue. It may not be "natural" at all, but created...but...carry on...:lol:

Very conscious. What do you think is the definition of a natural process? You seem to be arguing there is no such thing since everything is ultimately derived from God but I think that is disingenuous and is discounting my POV.
Again, if I am misunderstanding, please forgive me but try to elaborate if you will.

In short, while we can, via secular science, gain access to a greater understanding of how these phenomenon take place, we are not addressing why these phenomenon take place. The why gives the meaning.
We do look at the why. We haven't necessarily found it but I think we are moving closer. Cosmology addresses subjects like the flatness problem, the horizon problem, why things have mass which creates intertia (see the Higgs Ocean), why there is a universe at all. Natural Selection addresses the why there is a diversity of life, not just how. Atomic theory and quantum mechanics tries to address why everything (matter and energy) interacts, not just how.

The reason these answers don't seem fulfilling to you is because of the lack of the interaction of you God, IMO.

The former, though, is why people like Epiphyte (IIRC) can say "evolution takes place for no purpose whatsoever". I find such a response very hollow; unfulfilling, and the cause of less trust in those who would have such ideology.

Why is it so hard to believe that some things in this world have not directed purpose? Evolution is blind, but extremely powerful, intricate and beautiful. I'm sorry that you cannot see the wonder and awe in Nature that gives us such a rich diversity of life. I am amazed that such a blind mechanism can give rise to beings that can question their own existence and ultimately crack the code of how we got here. If it wasn't for a chance asteroid, we could still be scurrying little furry creatures escaping the clutches of large lizards.
Which is why I've attempted to restrain this topic to deism. Theism is much too convoluted, and requires the acceptance of the premise of deism with which to begin.
Yet you are arguing for theistic intervention. Deism doesn't involve the deity after the creation of the world. Only theism allows for the ongoing influence of a designer and interaction in the cosmos.

If that were all there were to it, this thread would not have lasted 150 pages.
This thread has lasted so long not because atheistic beliefs harm theists but because evolution is attacked by certain religious people as non-scientific and a religion. They also attempt to infuse public schools with the misguided idea that there is a legitimate scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution. There has also been numerous attempts to explain aspects of evolutionary theory to those that obviously have limited understanding of it and unfortunately these things often have to be repeated when new people jump into the thread without reading what was already posted.

IMMensaMind

09-03-2009, 02:29 PM

My belief system tells me not to believe anything until it has been proven to me with factual evidence. If someone tells me the Spaghetti monster created everything we know, I want proof.

That's not exactly true. Do you eat every meal only after having it tested for poisons? My point is: you exercise a whopping amount of faith every day.

As long as there are elective courses in every other religion, I don't see any harm in that. I don't see why a public school should offer an elective on the Bible, but deny a similar course on the Koran. I would however have a problem with said course being mandatory.

We can generally agree here. I, for one, do not have trouble with courses being made availlable if they are requested and attended.

Why must such a being exist? If we do not fully understand everything around us yet, then I dont understand how one can make the assumption that an ID'er(s) must exist?

Do I deny that such a being exists? No I don't. I'm open to any/all suggestions as to when/why/how, but like I said... until those suggestions are proven to me, I'll reserve judgement.

You believe there are aliens, but you have no evidence - so what makes that different? That, too, is an article of faith that you possess, in violation of your first claim. You haven't grasped the implications of ∞ wrt this conversation. ∞ requires everything not only is possible, but is. It is closely parallel to the multi-verse theory, which presupposes that there is a universe somewhere in which anything you can imagine is happening.

Phreaker47

09-03-2009, 03:04 PM

Unless you have credible proof that "common sense" is a measurable and scientifically empirical fact, maybe you should probably say "in my humble opinion" instead of trying to claim "common sense" as specifically something only like minded people hold.... Just my humble opinion...

Maybe you should read what I was responding to again. I was simply stating that there are other reasons to doubt biblical creationism other than "the left demanding scientific proof for everything." This would include things outside the scope of science, such as doubting the conceptual soundness of biblical claims.

Homefrrie

09-03-2009, 03:05 PM

You believe there are aliens, but you have no evidence - so what makes that different?

I believe there are other forms of life in the universe, based on estimations on the number of 'stars' and galaxies that exist within the known universe.

That's slightly different than believing that 1 almighty being created everything that we know/will know.

Phreaker47

09-03-2009, 03:07 PM

I believe there are other forms of life in the universe, based on estimations on the number of 'stars' that exist the known universe.

That's slightly different than believing that 1 almighty being created everything that we know/will know.

It's different than insisting that one particular account is true.

It would only be a valid comparison if you claimed that not only did alien life exist, but that you knew exactly where it was and could describe their appearance and characteristics.

superdan54

09-03-2009, 10:30 PM

The multiverse theory is interesting but to assert it as true would certainly be illogical given we have no evidence for it. It also has the same infinite regression gap that every other version of creation has..so yes if someone asserted the source of all creation is a multiverse that has "just been there" forever and ever, their position would hold no more merit than those who believe Zeus, Shiva, or Yahweh have "just been there" forever.

I don't think this is necessarily illogical. An infinite regression is paradoxical w/in itself, and nothing can absolutely tangibly identified as the source of all creation so we are forced to decide between apathy and faith. Between the two, I don't feel faith is less logical.

Being ignorant of the "source" of all creation is not a comfortable position and I don't like being in it, but I've come to accept it as necessary. It hasn't been a comfortable position for humanity to be in either..which is why we've invented hundreds of different religions over the centuries to give us some "closure" on the issue. I would like a solid answer for the true foundation of everything.. This is why I love theoretical physics and scientific attempts to probe the deepest mysteries of nature (string theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory), etc) The effort to find the fundamental truths and the fundamental substance everything is made of is really fascinating and can amount to a pretty "Holy" experience once you start to grasp it. ;) For agnostics or atheists, the relentless pursuit of truth is as close as we can come to "religion", and I don't understand why theists see this as such a threat. There should be no conflict between us. If you believe in some traditional religion with an all-powerful creator, you should consider scientific progress a path to "know the mind of God." After all, we are merely using the faculties HE gave us to seek answers and learn about his creation. Is that really a sin? It's time for religious people to discard old dogmas, stop resisting change, and stop denying new evidence when it conflicts with a particular interpretation of an ancient scripture. I know this is a tall order, but imagine how much better the world would be if all of humanity could unite behind the quest for absolute TRUTH..using our God-given tools of reason and rationality to seek it together..

Perhaps we have more in common than you think. (Did you see the quote in my signature? ;))

Let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya. :hug:

Ok but you realize that one is sung to Yahweh...:D

superdan54

09-03-2009, 11:11 PM

I understand what you're saying, but there are still issues. First of all, God's ability to create a rock so large he cannot lift it is an inherent paradox. This is one of the arguments atheists commonly cite against God's omnipotence, actually. Paradoxes are a philosopher's best friend.

Regardless, God's omnipotence is a requisite of the Judeo-Christian perspective on God. If God is not omnipotent, this entire argument is moot because the most principle aspect of God's alleged existence will have been proven false, meaning if some really ridiculously powerful God-like being does exist, we have no business worshiping it because we really have no clue who or what it is.

Further, though, I don't see anything inherently paradoxical about the idea of God creating a human that is just as good (or just as powerful) as he is. Can you point out how your general argument against God's omnipotence applies here? Are you trying to claim that the impossibility of God's omnipotence implies that God may not have been powerful or capable enough to actually do as I suggest?

The problem is that you still have a flawed definition of omnipotence. You're assigning power on a scale that can potentially reach infinity. To you, anything an entity cannot do puts a finite bound in said entity's potential omnipotence. This is simply not the case. God's omnipotence is not quantitative, but rather qualitative. It's the actual infinite of all possible things. Anything illogical or contrary to his nature is simply outside of this actual infinity.

I wish I was a better philosopher. All these come across perfectly in my head, but I struggle to translate them into writing. Hopefully this makes some sense, though. I like these discussions but I've been to busy lately to really invest any time in them.

Mixels

09-04-2009, 09:06 AM

The problem is that you still have a flawed definition of omnipotence. You're assigning power on a scale that can potentially reach infinity. To you, anything an entity cannot do puts a finite bound in said entity's potential omnipotence. This is simply not the case. God's omnipotence is not quantitative, but rather qualitative. It's the actual infinite of all possible things. Anything illogical or contrary to his nature is simply outside of this actual infinity.

I wish I was a better philosopher. All these come across perfectly in my head, but I struggle to translate them into writing. Hopefully this makes some sense, though. I like these discussions but I've been to busy lately to really invest any time in them.

I understand what you're saying. I'm saying the same thing. I'm saying that the inherent paradoxes in doing certain things, because they are outside the realm of possibility (unless the rules of the universe were to be changed in some unintelligible way), do not contradict the supposed omnipotence of God--that God can be omnipotent in spite of these impossibilities because they are not included in the range of things that are possible (or, in other words, they are not things that "God can't do" but rather things that can't happen, period). However, I'm also saying that the possibility for humanity to have been created equally powerful and good as God is not precluded by such a paradox because that sort of paradox does not exist for said possibility. That was how this whole tangent got started, if I remember right.

darkfrog

09-18-2009, 01:01 AM

http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww176/mindphuk_photos/per_table.gif

superdan54

09-18-2009, 07:58 AM

OK even if that was a tad humorous, was it really necessary to necromance this thread once again just to point and laugh at teh stoopid creationists? :P

darkfrog

09-18-2009, 10:36 AM

OK even if that was a tad humorous, was it really necessary to necromance this thread once again just to point and laugh at teh stoopid creationists? :P
Uhh, yep!

superdan54

09-18-2009, 10:42 AM

Uhh, yep!

Well jokes on you, you forgot heart (http://www.turner.com/planet/static/ma-ti.html) from the table of elements. Captain Planet is angry, indeed.

darkfrog

09-18-2009, 10:45 AM

Libertarian

09-18-2009, 11:51 AM

BTW, in some of the discussions it appears that some people don't understand the significance of the twin nested hierarchy as it relates to common ancestry with confirmations from biochemistry and genetics like Human Chromosome 2 should really watch some of AronRa's videos, especially http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y which also discusses observed speciation and the barrier fallacy that supposedly allows for microevolution but not macro. In fact, if you are a die-hard creationist, I challenge you to watch the whole series.

I don't think there are any die hard creationists left here..not even superdan. Admit it Dan...I've been watching you over the past few months and I've seen small "cracks" developing in your shell. ;) Deep down you have seen the light of reason, but I can tell you're having a hard time letting go of the old Bible stories you were brought up with.

I'm sure it must be difficult, but there really is no reason you can't keep your faith in God while also accepting what science has shown us about reality. You just need to accept that some of the tales in the Bible (talking snakes, floating cherubs with flaming swords, women being turned into salt, etc.) might not be literally true.

darkfrog

09-18-2009, 12:10 PM

I don't think there are any die hard creationists left here..not even superdan. Admit it Dan...I've been watching you over the past few months and I've seen small "cracks" developing in your shell. ;) Deep down you have seen the light of reason, but I can tell you're having a hard time letting go of the old Bible stories you were brought up with.

I'm sure it must be difficult, but there really is no reason you can't keep your faith in God while also accepting what science has shown us about reality. You just need to accept that some of the tales in the Bible (talking snakes, floating cherubs with flaming swords, women being turned into salt, etc.) might not be literally true.
I've been trying to get burningrave101 to leave the Darwin movie thread and discuss the issue here. I'm sure there are still plenty of die-hard creationists here but they don't have any more arguments except to continually deny the facts. I suspect they see their position is weak from a logical perspective and they certainly cannot debate the science so they just ignore the evidence and continue on with their blinders on.

Yes, superdan has certainly come around, but that was inevitable since he is intelligent and investigates claims to the best of his ability. Anyone with an open mind will eventually come to the inescapable conclusion that evolution occurred. Whether the universe and life was started by a divine spark or not, common ancestry and descent with modification are truths because the evidence cannot be interpreted in any other way. The typical claim that a designer re-uses parts does not explain the branching tree that shows a steady progression from simple to more complex organisms that can be traced in numerous ways (unless of course the designer is deceitful and purposely made it only appear that evolution happened).

superdan54

09-18-2009, 12:49 PM

I don't think there are any die hard creationists left here..not even superdan. Admit it Dan...I've been watching you over the past few months and I've seen small "cracks" developing in your shell. ;) Deep down you have seen the light of reason, but I can tell you're having a hard time letting go of the old Bible stories you were brought up with.

I'm sure it must be difficult, but there really is no reason you can't keep your faith in God while also accepting what science has shown us about reality. You just need to accept that some of the tales in the Bible (talking snakes, floating cherubs with flaming swords, women being turned into salt, etc.) might not be literally true.

Ha, ok! Truth is, I haven't been a die-hard YEC (or Biblical literalist) in years, heck I wasn't one when I came to this forum almost 3 years ago. I was still strongly sentimental towards it, holding out **some** hope that it was simply and literally true. But I had serious doubts and reservations. I guess in essence the outline of what you're saying is pretty much true, but your scope is off. The only thing different in the past several months is that I've went from seeing evolution as possible to probable.

btw - what other cracks are you referring to? If you want to challenge the merits of my faith in Christ's redemption, you'll find no less a fight in me than before ;).

talgot

09-18-2009, 01:41 PM

Ha, ok! Truth is, I haven't been a die-hard YEC (or Biblical literalist) in years, heck I wasn't one when I came to this forum almost 3 years ago. I was still strongly sentimental towards it, holding out **some** hope that it was simply and literally true. But I had serious doubts and reservations. I guess in essence the outline of what you're saying is pretty much true, but your scope is off. The only thing different in the past several months is that I've went from seeing evolution as possible to probable.

btw - what other cracks are you referring to? If you want to challenge the merits of my faith in Christ's redemption, you'll find no less a fight in me than before ;).

Jesus referred to the creation God made and that he created all things many times. I am not sure how one can jive evolution and Christ and say one is literally true and one isn't? Just my 2 cents. Honestly Dan I love ya, but if the God you worship is one of mistakes and change through mistakes, I am not sure I am on board with that kind of God. And btw that would make Moses, David and others in the OT as well being wrong or not to be believed. No one should take any of their accounts as litteral if you believe in evolution IMO. They beleived in special creation by God.

And let me say as well , I may be considered a YEC but I am not tied down to 10k years... Just not seeing the billion thing as plausable.

Epiphyte

09-18-2009, 02:36 PM

Jesus referred to the creation God made and that he created all things many times. I am not sure how one can jive evolution and Christ and say one is literally true and one isn't? Just my 2 cents.

If God kick started the Universe, then every single thing in it could be said to have been his work. Same goes for God kick starting life and then letting it do its thing, evolve. Evolution can simply be a tool that God uses to make a diverse array of life, can't it?

superdan54

09-18-2009, 02:55 PM

Jesus referred to the creation God made and that he created all things many times. I am not sure how one can jive evolution and Christ and say one is literally true and one isn't? Just my 2 cents. Honestly Dan I love ya, but if the God you worship is one of mistakes and change through mistakes, I am not sure I am on board with that kind of God.

I think the problem you are coming up against is the age old debate of chaos vs. determinism. Is everything simply a product of chance, or is there purpose behind creation? You seem to think that evolution negates the idea of purpose/design, but I do not.

Furthermore, I think your dilemma is no different than the problem of reconciling the free will of man with God's sovereignty/predestination, in fact I think the two are completely intertwined. In other words, does God predetermine who will be saved or is man free to choose his own destiny? The Bible indicates both are true. Why should the same not be for Creation as well? What if there is ultimately purpose and determinism in evolution, resulting in humanity, but powered along the way by countless mistakes (i.e. mutations). How is that any different than our own path to salvation, which was ultimately perfected in Christ, but littered along the way with countless sins, from Adam's to our own?

Did God cause all our sins along the way? If so, then there can be no accountability for sin. If not, you'll hopefully see that I'm not worshiping a God of mistakes, I'm worshiping one who is both infinite and personal, eternal yet present, three persons yet one Godhead and uses both free will/chaos and determinism to bring about the master plan. That said, I understand where you are coming from and your reservations. I loathe to think I would cause a brother to stumble.

FWIW - The following article is a good illustration of what I'm getting at in regards to God using both chaos & determinism in evolution:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/god-evol.htm

And btw that would make Moses, David and others in the OT as well being wrong or not to be believed. No one should take any of their accounts as litteral if you believe in evolution IMO. They beleived in special creation by God.

I don't see how adding one more natural process to the countless natural laws governing the universe negates the idea of creation as given by David (or any other OT prophet for that matter):

Psalm 19:1-2

1 For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.

What are the heavens telling us about? Why are we so afraid to hear what they are saying?

darkfrog

09-18-2009, 04:13 PM

And let me say as well , I may be considered a YEC but I am not tied down to 10k years... Just not seeing the billion thing as plausable.
Why is it not plausible? Because it goes counter to the book which you worship? Multiple streams of evidence points to an ancient earth about 4.6 billion years old. The only thing you have to support your belief is a book written by men, not gods or angels, that were clearly fallible and had little understanding of the natural world. They may have been inspired by God but they certainly didn't author anything approaching divine knowledge on matters of the earth or the universe as evidenced by the many incorrect explanations attributed to aspects of the natural world especially cosmology. It has been argued that some of these mistakes should be looked upon as mere poetic metaphors but if that's true, why not the whole story of creation, which in Hebrew could certainly be read as poetry?

Copperblade

09-18-2009, 11:15 PM

catluver

09-18-2009, 11:21 PM

I think the problem you are coming up against is the age old debate of chaos vs. determinism. Is everything simply a product of chance, or is there purpose behind creation? You seem to think that evolution negates the idea of purpose/design, but I do not.

Furthermore, I think your dilemma is no different than the problem of reconciling the free will of man with God's sovereignty/predestination, in fact I think the two are completely intertwined. In other words, does God predetermine who will be saved or is man free to choose his own destiny? The Bible indicates both are true. Why should the same not be for Creation as well? What if there is ultimately purpose and determinism in evolution, resulting in humanity, but powered along the way by countless mistakes (i.e. mutations). How is that any different than our own path to salvation, which was ultimately perfected in Christ, but littered along the way with countless sins, from Adam's to our own?

Did God cause all our sins along the way? If so, then there can be no accountability for sin. If not, you'll hopefully see that I'm not worshiping a God of mistakes, I'm worshiping one who is both infinite and personal, eternal yet present, three persons yet one Godhead and uses both free will/chaos and determinism to bring about the master plan. That said, I understand where you are coming from and your reservations. I loathe to think I would cause a brother to stumble.

FWIW - The following article is a good illustration of what I'm getting at in regards to God using both chaos & determinism in evolution:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/god-evol.htm

I don't see how adding one more natural process to the countless natural laws governing the universe negates the idea of creation as given by David (or any other OT prophet for that matter):

Psalm 19:1-2

1 For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.

What are the heavens telling us about? Why are we so afraid to hear what they are saying?

You are making it way to complicated. Either you believe or you don't (in the Bible)

darkfrog

09-18-2009, 11:45 PM

I think the problem you are coming up against is the age old debate of chaos vs. determinism. Is everything simply a product of chance, or is there purpose behind creation? You seem to think that evolution negates the idea of purpose/design, but I do not.

Furthermore, I think your dilemma is no different than the problem of reconciling the free will of man with God's sovereignty/predestination, in fact I think the two are completely intertwined. In other words, does God predetermine who will be saved or is man free to choose his own destiny? The Bible indicates both are true. Why should the same not be for Creation as well? What if there is ultimately purpose and determinism in evolution, resulting in humanity, but powered along the way by countless mistakes (i.e. mutations). How is that any different than our own path to salvation, which was ultimately perfected in Christ, but littered along the way with countless sins, from Adam's to our own?

Did God cause all our sins along the way? If so, then there can be no accountability for sin. If not, you'll hopefully see that I'm not worshiping a God of mistakes, I'm worshiping one who is both infinite and personal, eternal yet present, three persons yet one Godhead and uses both free will/chaos and determinism to bring about the master plan. That said, I understand where you are coming from and your reservations. I loathe to think I would cause a brother to stumble.

FWIW - The following article is a good illustration of what I'm getting at in regards to God using both chaos & determinism in evolution:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/god-evol.htm

Interesting link. I wonder if he thinks God sent the Chicxulub asteroid on its way to earth to kill of the dinosaurs in order to give mammals a chance. :lmao:

Sorry, but I find it odd that people believe that random events are deterministic, especially since the discovery of quantum uncertainty which appears to remove any possibility for determinism.

Demosthenes9

09-19-2009, 12:21 AM

nevermind. Decided that I didn't want to wade back into this afterall.

darkfrog

09-19-2009, 12:39 AM

MIght as well wade back in to this thread since it has been quite a while.

DF, as I understand it, things keep branching so to speak. For instance, we humans would somehow be descended from the very first mammal seeing as how we are mammals.

Which mammal was that and how long ago did it first start walking the earth ?
Well, depending on what you consider the first mammal to be, it would probably be a synapsid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid) but the earliest forms were not quite mammals, but considered mammal-like reptiles or proto-mammals and is a transitional form between reptiles and mammals. They were dominant during much of the Permian period ~300-251 Ma, most going extinct during the Permian-Triassic extinction. The Cynodonts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynodont)appeared near the end of the Permian and they are a therapsid that survived the extinction and went on to be the ancestor of the modern mammals.

[edit- noticed you edited your post while I had my reply open]

Demosthenes9

09-19-2009, 12:48 AM

Well, depending on what you consider the first mammal to be, it would probably be a synapsid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid) but the earliest forms were not quite mammals, but considered mammal-like reptiles or proto-mammals and is a transitional form between reptiles and mammals. They were dominant during much of the Permian period ~300-251 Ma, most going extinct during the Permian-Triassic extinction. The Cynodonts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynodont)appeared near the end of the Permian and they are a therapsid that survived the extinction and went on to be the ancestor of the modern mammals.

[edit- noticed you edited your post while I had my reply open]

It's all good. Thanks for the reply.

Was going to get into the whole question of the degree of change wrt the amount of time.

talgot

09-21-2009, 06:44 AM

I think the problem you are coming up against is the age old debate of chaos vs. determinism. Is everything simply a product of chance, or is there purpose behind creation? You seem to think that evolution negates the idea of purpose/design, but I do not. Chaos, as far as creation is concerned, has only been introduced due to sin, if you will. I do think evolution negates the idea of purpose and design. Heck, the very people here you are agreeing with more and more are trying to use evolution to do just that. If God is perfect than evolution would not be his instrament, in my view. If you are right then you have another problem. When did people become the image of God? if the image of God implies as I believe , not just a physical likelness but a spiritual likeness, than God lied that we were created in his image. For we are no better than a single cell or any other creature he made. When did God empower us with a soul? These are a few questions and problems that make evolution incompatible with God. Especially if you have any belief in the bible. To me you either believe the bible is the word of God or it is useless and just a book. I don't think I have the right to say what parts I can believe and what I can't. Either it is the word of God or it is not.

Furthermore, I think your dilemma is no different than the problem of reconciling the free will of man with God's sovereignty/predestination, in fact I think the two are completely intertwined. In other words, does God predetermine who will be saved or is man free to choose his own destiny? The Bible indicates both are true. Why should the same not be for Creation as well? What if there is ultimately purpose and determinism in evolution, resulting in humanity, but powered along the way by countless mistakes (i.e. mutations). How is that any different than our own path to salvation, which was ultimately perfected in Christ, but littered along the way with countless sins, from Adam's to our own? It is different in one key way. There is no basis for believing it through the bible. God infact tells us the opposite is true, that we were not made through mistakes... or again he lied when he said his creation was Good. I do agree with the first part of this statement. I think both seem to be true as far as free will and predetermination.

Did God cause all our sins along the way? If so, then there can be no accountability for sin. If not, you'll hopefully see that I'm not worshiping a God of mistakes, I'm worshiping one who is both infinite and personal, eternal yet present, three persons yet one Godhead and uses both free will/chaos and determinism to bring about the master plan. That said, I understand where you are coming from and your reservations. I loathe to think I would cause a brother to stumble. No he has not. We caused it. I view it all this way... Liek a computer program. The creator of this program lays out how he wants it to work.. the rules and all of its workings. Then comes a virus. But even though this virus corrupts the system the creator is not without its backup plans for the system to survive and be eventually as it once was. meaning God had his perfect path, and we screwed it up but he had other ways to get it back to that path if x,y or z happened.

FWIW - The following article is a good illustration of what I'm getting at in regards to God using both chaos & determinism in evolution:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/god-evol.htm

I don't see how adding one more natural process to the countless natural laws governing the universe negates the idea of creation as given by David (or any other OT prophet for that matter):

Psalm 19:1-2

1 For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.

What are the heavens telling us about? Why are we so afraid to hear what they are saying?
Ps. 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.

If God kick started the Universe, then every single thing in it could be said to have been his work. Same goes for God kick starting life and then letting it do its thing, evolve. Evolution can simply be a tool that God uses to make a diverse array of life, can't it? It could be.. but what would be the reason to believe this? what is the basis for it? To me it is a compromise that is not necessary.

talgot

09-21-2009, 06:51 AM

Why is it not plausible? Because it goes counter to the book which you worship? Multiple streams of evidence points to an ancient earth about 4.6 billion years old. The only thing you have to support your belief is a book written by men, not gods or angels, that were clearly fallible and had little understanding of the natural world. They may have been inspired by God but they certainly didn't author anything approaching divine knowledge on matters of the earth or the universe as evidenced by the many incorrect explanations attributed to aspects of the natural world especially cosmology. It has been argued that some of these mistakes should be looked upon as mere poetic metaphors but if that's true, why not the whole story of creation, which in Hebrew could certainly be read as poetry?
I do not worship a book. ;)

Epiphyte

09-21-2009, 08:05 AM

It could be.. but what would be the reason to believe this? what is the basis for it? To me it is a compromise that is not necessary.

I think you are expressing too much certainty in knowing how God does his work. God might be using evolution as a tool to create a diversity of life just like he uses gravity as a tool to manipulate his Universe.

talgot

09-21-2009, 08:14 AM

I think you are expressing too much certainty in knowing how God does his work. God might be using evolution as a tool to create a diversity of life just like he uses gravity as a tool to manipulate his Universe.

What I am saying is the God I worship gave his way. What is your basis for believing God exists at all? Mine is the bible and personal experiences. That is his word. That is the basis for my belief in him. Hence why it is not compatible with your line of thought. ou are welcome to believe in a god that did it that way.. but there is no basis for it other than just to hedge your bets or compromise. It is fine if you wish to believe that way.. just not mine.

Epiphyte

09-21-2009, 08:19 AM

What I am saying is the God I worship gave his way. What is your basis for believing God exists at all? Mine is the bible and personal experiences. That is his word. That is the basis for my belief in him. Hence why it is not compatible with your line of thought. ou are welcome to believe in a god that did it that way.. but there is no basis for it other than just to hedge your bets or compromise. It is fine if you wish to believe that way.. just not mine.

Does the bible mention gravity? If it does not then does that mean that God is intervening every time a ball is dropped? It could merely be a tool used by God to run the Universe he created. Just like evolution.

talgot

09-21-2009, 08:26 AM

Does the bible mention gravity? If it does not then does that mean that God is intervening every time a ball is dropped? It could merely be a tool used by God to run the Universe he created. Just like evolution.

Not sure how this has anything to do with what I was saying. Not the best example. The lack of specific mentioning doesn't preclude intervention on every ball drop. God created the rules to which we are governed by by definition.

Epiphyte

09-21-2009, 08:27 AM

Not sure how this has anything to do with what I was saying. Not the best example. The lack of specific mentioning doesn't preclude intervention on every ball drop. God created the rules to which we are governed by by definition.

And evolution could be one of the rules, just like gravity.

Copperblade

09-21-2009, 08:35 AM

If God is perfect than evolution would not be his instrament, in my view.

I think that's a somewhat unfair statement. If I say "why would a perfect being have a world with things like hurricane Katrina?" you'll say that we can't understand God's ways or purpose. Fine. But why make evolution, one of the most complex processes, the thing that is beneath a perfect God?

If you are right then you have another problem. When did people become the image of God? if the image of God implies as I believe , not just a physical likelness but a spiritual likeness, than God lied that we were created in his image. For we are no better than a single cell or any other creature he made. When did God empower us with a soul?

Well one view can be such as what C. S. Lewis speculated: that at some point in our evolutionary development that God breathed spirit into our bodies. And hence the creation of what you would call fully human.

These are a few questions and problems that make evolution incompatible with God. Especially if you have any belief in the bible. To me you either believe the bible is the word of God or it is useless and just a book. I don't think I have the right to say what parts I can believe and what I can't. Either it is the word of God or it is not.

No, they aren't incompatible. They're only incompatible if you adhere to a strict literal version of the Bible. Which, by the way, has two creation stories as has been mentioned here before. Just watch this first video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY) for an explanation and a beautiful quote (if you can find it). But of course, if you feel that your interpretation of the Bible is the only one that makes sense to you, you really have no choice.

talgot

09-21-2009, 09:40 AM

I think that's a somewhat unfair statement. If I say "why would a perfect being have a world with things like hurricane Katrina?" you'll say that we can't understand God's ways or purpose. Fine. But why make evolution, one of the most complex processes, the thing that is beneath a perfect God? The simple answer is Katrina was a result of sin introduced to the world. He created a perfect world. That came after man screwed it up. But I wouldn't say in this instance what you thought I would say. Nothing is beneath him. If one is to put God in the equation, we have no other authority or word from him to say evolution was used. I believe the bible is God's word. That would be a contradiction to say evolution is the cause when it says the opposite in his word. If you choose not to beleive it is his word then you are much freer to believe any scenario you wish.

Well one view can be such as what C. S. Lewis speculated: that at some point in our evolutionary development that God breathed spirit into our bodies. And hence the creation of what you would call fully human. Where is there any authority to claim such? The bible surely doesn't. If that is what you want to believe, fine. but then(IMO) you are not basing that on the God of the Bible. His word never says any such thing and would actually contradict such a statement.

No, they aren't incompatible. They're only incompatible if you adhere to a strict literal version of the Bible. Which, by the way, has two creation stories as has been mentioned here before. Just watch this first video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY) for an explanation and a beautiful quote (if you can find it). But of course, if you feel that your interpretation of the Bible is the only one that makes sense to you, you really have no choice. I am not able to at this time to listen to the 2 creation account vid. If you could sumarize the reasoning for the 2 they claim I can discuss it. Or it will have to wait for another time.

And evolution could be one of the rules, just like gravity.

Except the bible contradicts that he used evolution. God cannot lie and his word would be a lie if it was used. God and evolution just cannot live together. Not macro evolution.

Epiphyte

09-21-2009, 09:44 AM

Except the bible contradicts that he used evolution. God cannot lie and his word would be a lie if it was used. God and evolution just cannot live together. Not macro evolution.

It's only a lie if you want it to be. If God is responsible for the creation of all life on Earth, even each specific creature, one could say that he does this through evolution.

talgot

09-21-2009, 10:02 AM

It's only a lie if you want it to be. If God is responsible for the creation of all life on Earth, even each specific creature, one could say that he does this through evolution.

It has nothing to do with if i want it to be or not. You need to actually read the creation account to realize this. Your only other option to get around this fact is do as many others who want it both ways... just discount the creation account as true and not God's word but just a story.

Epiphyte

09-21-2009, 10:15 AM

It has nothing to do with if i want it to be or not. You need to actually read the creation account to realize this. Your only other option to get around this fact is do as many others who want it both ways... just discount the creation account as true and not God's word but just a story.

The Bible can be interpreted in many ways. Your interpretation (every reading is an interpretation) may not allow for evolution. But, other Christians may have an interpretation that does allow for evolution.

redmaxx

09-21-2009, 10:17 AM

talgot

09-21-2009, 10:18 AM

The Bible can be interpreted in many ways. Your interpretation (every reading is an interpretation) may not allow for evolution. But, other Christians may have an interpretation that does allow for evolution.

if only you and others used the same reasoning for evolutionary evidences we could agree more. But unfortunately I fear this is a one way street and would not get the same response from your side viewinf evolutionary data.:nod:

talgot

09-21-2009, 10:22 AM

Don't you think you're being a little bit presumptuous in saying that your reading, your interpretation of it is the only right one?

What am I misreading? And when did i say people were not entitled to their belief? many of times did I not write "IMO" ?? Am I surely not entitled to challenge views of the bible? We do it all the time when in a discussion and or debate.

Libertarian

09-21-2009, 10:22 AM

It has nothing to do with if i want it to be or not. You need to actually read the creation account to realize this. Your only other option to get around this fact is do as many others who want it both ways... just discount the creation account as true and not God's word but just a story.

Except the bible contradicts that he used evolution. God cannot lie and his word would be a lie if it was used. God and evolution just cannot live together. Not macro evolution.

Your predicament can be solved with the realization of a very simple fact..that the bible is a collection of man-made stories, and is not the "word" of a supernatural being.

talgot

09-21-2009, 10:27 AM

Your predicament can be solved with the realization of a very simple fact..that the bible is a collection of man-made stories, and is not the "word" of a supernatural being.

That might solve yours and many who wish it to be, but it doesn't matter if you or I believe it to be. The truth doesn't require believers to believe in it.

And actually I do not have any predicament. I am at peace with my beliefs.

redmaxx

09-21-2009, 10:44 AM

What am I misreading? And when did i say people were not entitled to their belief? many of times did I not write "IMO" ?? Am I surely not entitled to challenge views of the bible? We do it all the time when in a discussion and or debate.

You said that the way you read it is "fact" and that there's no room for God to have used evolution as a tool.

Copperblade

09-21-2009, 11:24 AM

The simple answer is Katrina was a result of sin introduced to the world. He created a perfect world. That came after man screwed it up. But I wouldn't say in this instance what you thought I would say. Nothing is beneath him. If one is to put God in the equation, we have no other authority or word from him to say evolution was used. I believe the bible is God's word. That would be a contradiction to say evolution is the cause when it says the opposite in his word. If you choose not to beleive it is his word then you are much freer to believe any scenario you wish.

It makes no sense to say that Katrina was a result of sin. How does that work? You mean God is punishing people? I don't think you have to look very far to see that bad people don't always get punished, and that good people never get punished.

So again, how is this perfect? How is it that evolution is beneath a God that will essentially carpet bomb a whole city based on sin? Did everyone who got hit by the hurricane deserving of that?

You're right, I didn't think you'd say something that crazy. It's exactly the same as the natives sacrificing people to the volcano god.

Where is there any authority to claim such? The bible surely doesn't. If that is what you want to believe, fine. but then(IMO) you are not basing that on the God of the Bible. His word never says any such thing and would actually contradict such a statement.

Same place authority comes from that claims the Bible needs to be taken literally. Again, there are two creation stories in the Bible, so which one is right? Upon what authority were the books of the Bible decided on? Why isn't the Gospel of Thomas part of the Bible?

I am not able to at this time to listen to the 2 creation account vid. If you could sumarize the reasoning for the 2 they claim I can discuss it. Or it will have to wait for another time.

Here: http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/1stFFoC.html

Except the bible contradicts that he used evolution. God cannot lie and his word would be a lie if it was used. God and evolution just cannot live together. Not macro evolution.

"to treat the Bible as though it were common history is to degrade its eternal meaning"

No personal offense intended, but I honestly think people such as yourself degrade the meaning of the Bible. You take something full of beauty and meaning, and turn it into a base and crass set of rules and "facts." I would expect a much more sophisticated book than that from divine inspiration.

darkfrog

09-21-2009, 11:29 AM

I do not worship a book. ;)
You sure act like you worship it. You put more effort into defending it then would seem reasonable for a book written by men, infallible ones at that. You also seem to agree that certain parts are metaphor, except the ones you claim are literal. How are you supposed to know which is which?

Copperblade

09-21-2009, 11:32 AM

That might solve yours and many who wish it to be, but it doesn't matter if you or I believe it to be. The truth doesn't require believers to believe in it.

And actually I do not have any predicament. I am at peace with my beliefs.

So do you think that God planted all the evolutionary evidence? All the millions of extinct species we've found evidence for certainly make it seem that God wanted us to think evolution occurred, whether you believe it did or not.

superdan54

09-21-2009, 12:07 PM

Sorry, but I find it odd that people believe that random events are deterministic, especially since the discovery of quantum uncertainty which appears to remove any possibility for determinism.

Schrodinger's dead/alive cat wants to disagree with you. Why would determinism from God's perspective be ruled out, especially if he did know all the potential possibilities of reality simultaneously?

darkfrog

09-21-2009, 12:42 PM

Schrodinger's dead/alive cat wants to disagree with you. Why would determinism from God's perspective be ruled out, especially if he did know all the potential possibilities of reality simultaneously?
Not sure what you are trying to say here. Schrodinger reinforced the idea that reality isn't determined until observed, at least at the subatomic level. Heisenberg and others showed that the subatomic world is random and therefore not deterministic. If a particle does not have a definite location but only different probabilities of appearing in various locations, how can anything be predicted? Add to that chaos theory that shows that very small changes in starting conditions can produce very different outcomes, it's only logical to see how quantum uncertainties make for non-determinism.

superdan54

09-21-2009, 12:44 PM

Chaos, as far as creation is concerned, has only been introduced due to sin, if you will. I do think evolution negates the idea of purpose and design. Heck, the very people here you are agreeing with more and more are trying to use evolution to do just that.

It's interesting that you compare design to a computer program below. To me it's really no different, except that evolution is a program designed with some built in A.I. Are you less awestruck of the aurora borealis because you know how they are naturally formed? Or do you see design in them, despite the natural process of solar flares powering them? Why should evolution then be a knock on design...it is yet another amazing wonderful natural process we can observe.

If God is perfect than evolution would not be his instrament, in my view. If you are right then you have another problem. When did people become the image of God? if the image of God implies as I believe , not just a physical likelness but a spiritual likeness, than God lied that we were created in his image.

I guess first tell me what the "image of God" means? I'm not so sure it means "soul" anymore, after all the Hebrew for soul (nephesh) is also applied to animals as well.

For we are no better than a single cell or any other creature he made.

Well God did tell Adam "You are dust." (Gen 3:19) I don't think that is any better than being compared to a single cell ;).

These are a few questions and problems that make evolution incompatible with God. Especially if you have any belief in the bible. To me you either believe the bible is the word of God or it is useless and just a book. I don't think I have the right to say what parts I can believe and what I can't. Either it is the word of God or it is not.

It could be.. but what would be the reason to believe this? what is the basis for it? To me it is a compromise that is not necessary.

Well I see that you've got quite a bit teaming up on you, so I really don't want to add to that. In fact, I truly do understand where you are coming from, I know where your heart is and your desire to "abide in the Word". In all honesty, I would MUCH rather you conform to His likeness and simply seek first the Kingdom of God, than with troubling yourself with questions of ages and such. It is something I believe God gives to some and not to others. I'm not going to lie, once you head down that path, you will run in to snags and doubts and such. After all, even Solomon himself once said "increasing knowledge results in increasing pain." (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

However, he also said "How much better it is to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding is to be chosen above silver." (Proverbs 16:16) That is what I feel God's purpose is for me so far in life, and he has orchestrated people around me in this very manner. I trust God is using you in His own way as well.

btw - catluver, I hope that answers your question, I make it complicated b/c I feel it's God's calling for me to make it so...capiche? :D

superdan54

09-21-2009, 12:48 PM

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Schrodinger reinforced the idea that reality isn't determined until observed, at least at the subatomic level. Heisenberg and others showed that the subatomic world is random and therefore not deterministic. If a particle does not have a definite location but only different probabilities of appearing in various locations, how can anything be predicted? Add to that chaos theory that shows that very small changes in starting conditions can produce very different outcomes, it's only logical to see how quantum uncertainties make for non-determinism.

I'm trying to say that from God's perspective all reality (& possible realities) are observed, unlike our limitation w/ Schrodinger's cat. Thus I don't think that the Heisenberg principle can be applied to negate Him setting up a deterministic result through random/chaotic means. In other words, I'd never want to play Risk against Him because He'd know all the dice rolls and could set his troops up accordingly! ;)

Copperblade

09-21-2009, 12:58 PM

Well I see that you've got quite a bit teaming up on you, so I really don't want to add to that. In fact, I truly do understand where you are coming from, I know where your heart is and your desire to "abide in the Word". In all honesty, I would MUCH rather you conform to His likeness and simply seek first the Kingdom of God, than with troubling yourself with questions of ages and such. It is something I believe God gives to some and not to others. I'm not going to lie, once you head down that path, you will run in to snags and doubts and such. After all, even Solomon himself once said "increasing knowledge results in increasing pain." (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

Amen to that.

talgot

09-21-2009, 05:14 PM

You said that the way you read it is "fact" and that there's no room for God to have used evolution as a tool.

Firstly i never used the word facts. Not sure why you quoted that to me???

Secondly Unless you deny the creation story as Gods word or play some spiritual gymnastics evolution couldn't of happened. Not the evolution of single cell to present day. If it is there please show me.

talgot

09-21-2009, 05:17 PM

You sure act like you worship it. You put more effort into defending it then would seem reasonable for a book written by men, infallible ones at that. You also seem to agree that certain parts are metaphor, except the ones you claim are literal. How are you supposed to know which is which?

I ment I do not worship a book. I worship the being that the book is about. not a book. Stories will be said to be stories or parables.

redmaxx

09-21-2009, 05:27 PM

Firstly i never used the word facts. Not sure why you quoted that to me???

You did use the word fact:

It has nothing to do with if i want it to be or not. You need to actually read the creation account to realize this. Your only other option to get around this fact is do as many others who want it both ways... just discount the creation account as true and not God's word but just a story.

Secondly Unless you deny the creation story as Gods word or play some spiritual gymnastics evolution couldn't of happened. Not the evolution of single cell to present day. If it is there please show me.

And this backs up what I was saying before. That you think that the way you've read it is 100% faithful to what God meant.

talgot

09-21-2009, 05:31 PM

It's interesting that you compare design to a computer program below. To me it's really no different, except that evolution is a program designed with some built in A.I. Are you less awestruck of the aurora borealis because you know how they are naturally formed? Or do you see design in them, despite the natural process of solar flares powering them? Why should evolution then be a knock on design...it is yet another amazing wonderful natural process we can observe. I agree our dna is built with a form of AI, to use your term.The difference to me is you still have the same problem Dan, either the bible is the word of God and true or it is not. In the context of the bible I do not see how you can say evolution is possible? Unless you choose to omit the parts of the bible that do not fit your new world view.

I guess first tell me what the "image of God" means? I'm not so sure it means "soul" anymore, after all the Hebrew for soul (nephesh) is also applied to animals as well. I think it more has to do with attributes. Likeness can mean much more than physical likeness.

Well God did tell Adam "You are dust." (Gen 3:19) I don't think that is any better than being compared to a single cell ;). Well being made of cells is different than being the great great grandson of one. Heck Dan there is no proof life can spontanously create itself. all of evolution is moot if that cannot occur. And if you are using Gen to rebutt then you surely know Gen is not evolution friendly.

Well I see that you've got quite a bit teaming up on you, so I really don't want to add to that. In fact, I truly do understand where you are coming from, I know where your heart is and your desire to "abide in the Word". In all honesty, I would MUCH rather you conform to His likeness and simply seek first the Kingdom of God, than with troubling yourself with questions of ages and such. It is something I believe God gives to some and not to others. I'm not going to lie, once you head down that path, you will run in to snags and doubts and such. After all, even Solomon himself once said "increasing knowledge results in increasing pain." (Ecclesiastes 1:18) we all would be better served not to get wrapped up in things of this world.

talgot

09-21-2009, 05:33 PM

You did use the word fact:

Opps sorry I didn't realize I used that word. My appologies.

And this backs up what I was saying before. That you think that the way you've read it is 100% faithful to what God meant. What I am saying is you cannot read genesis and get that God used evolution. If so tell me without just omitting Gen as just a story and not truth.

redmaxx

09-21-2009, 05:36 PM

Opps sorry I didn't realize I used that word. My appologies.

No problem.

What I am saying is you cannot read genesis and get that God used evolution. If so tell me without just omitting Gen as just a story and not truth.

I can and do and I don't think it's just a story.

talgot

09-21-2009, 05:45 PM

So do you think that God planted all the evolutionary evidence? All the millions of extinct species we've found evidence for certainly make it seem that God wanted us to think evolution occurred, whether you believe it did or not.

No I do not. I see the millions of extinct creatures as example of his judgement.

talgot

09-21-2009, 05:47 PM

No problem.

I can and do and I don't think it's just a story.

Please tell me. I am for hearing all opinions. If you would rather pm me so it is not fodder for those looking to argue with you feel free.

Copperblade

09-21-2009, 08:26 PM

Heck Dan there is no proof life can spontanously create itself. all of evolution is moot if that cannot occur. And if you are using Gen to rebutt then you surely know Gen is not evolution friendly.

Sorry to interject, evolution does not say anything about how life started. There's another theory that tries to cover that called Abiogenesis that I personally know very little about.

superdan54

09-21-2009, 08:28 PM

I agree our dna is built with a form of AI, to use your term.The difference to me is you still have the same problem Dan, either the bible is the word of God and true or it is not. In the context of the bible I do not see how you can say evolution is possible? Unless you choose to omit the parts of the bible that do not fit your new world view.

Yeah, ultimately I can see that you have to come to a crossroads. But I don't think it's such a fatalistic decision to either completely falsify or verify scripture. I've quoted this before but I think it's pertinent again. Genesis says that God commanded the Earth to bring forth plants and animals. I'll leave it at that...

Copperblade

09-21-2009, 08:31 PM

What I am saying is you cannot read genesis and get that God used evolution. If so tell me without just omitting Gen as just a story and not truth.

Well, as I see it, there's two parts to what you just said.

(1) That there is no support for evolution in Genesis. With that, I totally agree, and I doubt anyone else would disagree.

(2) That the theory of evolution negates Genesis as "truth," or that Genesis with evolution has no meaning whatsoever.

With this I disagree. I think this is the main sticking point. You see no point in the Genesis story aside from telling you how God created things in literal detail. The majority of Christians see a more subtle and spiritual purpose to the story of Genesis to the extent where the literal details are unimportant in and of themselves.

talgot

09-22-2009, 05:29 AM

Yeah, ultimately I can see that you have to come to a crossroads. But I don't think it's such a fatalistic decision to either completely falsify or verify scripture. I've quoted this before but I think it's pertinent again. Genesis says that God commanded the Earth to bring forth plants and animals. I'll leave it at that...

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Here we have an example of the text you are referring to. 1) lets note it says after its kind which will be the same for the animals. After it's kind tells us all th kinds must have been created they were not mutations of millions of years to create all the different kinds from a single entity.That is NOT evolution. Now does each kind create some variety? Yes, it does. In that sense I can accept a narrow form of evolution definition.

2)Sees was in itsself. That would infer each kind had its own instructions if you will... not gained through mistakes and mutations.

3)God saw that it was good. That would indicate it was perfect. God cannot lie. If it was incomplete I do not think it would be good if millions of years of mistakes would be needed to make an eventual good thing.

4) And the evening and the morning were the third day. 3rd day. That is about as literal as it gets.this was done between a morning and evening. Again... this is his word and is true or you chose to believe this is not true and either just a story and most of the rest of the bible is true. I am not sure how else you can make it . I may be missing an option?

You see I may not know everything. I am ignorant of many things. We all are. I don't claim to know exactly how everything fits. But I made a decision that once I new in my heart Christ is my Lord that I would take his word as truth. It doesn't mean science was thrown out with the bathwater as some will claim. It means I will look at things from a God perspective. If there is a time the world and God do not fit together I will acknowledge it. But I see God's work all around me and in me and others. Science fits just nicely with his word. Maybe the conclusions of scientists do not. But they are just men with as much of a world view as me and some chose to look for evidence and make their conclusionsfit thiers.

talgot

09-22-2009, 05:32 AM

Sorry to interject, evolution does not say anything about how life started. There's another theory that tries to cover that called Abiogenesis that I personally know very little about.

That is true Copper. And I do make the mistake of lumping them together. But lets face it it does matter. If life cannot generate by itself at some point the theory takes a pretty good hit . Especially for those that are with no faith in God starting it correct?

talgot

09-22-2009, 05:34 AM

Well, as I see it, there's two parts to what you just said.

(1) That there is no support for evolution in Genesis. With that, I totally agree, and I doubt anyone else would disagree.

(2) That the theory of evolution negates Genesis as "truth," or that Genesis with evolution has no meaning whatsoever.

With this I disagree. I think this is the main sticking point. You see no point in the Genesis story aside from telling you how God created things in literal detail. The majority of Christians see a more subtle and spiritual purpose to the story of Genesis to the extent where the literal details are unimportant in and of themselves.

I will agree there is more to those scriptures than how things begun. I was a bit rash in saying it is useless to anyone if they do not see it as literal. Good point if that is what you mean.

Epiphyte

09-22-2009, 06:10 AM

talgot

09-22-2009, 06:24 AM

The theory does not "take a hit" because the theory does not at all attempt to answer the question of how life came about. If you think it takes a hit, you're misinterpreting the theory of evolution.

The whole of the theory is to say life can change and all came from one form. A common ancestry. It may not be as big of a hit to those who have God in the mix but those that think God is fictitious, Life needs to be able to come from non-life. And if that is not able to happen how are we to believe life makes the leaps you are claiming to of happened? You may want to conveniently discard this rather troubling problem but it makes a difference to how things occurred and do happen today. This is clearly perspective. I will grant you that perspective has alot to do with anything we view as important or not. So while it is a big deal from mine, it may not be from yours.

Libertarian

09-22-2009, 06:32 AM

The whole of the theory is to say life can change and all came from one form. A common ancestry. It may not be as big of a hit to those who have God in the mix but those that think God is fictitious, Life needs to be able to come from non-life. And if that is not able to happen how are we to believe life makes the leaps you are claiming to of happened? You may want to conveniently discard this rather troubling problem but it makes a difference to how things occurred and do happen today. This is clearly perspective. I will grant you that perspective has alot to do with anything we view as important or not. So while it is a big deal from mine, it may not be from yours.

We don't have a concrete theory on the origins of life..but I believe it has been discussed here in the past. I think the mods took a swipe at this thread recently and cut off several pages of debate for some reason..but I do recall someone (probably Darkfrog) linking to a study that showed how organic life can (and has been) created from certain chemical reactions..and that the earliest fragments of organic matter likely emerged when chemicals fused in primordial volcanic activity.

Epiphyte

09-22-2009, 06:46 AM

The whole of the theory is to say life can change and all came from one form. A common ancestry. It may not be as big of a hit to those who have God in the mix but those that think God is fictitious, Life needs to be able to come from non-life. And if that is not able to happen how are we to believe life makes the leaps you are claiming to of happened? You may want to conveniently discard this rather troubling problem but it makes a difference to how things occurred and do happen today. This is clearly perspective. I will grant you that perspective has alot to do with anything we view as important or not. So while it is a big deal from mine, it may not be from yours.

I think this discussion has already taken place with MensaMind, but, you need to realize that every theory has boundaries, outside of which they don't apply. Why are masses attracted to each other in the first place? What came before the Big Bang? How did the Earth's tectonic plates initially form? The theory of evolution is only applicable when life is already around. Asking how life formed is a terrific question, but is outside the realm of evolution.

talgot

09-22-2009, 06:56 AM

I think this discussion has already taken place with MensaMind, but, you need to realize that every theory has boundaries, outside of which they don't apply. Why are masses attracted to each other in the first place? What came before the Big Bang? How did the Earth's tectonic plates initially form? The theory of evolution is only applicable when life is already around. Asking how life formed is a terrific question, but is outside the realm of evolution.
Valid. But you don't see the first evolutionary form created or birthed related and connected to evolution? Again This is more a case on perspective than anything else. I put more stock in it than you as far as evolution is concerned. But you make a fair point.

Epiphyte

09-22-2009, 07:20 AM

Valid. But you don't see the first evolutionary form created or birthed related and connected to evolution? Again This is more a case on perspective than anything else. I put more stock in it than you as far as evolution is concerned. But you make a fair point.

Whether God created the first form of life or if it formed from non-life makes little difference to the theory of evolution. If we found evidence that God intervened with life after it was initially formed, that would certainly affect evolution.

darkfrog

09-22-2009, 07:45 AM

We don't have a concrete theory on the origins of life..but I believe it has been discussed here in the past. I think the mods took a swipe at this thread recently and cut off several pages of debate for some reason..but I do recall someone (probably Darkfrog) linking to a study that showed how organic life can (and has been) created from certain chemical reactions..and that the earliest fragments of organic matter likely emerged when chemicals fused in primordial volcanic activity.
It has already been shown that the basic constituents of life, organic materials, form naturally. We have found large organic molecules in comets and nebula, the stellar nurseries. Even the most religious scientists agree that life is merely chemistry. I don't understand why people think its such a stretch to think that the chemistry that forms life cannot happen when the conditions are right and the requisite molecules are present.
It is actually possible that life has formed more than once on this planet

I do think creationists are disingenuous when discussing this issue. They don't ask scientists to know where atoms come from in order to accept atomic theory, yet evolution, which is undoubtedly true as it is supported by observation and experimentation somehow cannot be right if we can't show where the first life comes from? :rolleyes:

talgot

09-22-2009, 08:35 AM

It has already been shown that the basic constituents of life, organic materials, form naturally. We have found large organic molecules in comets and nebula, the stellar nurseries. Even the most religious scientists agree that life is merely chemistry. I don't understand why people think its such a stretch to think that the chemistry that forms life cannot happen when the conditions are right and the requisite molecules are present.
It is actually possible that life has formed more than once on this planet

I do think creationists are disingenuous when discussing this issue. They don't ask scientists to know where atoms come from in order to accept atomic theory, yet evolution, which is undoubtedly true as it is supported by observation and experimentation somehow cannot be right if we can't show where the first life comes from? :rolleyes:

When has it been observed a protein forming from nothing? or basic chemistry? Secondly you have no idea if the conditions were right. Your assuming like you always do. it is one thing to speculate it is quite another to infer fact from assumptions.

Copperblade

09-22-2009, 09:13 AM

That is true Copper. And I do make the mistake of lumping them together. But lets face it it does matter. If life cannot generate by itself at some point the theory takes a pretty good hit . Especially for those that are with no faith in God starting it correct?

No, I don't think it matters. At least not at this point in science. There are multiple competing theories of the beginning of life--science is a lot less certain about that than about the evolutionary process. The origin of life is much harder because of the evidence.

However, none of the theories include Creationism, which tries to explain both the beginning and the process. You're right, the Creationist view of the origin of life is not compatible with evolution unless you believe in God planting the evidence. (Which, by the way, I have heard some people claim.)

But you're sense of what might be underlying both concepts is intuitive: some time in the future when we discover enough, both evolution as we know today and a theory of the origin of life may be combined into one theory of life.

darkfrog

09-22-2009, 12:12 PM

No, I don't think it matters. At least not at this point in science. There are multiple competing theories of the beginning of life--science is a lot less certain about that than about the evolutionary process. The origin of life is much harder because of the evidence.

However, none of the theories include Creationism, which tries to explain both the beginning and the process. You're right, the Creationist view of the origin of life is not compatible with evolution unless you believe in God planting the evidence. (Which, by the way, I have heard some people claim.)

But you're sense of what might be underlying both concepts is intuitive: some time in the future when we discover enough, both evolution as we know today and a theory of the origin of life may be combined into one theory of life.
That's may be true. I have no doubt we will find that life can form itself from the basic constituents present in various environments, but we may never find out exactly how life on earth actually began. There appears to be increasing support for both panspermia and abiogenesis but without more evidence, we might just have to be happy to know that life can form but never know exactly how or where it came to be for our world.

They will never be one theory because evolution is still a separate process from the origin, but will probably be more along the lines of the Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution.

Phreaker47

09-22-2009, 02:43 PM

That's may be true. I have no doubt we will find that life can form itself from the basic constituents present in various environments, but we may never find out exactly how life on earth actually began. There appears to be increasing support for both panspermia and abiogenesis but without more evidence, we might just have to be happy to know that life can form but never know exactly how or where it came to be for our world.

They will never be one theory because evolution is still a separate process from the origin, but will probably be more along the lines of the Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution.

If only more people understood that...

redmaxx

09-22-2009, 02:50 PM

Please tell me. I am for hearing all opinions. If you would rather pm me so it is not fodder for those looking to argue with you feel free.

Others have since addressed it somewhat, I'll have to take some time to catch up on their posts and then come back with some more details.

I have no doubt we will find that life can form itself from the basic constituents present in various environments

One might call that faith. :)

talgot

09-22-2009, 02:52 PM

[QUOTE=redmaxx;23170623]Others have since addressed it somewhat, I'll have to take some time to catch up on their posts and then come back with some more details./QUOTE]

I look forward to it.

darkfrog

09-22-2009, 03:04 PM

One might call that faith. :)
One definition of faith maybe. One where belief that is based on reason and history vs. one based on superstition.
This is an example of equivocation. When a word has more than one meaning and the separate meanings are used interchangeably.
You are substituting the religious meaning of faith, trust that a supernatural entity exists without corroborated evidence, for another meaning, faith as ordinary belief that is reasonable and has evidence.

redmaxx

09-22-2009, 03:18 PM

One definition of faith maybe. One where belief that is based on reason and history vs. one based on superstition.
This is an example of equivocation. When a word has more than one meaning and the separate meanings are used interchangeably.
You are substituting the religious meaning of faith, trust that a supernatural entity exists without corroborated evidence, for another meaning, faith as ordinary belief that is reasonable and has evidence.

What sort of solid evidence is available for abiogenesis?

darkfrog

09-22-2009, 03:42 PM

What sort of solid evidence is available for abiogenesis?
What exactly are you asking? You seem to be changing the discussion from belief in the ability of science to find at least one way that life may have formed on earth to one where you are now asking for current evidence that it certainly occurred that way.

It has already been established that organic molecules form naturally. We already have acknowledged life is merely chemistry, there really is nothing preventing life from forming. Urey-Miller showed that amino acids can form in a reducing atmosphere. Jack Szostak has shown that proto-cell membranes formed from fatty acids can spontaneously form. There are many other areas of research making progress toward the goal you can read about some of them here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

Now couple all of that with the increased rapidity that science moves as time goes on, it is to me quite reasonable to believe that we will have more breakthroughs in this area of study. Do you have any reason to suspect that we won't?

riptide_slick

09-22-2009, 10:42 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmHN3JtyUXg&feature=player_embedded#t=373

OMG this woman keeps getting hotter as she talks...

:lmao:

darkfrog

09-22-2009, 11:49 PM

Reading how apologetics contend with the bible calling a bat a bird, I came across this:

(Leviticus 11:19) - "These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."

In verse 13 Moses tells us about the birds and then he lists them out. In verse 19 we see the bat is included in this list. We know that a bat is not a bird. Does this not mean that the Bible is incorrect?

The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations. In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical. But, in modern times we categorize animal species more specifically, and have categorized the bat as a mammal and not a bird.

Also, we must be aware that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times. To the ancients, creatures such as a bat were considered birds since they categorized all flying animals as birds. If that is the category that they used, then they were correct. It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. The critic has imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then said that the Bible is wrong. This is a big error in thinking.
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/bat-bird

I find this interesting considering the many times I've heard the bible is scientifically accurate. I especially love the end explaining how if that's how they (the ancients) named them, it really was correct.

I guess this writer didn't think God wrote the bible. Classifying a bat as a mammal, is because it is! It is a distinct and separate class from Aves, not because that's how WE decide to label them, it is because it is a FACT! It is indisputable, undeniable.

I certainly hope this ends the idea that the bible is scientifically accurate and has information not learned until later. It only takes one example to falsify a claim.

talgot

09-23-2009, 09:26 AM

Reading how apologetics contend with the bible calling a bat a bird, I came across this:

I find this interesting considering the many times I've heard the bible is scientifically accurate. I especially love the end explaining how if that's how they (the ancients) named them, it really was correct.

I guess this writer didn't think God wrote the bible. Classifying a bat as a mammal, is because it is! It is a distinct and separate class from Aves, not because that's how WE decide to label them, it is because it is a FACT! It is indisputable, undeniable.

I certainly hope this ends the idea that the bible is scientifically accurate and has information not learned until later. It only takes one example to falsify a claim.

This should explain it nicely DF. A little research on your part would have saved you the embarassment.

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/contradict.htm

There are three references to bats in the Bible -- Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:18, and Isa. 2:20. The latter reference mentions bats by themselves, so it is probably not the "mistake" you have in mind. The first two, however, mention bats in lists with birds. I'll take a wild stab here and guess you're calling it a mistake to list bats with birds. Fair enough; I can offer two answers to that, the first of which is not satisfactory, but the second of which is:

1. In Deuteronomy the Hebrew word �wph is used to define the list of vertebrates (KJV renders it "fowls"). This word means, literally, "to cover with wings" or "winged creature." I could argue that such a word could encompass bats as well as birds, but this is not a satisfactory argument, for two reasons:

It still makes the error you're talking about by classifying bats with birds, and �Deuteronomy 14:18's enharmonic reference, Lev. 11:19, uses the Hebrew word tsipp�n, which means "bird" in no uncertain terms. Thus we must conclude, in harmonizing the two references, that the specific term "bird" (tsipp�n ) in Leviticus, by the law of harmonics and the law of first-mention, instructs us to interpret the generic term "winged creature" (�wph ) in Deuteronomy as "bird" (and it is so rendered in the NIV and most other translations).

Therefore, we are left with the certainty that both lists should be classified as lists of birds, and not just lists of generic "winged creatures." This leads us to the second answer:

2. Since we know we are definitely talking about a list of birds, how can we account for the presence of the bat here? The word rendered "bat" is the Hebrew 'atall�ph. This word, like several others in the same list, is of uncertain origin (don't take my word for it; look at the footnotes of the NIV for Lev. 11:20, which ends the list, and it will tell you that the precise identity of several animals in the list are uncertain). The Hebrew lexicon's definition for 'atall�ph says the same thing ("of uncertain derivation").

What I'm saying is this: we simply do not know exactly what vertebrate is being described here, or in several other instances in the same passage.

In other words: the jury's still out and you have no solid idea whether or not this is actually a mistake -- and you won't until and unless this word can be precisely defined.

To digress a second: the KJV mentions the unicorn in several places (Num. 23:22, 24:8; Job 39:9-10; Ps. 29:6, 92:10). "Ha!" some skeptics still try to gloat, "everyone knows there's no such thing!"

Well, the word "unicorn" is the Hebrew word re'�ym. In 1611, the translators working on the KJV simply did not know what animal this word referred to, so they did the same thing the translators of the NIV did with 'atall�ph : they guessed. Problem was, they not only guessed the wrong animal, they picked an animal that didn't even exist (though of course at that time they thought it did).

In the intervening years, Bible scholars have learned that re'�ym refers to the auerochs (L. Bos primigenius ), a now-extinct species of wild ox. Look up all the KJV references to the unicorn in the NIV and you'll see (surprise!) re'�ym rendered as "wild ox." The auerochs was already extinct in 1611, and its prior existence was not known at that time (given that the science of paleontology did not really exist yet). This forced the translators to guess (there is a technical word for guesses like this -- which, BTW, are few and far between -- but it escapes me at the moment. But I'd rather call a spade a spade anyway).

But the auerochs WAS still alive in Bible times. Julius Caesar saw it and wrote about it (see Coes., Bell. Gall., iv. 29). He described it as immense in size, of great strength (cf. Num.23:22; 24:8), speed (Ps. 29:6), and ferocity, and that it was untamable (Job 39:9-10). It became extinct in Europe in the Middle Ages; somewhat earlier in Syria-Palestine, and its name transrferred to the common ox (which still exists; the Arab cognate is r'im ).

This is a great example of an assertion I've made all along: that the Bible and science have nothing to fear from one another. In this case, philology (the Akkadian cognate, rimu, describes the auerochs) and paleontology (Tristram independently corrorborated its existence in the Lebanon Mountains) helped solve a translation problem.

I said all that to say this: it is entirely possible that the Hebrew word 'atall�ph refers to a species of bird we simply don't know about -- you know as well as I do that our taxonomic catalog is FAR from complete -- and which may be extinct to boot.

The bottom line is this: over 200 Hebrew scholars worked on the NIV, but they collectively felt unsure enough about the translation of 'atall�ph to put in a footnote explaining that they simply aren't sure what the word means. That being the case, I'll say this: if 200 Hebrew scholars weren't sure what the word meant, it is premature to announce with any degree of certainty that you DO -- because until and unless the word is solidly defined, you'll either have to admit you don't have a leg to stand on, or you'll have to pretend you are the only person in the world who knows the precise definition of atall�ph.

TO SUM IT UP

The reference to "bats" in Lev. 11:19 and Deut. 14:18 is highly uncertain. It is not a taxonomy problem; it is a translation problem. Until and unless the Hebrew word 'atall�ph can be precisely and certainly identified, there are no solid grounds upon which to assume an error exists here. This does NOT prove a Bible error, therefore; it proves only that our knowledge of ancient Hebrew -- much as it has improved since 1611 -- still has room to improve.

Libertarian

09-23-2009, 10:08 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmHN3JtyUXg&feature=player_embedded#t=373

OMG this woman keeps getting hotter as she talks...

:lmao:

lolol Thanks for posting..I subscribed to her channel. She is awesome..I love this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw0TCiV1IuM&feature=player_embedded :lol:
and this.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Qi0Mk2lRs

darkfrog

09-23-2009, 11:31 AM

This should explain it nicely DF. A little research on your part would have saved you the embarassment.

There are three references to bats in the Bible -- Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:18, and Isa. 2:20. The latter reference mentions bats by themselves, so it is probably not the "mistake" you have in mind. The first two, however, mention bats in lists with birds. I'll take a wild stab here and guess you're calling it a mistake to list bats with birds. Fair enough; I can offer two answers to that, the first of which is not satisfactory, but the second of which is:

1. In Deuteronomy the Hebrew word �wph is used to define the list of vertebrates (KJV renders it "fowls"). This word means, literally, "to cover with wings" or "winged creature." I could argue that such a word could encompass bats as well as birds, but this is not a satisfactory argument, for two reasons:

It still makes the error you're talking about by classifying bats with birds, and �Deuteronomy 14:18's enharmonic reference, Lev. 11:19, uses the Hebrew word tsipp�n, which means "bird" in no uncertain terms. Thus we must conclude, in harmonizing the two references, that the specific term "bird" (tsipp�n ) in Leviticus, by the law of harmonics and the law of first-mention, instructs us to interpret the generic term "winged creature" (�wph ) in Deuteronomy as "bird" (and it is so rendered in the NIV and most other translations).

Therefore, we are left with the certainty that both lists should be classified as lists of birds, and not just lists of generic "winged creatures." This leads us to the second answer:

2. Since we know we are definitely talking about a list of birds, how can we account for the presence of the bat here? The word rendered "bat" is the Hebrew 'atall�ph. This word, like several others in the same list, is of uncertain origin (don't take my word for it; look at the footnotes of the NIV for Lev. 11:20, which ends the list, and it will tell you that the precise identity of several animals in the list are uncertain). The Hebrew lexicon's definition for 'atall�ph says the same thing ("of uncertain derivation").

What I'm saying is this: we simply do not know exactly what vertebrate is being described here, or in several other instances in the same passage.

In other words: the jury's still out and you have no solid idea whether or not this is actually a mistake -- and you won't until and unless this word can be precisely defined.

To digress a second: the KJV mentions the unicorn in several places (Num. 23:22, 24:8; Job 39:9-10; Ps. 29:6, 92:10). "Ha!" some skeptics still try to gloat, "everyone knows there's no such thing!"

Well, the word "unicorn" is the Hebrew word re'�ym. In 1611, the translators working on the KJV simply did not know what animal this word referred to, so they did the same thing the translators of the NIV did with 'atall�ph : they guessed. Problem was, they not only guessed the wrong animal, they picked an animal that didn't even exist (though of course at that time they thought it did).

In the intervening years, Bible scholars have learned that re'�ym refers to the auerochs (L. Bos primigenius ), a now-extinct species of wild ox. Look up all the KJV references to the unicorn in the NIV and you'll see (surprise!) re'�ym rendered as "wild ox." The auerochs was already extinct in 1611, and its prior existence was not known at that time (given that the science of paleontology did not really exist yet). This forced the translators to guess (there is a technical word for guesses like this -- which, BTW, are few and far between -- but it escapes me at the moment. But I'd rather call a spade a spade anyway).

But the auerochs WAS still alive in Bible times. Julius Caesar saw it and wrote about it (see Coes., Bell. Gall., iv. 29). He described it as immense in size, of great strength (cf. Num.23:22; 24:8), speed (Ps. 29:6), and ferocity, and that it was untamable (Job 39:9-10). It became extinct in Europe in the Middle Ages; somewhat earlier in Syria-Palestine, and its name transrferred to the common ox (which still exists; the Arab cognate is r'im ).

This is a great example of an assertion I've made all along: that the Bible and science have nothing to fear from one another. In this case, philology (the Akkadian cognate, rimu, describes the auerochs) and paleontology (Tristram independently corrorborated its existence in the Lebanon Mountains) helped solve a translation problem.

I said all that to say this: it is entirely possible that the Hebrew word 'atall�ph refers to a species of bird we simply don't know about -- you know as well as I do that our taxonomic catalog is FAR from complete -- and which may be extinct to boot.

The bottom line is this: over 200 Hebrew scholars worked on the NIV, but they collectively felt unsure enough about the translation of 'atall�ph to put in a footnote explaining that they simply aren't sure what the word means. That being the case, I'll say this: if 200 Hebrew scholars weren't sure what the word meant, it is premature to announce with any degree of certainty that you DO -- because until and unless the word is solidly defined, you'll either have to admit you don't have a leg to stand on, or you'll have to pretend you are the only person in the world who knows the precise definition of atall�ph.

TO SUM IT UP

The reference to "bats" in Lev. 11:19 and Deut. 14:18 is highly uncertain. It is not a taxonomy problem; it is a translation problem. Until and unless the Hebrew word 'atall�ph can be precisely and certainly identified, there are no solid grounds upon which to assume an error exists here. This does NOT prove a Bible error, therefore; it proves only that our knowledge of ancient Hebrew -- much as it has improved since 1611 -- still has room to improve.
Are you claiming we don't know the name for Locust either?

talgot

09-23-2009, 11:46 AM

Are you claiming we don't know the name for Locust either?

A better question is what are you trying to claim or infer?

darkfrog

09-23-2009, 12:26 PM

A better question is what are you trying to claim or infer?
Whatever. I need more evidence than your cut & paste (http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/contradict.htm)(you forgot the link BTW) to show that translators could not figure out the meaning of the word atall�ph.

In Israel today, there are 20 species of atall�ph and they are all bats. So did God forget about bats when he listed the flying creatures?
No. The word does refer to bats.

Would you like to take on the idea that pi equals 3?
How about showing me again how the bible doesn't support geocentrism (God laid the foundations of the earth, and that it does not move (Psalms 104:5)) and a flat earth yet that's the interpretation of the people that read and used the language back then. You have to use all kinds of mental gymnastics to believe that is not what the bible was saying.

When people claim the bible was scientifically accurate, they need to show strong evidence for something in scripture that possibly could not have been known back then. You have to explain light being created before the sun, moon and stars; plants being created before the sun; commanding the sun to stand still rather than the earth to stop rotating, etc.

Do you really believe that God wanted the bible to be scientifically accurate but still allowed those errors to creep in? I don't understand how someone in today's world can accept the bible as literally true and infallible at the same time.

scp443

09-23-2009, 12:39 PM

Holy crap! I just vomited in my mouth when I saw the results of this poll. The bible, especially the old testament, is a story book! Its meant to teach morals, NOT HISTORY OR SCIENCE. *facepalm*

talgot

09-23-2009, 01:40 PM

Whatever. I need more evidence than your cut & paste (http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/contradict.htm)(you forgot the link BTW) to show that translators could not figure out the meaning of the word atall�ph.

In Israel today, there are 20 species of atall�ph and they are all bats. So did God forget about bats when he listed the flying creatures?
No. The word does refer to bats.

Would you like to take on the idea that pi equals 3?
How about showing me again how the bible doesn't support geocentrism (God laid the foundations of the earth, and that it does not move (Psalms 104:5)) and a flat earth yet that's the interpretation of the people that read and used the language back then. You have to use all kinds of mental gymnastics to believe that is not what the bible was saying.

When people claim the bible was scientifically accurate, they need to show strong evidence for something in scripture that possibly could not have been known back then. You have to explain light being created before the sun, moon and stars; plants being created before the sun; commanding the sun to stand still rather than the earth to stop rotating, etc.

Do you really believe that God wanted the bible to be scientifically accurate but still allowed those errors to creep in? I don't understand how someone in today's world can accept the bible as literally true and infallible at the same time.

DF nothing would seem satisfy your desire to rid God from existance and the bible namely. 'Israel today' is the key phrase. It may be what is commonly used . As the article said atall�ph has a definition of "of uncertain derivation" Just as the english language evolves I am sure hebrew is no different. In english cool can now have multiple meanings than it once did. Are you saying that this cannot be the case for atall�ph ?

The Pi question... http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

We've been over the flat earth thing already so I am not going to bother at this time.

Not sure your issue with the Genesis account of light after plants ..etc.. Remember I am a literal 6 day believer. It doesn't hurt my view. God is the light. "This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. {1 Jn 1:5 RSV}" It is not impossible for plants to exist a day without light. So the order makes little difference.

When I claim it is scientifically accurate it is not anymore incumbant for me to show it is than it is show it isn't by you. You are making the claim it is not. By all means keep trying . maybe someday you will find something?

Libertarian

09-23-2009, 02:23 PM

Remember I am a literal 6 day believer.

Stop wasting your time Darkfrog. All forms of reason are impotent against this type of headcase.

talgot

09-23-2009, 02:30 PM

Stop wasting your time Darkfrog. All forms of reason are impotent against this type of headcase.

Excuse me?? Why is that kind of talk necessary? It would seem you are much more closed off than me with that kind of talk.

Libertarian

09-23-2009, 02:44 PM

Excuse me?? Why is that kind of talk necessary? It would seem you are much more closed off than me with that kind of talk.

Sorry tal..You might be a good person in real life..but a 100% literal view of the bible is literally insane in my view. That viewpoint is not even worthy of debate, and I don't like seeing intelligent people like DF wasting his time trying to change your "mind"..when the mind is precisely what must be negated to cling to biblical literalism. You are rejecting mountains of evidence we have for evolution, while holding an unquestioning belief in talking snakes, people being created from dust, rivers turning into blood, women being turned into pillars of salt, and hundreds of other stories in the bible that contradict the known laws of reality. Given this, there is simply NO POINT for Darkfrog (or anyone else) to try and change your mind using evidence from physics, astronomy, biology, or any other secular science. These subjects deal with physical reality..and I'm sorry to inform you that those who attempt to reject (or reason away) known facts about reality are usually considered insane.

darkfrog

09-23-2009, 02:49 PM

The Pi question... http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

Yep, like I said, mental gymnastics.

Doctor_Wu

09-23-2009, 04:00 PM

Sorry tal..You might be a good person in real life..but a 100% literal view of the bible is literally insane in my view.

Right talgot you might be a good person in real life, but for "my" purposes you are beneath contempt and my rejection of your views gives me the luxury of speaking to you w/o respect.

Which makes me wonder why you'd even bother with the platitude of "you might be a good person"...as that appears to have absolutely no meaning to you b/c you don't think of it prior to your name calling. Of course it's name calling done in the name of preventing harm to "intelligent people". Apparently "the intelligent" are now unable to make such inferences for themselves.

And what is the harm you seek to prevent? The harm of "wasting time". A harm that is a clear danger for people who are arguing on an internet forum.

Next time keep such commentaries to yourself.

Libertarian

09-23-2009, 04:17 PM

If one man talks to an imaginary person (lets call him Bob)..forms rituals around his 'relationship'..with the unseen, non-physical Bob..starts preaching Bob's revelations as fact and denying all physical evidence that contradicts Bob's stories, we would urge him to see a psychologist or (worst case) institutionalize him. But when a million people do the same thing and call it "faith", we must respect it. Respect it as a simple "difference of opinion", and never call a spade a spade. Gotcha.

Doctor_Wu

09-24-2009, 01:27 AM

The problem with positivism is that it is dogmatic... and therefore you feel justified in allowing yourself the luxury of defining metrics by which a being that is presumed to exist outside the universe should conduct himself.

If one man talks to an imaginary person (lets call him Bob)..forms rituals around his 'relationship'..with the unseen, non-physical Bob..starts preaching Bob's revelations as fact and denying all physical evidence that contradicts Bob's stories, we would urge him to see a psychologist or (worst case) institutionalize him. But when a million people do the same thing and call it "faith", we must respect it. Respect it as a simple "difference of opinion", and never call a spade a spade. Gotcha.

The true problem here is that you cannot actually call it what it is, b/c you cannot prove what it is or is not. The mechanisms at our disposal are inadequate to the task... so you are left with "calling a spade a spade" as opposed to proving the existence of the unseen absence. Calling a spade a spade amounts to name calling based on speculation. This is an unintellectual indulgence on your part.

And as for the notion that you must respect the 'faith', nothing could be further from the truth, as you well know. You are free to argue against it and do your best to disprove it with the tools you have. But individual posters who are also participants here are to be shown respect. That is the kind of intellectual grace for which rational people were once known.

Libertarian

09-24-2009, 02:27 AM

The true problem here is that you cannot actually call it what it is, b/c you cannot prove what it is or is not. The mechanisms at our disposal are inadequate to the task... so you are left with "calling a spade a spade" as opposed to proving the existence of the unseen absence. Calling a spade a spade amounts to name calling based on speculation.

True, we can't prove the existence or nonexistence of god. There is NO proof, period..but creationists are the ones asserting the "unseen absence" exists, and that the written words of the "unseen absence" are absolute truths. He didn't wait 10 billion years to create the earth (as astronomy says). He created it on day 2. And it didn't take another 4 billion years for humans to emerge (as paleontology and biology tell us). They came on day 6. THE END. That's the story. Put it in Kansas textbooks and ignore what humanity has discovered using science over the past 400 years.

And as for the notion that you must respect the 'faith', nothing could be further from the truth, as you well know. You are free to argue against it and do your best to disprove it with the tools you have.

This is the crux of everything. The only tool available to us is REASON based on our observations of reality..and when reason is dismissed outright by one side when it contradicts their faith, there are no other avenues of persuasion open to them. It's a hopeless waste of time. As I said to DF, logical arguments based on scientific findings are impotent against a person who is willing to deny and argue science away on the basis of "faith". When observations of nature come into conflict with words written by an "unseen absence" 2000 years ago, the unseen absence wins every time.

But individual posters who are also participants here are to be shown respect. That is the kind of intellectual grace for which rational people were once known.

Yeah, I knew I shouldn't have used the word "headcase" 10 seconds after I posted. ;) I probably should have used a more kind euphemism..but I can't take it back now, and I still stand by everything else I said. You may think I'm a rigid a**hole for saying this Wuu, but "respect" is not something that should not be granted blindly. Every person starts with a blank slate and is due a courteous amount of respect until you are able to form an estimate of them, but unless you want to completely devalue the meaning of that word, your respect for others must ultimately come from the values they hold. I hold reason as a very high value, so when I find biblical literalists willing to reject it outright in favor of their highest value "FAITH" (the opposite of reason), I can't pretend to respect their opinions.

myoung321

09-24-2009, 03:31 AM

Holy crap! I just vomited in my mouth when I saw the results of this poll. The bible, especially the old testament, is a story book! Its meant to teach morals, NOT HISTORY OR SCIENCE. *facepalm*

Welcome to slick deals.. where either the polls are edited.. or a majority of people looking for good deals are from the Christian Right..

Anonymouse

09-24-2009, 05:56 AM

ZOMBIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(If you've been around here long enough, you'll get the joke. If not, nevermind, it's an OLD joke anyway.)

talgot

09-24-2009, 06:34 AM

True, we can't prove the existence or nonexistence of god. There is NO proof, period..but creationists are the ones asserting the "unseen absence" exists, and that the written words of the "unseen absence" are absolute truths. He didn't wait 10 billion years to create the earth (as astronomy says). He created it on day 2. And it didn't take another 4 billion years for humans to emerge (as paleontology and biology tell us). They came on day 6. THE END. That's the story. Put it in Kansas textbooks and ignore what humanity has discovered using science over the past 400 years.

This is the crux of everything. The only tool available to us is REASON based on our observations of reality..and when reason is dismissed outright by one side when it contradicts their faith, there are no other avenues of persuasion open to them. It's a hopeless waste of time. As I said to DF, logical arguments based on scientific findings are impotent against a person who is willing to deny and argue science away on the basis of "faith". When observations of nature come into conflict with words written by an "unseen absence" 2000 years ago, the unseen absence wins every time.

Yeah, I knew I shouldn't have used the word "headcase" 10 seconds after I posted. ;) I probably should have used a more kind euphemism..but I can't take it back now, and I still stand by everything else I said. You may think I'm a rigid a**hole for saying this Wuu, but "respect" is not something that should not be granted blindly. Every person starts with a blank slate and is due a courteous amount of respect until you are able to form an estimate of them, but unless you want to completely devalue the meaning of that word, your respect for others must ultimately come from the values they hold. I hold reason as a very high value, so when I find biblical literalists willing to reject it outright in favor of their highest value "FAITH" (the opposite of reason), I can't pretend to respect their opinions.

I take issue with your definition of faith. Reason is not the opposite, Quite the contrary. It is exactly reason that facilitates faith. In order to have faith one needs to have reason to base it on. Just because you cannot see that doesn't make it any less true. It is reasonable to give credit to God when you have experienced him and through others. It is reasonable to see this world and conclude there is design, that all things have a purpose and meaning. That our very existance is tribute to that design. If I see a watch I do not marvel and conclude it is only reasonable to think it created itself over time through chance. It is just if not moreso reasonable to conclude it was designed. When you see a device or creature in your travels do you automatically assume it was designed given your experience or do you automatically find it reasonable to marvel at how this came to be through chance and on its own because you never saw the actual designer? Is that what you want me to find reasonable? That because you never met the creator it is then not possible and insane? That to me is much more illogical and unreasonable. You may not be in rl, but you came off very bigotted. Are you not capable of respect and for those you disagree with? If it vexes you so to read what I say, stop reading this thread. Who are you to tell others what to think and display that kind of bigotry? We all say and do things rashly at times. I am no better. So if it was truely a lapse in judgement in what you said i am willing to forget it and move on. The ball is in your court on that.

superdan54

09-24-2009, 07:30 AM

Welcome to slick deals.. where either the polls are edited.. or a majority of people looking for good deals are from the Christian Right..

Actually the opposite is true...according to gallup polls, only 39% of Americans believe in evolution, so quit being so frugal heathen :D.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/02/11/gallup-darwins-birthday-poll-fewer-than-four-in-ten-believe-in-evolution.html

Libertarian

09-24-2009, 07:58 AM

When you see a device or creature in your travels do you automatically assume it was designed given your experience or do you automatically find it reasonable to marvel at how this came to be through chance

Evolution is NOT random "chance" tal...It's quite the opposite in fact. I'm afraid you still have a bit of reading to do.

Are you not capable of respect and for those you disagree with? If it vexes you so to read what I say, stop reading this thread. Who are you to tell others what to think and display that kind of bigotry? We all say and do things rashly at times. I am no better. So if it was truely a lapse in judgement in what you said i am willing to forget it and move on. The ball is in your court on that.

We are discussing IDEAS here my man. I don't think I'm being bigoted by dismissing yours because I have very good reasons for doing so. Despite this, I am not "telling" you (or anyone else) how to think, and I will always respect your RIGHT to express yourself without any form of censorship whatever. I just happen to think the views you have expressed on this issue are nonsensical and not worthy of serious discussion. This is my opinion and you are free to dismiss it just as easily as I dismiss the biblical version of creation. We have no means to resolve the "God" question one way or the other and some people will never see eye to eye. Try not to take it too personally.

talgot

09-24-2009, 08:14 AM

Yep, like I said, mental gymnastics.

You proved me right. Nothing will satisfy you because you do not want it to. Perhaps you can point out how he is wrong?

talgot

09-24-2009, 09:25 AM

Evolution is NOT random "chance" tal...It's quite the opposite in fact. I'm afraid you still have a bit of reading to do. .
I didn't say random. But the Evolution IS based on chance. All the correct things had to of occurred by chance since you deny a designer. These mutations had to occurred and had to be passed down to its children to even have had the CHANCE to survive to be passed along. You don't even know if the mutations that occured ever had offspring to pass it along, or at some point found a mate to have offspring. Chance is a big part of evolution.

We are discussing IDEAS here my man. I don't think I'm being bigoted by dismissing yours because I have very good reasons for doing so..

Yes we are discussing ideas. You are not being bigoted for dismissing my ideas.. you are being bigoted against my faith by your words... "insane", "headcase" .. etc..

Despite this, I am not "telling" you (or anyone else) how to think, and I will always respect your RIGHT to express yourself without any form of censorship whatever. .

"Stop wasting your time Darkfrog. All forms of reason are impotent against this type of headcase."

"That viewpoint is not even worthy of debate, and I don't like seeing intelligent people like DF wasting his time trying to change your "mind"..when the mind is precisely what must be negated to cling to biblical literalism. "

You are telling others how to think by the statements above. You are also telling me how to think by saying my opinions are not worthy of debate or discussion.

I just happen to think the views you have expressed on this issue are nonsensical and not worthy of serious discussion. This is my opinion and you are free to dismiss it just as easily as I dismiss the biblical version of creation. We have no means to resolve the "God" question one way or the other and some people will never see eye to eye. Try not to take it too personally. I don't take it personally or have a problem with you not agreeing with me. I do take it personal when you belittle my faith, my character, and my views with the language you have used often. You can disagee or not comment to my posts very easily without being rude and impolite. Bonk and I are far from agreement yet we have had very good private talks and other talks here on the podium. It is not impossible.

darkfrog

09-24-2009, 09:27 AM

You proved me right. Nothing will satisfy you because you do not want it to. Perhaps you can point out how he is wrong?
You were not proven right. Even after all of the mental gymnastics of measuring the outer rim for diameter but assuming the inner rim for circumference STILL came up with the incorrect value for pi. Even if the Phoenicians had a better estimate than 3, it still doesn't give us evidence that the biblical value was accurate because the credit then goes to Hiram, the Phoenician rather than God. Now if the bible's value was something like 22/7 or another similar estimate I would be more impressed because it would predate Archimedes in the 3rd century BCE, but it doesn't.

talgot

09-24-2009, 09:34 AM

You were not proven right. Even after all of the mental gymnastics of measuring the outer rim for diameter but assuming the inner rim for circumference STILL came up with the incorrect value for pi. Even if the Phoenicians had a better estimate than 3, it still doesn't give us evidence that the biblical value was accurate because the credit then goes to Hiram, the Phoenician rather than God. Now if the bible's value was something like 22/7 or another similar estimate I would be more impressed because it would predate Archimedes in the 3rd century BCE, but it doesn't.
No, the issue is not wether you give the credit to God or not. It is if the verse is accurate as you claimed it not to be. It has been demonstrated that it is, contrary to your intitial view.

skiman

09-24-2009, 10:51 AM

I didn't say random. But the Evolution IS based on chance. All the correct things had to of occurred by chance since you deny a designer. These mutations had to occurred and had to be passed down to its children to even have had the CHANCE to survive to be passed along.

Pause for a moment to reflect on this sentence.

This is one of the most common misunderstandings, points on which people talk past one another, and it starts with the assumption that there is a right thing- that where we are right now is a destination of sorts- a destination toward which we have progressed over the eons.

A-->B-->C-->D-->E-->F-->NOW It assumes that there is a directed sequence of steps that must be taken to get from "the beginning" to our present point-in-time.

I think that we can all agree that if one starts at "the beginning" (any point really) that there is virtually no chance that an incalculable number of events will to lead directly and in the same sequence to our current PIT.

Looking backward one can trace the line of what has happened, but the future, as they say, is wide open.

Setting aside the larger existential questions, if we exist within a dynamic reality then each "change" is equally improbable, yet we know with certainty that reality will exist in some state.

See what I'm saying? The chances of moving from point A to NOW in the exact sequence in which "we" have seems improbable, but it was 100% certain that reality would exist in some state. Any being with the ability to conceptualize time would be- and perhaps is- faced with the same mind-pretzel. "What are the chances, from an infinite number of potential realities, that I exist here and now?" But if we exist here and now to ask the question, then the improbable has already happened.

Well, that's more broad than I intended. The point is that you can't criticize the aggregate mass of genetic possibilities and probabilities for being an unlikely mechanism for moving biology from point A to point NOW. Evolution doesn't exist for the purpose of moving biology from point A to point NOW, nor to point FUTURE. No more than gravity exists for the purpose of holding our feet to the earth. We can look back and trace the line of its progress- which from point NOW may look deceptively obvious, but the future is wide open.

Libertarian

09-24-2009, 11:32 AM

I don't take it personally or have a problem with you not agreeing with me. I do take it personal when you belittle my faith, my character, and my views with the language you have used often. You can disagee or not comment to my posts very easily without being rude and impolite.

I'm sorry talgot, but to use a Dennis Prager quote, "I prefer clarity to agreement." You may consider my thoughts on your faith impolite and perhaps they are, but I prefer to be honest and straightforward rather than dancing around the issue. I will not pretend to respect your ideas and your pure creationist convictions because those views are utter nonsense in my view. I don't respect those views and think the propagation of the mystic/supernatural mindset is very damaging to society today and is a strong limiting factor on human progress. You have the liberty to denounce the theory of evolution and spout the 6 day creation garbage on these forums. I have the liberty to call these ideas what they are..nonsensical and crazy. You've expressed your thoughts. I've expressed mine. Our ideas are in fundamental conflict and there is no softer way to put it. Why bother with pretense?

talgot

09-24-2009, 11:58 AM

I'm sorry talgot, but to use a Dennis Prager quote, "I prefer clarity to agreement." You may consider my thoughts on your faith impolite and perhaps they are, but I prefer to be honest and straightforward rather than dancing around the issue. I will not pretend to respect your ideas and your pure creationist convictions because those views are utter nonsense in my view. I don't respect those views and think the propagation of the mystic/supernatural mindset is very damaging to society today and is a strong limiting factor on human progress. You have the liberty to denounce the theory of evolution and spout the 6 day creation garbage on these forums. I have the liberty to call these ideas what they are..nonsensical and crazy. You've expressed your thoughts. I've expressed mine. Our ideas are in fundamental conflict and there is no softer way to put it. Why bother with pretense?

One can be direct and show their disagreement for sure. As Dr Wu was trying to say,I believe ,is it's the respect of the poster that is needed. There are ways to show and display ones disaffection with others opinions in a way that shows respect for the person. Going down to the level of schoolyard banter is not helpful nor does it show good to ones character.

riptide_slick

09-24-2009, 11:59 AM

Pause for a moment to reflect on this sentence.

This is one of the most common misunderstandings, points on which people talk past one another, and it starts with the assumption that there is a right thing- that where we are right now is a destination of sorts- a destination toward which we have progressed over the eons.

A-->B-->C-->D-->E-->F-->NOW It assumes that there is a directed sequence of steps that must be taken to get from "the beginning" to our present point-in-time.

I think that we can all agree that if one starts at "the beginning" (any point really) that there is virtually no chance that an incalculable number of events will to lead directly and in the same sequence to our current PIT.

Looking backward one can trace the line of what has happened, but the future, as they say, is wide open.

Setting aside the larger existential questions, if we exist within a dynamic reality then each "change" is equally improbable, yet we know with certainty that reality will exist in some state.

See what I'm saying? The chances of moving from point A to NOW in the exact sequence in which "we" have seems improbable, but it was 100% certain that reality would exist in some state. Any being with the ability to conceptualize time would be- and perhaps is- faced with the same mind-pretzel. "What are the chances, from an infinite number of potential realities, that I exist here and now?" But if we exist here and now to ask the question, then the improbable has already happened.

Well, that's more broad than I intended. The point is that you can't criticize the aggregate mass of genetic possibilities and probabilities for being an unlikely mechanism for moving biology from point A to point NOW. Evolution doesn't exist for the purpose of moving biology from point A to point NOW, nor to point FUTURE. No more than gravity exists for the purpose of holding our feet to the earth. We can look back and trace the line of its progress- which from point NOW may look deceptively obvious, but the future is wide open.Good to see you here skiman!

I seem to remember a very wise poster posting an analogy of driving in your car, arriving at a destination, and then trying to calculate the probability of that exact sequence happening exactly as it did. But of course the probability is 1, because you're already there and that's the path you took. But if you were to start and try and calculate the probability of the exact path you took before you took it, that would be almost impossible.

I tried to search for that post, but even in the thread archive it appears all posts from 2/20/2008 until 9/2/2009 can't be found in the linked threads....there were a lot of good posts in that timeframe from a lot of people. I think the whole "monkeys writing Shakespeare" discussion happened within that time period.

Anyway, your analogies and their explanation of complex math principles were excellent, and I even bookmarked one of them at one point. It's really good to see you posting here again!

talgot

09-24-2009, 12:07 PM

Pause for a moment to reflect on this sentence.

This is one of the most common misunderstandings, points on which people talk past one another, and it starts with the assumption that there is a right thing- that where we are right now is a destination of sorts- a destination toward which we have progressed over the eons.

A-->B-->C-->D-->E-->F-->NOW It assumes that there is a directed sequence of steps that must be taken to get from "the beginning" to our present point-in-time.

I think that we can all agree that if one starts at "the beginning" (any point really) that there is virtually no chance that an incalculable number of events will to lead directly and in the same sequence to our current PIT.

Looking backward one can trace the line of what has happened, but the future, as they say, is wide open.

Setting aside the larger existential questions, if we exist within a dynamic reality then each "change" is equally improbable, yet we know with certainty that reality will exist in some state.

See what I'm saying? The chances of moving from point A to NOW in the exact sequence in which "we" have seems improbable, but it was 100% certain that reality would exist in some state. Any being with the ability to conceptualize time would be- and perhaps is- faced with the same mind-pretzel. "What are the chances, from an infinite number of potential realities, that I exist here and now?" But if we exist here and now to ask the question, then the improbable has already happened.

Well, that's more broad than I intended. The point is that you can't criticize the aggregate mass of genetic possibilities and probabilities for being an unlikely mechanism for moving biology from point A to point NOW. Evolution doesn't exist for the purpose of moving biology from point A to point NOW, nor to point FUTURE. No more than gravity exists for the purpose of holding our feet to the earth. We can look back and trace the line of its progress- which from point NOW may look deceptively obvious, but the future is wide open.

I actually agree mostly with what you say here. But you are starting from a premise of evolution is true.

You said: "What are the chances, from an infinite number of potential realities, that I exist here and now?" But if we exist here and now to ask the question, then the improbable has already happened.

Because we are here still doesn't make evolution true, unless you have already assumed that is the mechanism for our existance. That is were the logic of your statement falls apart.

If God is the creator of us, as I believe, then it is entirely possible that we are here exactly when we are supposed to be.

redmaxx

09-24-2009, 12:08 PM

Good to see you here skiman!

I seem to remember a very wise poster posting an analogy of driving in your car, arriving at a destination, and then trying to calculate the probability of that exact sequence happening exactly as it did. But of course the probability is 1, because you're already there and that's the path you took. But if you were to start and try and calculate the probability of the exact path you took before you took it, that would be almost impossible.

I think what talgot is trying to say is that there's still chance involved. It's not like early life could "will" their genes to produce eyes. Under evolutionary theory, it just happened.

darkfrog

09-24-2009, 12:35 PM

No, the issue is not wether you give the credit to God or not. It is if the verse is accurate as you claimed it not to be. It has been demonstrated that it is, contrary to your intitial view.
How can you keep saying it has been demonstrated accurate? Where? The link you gave doesn't demonstrate the verse is accurate. Even the best he can do is come up with 3.13953...

If I credit God, then your God is wrong and didn't mention a good method of estimating pi in his book.

talgot

09-24-2009, 01:00 PM

How can you keep saying it has been demonstrated accurate? Where? The link you gave doesn't demonstrate the verse is accurate. Even the best he can do is come up with 3.13953...

If I credit God, then your God is wrong and didn't mention a good method of estimating pi in his book.

You are going to quivel over .01? You are going off of guesses as to the exact size of a cubit and a hand breadth was. I think you are stretching a bit if this is the best you got.

logantn

09-24-2009, 01:18 PM

Adults with imaginary friends.

darkfrog

09-24-2009, 01:29 PM

You are going to quivel over .01? You are going off of guesses as to the exact size of a cubit and a hand breadth was. I think you are stretching a bit if this is the best you got.
When there are many more accurate ways of estimating pi, yes, I expect a deity to do better.

As to the varible size of a cubit and hand breadth that just makes it less probable this was every supposed to be interpreted in such a silly way and the calculation could easily go in the wrong direction in terms of accuracy.

Your still have not given any answers how and why plants and animals appear to form in such nice nested hierarchies anatomically, physiologically and embryologically with confirmation of such relationships by DNA. Is god is deceptive and made everything appear to be related in such manner or did things evolve that way?

Your strongest argument that biological systems did not evolve is because the bible didn't say so. In spite of your claim, you have not explained away the obvious geocentrism in the bible, completely ignoring that Galileo was tried for heresy for claiming otherwise. You have to make all kinds of concessions already, why not just accept the obvious fact of evolution and realize that Genesis is a metaphor with symbolism and moral lessons, and not actual history?

superdan54

09-24-2009, 02:27 PM

I tried to search for that post, but even in the thread archive it appears all posts from 2/20/2008 until 9/2/2009 can't be found in the linked threads....there were a lot of good posts in that timeframe from a lot of people. I think the whole "monkeys writing Shakespeare" discussion happened within that time period.

This thread is so legendary that we get two seperate archives! You might be able to find what you're looking for in this one (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=1557245).

skiman

09-25-2009, 05:54 AM

Good to see you here skiman!

Hallo friend.:wave:

I actually agree mostly with what you say here. But you are starting from a premise of evolution is true.

You said: "What are the chances, from an infinite number of potential realities, that I exist here and now?" But if we exist here and now to ask the question, then the improbable has already happened.

Because we are here still doesn't make evolution true, unless you have already assumed that is the mechanism for our existance. That is were the logic of your statement falls apart.

If God is the creator of us, as I believe, then it is entirely possible that we are here exactly when we are supposed to be.
To be fair, I didn't make any argument for or against evolution in that post, (though I certainly believe that it is established fact).

Just trying to point out that the oft-leveled criticism of improbability or "just too complex to have happened by chance" is a product of poor reason. It's something that keeps coming up, but should be dispensed with.

Crazier things have happened, after all. I mean, what's the probability that my beloved Trojans would drop a game to Washington? :dontknow" Yet looking back at each craptacular step along the way, it seems freaking inevitable...

talgot

09-25-2009, 06:54 AM

When there are many more accurate ways of estimating pi, yes, I expect a deity to do better.

The passage was an historical account. Wether or not it was or wasn't accurate in your mind is not a bad reflection on God. This is an account. It is just that, a recall of what happened.That has no bearing on wether God is a good or bad deity.

As to the varible size of a cubit and hand breadth that just makes it less probable this was every supposed to be interpreted in such a silly way and the calculation could easily go in the wrong direction in terms of accuracy.

Or it could make it more accurate. What it doesn't mention is the numbers used or if they had a standard they used for the measurements. To only claim it could be inaccurate and not acknowledge your basing it off of some unknowns and therefore you dismiss it as not accurate is disingenious on your part.

Your still have not given any answers how and why plants and animals appear to form in such nice nested hierarchies anatomically, physiologically and embryologically with confirmation of such relationships by DNA. Is god is deceptive and made everything appear to be related in such manner or did things evolve that way? You keep using this word deceptive. how is deceptive if that is what he intended? You are stretching again.

Your strongest argument that biological systems did not evolve is because the bible didn't say so. In spite of your claim, you have not explained away the obvious geocentrism in the bible, completely ignoring that Galileo was tried for heresy for claiming otherwise. You have to make all kinds of concessions already, why not just accept the obvious fact of evolution and realize that Genesis is a metaphor with symbolism and moral lessons, and not actual history?

The only alusion to geocentrism I am aware the bible infers is that the earth is special to us. The focus of Gods work.

How does Galileo disprove the bible? So there were overzealous people that claimed to be of God? They were not unlike the pharacies Jesus delt with. When religion is bigger than God and his word you will have times like this when men add doctrine that doesn't have any bases in scripture. It is no different with religion than science. There are times when both go beyond their mandate and make it look bad. Are you advocating those that are zealous in either be representative of the whole? I would hope not.

I wasn't aware I made any concessions that I had not already believed in. Even if we take you at ace value your statement, it doesn't mean anything. As new evidence comes forth we all change to some degree. You wouldn't argue that is a bad thing do you? But you are welcome to show what concessions I have made in your view.

talgot

09-25-2009, 07:03 AM

Hallo friend.:wave:

To be fair, I didn't make any argument for or against evolution in that post, (though I certainly believe that it is established fact).

Just trying to point out that the oft-leveled criticism of improbability or "just too complex to have happened by chance" is a product of poor reason. It's something that keeps coming up, but should be dispensed with.

Crazier things have happened, after all. I mean, what's the probability that my beloved Trojans would drop a game to Washington? :dontknow" Yet looking back at each craptacular step along the way, it seems freaking inevitable...
The likelyhood it did occur is the point.That is not poor reason to not take seriously a process that has no statistcal chance of occurring much less perpetuating even if it ever occurred. That is not poor reason. It may be from your view and others who believe it did occur. Once you believe it has occurred you are correct , it would seem to you poor reasoning to not give it its credit.

BTW I did like how you phrased the post before this one. It was well thought out and very reasonable in many ways. :)

Epiphyte

09-25-2009, 07:10 AM

talgot

09-25-2009, 07:29 AM

What are the chances that Mount Everest would form naturally? How could land reach elevations above 29,000ft without an obvious intervention of a supremely powerful creator? Well, it's because there are mechanisms that lead to such features on the Earth, plate tectonics. Could those mechanisms be tools that the creator uses to have an outcome such as Mt. Everest? Could be. Same goes for the mechanism called Evolution and the diversity of species that we see.

Both seem unlikely, but they're just the result of a very slow process going on over a period of many millions of years.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges here. I understand that plate techtonics is the cause of mountains. I disagree that it was the result of slow processes on both accounts.

http://www.eoearth.org/image/Synclinal_folds_pic.jpg

This in my view is not done over millions of years. There are many examples of folds such as this that suggest the opposite happened. I beleive our major mountain systems were created in a much shorter time.

Epiphyte

09-25-2009, 07:34 AM

I think you are comparing apples to oranges here. I understand that plate techtonics is the cause of mountains. I disagree that it was the result of slow processes on both accounts.

http://www.eoearth.org/image/Synclinal_folds_pic.jpg

This in my view is not done over millions of years. There are many examples of folds such as this that suggest the opposite happened. I beleive our major mountain systems were created in a much shorter time.

I don't disagree that sometimes big geological changes occur quickly (e.g, volcanism), but what evidence do you have that mountains form rapidly? What time scale do you propose for the formation of that syncline?

skiman

09-25-2009, 09:10 AM

The likelyhood it did occur is the point.That is not poor reason to not take seriously a process that has no statistcal chance of occurring much less perpetuating even if it ever occurred. That is not poor reason. It may be from your view and others who believe it did occur. Once you believe it has occurred you are correct , it would seem to you poor reasoning to not give it its credit.

BTW I did like how you phrased the post before this one. It was well thought out and very reasonable in many ways. :)

The question of the reasoning has nothing to do with belief. You can have the same discussion about any subject. For example:

What is the probability of the events of September 25 2009 happening as they will/are? How would you begin such a calculation?

From a nearly infinite number of possible outcomes, any result is improbable. Nevertheless, we will finish the day with a snapshot of reality in which events will have happened.

Or as riptide reminded me, if you were to hop into your car and drive blindfolded for an hour, what is the probability that you will end up in the place which you will? How would you calculate it? Yet you know you will be somewhere. (Probably the emergency room.) )

What is the probability that you will exist at any specific point (x, y, z, t)? (And to get even more Cartesian, the fact that you ask the question is evidence of existence at some point.)

From a nearly infinite number of possibilities, you will have a result. Looking back on your route, you will see that you must have followed course A-->B-->C-->D... to get to your current point of existence.

Using your reasoning, one would have to say, that it is impossible (or virtually impossible) to have followed such a course- too many "lucky coincidences." This way of thinking treats your current point of existence as the only possible outcome- and indeed it would be highly improbable to hit one specific point after driving blindfolded for an hour.

Hitting ANY specific point is equally improbable. Nevertheless, you will end up at one of these equally improbable points.

And, of course, you will be at one of these highly improbable points every instant of your journey. It's impossibility stacked on impossibility, stacked on impossibility... (of course, the neighboring points become more likely from within any current point)

Whether you "believe" in evolution or not, to properly discuss it you have to stop thinking of evolution as a trip from Specific A to Specific B. Instead, think of it as the process of driving or of movement.

You can say that you don't believe that biology is being moved in such a way, or that our retrospective misplots the course taken, but probability of a specific destination has no bearing on the question of motion.

Just like our blindfolded driver, we are at a Cartesian point of existence, trying to understand what path we followed to arrive here and now.

darkfrog

09-25-2009, 09:22 AM

The passage was an historical account. Wether or not it was or wasn't accurate in your mind is not a bad reflection on God. This is an account. It is just that, a recall of what happened.That has no bearing on wether God is a good or bad deity.That's what I have been saying! Many of these stories are just accounts. I'm not the one though trying to use these accounts as proof of the divinity of the bible.

Or it could make it more accurate. What it doesn't mention is the numbers used or if they had a standard they used for the measurements. To only claim it could be inaccurate and not acknowledge your basing it off of some unknowns and therefore you dismiss it as not accurate is disingenious on your part.It mentions a number, 10. It mentions another number, 3. Since pi is a ratio, that's all of the numbers we need. Only when you skew the meaning of the passage do you need 'more' because YOU are being disingenuous as to what the passage really says.

You keep using this word deceptive. how is deceptive if that is what he intended? You are stretching again.
How is it a stretch to ask why your god made every living thing on earth with the APPEARANCE of common ancestry? If every creature was magicked into existence, a fish shouldn't appear to be related to a salamander by exactly the amount of change we would expect to find if evolution were true (with the same being said of every living creature on earth). Maybe you still don't understand the significance of twin nested hierarchies. If not, then please at least try to watch the video again, I know he talks fast but that's why you can pause and he provides a transcript.

The bottom line is evolution is accepted as true because we see the evidence everywhere. This evidence cannot be explained by special creation but you are welcome to try. To say that is what he intended is to say he was deceptive knowing that man would have the capacity to reason and figure this out.

The only alusion to geocentrism I am aware the bible infers is that the earth is special to us. The focus of Gods work.
How does Galileo disprove the bible?
I mentioned it in the post earlier.
God laid the foundations of the earth, and that it does not move (Psalms 104:5)
This is the passage that Galileo was specifically indicted on.

So there were overzealous people that claimed to be of God? They were not unlike the pharacies Jesus delt with. When religion is bigger than God and his word you will have times like this when men add doctrine that doesn't have any bases in scripture. It is no different with religion than science. There are times when both go beyond their mandate and make it look bad. Are you advocating those that are zealous in either be representative of the whole? I would hope not.

I wasn't aware I made any concessions that I had not already believed in. Even if we take you at ace value your statement, it doesn't mean anything. As new evidence comes forth we all change to some degree. You wouldn't argue that is a bad thing do you? But you are welcome to show what concessions I have made in your view.
New evidence HAS come forth but you and your kind still ignore it. You ignore whole areas of science in order to discount evolutionary theory. It has been brought up many times but the congruence of evidence for evolution and an ancient earth comes from many areas of science which would have to be wrong in order for you to be right. Yet science is self-correcting, it gets rid of things that don't work and keeps what does. Darwin's theory is no longer Darwin. It has evolved. Gone are the parts that didn't work, the Lemarckian ideas, the gradualism, etc. In comes new, fresh information to were the new evolutionary theory is the grand Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution. Evolution is true because we see it occurring. New species have come about during our lifetime showing that macro evolution happens as well. New attributes are able to be looked at now at the genetic level and see how and where they come from. We now have mechanisms at the cellular level for all sorts of evolutionary events like how cetaceans lost their hind limbs and bacteria able to produce a new enzyme to digest nylon. To claim we don't know evolution occurs and have all of this supporting evidence is to be essentially closing your eyes with your fingers in your ears singing "La La La La La La La La La La La La" and you are essentially calling scientist self-deluded.

skiman

09-25-2009, 09:31 AM

t has evolved. Gone are the parts that didn't work, the Lemarckian ideas, the gradualism, etc.
Still, to be on the safe side, it's important to do a lot of schlong stretching, just in case Lamarck turns out to have been right. The next generation will thank you!

superdan54

09-25-2009, 11:55 AM

Four-winged dino may be missing link in bird debate

PARIS (AFP) � The stunning remains of a "four-winged" dinosaur have confirmed that birds owe their ancestry to two-footed dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago, the world's most famous fossil-hunter said.

Xing Xu of the Chinese Academy of Science in Beijing is staking the claim thanks to an astonishingly-preserved fossil of a bird-like dinosaur called Anchiornis huxleyi.

Until now, A. huxleyi was thought to be a primitive bird. It was presumed to have been a near-contemporary of Archaeopteryx, the first recognised bird, which flew around 150 million years ago.

But these opinions were based on an incomplete fossil.

The new, nearly-complete specimen gives a different picture, suggesting that A. huxleyi is millions of years older than Archaeopteryx and has both dinosaur and avian features.

It is the long-sought evidence that proves birds descended from theropod dinosaurs, argues Xu.

His team, whose work was announced late Thursday by the British journal Nature, describe a dinosaur with long feathers covering its arms, tail as well as its feet.

This is an arrangement that Xu says is "four-winged", although no guarantee that the creature had aerial ability. In contrast, its elongated lower legs suggest it was a good runner.

Some evolutionary biologists have suggested that a four-winged condition played a role in the origin of flight, but the idea is opposed by others.

The plumage attachment is especially important because it shows how bird-like dinosaurs developed skeletal and other features enabling them to have feathers, the paper says.

Scientists have long argued about the evolutionary line taken by birds.

Some have said bird-like dinosaurs appear too late in the fossil record to be the true ancestors of birds, an argument known as the "temporal paradox."

The debate has raged for years mainly because the fossil evidence is so rare or fragmented.

The new evidence comes from in Daxishan, in Jianchang county in northeastern China.

It was found in rock dated to the early part of the Late Jurassic, between 151 and 161 million years ago, which means it is clearly older than Archaeopteryx.

Rather than be considered a bird, A. huxleyi is a late member of the Troodontidae, a category of dinosaurs closely related to avians, the study argues.

"This new find refutes the ?temporal paradox? and provides significant information on the temporal framework of theropod divergence," it says.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090925/ts_afp/sciencepalaeontologydinosaurbird_20090925085911

darkfrog

09-26-2009, 10:28 PM

Figures. Whenever I ask the tough questions that require thought because the answer isn't in the bible or answered on some creationist website, all I hear are crickets....

Anonymouse

09-26-2009, 11:39 PM

Hallo friend.:wave:

To be fair, I didn't make any argument for or against evolution in that post, (though I certainly believe that it is established fact).

Just trying to point out that the oft-leveled criticism of improbability or "just too complex to have happened by chance" is a product of poor reason. It's something that keeps coming up, but should be dispensed with.

Crazier things have happened, after all. I mean, what's the probability that my beloved Trojans would drop a game to Washington? :dontknow" Yet looking back at each craptacular step along the way, it seems freaking inevitable...The larger influence anyone named Pete Carroll has on the team, the closer probability approaches 1.
GO Bucky!
Winner of the last THREE confrontations with a PAC-10 team in the Rose Bowl.
1994: WI 21 - UCLA 16
1999: WI 38 - UCLA 31
2000: WI 17 - Stanford 9

As my wife likes to say, it's hard to keep a good man down.
As my girlfriend likes to say, to keep a good man hard, go down. :P

Foreveryours

09-26-2009, 11:49 PM

As my wife likes to say, it's hard to keep a good man down.
As my girlfriend likes to say, to keep a good man hard, go down. :P
You, sir, are a lucky man.

Phreaker47

09-27-2009, 07:13 PM

Just ran across this quite by accident... a Newsweek article with an excerpt from Richard Dawkin's new book.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140/page/1

From "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1416594787/?tag=nwswk-20).

It's never a bad idea to revisit the fact that fossil data is merely a "bonus" to bolster evolutionary theory, however, there's already overwhelming evidence for evolution that is completely aside from fossil evidence... therefore, the "gaps in the fossil record" argument from Creationists becomes even more meaningless.

As for the "gaps" argument, he makes a great analogy here:

Let's use the analogy of a detective coming to the scene of a crime where there were no eyewitnesses. The baronet has been shot. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol, and a strong motive, all point toward the butler. It's pretty much an open-and-shut case, and the jury and everybody in the court is convinced that the butler did it. But a last-minute piece of evidence is discovered, in the nick of time before the jury retires to consider what had seemed to be their inevitable verdict of guilty: somebody remembers that the baronet had installed spy cameras against burglars. With bated breath, the court watches the films. One of them shows the butler in the act of opening the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol, loading it, and creeping stealthily out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye. You might think that this solidifies the case against the butler even further. Mark the sequel, however. The butler's defense lawyer astutely points out that there was no spy camera in the library where the murder took place, and no spy camera in the corridor leading from the butler's pantry. "There's a gap in the video record! We don't know what happened after the butler left the pantry. There is clearly insufficient evidence to convict my client."

In vain, the prosecution lawyer points out that there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door, the butler, gun at the ready, creeping on tiptoe along the passage toward the library. Surely this plugs the gap in the video record? But no. Triumphantly the defense lawyer plays his ace. "We don't know what happened before or after the butler passed the open door of the billiard room. There are now two gaps in the video record. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my case rests. There is now even less evidence against my client than there was before."

The fossil record, like the spy camera in the murder story, is a bonus, something that we had no right to expect as a matter of entitlement. There is already more than enough evidence to convict the butler without the spy camera, and the jury was about to deliver a guilty verdict before the spy camera was discovered. Similarly, there is more than enough evidence for the fact of evolution in the comparative study of modern species and their geographical distribution. We don't need fossils. The case for evolution is watertight without them, so it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record as though they were evidence against evolution. We are lucky to have fossils at all.

Copperblade

09-27-2009, 11:25 PM

Figures. Whenever I ask the tough questions that require thought because the answer isn't in the bible or answered on some creationist website, all I hear are crickets....

If they would just come out and say "God wants us to test us about evolution and just made everything look that way," then at least there's no arguing the point anymore.

darkfrog

09-27-2009, 11:38 PM

If they would just come out and say "God wants us to test us about evolution and just made everything look that way," then at least there's no arguing the point anymore.

Yet when it's pointed out that's what they are asking us to believe, WE are the ones that are stretching the truth.

Your still have not given any answers how and why plants and animals appear to form in such nice nested hierarchies anatomically, physiologically and embryologically with confirmation of such relationships by DNA. Is god is deceptive and made everything appear to be related in such manner or did things evolve that way?
You keep using this word deceptive. how is deceptive if that is what he intended? You are stretching again.

Basically talgot, until you can answer these questions honestly, there's really no reason to continue discussing this with you.

logantn

09-28-2009, 01:43 AM

The whole of the theory is to say life can change and all came from one form. A common ancestry. It may not be as big of a hit to those who have God in the mix but those that think God is fictitious, Life needs to be able to come from non-life. And if that is not able to happen how are we to believe life makes the leaps you are claiming to of happened? You may want to conveniently discard this rather troubling problem but it makes a difference to how things occurred and do happen today. This is clearly perspective. I will grant you that perspective has alot to do with anything we view as important or not. So while it is a big deal from mine, it may not be from yours.

Come on, seriously? I'd submit that the truth is more like this:

For those who think God is NOT fictitious, life needs to be able to come from non-life.
For those aren't believers, "I don't know" is an adequate answer.

Evolution makes no claims about the origins of life - abiogenesis is still in its early stages as a science. 50 years ago we were able to make amino acids out of simple elements which were readily available post-big bang, though.

NicolasKL

09-28-2009, 09:05 PM

I think you are comparing apples to oranges here. I understand that plate techtonics is the cause of mountains. I disagree that it was the result of slow processes on both accounts.

http://www.eoearth.org/image/Synclinal_folds_pic.jpg

This in my view is not done over millions of years. There are many examples of folds such as this that suggest the opposite happened. I beleive our major mountain systems were created in a much shorter time.

What on earth makes you correlate folding with a short timeframe? Folding is more indicative of a LONG time frame. You try and bend something that is fairly brittle quickly and it breaks, you do it very, very slowly and you can bend it without breaking, it will deform in a ductile manner as seen in that fold.

This is a well known physical property of some materials. You can even try it at home, with something like wood.

NicolasKL

09-28-2009, 09:28 PM

That fold (and every fold like it, of which there are millions/billions) is actually a perfect example of one of the many, many, MANY reasons why we KNOW the earth is not young. If the movement that caused that deformation had happened quickly, that fold wouldn't exist. You'd have a fault. If that deformation happened on the surface, that fold wouldn't exist, you'd have a jumbled mess of broken rock. The only way you get folds like that exposed at the surface is through uplift and erosion, which take TIME.

Libertarian

09-29-2009, 05:01 AM

Phreaker47

09-29-2009, 10:23 AM

So I've started Dawkin's new book, "The Greatest Show on Earth". In this book, he has finally pinpointed the idea of making the case for evolution, as opposed to referring to it as a foregone conclusion in the past.

He still can't shake his own harsh attitude towards creationists, that's for sure... in the first chapter, he compares the disruption of science by creationists with holocaust deniers disrupting a history class. I can't help getting a kick out of this, though.

Libertarian

11-05-2009, 09:50 PM

Phreaker47

11-06-2009, 08:28 PM

arjunsr

11-06-2009, 10:55 PM

my question to all creationists. did you have the same doubt about mathematical systems? during ancient times, we only knew about rational #'s (any thing that can be expresses as a/b, a,b integers). we had suspicions things like the real # line and other things existed. we had suspicions of calculus.

none of this has had an alternative view in the bible. granted metric spaces and numbers have a much more rigorous proof, the ingenious nature is finding the method to prove it, while the actual proof could be rudimentary. ie, cantor's diagonal argument isn't hard to understand, but creating it was impressive.

apply the same things to scientific method. from what we observe we have a feeling of how it should be. we have similar things that show proof but doesn't have a completely rigorous proof.

just as someone who's focused on math.. its interesting the general acceptance math gets but the aspects of science that contradict the bible get picked apart.

superdan54

11-06-2009, 11:51 PM

Just watched the whole thing, very cool.

I watched it as well earlier. It was a good presentation, and brought up a few new things I hadn't heard (such as being able to take core samples in ocean beds and measure the change in the organisms).

I didn't care to much for the scatter plots at the end, especially the one measuring "relative happiness" and such between countries. A little too much correlation & causation and the plots themselves seemed pretty subjective IMHO. People are unhappy because they are poor, and turn to religion because it gives them hope. Teaching them the "truth" of evolution isn't going to make their economic status any better.

Libertarian

11-07-2009, 12:15 AM

I watched it as well earlier. It was a good presentation, and brought up a few new things I hadn't heard (such as being able to take core samples in ocean beds and measure the change in the organisms).

I didn't care to much for the scatter plots at the end, especially the one measuring "relative happiness" and such between countries. A little too much correlation & causation and the plots themselves seemed pretty subjective IMHO. People are unhappy because they are poor, and turn to religion because it gives them hope. Teaching them the "truth" of evolution isn't going to make their economic status any better.

Come on Dan..you were so close. Just remove the quotes from your post and it will be perfect. ;)

WarningLevel3

11-07-2009, 12:26 AM

They should offer a 3rd choice on the poll A.O.

Doctor_Wu

11-07-2009, 04:38 AM

apply the same things to scientific method. from what we observe we have a feeling of how it should be. we have similar things that show proof but doesn't have a completely rigorous proof.

just as someone who's focused on math.. its interesting the general acceptance math gets but the aspects of science that contradict the bible get picked apart.

I cannot answer as a strict creationist, but I will stand in for them.

On the one hand you do mention the lack of rigorous proof. That's certainly one factor, and a opening, of sorts, where doubt can be injected.

However... the more basic issue as far as I can tell... is that math has no metaphysical ramifications. The basic issue is the consequence of a disproved creation. I don't quite maintain that evolution disproves creation... as I believe there is at least one passage in the OT that suggests that one day to god is like a thousand days to man, which may indicate that man is not to take the 6 days as literal 24 hour periods.

Beyond that the measure of a "day" is the rotation of the earth on its axis... or from the perspective of ancient people the 24hr cycle of the sun and moon. Yet the creation account does not create the sun until day 4. So if we allow the creation account to have robust internal consistency, and to have been written on a high level (which study of it reveals)... then to quote Leo Strauss, "...if in the beginning God created heaven and earth and all the other things in six days, the days cannot be days in the ordinary sense, for days in the ordinary sense are determined by the movements of the sun. Yet the sun was created only on the fourth creation day."

This quote is from a philosophical interpretation of the creation account... it goes on into some depth on the meaning of the creation story from the perspective of internal clues. It's really quite amazing and reveals Genesis to be a philosophically robust yet compact statement on man's station on earth. Not easy reading though.

Anyway, that aside... the general problem I think most creationists have is the perception that meaning will be destroyed by the idea that we were not created. If we are not created beings then we are free to be nihilists. If we're not created then there is no ultimate meaning for human life, nor consequence for our actions. Our importance shrinks and crimes don't matter. Why do the laws even matter at that point? Does anything matter anymore? There is no ultimate standard, no bedrock upon which to build a functioning belief in man's importance, and thereby in the importance of man's own inventions, like laws, freedom, liberty or equality.

Even our own founding can be called into question. If god did not create all men equal... b/c he didn't create them... if we evolved, then maybe some are move evolved than others.

I believe that evolution gets picked apart b/c of the consequences of a disproved creation. So it is important to attempt to logically refute evolution with what weapons they have to prevent the further domination of positivism upon the minds of western people. And in that sense I have sympathy for their efforts.

darkfrog

11-07-2009, 05:06 PM

I cannot answer as a strict creationist, but I will stand in for them.

On the one hand you do mention the lack of rigorous proof. That's certainly one factor, and a opening, of sorts, where doubt can be injected.

However... the more basic issue as far as I can tell... is that math has no metaphysical ramifications. The basic issue is the consequence of a disproved creation. I don't quite maintain that evolution disproves creation... as I believe there is at least one passage in the OT that suggests that one day to god is like a thousand days to man, which may indicate that man is not to take the 6 days as literal 24 hour periods.

Beyond that the measure of a "day" is the rotation of the earth on its axis... or from the perspective of ancient people the 24hr cycle of the sun and moon. Yet the creation account does not create the sun until day 4. So if we allow the creation account to have robust internal consistency, and to have been written on a high level (which study of it reveals)... then to quote Leo Strauss, "...if in the beginning God created heaven and earth and all the other things in six days, the days cannot be days in the ordinary sense, for days in the ordinary sense are determined by the movements of the sun. Yet the sun was created only on the fourth creation day."

This quote is from a philosophical interpretation of the creation account... it goes on into some depth on the meaning of the creation story from the perspective of internal clues. It's really quite amazing and reveals Genesis to be a philosophically robust yet compact statement on man's station on earth. Not easy reading though.

Anyway, that aside... the general problem I think most creationists have is the perception that meaning will be destroyed by the idea that we were not created. If we are not created beings then we are free to be nihilists. If we're not created then there is no ultimate meaning for human life, nor consequence for our actions. Our importance shrinks and crimes don't matter. Why do the laws even matter at that point? Does anything matter anymore? There is no ultimate standard, no bedrock upon which to build a functioning belief in man's importance, and thereby in the importance of man's own inventions, like laws, freedom, liberty or equality.

Even our own founding can be called into question. If god did not create all men equal... b/c he didn't create them... if we evolved, then maybe some are move evolved than others.

I believe that evolution gets picked apart b/c of the consequences of a disproved creation. So it is important to attempt to logically refute evolution with what weapons they have to prevent the further domination of positivism upon the minds of western people. And in that sense I have sympathy for their efforts.
I have heard those arguments before, that if we are merely a fortunate accident, then we should be nihilists and morality and law doesn't matter. This is identical to the claim that atheism inevitably leads to nihilism, which can be true if you consider nihilism neutral and not the negative connotations associated with it such as you imply.
People can make their own meaning out of life. Making something of yourself, becoming a contributor to humanity, possibly even a legacy. People can be moral without a deity to tell them how.
Do religious people you know follow the law and behave morally ONLY because of fear of punishment in the afterlife? If the answer is yes, then I feel sorry for those people and would hate to go through life like that.

Libertarian

11-07-2009, 05:26 PM

Do religious people you know follow the law and behave morally ONLY because of fear of punishment in the afterlife? If the answer is yes, then I feel sorry for those people and would hate to go through life like that.

"If you advocate morality, you have to abandon the barbarism of getting morality as a matter of commandment. Morality is not a series of revelations handed out unintelligibly by a God whose first commandment is that you shouldn’t think and know the difference between good and evil. That is something that has to be rejected before you can enter the field of morality." - Leonard Peikoff

darkfrog

11-07-2009, 06:46 PM

"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history my be the hijacking of morality by religion. However valuable - even necessary - that may have been in enforcing good behavior on primitive peoples, their association is now counterproductive. Yet at the very moment when they should be decoupled, sanctimonious nitwits are calling for a return to morals based on superstition."
- Arthur C. Clarke

darkfrog

11-07-2009, 07:49 PM

I posted this in the lounge and Catluver thought I was afraid to post it in the podium, :lol: I figure it belongs in this thread rather than in a separate post.

Why evolution is true (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig&fmt=18)

This is a great lecture for people who intuitively understand the principle of evolution, but have never really learned the details/proof behind it. This guy explains the six main types of evidence in less than an hour. Enjoy!
I wasn't too surprised that when bringing politics into it, he has a strong bias that he overlooks within himself. Certainly there are political debates such as abortion and some school issues, gay marriage that are tainted by religious views but health care and global warming or even the 'birther' thing have nothing to do with religion,

Phreaker47

11-07-2009, 10:59 PM

I watched it as well earlier. It was a good presentation, and brought up a few new things I hadn't heard (such as being able to take core samples in ocean beds and measure the change in the organisms).

I didn't care to much for the scatter plots at the end, especially the one measuring "relative happiness" and such between countries. A little too much correlation & causation and the plots themselves seemed pretty subjective IMHO. People are unhappy because they are poor, and turn to religion because it gives them hope. Teaching them the "truth" of evolution isn't going to make their economic status any better.

The part about that section that I did like was that when the question arose about "what do we do about this?" that the suggestion was not to promote a sustained attack on religion, but to merely promote critical and rational thought.

arjunsr

11-07-2009, 11:12 PM

I cannot answer as a strict creationist, but I will stand in for them.

On the one hand you do mention the lack of rigorous proof. That's certainly one factor, and a opening, of sorts, where doubt can be injected.

However... the more basic issue as far as I can tell... is that math has no metaphysical ramifications. The basic issue is the consequence of a disproved creation. I don't quite maintain that evolution disproves creation... as I believe there is at least one passage in the OT that suggests that one day to god is like a thousand days to man, which may indicate that man is not to take the 6 days as literal 24 hour periods.

Beyond that the measure of a "day" is the rotation of the earth on its axis... or from the perspective of ancient people the 24hr cycle of the sun and moon. Yet the creation account does not create the sun until day 4. So if we allow the creation account to have robust internal consistency, and to have been written on a high level (which study of it reveals)... then to quote Leo Strauss, "...if in the beginning God created heaven and earth and all the other things in six days, the days cannot be days in the ordinary sense, for days in the ordinary sense are determined by the movements of the sun. Yet the sun was created only on the fourth creation day."

This quote is from a philosophical interpretation of the creation account... it goes on into some depth on the meaning of the creation story from the perspective of internal clues. It's really quite amazing and reveals Genesis to be a philosophically robust yet compact statement on man's station on earth. Not easy reading though.

Anyway, that aside... the general problem I think most creationists have is the perception that meaning will be destroyed by the idea that we were not created. If we are not created beings then we are free to be nihilists. If we're not created then there is no ultimate meaning for human life, nor consequence for our actions. Our importance shrinks and crimes don't matter. Why do the laws even matter at that point? Does anything matter anymore? There is no ultimate standard, no bedrock upon which to build a functioning belief in man's importance, and thereby in the importance of man's own inventions, like laws, freedom, liberty or equality.

Even our own founding can be called into question. If god did not create all men equal... b/c he didn't create them... if we evolved, then maybe some are move evolved than others.

I believe that evolution gets picked apart b/c of the consequences of a disproved creation. So it is important to attempt to logically refute evolution with what weapons they have to prevent the further domination of positivism upon the minds of western people. And in that sense I have sympathy for their efforts.
that was the point i was getting at. there's an amazing similarity in pursuit of mathematical and scientific advancement.

in math, if you find the say magical element that makes it clear.. then its easily understandable why its true. this is through human innovation. someone figures out the set/series/sequence, then most people familiar have no problem following. same with issues of science. ie, helio centric universe. it was observed, but it was difficult to get past the church's views before it was widely accepted.

there's nothing philosophical / damaging/ change of world views if you accept mathematical advancement. my assertion though, is because there's no consequence as a society we will go along with it. with science though, since it contradicts it's not as accepted

Doctor_Wu

11-08-2009, 03:42 AM

I have heard those arguments before, that if we are merely a fortunate accident, then we should be nihilists and morality and law doesn't matter. This is identical to the claim that atheism inevitably leads to nihilism, which can be true if you consider nihilism neutral and not the negative connotations associated with it such as you imply.

What's the difference if I see it as neutral or negative? The definition is still the same no matter what opinion one holds of it.

Libertarian

11-08-2009, 05:53 AM

darkfrog

11-08-2009, 09:34 AM

What's the difference if I see it as neutral or negative? The definition is still the same no matter what opinion one holds of it.not exactly. The idea that life has no meaning or purpose by itself is not necessarily negative. It's the extension of what some people think that belief inevitably leads to is what becomes negative.

larrymoencurly

11-09-2009, 08:09 AM

They should offer a 3rd choice on the poll A.O.They should instead offer one less choice so only the correct one appears.

Doctor_Wu

11-09-2009, 02:53 PM

I don't get why some folks think we need an all knowing God who pays attention to our little speck in the cosmos to make life meaningful. The idea that there would be nothing to aim for without a heaven or hell is completely foreign to me.. It seems quite the opposite actually. The fact that this life is all there is means that it should be celebrated..that we should live it to the fullest and make the most of every second we are here. We should not be doomed to toil and deprive ourselves in this world in order to achieve happiness and fulfillment in the "next life". These are things that can (and should) be achieved on earth.

I don't really frame as you do here. I don't see it so simply as the need for heaven or hell, or the need to behave properly to get into heaven. It's much more broad than that.

No one has bothered to notice, but I did use the term ultimate meaning. Celebrating life, living to the fullest every second.... these are platitudes. They may be enough for you, they may be enough for many people. But they are not enough for a large portion. For them there must be a meaning that is beyond that which we can conjure or make up on our own.

It takes a certain mind...one free from any doubt, to declare the meaning and purpose of their own life. When you think about it, we ultimately don't know our origin. We can't say for sure that we weren't created. So to take charge of one's own life and declare a purpose... or deny a purpose (which is itself a declaration)... takes a mind that is willing to shut out the obvious. Now, these people can be very effective, they can live well and accomplish much, but I do not believe they are the majority. The majority do not have the confidence to simply declare all doubts to be trivial. This is the origin of the human problem, and it is the reason for that old quote about even if god isn't real it would be necessary to invent him.

As beings who have the capacity for something beyond math... as beings who have the capacity for the 'why' question. We suspect there must be an ultimate "why". And the absence of knowledge of that 'why' leaves us perplexed.

Libertarian

11-10-2009, 02:00 AM

As beings who have the capacity for something beyond math... as beings who have the capacity for the 'why' question. We suspect there must be an ultimate "why". And the absence of knowledge of that 'why' leaves us perplexed.

Then what better "purpose" could there be than a dedication to learning the truth..to improving human knowledge and probing the mysteries of the universe? Before we can know "why" we need a more complete picture of the "what". Religion has has no power to answer this question or advance the human race in any way.

mannish

11-10-2009, 08:05 AM

Libertarian

11-10-2009, 08:09 AM

darkfrog

11-10-2009, 11:04 AM

I think it has to be creation. I am not a religious person but the human body is way, WAY more complex than anything man has ever created. That didn't just evolve. Take the eye for example very, very complex and can last over 100 years. The brain talk about FAST processing. The miracle of birth - I just can not see that being something that evolved. I chose to believe that here is a God but I am not a christian.

I have doubts that Christopher Columbus actually existed - I think the Indians made that crap up

No one has shown me any proof that Columbus ever existed and it should not be taught as 'fact' in schools.
The ID folks must love people like you. Complexity, complexity...complexity, complexity--it's so complex, it must have been designed.
"This is so complex, I don't see how it could have evolved, therefore god did it." is merely an argument from ignorance with god of the gaps thrown in for good measure.

shhaggy

11-10-2009, 11:51 AM

I think it has to be creation. I am not a religious person but the human body is way, WAY more complex than anything man has ever created. That didn't just evolve. Take the eye for example very, very complex and can last over 100 years. The brain talk about FAST processing. The miracle of birth - I just can not see that being something that evolved. I chose to believe that here is a God but I am not a christian.

I have doubts that Christopher Columbus actually existed - I think the Indians made that crap up

No one has shown me any proof that Columbus ever existed and it should not be taught as 'fact' in schools.

No tribe on the mainland ever encountered Columbus, so if you know of any that make claims about him, you're right. Columbus did keep records and journals though, he certainly existed. But he's no American hero and certainly doesn't deserve a day off. The only American land he set foot on was Puerto Rico, and he's responsible for the mass genocide of people he encountered when he got to various islands.

ramas83

11-10-2009, 10:13 PM

let's not shut our mind by what someone wrote thousands year back.
Clearly Science has proven that it is the answer to all our questions; and for questions that we don't have answers yet, humans just aren't smarter yet.

talgot

11-11-2009, 06:30 AM

Libertarian

11-11-2009, 06:49 AM

Explain philosophy scientifically. Explain emotions scientifically. Explain reason.

God did it. :lol:

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the natural world..cosmology, physics, biology, etc. Science continues to improve and gives us an increasingly accurate (and naturalistic, rather than supernatural) explanation for nearly everything we observe..making the concept of an intervening "god" superfluous.

skiman

11-11-2009, 07:02 AM

Explain philosophy scientifically. Explain emotions scientifically. Explain reason.

That seems rather circular. Philosophy is reason, and both are science-- or perhaps we might think of them as the first science, creating a structured method to pursue answers to any question. (finding answers is another matter)

Even inquiries as broad and abstract as metaphysics and ethics are processed through the same "scientific method."

As for emotion, that's a challenging field, and perhaps understudied relative to the impact on our daily lives, but don't make the mistake of imagining that we don't have studied research and theory regarding the evolutionary implications of emotion. Emotions are, by all evidence, valuable adaptations- particularly in mammals. "Love", anger, joy, fear all play BIG roles in shaping behavior. For instance, emotions can function as shortcuts that help to direct behavior in complex situations.

talgot

11-11-2009, 08:19 AM

God did it. :lol:

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the natural world..cosmology, physics, biology, etc. Science continues to improve and gives us an increasingly accurate (and naturalistic, rather than supernatural) explanation for nearly everything we observe..making the concept of an intervening "god" superfluous.

Then he worded it wrong. he said "Clearly Science has proven that it is the answer to all our questions; and for questions that we don't have answers yet, humans just aren't smarter yet."

And using the science has all the answers and we are not smart enough yet is no better than just saying God did it, as you are fond of mocking.

That seems rather circular. Philosophy is reason, and both are science-- or perhaps we might think of them as the first science, creating a structured method to pursue answers to any question. (finding answers is another matter)

Even inquiries as broad and abstract as metaphysics and ethics are processed through the same "scientific method."

As for emotion, that's a challenging field, and perhaps understudied relative to the impact on our daily lives, but don't make the mistake of imagining that we don't have studied research and theory regarding the evolutionary implications of emotion. Emotions are, by all evidence, valuable adaptations- particularly in mammals. "Love", anger, joy, fear all play BIG roles in shaping behavior. For instance, emotions can function as shortcuts that help to direct behavior in complex situations.

Vulcans might disagree. ;)

czissis

11-14-2009, 07:42 PM

I wish I could say this surprises me. Unfortunately it just shows the unbelievable obsession this country has with ignorance and religion.

Phreaker47

11-15-2009, 02:33 AM

The ID folks must love people like you. Complexity, complexity...complexity, complexity--it's so complex, it must have been designed.
"This is so complex, I don't see how it could have evolved, therefore god did it." is merely an argument from ignorance with god of the gaps thrown in for good measure.

If that endlessly both amuses and frustrates you, enjoy this video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet#p/a/D62809AD452EDB98/0/ba2h9tqNYAo

martib

11-15-2009, 11:21 AM

darkfrog

11-15-2009, 12:40 PM

Most of the so called science presented here is theory:abstract thought : speculation.
So as I see it,it is another belief system. A scientific fact is something that can be duplicated and get the same results every time. Evolution is theory and therefore a belief and because it happened in the past it can't be duplicated and it hasn't shown animal,vegetable or human has changed into another species or higher species they remain in their species ie:dog,tree or human. I can't prove God and you certainly can not prove evolution because the piltdown man,Lucy etc. are all proven hoaxes and the others the latest found is a extibct bird and an extinct monkey. Call what you believe anything you want but when it all comes down to it evolution takes a whole lot more faith than any Christian.
:lmao:
You really don't know much except what you are told by your pastor do you? First you spout revisionist history claiming the US was founded as a Christian country and now come here and show your complete ignorance about science and what evolution really is. There was a good video posted just s little ways up that goes through all of the evidence for evolution we have. Evolution is not abstract speculation, it is supported by evidence from many areas of science and biology. You make it sound like any historical science cannot be validated but of course you would be wrong.

You also should learn a little bit about what you are talking about since you obviously are just parroting what someone told you and don't really know the correct creationist arguments. Piltdown man was a hoax but guess who uncovered it? Scientists. Do you know how they uncovered it? It never fit well within the hominid evolutionary tree. Lucy is not a hoax, she is an example of Australopithecus afrensis, and is one of many fossils of that species that have been found. She cannot be an extinct monkey, there has never been a monkey that walked upright like Lucy.
We also have many examples of speciation, even some that have occurred in our lifetime and we can point to many transitional forms like Lucy in many different plants and animals so your claim that it hasn't been shown is clearly false.

I don't expect to change your mind since you show such extreme ignorance on this topic, I doubt any real evidence will mean anything to you but I thought I'd respond since other people read this forum. You really should browse through this thread and you will see some of these same arguments have been made before but have been thoroughly discredited. If you WANT to learn something about evolution, we can point you in the right direction (that video The Evidence for Evolution a page or so back would be a good start) but if you are trying to debate, there is none, your side lost 150 years ago when Darwin published The Origin of Species.

martib

11-15-2009, 01:40 PM

Phreaker47

11-15-2009, 03:57 PM

I been around long enough to know close minded people such as you who claim to know more but really hid behind their lack of knowledge. I've done my homework thru the years and as usual your wrong my pastor didn't teach me this as I said I did my home work I have more than 40 years of education in various fields and do not make the false claims you continually make. I do not need to see a one sided close minded video I can show you just as many video's as you can supporting my view. But as I said science is a reproducible outcome evolution is not able to accomplish that in any way unless somebody observed tested and it can still be confirmed and tested the same today it can't!
There are no transitional plants they are still plants and lucy is a proven hoax or did you miss that.
Donald Johanson: Was Lucy a Hoax?

Did Donald Johanson perpetrate a hoax upon us when he discovered Lucy?

This question is of personal importance to me. It's the lie that was told to me and many others by Dr. Robert Gentry on television in 1995.

I can't remember the exact wording, but basically the story went like this one from The Forerunner:

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).

Is this true? Did Donald Johanson find a knee far from Lucy's body, then deceive scientists and the masses alike into believing that it belonged to the same skeleton?

Did he then only admit it when confronted by creationists in 1986, almost 12 years to the day after Lucy's discovery?
Bring your faith on as I said you have far more faith than I do so do your home work!

Protip: You might want to do a better job with spelling, grammar, and punctuation at least. However, cleaning that up won't really help.

So if it wasn't your pastor, I bet it was one of those squeaky wheels like Michael Behe. Darwin's Black Box, maybe? A video I just posted yesterday sums up the creationist argument quite well in the first three minutes. Since you've been apparently studying this for 40 years, surely you can expound on this further? The creationist argument certainly must be too complex to have "just happened" in less than three minutes?
"Design vs. Chance" (http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet#p/a/D62809AD452EDB98/0/ba2h9tqNYAo)

darkfrog

11-15-2009, 06:26 PM

I been around long enough to know close minded people such as you who claim to know more but really hid behind their lack of knowledge. I've done my homework thru the years and as usual your wrong my pastor didn't teach me this as I said I did my home work I have more than 40 years of education in various fields and do not make the false claims you continually make. I do not need to see a one sided close minded video I can show you just as many video's as you can supporting my view. But as I said science is a reproducible outcome evolution is not able to accomplish that in any way unless somebody observed tested and it can still be confirmed and tested the same today it can't!
There are no transitional plants they are still plants and lucy is a proven hoax or did you miss that.
Donald Johanson: Was Lucy a Hoax?

Did Donald Johanson perpetrate a hoax upon us when he discovered Lucy?

This question is of personal importance to me. It's the lie that was told to me and many others by Dr. Robert Gentry on television in 1995.

I can't remember the exact wording, but basically the story went like this one from The Forerunner:

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy�s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, �could have� walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; �How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?� (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, �Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?� Dr. Johanson: �Anatomical similarity.� (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).

Is this true? Did Donald Johanson find a knee far from Lucy's body, then deceive scientists and the masses alike into believing that it belonged to the same skeleton?

Did he then only admit it when confronted by creationists in 1986, almost 12 years to the day after Lucy's discovery?
Bring your faith on as I said you have far more faith than I do so do your home work!

This is TP, you are required to post links to things you quote like this story above. First of all, Lucy didn't walk upright because of 'robust hips' but specific anatomical features of hips and feet that are shared with humans but no other non-human primate. Are you claiming you know more than forensic anthropologists?

So in your 40 years you believe that things that are unobservable or happened in history cannot be examined? I guess you don't believe in any forensic science, even the ones that put murderers away.

I find it extremely funny you call me closed minded when you won't even watch a video by some of today's pre-eminent evolutionary biologists taking the time to explain things in layman's terms. I say you are the definition of closed-minded.

Maybe you don't realize it but if we get rid of every piece of fossil evidence, we still have enough evidence in morphology and DNA to say evolution occurs. The morphology between species is something that was discovered and meticulously documented by a creationist, Linnaeus. It is really Linnaeus that gives us one half of the twin nested hierarchy which is best explained by evolution and has no explanation from a creationist standpoint.
I'm sure you won't watch it but I challenge you to open you mind and give it a try. If anything, at least you can explain to me why he is wrong.
Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6P91pk-Kec)
Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFKkfDV8HFg)

darkfrog

11-15-2009, 06:50 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v456/masterbate/theory1.jpg
http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu236/iceshaved/justatheory.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d183/jimbow8/PeriodicTableofElements.jpg

martib

11-15-2009, 07:13 PM

martib

11-15-2009, 07:36 PM

darkfrog

11-15-2009, 08:47 PM

Both of you attack my knowlege and 1 attacks my grammar but neither of you dispute my facts without referring back to your biased information and opinion and then have the audacity to tell me I'm in error.
Well your evolutionary theory has been around longer than you and I have followed it through the years and it has changed more times than I can count. Tell me something has science found anything that already didn't exist,have they created anything that didn't already exist the answer is a flat no. Google Lucy hoax and you'll find the above
http://creation-by-evolution.blogspot.com/. Evolution is a theory because they have found mostly bones and don't know what they really looked like or walked upright or is "THE MISSING LINK". Did they have scales,modified skin or covered with hair or did they look pretty much as their species today it's all guess work and you have to admit that. I know this is a losing battle for you by your comments about my pastor but if you would like to speak to him I can arrange that too. I don't need his opinion to base my opinion on because I believe what I know long before I met him. So if you don't want to engage him directly then leave him out of this I'm quite capable of defending my beliefs. Again I say your faith is much greater than mine you have proved nothing other than you are biased.

Yes, I attack your knowledge because you have shown inadequate understanding of what a scientific theory is as well as evolutionary theory in general, along with your ranting about things that are untrue such as A. afrensis being a hoax. Are you going to now also claim Ardipithecus is also a hoax? This creature lived some 4.4 mya and also walked upright. She is changing our view on hominid evolution.
You say ET has changed many times and you are correct. That's the nice thing about science is that it requires evidence to support ideas and if the facts counters what we thought we knew, then the evidence and facts win out and the theory has to be either discarded or altered to incorporate the new information. Can you say the same about religion? If you noticed the post above yours, the periodic table of the elements has changed many times over the years. Does that mean atomic theory is invalid? We knew there were atoms before we could ever see them. This contradict your silly idea that things in history or things unobservable are just wild speculation. There is an inordinate amount of indirect evidence for atoms, if there wasn't, your computer wouldn't be working right now. The fact that we are able to create technology that works based on these wild speculations, actually supports the veracity of those claims. IOW, if it weren't true, then it wouldn't work. It is the same for evolution. In addition to the fossils, we have mapped genetic sequences in many plants and animals. The relation between various species can be easily shown. If we were not related by common descent, then the genome would have a very different look. Although this is indirect evidence, it is extremely strong and supported by other areas of science.

You need to stop with this obsession with my comment about your pastor. It doesn't matter if it was your pastor or other creationist sources, the information you are spouting is old, debunked, recycled creationist nonsense. If I wanted to learn about Jesus, would you send me to an atheist? Why would you go to anti-science religious zealots to get your information about science?

darkfrog

11-15-2009, 08:54 PM

I'm curious. Do you think these tens of thousands of biologists, chemists, geneticists, geologists, physicists, etc. that have spent their life's work investigating and confirming various aspects of evolutionary biology are perpetuating a big hoax or are delusional in their beliefs?

Phreaker47

11-15-2009, 10:19 PM

Phreaker47

11-15-2009, 10:32 PM

http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/comics/2007-01-15-science-vs-faith.png

Nothing is more funny, sad, and TRUE than this chart. Notice the part near the end of the Science chart that requires new evidence to be reconciled with the existing theory, and that it can still be thrown out if impossible.

Phreaker47

11-16-2009, 12:56 AM

RICHARD DAWKINS� ANSWER TO THE QUESTION �WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG?� (Friday Church News Notes, September 18, 2009, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - Mocking and personal attacks tend to be tactics used by those who can�t refute another man�s argument. Consider, for example, the answer that the atheist Richard Dawkins gave to the question, �What if you are wrong?� This was asked by a young woman during the Q&A session following Dawkin�s reading of excerpts from his book The God Delusion at Randolph-Macon Woman�s College, Lynchburg, Virginia, October 23, 2006. Dawkins said: �Anybody could be wrong. We could all be wrong about the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot.http://www.wayoflife.org/fridaynewsnotes/fridaynews_files/archive-sep-2009.html

Why not post the entire answer?

RICHARD DAWKINS� ANSWER TO THE QUESTION �WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG?� (Friday Church News Notes, September 18, 2009, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - Mocking and personal attacks tend to be tactics used by those who can�t refute another man�s argument. Consider, for example, the answer that the atheist Richard Dawkins gave to the question, �What if you are wrong?� This was asked by a young woman during the Q&A session following Dawkin�s reading of excerpts from his book The God Delusion at Randolph-Macon Woman�s College, Lynchburg, Virginia, October 23, 2006. Dawkins said: �Anybody could be wrong. We could all be wrong about the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot. You happen to be brought up, I presume, in the Christian faith. You know what it is like not to believe in a particular faith, because you are not a Muslim, you are not a Hindu. Why aren�t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in America not in India. If you were brought up in India you would be a Hindu. If you were brought up in Denmark in the time of the Vikings, you would be believing in Thor. If you were brought up classical Greece, you would be believing in Zeus. If you were brought up central Africa, you would be believing in the great JuJu of the mountain. There is no particular reason to pick on the Judea-Christian God in which by the sheerest accident you happen to have been brought up, and ask me the question what if I�m wrong. Well, what if you�re wrong about the great JuJu at the bottom of the sea� (Richard Dawkins). CONCLUDING COMMENT FROM BROTHER CLOUD: I am not surprised that Dawkins would want to huff and puff his way out of answering that question. The real answer is that if Dawkins is wrong and the Bible is right, he is going to be punished in the lake of fire forever because of his rebellion against God and His rejection of God�s offer of salvation in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, if Dawkins is right and the Bible is wrong, nothing matters, because everything is the product of blind chance and there is no eternal life. If Dawkins is right, the Bible-believing Christian has lost nothing of substance by living for Jesus Christ. He has a better quality of life in this world even if death were the end. Compared to the life I lived before I was a Christian, the only thing I have lost in following Jesus Christ are the hangovers, the drug haze, the guilt, and the fear of death, the spiritual blindness, the relationships broken by sin and selfishness, and the consequences of being a scofflaw.

I like how "Brother Cloud" passes off the reply by Dawkins as a simple dodge. The point was apparently a point lost on you, the questioner, and everyone else over at "wayoflife.org". Considering the overwhelming trend of adherence to different (and conflicting) faiths based simply on where someone was born and/or the culture they were brought up in, certainly the young woman in question didn't seem to think for a moment to ask that same question of herself... and subsequently realize she has no inherent advantage in asking that question of someone else, either of a different faith or no faith. Dawkins had no obligation to back down or be more polite and accommodating to the question. However, his answer didn't seem particularly rude... it rather seemed to ask the young lady to explore thoughts outside of her own microcosm. Apparently that was too much to ask.

martib

11-16-2009, 05:58 AM

darkfrog

11-16-2009, 06:32 AM

I watched video's and still hear assumption and conjecture the mouse was still a mouse and I have yet to see a transition from a lizard to a bird. When you again have proof yell a little louder. And no I didn't have to print whole article because he said what he said "YOU COULD BE WRONG" I never said I was right you make that claim. As usual you make unfounded claims with conjecture and assumption but if you read the articles the 1 outright lie is still in school books then again how many lies does it take to be a liar 1. And yeas I believe any evolutionist is a liar and I believe they are not scientist in definition of a scientist it is 2 different entities. Something else for you to deny. http://www.icr.org/article/455/
Since lizards and birds branched off of reptilia at different times, what you ask is impossible. After a species branches, it will only move forward altering the DNA it already has acquired, it won't jump to a completely different taxa. Why do you deny http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html, a clear transitional between reptiles and birds.

As for your link, all it can be called is one big ad hominen attack. We scientists do debate creationists, if only to help the general public that hasn't been polluted by the creationist's anti-science agenda. However, debating your leaders has the appearance that this is a legitimate scientific debate, which it is not. All you need to do is watch videos of the debates with such 'upstanding' Christians like Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort. The creationists ignore the hard questions by repeating their straw man arguments and circular logic admitting that the bible supersedes even scientific evidence. IOW, fingers in the ears, singing La la la la!

Your belief about the hard working scientists that dedicate their lives to understanding nature and the incredible REAL story of how we got her is most telling. We are all liars merely because we don't accept an ancient text to have all of the answers.
That is the most vile thing I have heard anyone say here and there's obviously no hope for you. I'm done with your tirades against science and us as individuals.

mammothwoolly

11-16-2009, 07:13 AM

Legitimate scientific debate? I hope no one argues creationism on those grounds. Science is just a tool in the historian's toolbelt.

Scientifically prove to me that 10 million years ago, these 3 diamonds in my hand were made through tectonic pressures. I think that they were scattered on the ground by space faring cockroaches. Science will find a tectonic answer, and argue Occam's razor. But the truth is: we don't know.

Remind me not to post in this thread.... sigh.

superdan54

11-16-2009, 08:57 AM

I watched video's and still hear assumption and conjecture the mouse was still a mouse and I have yet to see a transition from a lizard to a bird. When you again have proof yell a little louder.

First off welcome to the Podium, and the legendary C vs E thread.

Second, I am a Christian as I assume you are, so we do have common ground.

Third, here is a transition between a lizard and a bird, the recently found Anchiornis huxleyi.

martib

11-16-2009, 11:25 AM

superdan54

11-16-2009, 12:07 PM

All I see is a fossil of an extinct animal and 1 at that. Again what did it look like is it from the bat/mouse family again not proof of anything 3 strikes your out. And yes I knew about that whatever it is and could have won a bet you'd bring it up. I guess will never know because nobody lived that long ago to document it. I think it's a flying horse prove me wrong:lol:.

Ok for real? Do you apply the same fatalistic approach to Biblical archaeology? I'm interested to know what you think is valid in any study of prehistory. Then again I'm really not...

martib

11-16-2009, 12:25 PM

Darkfrog does this mean I win because you won't admit evolution is a religion?:lol:

martib

11-16-2009, 02:54 PM

Christian and evolution =oxymoron. In the beginning God created in 6 literal days because He can.

redmaxx

11-16-2009, 02:58 PM

Christian and evolution =oxymoron. In the beginning God created in 6 literal days because He can.

Are you aware that you're putting a limit on God in that statement?

Shellac

11-16-2009, 03:38 PM

Christian and evolution =oxymoron. In the beginning God created in 6 literal days because He can.

Where did god come from? If you could disprove the existence of the deities of other cultures that would be great too. Because although you're a christian I bet you're a pretty staunch atheist when it comes to the gods of the Egyptians, the Greeks, etc.

Libertarian

11-16-2009, 04:36 PM

Where did god come from? If you could disprove the existence of the deities of other cultures that would be great too. Because although you're a christian I bet you're a pretty staunch atheist when it comes to the gods of the Egyptians, the Greeks, etc.

:nod: Christians are atheists on all sorts of other Gods, including Thor. Here is a nice little article about that phenomenon..

Let's Hope It's A Lasting Vogue

Athorism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Can there be a productive conversation between Valhallans and athorists? Na�ve literalists apart, sophisticated thoreologians long ago ceased believing in the material substance of Thor's mighty hammer. But the spiritual essence of hammeriness remains a thunderingly enlightened relevation, and hammerological faith retains its special place in the eschatology of neo-Valhallism, while enjoying a productive conversation with the scientific theory of thunder in its non-overlapping magisterium.(:lol:) Militant athorists are their own worst enemy. Ignorant of the finer points of thoreology, they really should desist from their strident and intolerant strawmandering, and treat Thor-faith with the uniquely protected respect it has always received in the past. In any case, they are doomed to failure. People need Thor, and nothing will ever remove him from the culture. What are you going to put in his place?

Atheism means non-belief in the particular cult that happens to pervade the society under discussion. In America that means the cult of Yahweh, the God of the Jews commandeered by the Christians, Muslims and Mormons. Today, everyone takes it for granted that we are all atheists with respect to Thor and Wotan, Zeus and Poseidon, Mithras and Ammon Ra. If asked why you don't believe in Thor's hammer, you would probably say something like "Why is the onus on me to justify my nonbelief in Thor, given that there is not the smallest positive reason for belief?" You might go further and add that thunder, which was at one time attributed to Thor's hammer, now has a better explanation in terms of electric charges in the clouds. While technically agnostic about all those ancient gods, and about fairies and leprechauns too (you can't disprove them either), in practice we don't believe in any of them, and we feel no onus to explain why.

Today, while almost literally everybody is an athorist, nonbelief in the God of Abraham is the most reviled opinion in America. Professor Anthony M Stevens-Arroyo, one of the On Faith regular panellists, begins his answer to the current question as follows: "I never met an atheist I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly atheist, but I haven’t bumped into one yet. The atheists who have crossed my path are obnoxious . . ."

As an experiment, try substituting the word 'Jew' or 'woman' for 'atheist', and imagine whether a university professor who said those three sentences would keep his job. Yet in present day America, a professor (of "Latino Studies") can publish such odious remarks about atheists and get away with it.

Of those scientists distinguished enough to be elected to the National Academy, more than 90% do not believe in any kind of supernatural God. Needless to say, many of them are likeable, friendly and far from obnoxious, as well as being intelligent, well-educated, happy and productive citizens.

An equally high proportion of atheists has recently been disclosed among the Fellows of the Royal Society, and it is plausible that distinguished Academicians in philosophy, history, economics, literature and other disciplines, coming from the same educated and intelligent echelons of society, would yield similar data.

One must hope that a respectable proportion of the Congress is drawn from that same educational and intellectual elite, so it is a strong statistical expectation that many of them must be atheists too. Yet I believe I am correct that not a single one of the 535 members of Congress will admit to the fact. A good many have got to be lying, and who can blame them? If they came clean they would be unelectable, as polls have repeatedly confirmed. Atheists are widely assumed to have no morals or values, to have no purpose in life, and to be incapable of love, or of appreciating beauty in art or nature. Who would vote for one of those?

The premise of this week's question is that atheism is enjoying a certain vogue. I hope and believe it is not a flash in the pan. The symptoms of which I am aware are indeed encouraging. Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spelland Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation sold exhilaratingly well through 2006, and my own The God Delusionremains high in the bestseller lists into 2007.

Similar success is to be expected during 2007 for Christopher Hitchens's forthcoming God is Not Great, and Victor Stenger's God: the Failed Hypothesis. Such buoyant sales of books advocating out-and-out atheism would have been inconceivable until surprisingly recently. When, six years ago, I first proposed The God Delusion to my literary agent he was blunt: "Don't even think about it." Yet now, after six years of incipient Chrisitian theocracy . . .

On my recent book promotion tour of the USA, the standing ovations I consistently received from packed audiences around the country, (including in Kansas, and Lynchburg, Virginia as well as, more predictably, the so-called 'blue' states) owed nothing to any eloquence or writing skills of mine, and everything, I believe, to a pent-up frustration among reviled freethinkers. Time after time, in the long book- signing queues, young Americans (encouragingly young) confided to me, "Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying the things that I have wanted to say, but never felt I could" (see www.RichardDawkins.net).

Sam Harris and Dan Dennett report similar experiences from equally large audiences. There is widespread hope that we are seeing the beginnings of a long-overdue shift in the tectonic plates of our culture. Polls suggest that atheists are far more numerous in America than they themselves realize. They well outnumber the Jews, whose political lobby packs a legendarily powerful clout.

It is time for America's atheists to take courage from this, and from the books I have mentioned, come out of the closet, stand up, recognize each other, and work together to exert their rightfully proportionate influence on this great democracy. If those books are, as is often dismissively said, preaching to the choir, do not underestimate its size or ability. This is a very large and very talented choir, and the time has come for its music to be heard.

-Richard Dawkins

martib

11-16-2009, 06:05 PM

No I'm not limiting God how do you see that? What He says He does because He Can.
Read my prior posts I said I can't prove God exists it all faith on my part and His word is record of it.Believers are not confused by this statement. All others gods are a result of the father of lies Belial. God is, thats where he came from He is known by the name He revealed to Moses I AM. God exists outside of time in eternity no beginning and no end and by faith I believe nothing more.

Libertarian

11-16-2009, 06:08 PM

This is so sad..

I can't prove God exists it all faith on my part and His word is record of it.Believers are not confused by this statement.

Translation: I have a different book than they do.

All others gods are a result of the father of lies Belial.

Translation: I really believe in demons like Belial (and probably in wizards and witches too) because my book says they exist.

God is, thats where he came from He is known by the name He revealed to Moses I AM. God exists outside of time in eternity no beginning and no end and by faith I believe nothing more.

Translation: We can dispense with definitions, proofs, and all arguments that contradict my book. I believe in things that are outside of reality, so evidence and reason are irrelevant. Don't bother bringing them up, because I have FAITH.

martib

11-16-2009, 06:23 PM

Remove Christ from the Bible and there is no religion and or faith. Take buddha, muhammad,
confucius, thor, etc...from their writing and you still have a religion. So another mans thoughts on whether my God exists does not matter because he can neither prove or disprove my God exists. I pointed out before he said "You could be wrong" anybody that thinks because he says he's correct and everybody else is wrong is plain arrogant.

martib

11-16-2009, 06:29 PM

libertarian,

You must think yourself a god to know my thoughts and then translate then so others can understand.
What I wrote was plain english and your far from what I wrote. Please don't waste your time speaking for me your dead wrong.

redmaxx

11-16-2009, 06:57 PM

No I'm not limiting God how do you see that?

You did when you said He couldn't have used evolution.

What He says He does because He Can.

The words you used are English but the order they're arranged in is not comprehensible. :huh:

Read my prior posts I said I can't prove God exists it all faith on my part and His word is record of it.Believers are not confused by this statement.

That's not what I was talking about. :shake:

martib

11-16-2009, 07:16 PM

martib

11-16-2009, 07:23 PM

Why am I explaining things you should know?

superdan54

11-16-2009, 07:25 PM

Why would God use/need evolution? God can create anything instantaneously so why let things take"millions" of years so He could fellowship with us and then again explain Eve. She was taken from a Adams side or does your book read differently?

Why would God use the natural process of fusion to give light and warmth to our solar system? Revelation says that in heaven there will be no sun for the Glory of God will illuminate everything. Using your logic, he "should" have done that in the first place.

Libertarian

11-16-2009, 07:29 PM

Dan! :shocking:

I can't believe what I'm seeing...

:highfive:

I think you're turning into Carl Sagan..

It is sometimes said that scientists are unromantic, that their passion to figure out robs the world of beauty and mystery. But is it not stirring to understand how the world actually works — that white light is made of colors, that color is the way we perceive the wavelengths of light, that transparent air reflects light, that in so doing it discriminates among the waves, and that the sky is blue for the same reason that the sunset is red? It does no harm to the romance of the sunset to know a little bit about it.

"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way. A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."

Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us — there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation of a distant memory, as if we were falling from a great height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers.

Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries.

We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact. The cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths; of exquisite interrelationships; of the awesome machinery of nature.

The cosmic calendar compresses the local history of the universe into a single year. If the universe began on January 1st it was not until May that the Milky Way formed. Other planetary systems may have appeared in June, July and August, but our Sun and Earth not until mid-September. Life arose soon after..

We humans appear on the cosmic calendar so recently that our recorded history occupies only the last few seconds of the last minute of December 31st.

Once we overcome our fear of being tiny, we find ourselves on the threshold of a vast and awesome Universe that utterly dwarfs — in time, in space, and in potential — the tidy anthropocentric proscenium of our ancestors. We gaze across billions of light-years of space to view the Universe shortly after the Big Bang, and plumb the fine structure of matter. We peer down into the core of our planet, and the blazing interior of our star. We read the genetic language in which is written the diverse skills and propensities of every being on Earth. We uncover hidden chapters in the record of our origins, and with some anguish better understand our nature and prospects. We invent and refine agriculture, without which almost all of us would starve to death. We create medicines and vaccines that save the lives of billions. We communicate at the speed of light, and whip around the Earth in an hour and a half. We have sent dozens of ships to more than seventy worlds, and four spacecraft to the stars. We are right to rejoice in our accomplishments, to be proud that our species has been able to see so far, and to judge our merit in part by the very science that has so deflated our pretensions.

Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Many passengers would rather have stayed home.