View Full Version : Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
Alexanderofmacedon
12-24-2008, 04:43
I was talking with some older friends and the topic of creationism in american school systems came up. I haven't read too many articles regarding a large push of the right-wing christian conservatives to try to incorporate creationism in American schools, but I have heard that some people would want this. I'm not sure if anyone here wants to teach creationism in american (or European I guess) schools, but I wanted to hear some reasons why it would be a good idea (in their opinion).
I fear creationism is separate for different religions and sects, so trying to implent this in academics in America would create problems with which creationism should be taught. To do that we'd have to have a state religion which is quite a strike against the 1st amendment and anti-establishment clause.
seireikhaan
12-24-2008, 04:47
Well...
Depends, is this in terms of teaching it as a science, or in a world religions sort of class? If the latter, than sure. If the former, than NO. Creationism has no basis in science; it is, after all, religion. Do we teach kids both the heliocentric AND geocentric models of the Universe and let them "decide" which is correct? Of course not.
CountArach
12-24-2008, 04:53
Try to get around Seperation of Church and State. I dare you...
darwinism, which is currently being taught in schools, is even more of a religion than Creationism is. darwinism is based on unproven, faith-based assumptions/speculations/imaginings.
If religion has no place in there, then neither does darwinism which is currently in there, therefore it must be removed.
If darwinism stays in there, then Creationism must be in there too.
darwinism, which is currently being taught in schools, is even more of a religion than Creationism is. darwinism is based on unproven, faith-based assumptions/speculations/imaginings.
If religion has no place in there, then neither does darwinism which is currently in there, therefore it must be removed.
If darwinism stays in there, then Creationism must be in there too.
Dearest sir, you seem to be confused. Science is != dogma, hence evolution is != religion. Evolution and Darwinism have already been proven in several instances, this one (http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000221) has been provided for your enjoyment and perusal as it is the only one I remember off the top of my head.
:balloon2:
darwinism, which is currently being taught in schools, is even more of a religion than Creationism is. darwinism is based on unproven, faith-based assumptions/speculations/imaginings.
If religion has no place in there, then neither does darwinism which is currently in there, therefore it must be removed.
If darwinism stays in there, then Creationism must be in there too.
I want to throw "The Selfish Gene" By Richard Dawkins at you.
They have never been proven.
Drosophila - fruit fly mutants that died out due to mutations damaging them. This proves evolution doesn't happen and darwinism is wrong. Ian T. Taylor has an amazingly poignant quote about this matter in his book, "In the Minds of Men":
Experimentation with fruit flies began in the 1920s with
Thomas Hunt Morgan and today is still a minor "industry"
among researchers. The stubborn fruit fly has endured
every genetic indignity possible, but so far not one has
ever produced anything except another fruit fly.
They have never been proven.
Sorry, again you must be confused, I just showed you evidence that it has been proven. There are numerous other instances but my aging brain is failing me this evening.
Drosophila - fruit fly mutants that died out due to mutations damaging them.
:laugh4: You missed the point entirely. The particular article I cited shows that organisms evolve to adapt to their environments. It'd be like taking a human to the martian atmosphere and demanding they evolve immediately to compensate. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
This proves evolution doesn't happen and darwinism is wrong.
Again incorrect, please see above. And for the record:
Ian T. Taylor has an amazingly poignant quote about this matter in his book, "In the Minds of Men":
Mr. Taylor is a complete and total joke and a farce, and has absolutely 0 business calling himself a scientist. I am familiar with some of his "work", and it flies (pun???) completely in the face of several proven tenants and theories. He's in the same category as Jack Chick, peddling dogma as if it were scientific fact. One final request, please don't go down the "it's just a theory" road, that's easily the most overused false cliche by creationists.
Pleasant evening to you. :bow:
:balloon2:
Alexanderofmacedon
12-24-2008, 06:02
Well...
Depends, is this in terms of teaching it as a science, or in a world religions sort of class? If the latter, than sure. If the former, than NO. Creationism has no basis in science; it is, after all, religion. Do we teach kids both the heliocentric AND geocentric models of the Universe and let them "decide" which is correct? Of course not.
Then will we have to have a religion class for every religion's beliefs? If that's the case, then tax payer dollars are spent on religion in schools and churches/mosques etc. shouldn't get tax breaks?
Just thinking, really. Trying to foster debate :)
The particular article I cited shows that organisms evolve to adapt to their environments.
That's not disputed by Creationists. And darwinism requires far more than that. darwinism requires lower forms of life to gain new genetic information which allows them to transform into completely different higher forms of life. There is no evidence of this ever having happened (because it never did) --- this is believed on faith alone, which makes darwinism a religion. The fruit flies remain fruit flies, and everything else likewise remains what it started as. Because each kind that God created reproduces only after it's own kind.
What you are describing, and all darwinists are ever able to describe with evidence, are either examples of loss of genetic information, or activation of previously-dormant yet already-existing genetic information. It in no way makes the case for common ancestry or that an amoeba 'evolved' into all life that exists.
seireikhaan
12-24-2008, 06:04
Then will we have to have a religion class for every religion's beliefs? If that's the case, then tax payer dollars are spent on religion in schools and churches/mosques etc. shouldn't get tax breaks?
Just thinking, really. Trying to foster debate :)
I meant more in terms of a singular, general "World Religions" class. I know there's one at most high schools in my area, and there's one at UNI as well. Not really complicated.
Alexanderofmacedon
12-24-2008, 06:37
That's not disputed by Creationists. And darwinism requires far more than that. darwinism requires lower forms of life to gain new genetic information which allows them to transform into completely different higher forms of life. There is no evidence of this ever having happened (because it never did) --- this is believed on faith alone, which makes darwinism a religion. The fruit flies remain fruit flies, and everything else likewise remains what it started as. Because each kind that God created reproduces only after it's own kind.
What you are describing, and all darwinists are ever able to describe with evidence, are either examples of loss of genetic information, or activation of previously-dormant yet already-existing genetic information. It in no way makes the case for common ancestry or that an amoeba 'evolved' into all life that exists.
Uhh....there is plenty of evidence of organisms evolving into higher forms of life.
Askthepizzaguy
12-24-2008, 07:36
Teaching Creationism is a possibility.
However, if you teach Creationism, you must also teach the Greek Mythological Model of Universal Creation, i.e. The Eternal Supergod Chaos fathering the heavens and the earth Gaia, then having sex (presumably) with his/her daughter in order to produce a plethora of gods who had sex with their siblings and declared war on their children, and fought an epic battle which shook the earth, (their mother), who has been shouldered since the beginning of time on the back of Atlas, even though he is an ancestor of Gaia. You must also teach about Zeus' numerous and graphic sexual conquests, including mating with animals.
Let's not forget to include the Roman models, perhaps other pagan deities as well, Norse mythology, animism, shamanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Native American folklore, African mysticism, Emperor worship, Ancestor worship, cannibalism and human sacrifice.
After all, why include only one belief system? If you teach one, you should teach them all. Including Scientology and Mormonism, as well as belief systems which have not been outlawed that are still referred to as cults.
And if we are going to present all of this as the viable alternative to current scientific findings about the rational nature of the universe, we must teach all of them as science as well, thereby negating the concept of the separation between rational thought and irrational belief.
I say it's a brilliant idea, and I wholeheartedly support it, because nothing would make me happier than to openly and publicly defy each and every nonscientific theory in a debate sponsored by a school system. The rational mind begs for the chance to challenge this nonsense in front of the impressionable children they might otherwise have claimed as their own.
Rhyfelwyr
12-24-2008, 11:11
Since the US has chosen to be secular, I suppose it is obliged to teach what we think we know about the formation of the universe from our scientific studies. However, there needs to be a lot more respect shown to Christians in schools, I was brought up presuming God didn't exist because of militaristic atheist parents, teachers, and classmates; now I'm annoyed I dismissed God for so long because of them.
I am with the pizzaguy on this one.
Even if we should just take the Christian creationism, there would be several models. Which is the right one?
If the Christian world would agree on a single model and a single manuscript, then we could discuss this. Right now with the 38 000 Christian denominations out there, they don’t even agree on the text used as the source of this concept. What they have agreed on is that the text doesn’t really exist. They base their authority, their priesthood, their teaching on something that does not exist in its original form which to me is problematic at best.
However, there needs to be a lot more respect shown to Christians in schools
No, not at all.
I will say this under the pretext of you being an American citizen, even though I know you are not. I absolutely respect your right to believe as you wish (provided you do not infringe on other's rights in exercising your belief structure), that to me is a fundamental freedom that we enjoy and I would die fighting for it if need be. However, I absolutely do NOT 1. respect your religion or belief or 2. am even required to recognize your beliefs as an individual, nor am I required by law to do either 1 or 2, and that's absolutely the way it should be.
Religion is and should be a private matter for individuals, that said bringing it to the marketplace of ideas is a great and normal thing to do. The problem is when overzealous types try to force it into situations where it has zero bearing or place being. School is about education; math, grammar spelling and language ( :shame: ), physics, biology, etc. Dogma and belief are not fact and absolutely should not and will not be taught in schools, nor even recognized. That's something for folks to teach their children in the privacy of their own homes or religious gathering places, which ARE the proper venues.
:balloon2:
Tribesman
12-24-2008, 17:12
Ian T. Taylor :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Ian bloody T. Taylor :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:what a joke
Why not make it a better joke and use Adnan Oktar instead :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Cretinists:dizzy2:absolutely clueless .
Then again it does disprove the theory of evolution , if it is selection of the fittest then cretinists would be extinct because they are too dumb to survive .
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-24-2008, 17:13
Since the US has chosen to be secular, I suppose it is obliged to teach what we think we know about the formation of the universe from our scientific studies.
Yes. Children can be taught about creationism at home or in Church if they like.
However, there needs to be a lot more respect shown to Christians in schools, I was brought up presuming God didn't exist because of militaristic atheist parents, teachers, and classmates; now I'm annoyed I dismissed God for so long because of them.
This is also true, but it really needs to start with the students. Teachers, from my experience, generally do not speak about religion often. The difference with them is that if you criticize Christianity it is perfectly fine, but if you criticize another religion, like Islam, there go the fireworks.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-24-2008, 21:47
Darwinism is only one form of evolutionary theory, it requires random mutation in order for one species to change into another. It is quite correct that we have not observed this in nature or in the lab.
The only things ever produced from fruit flies are fruit flies.
This does not make evolution wrong as a concept, in fact I would say that the evidence for an evolutionary process is overwhelming. I would also say that we don't really know how the process operates, and that Darwinism looks increasingly insufficient to expalin it. This means that the current theory is open to attack, which has resulted in increasingly antagonistic behaviour from many biologists.
Case in point, Dr. Dawkins. This man has done a great deal to damage Science, because he offers you are binary choice; religion or numbers. Increasingly people are dissatisfied with the numbers and are rejecting them for the comfort of fundamentalist religion.
So, back we go to the Dark Ages.
Pannonian
12-24-2008, 22:15
Darwinism is only one form of evolutionary theory, it requires random mutation in order for one species to change into another. It is quite correct that we have not observed this in nature or in the lab.
The only things ever produced from fruit flies are fruit flies.
This does not make evolution wrong as a concept, in fact I would say that the evidence for an evolutionary process is overwhelming. I would also say that we don't really know how the process operates, and that Darwinism looks increasingly insufficient to expalin it. This means that the current theory is open to attack, which has resulted in increasingly antagonistic behaviour from many biologists.
Case in point, Dr. Dawkins. This man has done a great deal to damage Science, because he offers you are binary choice; religion or numbers. Increasingly people are dissatisfied with the numbers and are rejecting them for the comfort of fundamentalist religion.
So, back we go to the Dark Ages.
The mechanics of evolution are measured in generations. With each generation, there may be a slight mutation, not always one that can be measured, and not always one that is visibly applicable to the process of evolution. However, slight mutations there are, because of the imperfection of DNA reproduction, and a competitive selection process there is, both in logic and in evidence. If there is a trend towards a certain direction, these distinctive products can be called subspecies. Scientists have set a high bar, however, for the definition of species, which is something which can reproduce with itself, but not with another different species. Given the short history of the scientific process, is it surprising that we have not yet observed, under laboratory conditions, something which takes so long to happen?
Yoyoma1910
12-24-2008, 22:51
Selective breeding, mutations and evolution are used everyday in agriculture, and have been for centuries. To say they are a farce is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Do you think we would have any current breed of standard consumed livestock or crop with these?
Samurai Waki
12-24-2008, 22:59
Wasn't the Religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster created to reverse the rulings in Kansas schools that creationism was to be taught? Since the Religion does have legal legitimacy in Kansas, their views would also need to have been taught.. which were insane and absurd, but no less than Creationism.
Piracy and Global Warming are connected, been an unusually chilly year I think its because of all the activity off the coast of Somalia.
Crazed Rabbit
12-24-2008, 23:02
Try to get around Seperation of Church and State. I dare you...
Perhaps you could point out where that is in the constitution, hmm? The state should not interfere with religion, but religious people should have an equal opportunity to influence the state.
Anyways, creationism shouldn't be in schools except religious theory class or whatever. Same goes for 'intelligent design'. But they shouldn't be taught as science or in science classes.
However, this should not preclude schools from teaching that darwinian evolution isn't a perfect theory, and going over some of the scientific gaps or contradictions in the theory.
Dearest sir, you seem to be confused. Science is != dogma
Ideally, yes, but you need to take a look at the global warming thread...
Anyways, that's why I added that last paragraph above - we can't teach dogmatic acceptation of darwinian evolution.
CR
Lord Winter
12-24-2008, 23:09
Perhaps you could point out where that is in the constitution, hmm? The state should not interfere with religion, but religious people should have an equal opportunity to influence the state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", they need to be nuetral. You have the right to practice your religon to your hearts content, but state sponsered insitutions shouldn't be used as a veicahal . Thats not to say they can't be taught in a religon class. It just can't be taught as science, something which is based on quantifiable proving of hypotheises.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-24-2008, 23:13
The mechanics of evolution are measured in generations. With each generation, there may be a slight mutation, not always one that can be measured, and not always one that is visibly applicable to the process of evolution. However, slight mutations there are, because of the imperfection of DNA reproduction, and a competitive selection process there is, both in logic and in evidence. If there is a trend towards a certain direction, these distinctive products can be called subspecies. Scientists have set a high bar, however, for the definition of species, which is something which can reproduce with itself, but not with another different species. Given the short history of the scientific process, is it surprising that we have not yet observed, under laboratory conditions, something which takes so long to happen?
None of this has actually been proven. I don't dissagree in principle but there is no proof. All we have seen are changes within species, and most of those involve breeding for already existing recessive traits. I don't know of a single instnace where we have evidence of, for example, a fly growing a sting like a bee.
I also don't know of any studies that have demonstrated actual mutations in the wild, only the accumulation of existing traits through selective breeding.
My problem is not with evolution but with puritanical Darwinism, I think that the possibility that the genetic code might be altered by outside influences, e.g. a virus, are also things that need to be considered. What I'm talking about is the much decried Lamarkism.
Darwinism is rapidly turning into Dawkinism and it's becoming inflexable, just like a fundamentalist religion.
Samurai Waki
12-24-2008, 23:14
Hence the creation of the 9th Circuit Court; religious matters and schools tend to butt heads severely when something gets involved in 9th Circuit, especially because it's entire foundation is to uphold the Separation of Church and State.
Lord Winter
12-24-2008, 23:19
None of this has actually been proven. I don't dissagree in principle but there is no proof. All we have seen are changes within species, and most of those involve breeding for already existing recessive traits. I don't know of a single instnace where we have evidence of, for example, a fly growing a sting like a bee.
At the same time, there's evidence of mutations in bacteria and viruses were they start to resist the previous treatments that we have. And then there's the fossil record too which gives evidence.
Pannonian
12-24-2008, 23:22
Perhaps you could point out where that is in the constitution, hmm? The state should not interfere with religion, but religious people should have an equal opportunity to influence the state.
Anyways, creationism shouldn't be in schools except religious theory class or whatever. Same goes for 'intelligent design'. But they shouldn't be taught as science or in science classes.
However, this should not preclude schools from teaching that darwinian evolution isn't a perfect theory, and going over some of the scientific gaps or contradictions in the theory.
Ideally, yes, but you need to take a look at the global warming thread...
Anyways, that's why I added that last paragraph above - we can't teach dogmatic acceptation of darwinian evolution.
CR
The various flavours of selection in evolution are probably too subtle for high schoolers to understand. Better to teach them the basics, which is the Darwinian explanation of evolution, then those who want to specialise can learn about its inadequacies in college or university. Darwinian theory gets one through life quite adequately, without the need to go into detailed genetics, sexual selection, and other explorations of his ideas. Similarly, Newtonian physics is inadequate once one gets past a certain point, but his basic theories will get one through everyday life, and those who want to specialise can learn about Einsteinian physics and others at higher levels.
woad&fangs
12-24-2008, 23:30
Just for the sake of accuracy I thought I would mention that bacteria also get new DNA through plasmids in addition to internal mutations.
Also, some(or maybe all, I don't remember) viruses contain only RNA and have no DNA. That is why they are able to mutate so quickly.
By the way, the wild horse(Mongolian) has 2 more chromosomes than the modern, domesticated version of itself. If you can change the number of chromosomes then you can make pretty much any changes within a kingdom. I still don't know how plants->animals would work because some plants have a trinity of chromosomes instead of pairs like animals. However, I'm only a high school senior, so I'm sure the answer is out there somewhere.
Creationism can be taught in a humanities class when the religion in question is discussed. It has no place in a science class.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-25-2008, 00:00
The various flavours of selection in evolution are probably too subtle for high schoolers to understand. Better to teach them the basics, which is the Darwinian explanation of evolution, then those who want to specialise can learn about its inadequacies in college or university. Darwinian theory gets one through life quite adequately, without the need to go into detailed genetics, sexual selection, and other explorations of his ideas. Similarly, Newtonian physics is inadequate once one gets past a certain point, but his basic theories will get one through everyday life, and those who want to specialise can learn about Einsteinian physics and others at higher levels.
I don't buy into this form of educational practice for contentious subjects, some admission of holes is necessary at least. If you use this approach with religion you invariably get an atheistic backlash from the student. I submit that papering over the cracks in Darwinism is behind the rise in Creationism.
Kralizec
12-25-2008, 00:12
Try to get around Seperation of Church and State. I dare you...
Most western states separate church and state (except the UK, Denmark and a couple of others) wich doesn't entail more than a strict seperation between institutions as such. Many European countries have christian-democratic parties. From a strictly "democratic" point of view I don't see why opinions inspired by religious conviction should be considered inadmissible beforehand. But then again I never claimed that democracies always make for rational decisions.
Only a handful of states seperate religion as such from the state or even all public life- besides France and Turkey I can't think of any.
Rhyfelwyr
12-25-2008, 00:58
I will say this under the pretext of you being an American citizen, even though I know you are not. I absolutely respect your right to believe as you wish (provided you do not infringe on other's rights in exercising your belief structure), that to me is a fundamental freedom that we enjoy and I would die fighting for it if need be. However, I absolutely do NOT 1. respect your religion or belief or 2. am even required to recognize your beliefs as an individual, nor am I required by law to do either 1 or 2, and that's absolutely the way it should be.
But I had to acknowledge Darwinist views when I was at school, otherwise I would have failed my exams. You can't tolerate everyone's views, because in reality only one theory can be taught in a class, and everyone must at least appear to believe it in order to pass the subject.
Lord Winter
12-25-2008, 01:24
I don't buy into this form of educational practice for contentious subjects, some admission of holes is necessary at least. If you use this approach with religion you invariably get an atheistic backlash from the student. I submit that papering over the cracks in Darwinism is behind the rise in Creationism.
Its interesting, as a society we've been valuing less concrete, more personal ideas, the whole post modernist, the interpretation is inside you, everyone's different kind of things. Yet at the same time we still have the rigid logic of the enlightenment drilled into us, look at some of threads we had about religon or even global warming. People demand hard facts and logic to back up everything. Its an interesting contrast, and weird to think that two opposites exist at the same time. That kind of double standard may be the reason why there doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground. It seems that you either have to be a hardcore atheist or a complete religious fanatic these days.
tibilicus
12-25-2008, 01:48
Creationism in my opinion has a place in schools but not in science lessons. Due to the fact it's religion it should be touched on in some sort of religious class. I'm not sure how the USA school system works but I guess if it's like ours over here you should have some form of religious education. Simply bring up the subject of creationism in these classes.
Cronos Impera
12-25-2008, 10:14
The problem with Evolutionism taught individually is that you oversimplify the evolution of the genome and its role.
It's just like saying "Put a couple of dead branches and some mortar in space and let them assamble into a skyscraper".
Science teaches you the rules, Theology explains the meaning of these rules.
You can't survive without knowing the rules, nor without knowing the meaning of these rules.
No matter how much people would try, you can't mess with the genome like with a string of beads.Many functions of the DNA and ARN have been mapped but try building one out of simple aminoacids and you start getting headaches.
They coul'n't reconstruct the DNA of a Thylocene let alone build an entire chain of moleculesas complex as nuclear acids.
So by working through Evolution one can only grasp the silouetthe of a Creator behind all.
Tribesman
12-25-2008, 13:44
But I had to acknowledge Darwinist views when I was at school, otherwise I would have failed my exams.
Wow thats shocking , you mean that in a science exam you had to write about science not religion .
Whatever next , I suppose the cruel teachers would have failed you if you had answered a question on Shakespear with a piece about the ming dynasty:dizzy2:
Askthepizzaguy
12-25-2008, 20:41
Tribesman's bluntness nonwithstanding, I agree with him.
If I had to take an exam on world religions, I would have to learn about them and answer most of the questions correctly.
If I had to take an exam on science, I might have to learn about Darwinism, because Darwin's Theory of Evolution is science, and creationism is not. The only way you can possibly believe otherwise is if you are woefully uninformed, unfamiliar with the definitions of science and of faith, or you know it's true and are too stubborn to admit it.
There is no evidence of this ever having happened (because it never did) --- this is believed on faith alone, which makes darwinism a religion. The fruit flies remain fruit flies, and everything else likewise remains what it started as. Because each kind that God created reproduces only after it's own kind.
...Wait, what? Are you saying what I learned in Archaeology, and those Archaeologists who specialize in the Origins of the Human Race, are either all wrong or lieing?
Truth is that all species mutate, and modern humans aren't any special in that matter. Two hundred thousand years ago we were different. Not only that, we have proof. It's something called material culture. Two hundred thousand years ago there weren't humans like us but there were some species who had similarities with us, and proof comes not only through bones, which thanks to genetics, biology, chemistry, physics can relay us a lot of valuable information, but also comes through what those humans built back then (Stone tools, millions of tools; And these are available in such a number that Archaeologists could even classify them in specific group-types), which become gradually more complex and hard to make as time passes by, that coupled with biological evolution (Once again shown by bone material culture) ultimatly shows the human evolution in intelligence terms, when it comes to utilities. Fortunatly, we aren't the only species that is known to evolve.
Pannonian
12-25-2008, 23:30
But I had to acknowledge Darwinist views when I was at school, otherwise I would have failed my exams. You can't tolerate everyone's views, because in reality only one theory can be taught in a class, and everyone must at least appear to believe it in order to pass the subject.
I'm sure the examining boards would have accepted a suitably sourced and explained answer of another flavour if Darwinian evolutionary theory wasn't to your taste. You'd need to demonstrate a clear understanding of what you're talking about though, and not just positing unsupported ideas.
Askthepizzaguy
12-25-2008, 23:34
Frankly, if we would find a 6000 year old ark on top of a mountain, I'd be willing to listen. But so far, lots of hoaxes, and zero science.
Rhyfelwyr
12-26-2008, 01:01
Scientific theories are fine for science classes, I was commenting on the idea of being forced to accept other people's ideas. My point is that writing scientific theories in a science exam is fine, however it's no different from being taught about religions in their own classes, and yet there's always a panic that somehow Christians are trying to brainwash people and force their ideas upon everyone. It's very much the otherway around nowadays. No doubt militant atheists are happy about that, but there seems to be a double standard for Christians from everyone else.
Pannonian
12-26-2008, 02:30
Scientific theories are fine for science classes, I was commenting on the idea of being forced to accept other people's ideas. My point is that writing scientific theories in a science exam is fine, however it's no different from being taught about religions in their own classes, and yet there's always a panic that somehow Christians are trying to brainwash people and force their ideas upon everyone. It's very much the otherway around nowadays. No doubt militant atheists are happy about that, but there seems to be a double standard for Christians from everyone else.
I'm not aware of militant atheists protesting against the teaching of creationism in religion classes. If their creationist theory also has the same scientific basis, using the scientific method, as evolution theories, then I'm sure the exam boards would be happy to consider them as well. After all, Darwin formed his theory from observation of evidence, collating evidence, and forming a conclusion from the evidence, testing his conclusion against all available evidence, ie. using the scientific method. If you wish to propose a creation theory that competes with Darwinism in science classes, then test your theory using the scientific method, and see how well it compares.
I'm not aware of militant atheists protesting against the teaching of creationism in religion classes. If their creationist theory also has the same scientific basis, using the scientific method, as evolution theories, then I'm sure the exam boards would be happy to consider them as well. After all, Darwin formed his theory from observation of evidence, collating evidence, and forming a conclusion from the evidence, testing his conclusion against all available evidence, ie. using the scientific method. If you wish to propose a creation theory that competes with Darwinism in science classes, then test your theory using the scientific method, and see how well it compares.
darwin certainly did not form his conclusions based on evidence, nor observation, nor testing, nor the scientific method. At least not his outlandish claims like all life 'evolved from a common ancestor. No example of this has ever been observed, or tested, or repeated.
All that darwin truly observed was variation within a kind. His belief that all life came from a common single-celled ancestor was, and remains to this day, 100% pure unsubstantiated imagination. Common ancestry has no scientific basis, therefore it should not be taught in science class.
A lot of posters in this thread are of the opinion that darwinism is acceptable to teach in science class because it is science - but that's a false premise. It's imagination, not science. It's outlandish claims are no more scientific, and have no more evidence for them, than any claims of Creationism.
i am still hoping to see american schools see the light and start teaching the true "stork theory" for conception.....if you´re gonna go with creationism I think it will fit thematically.
Kralizec
12-29-2008, 22:25
@Navaros: just curious, how come you don't post for weeks or even months in a row yet show up almost immediately whenever evolution-creationism is debated?
Papewaio
12-30-2008, 00:24
darwin certainly did not form his conclusions based on evidence, nor observation, nor testing, nor the scientific method. At least not his outlandish claims like all life 'evolved from a common ancestor. No example of this has ever been observed, or tested, or repeated.
All that darwin truly observed was variation within a kind. His belief that all life came from a common single-celled ancestor was, and remains to this day, 100% pure unsubstantiated imagination. Common ancestry has no scientific basis, therefore it should not be taught in science class.
A lot of posters in this thread are of the opinion that darwinism is acceptable to teach in science class because it is science - but that's a false premise. It's imagination, not science. It's outlandish claims are no more scientific, and have no more evidence for them, than any claims of Creationism.
DNA
Ironside
12-30-2008, 14:03
Personally, one thing I do really find funny about creationism is that by looking on the evidence (aka all living beings) you can conclude that the entity the did this either was brilliant engineer with very limited tools or was an idiotic engineer.
Basically it built working stuff from a junkyard and not as factory as you could expect. The side effect of this is that some systems are horribly impractical.
Anyway to put it simply, evolution theory is the model that best explains a wast amount of data from multiple scientiffic fields and has no serious contenders.
While the thesis that someone created everything and put a lot of evidence there to confuse us cannot be disproven, neither can the fact that this world and everything on it is just something came to life thanks to my thoughts.
As such, I do demand proper worship or tribute, or you will awake post mortem in a place that makes hell feel like a pleasant vacation.
Askthepizzaguy
12-30-2008, 14:06
When something cannot possibly be disproven, it ceases to count as knowledge.
When something cannot possibly be disproven, it ceases to count as knowledge.
Can you even define knowledge?
Askthepizzaguy
12-30-2008, 15:32
Without knowledge, there is no definition.
Without knowledge, there is no definition.
If there is no definition of knowledge, we should assume there is no knowledge?
Askthepizzaguy
12-30-2008, 15:52
knowledge forms the basis of definition. There are two possibilities; either there is knowledge and things are knowable, therefore inherent truth exists, or nothing is knowable and nothing exists.
I choose the more rational interpretation, and assume truth exists and that knowledge of that truth is possible. Therefore, we can define things based upon knowledge of the truth.
A sphere is round. Without objective truth, common perceptions, evidence, and proof, I cannot make a definition of a sphere. But because there is truth, there are common perceptions, and we can gather evidence, and arrive at a conclusion. As such, definitions flow from knowledge of truth.
If there are conflicting truths, they weren't true to begin with.
KukriKhan
12-30-2008, 16:01
True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.
We assume. We agree. We conclude. But we do not - can not - know.
Askthepizzaguy
12-30-2008, 16:05
We assume. We agree. We conclude. But we do not - can not - know.
That sounds all mystical and deep and all but it overlooks the obvious assumption that you know that you cannot know.
Obviously, that means you think you know something, and are arguing that it is possible to know something, because you're attempting to convince someone of your viewpoint.
Basically, it's self-defeating logic. I didn't have to come up with a rebuttal, because it crumbles under it's own rules.
Askthepizzaguy
12-30-2008, 16:52
Fascinating concepts to debate of course, but off-topic.
I'm telling the moderator on you, KukriKhan and Sigurd. :whip:
:clown:
Derailing or not. :wiseguy:
knowledge forms the basis of definition. There are two possibilities; either there is knowledge and things are knowable, therefore inherent truth exists, or nothing is knowable and nothing exists.
Let's go back to the beginning of this.
You said:
[rephrased]
When something is not disprovable, it is not knowledge.
I said:
[rephrased]
What is knowledge?
You said:
[rephrased]
Knowledge precedes definition.
I said:
[rephrased]
If we do not know what knowing is, do we even have knowledge at all?
You said:
[rephrased]
I am not going to define knowledge and will continue expanding on this common assumption of knowledge as if we have agreed on a definition already.
I say:
Define knowledge before continuing. What is knowledge?
Askthepizzaguy
12-30-2008, 17:06
There is a dispute between philosophers about what the definition of knowledge is.
However, a dictionary entry on knowledge reads:
(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1): the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>
There are many different uses of the word. To limit the discussion to what I am referring to, knowledge is that which is believed, true, and justified. In other words, factual information that we are consciously aware of.
If we wish to disagree that facts exist, we start to question whether or not anything can be "true" or whether anything "exists". Which is fine, I can have that discussion, I've had it enough times. And I know, because I remember, because I was there, and there is proof of it, and the conclusion that "I think therefore I am" is justified.
Ergo, knowledge. Those who dispute whether or not knowledge exists dispute whether or not they themselves exist. And when one does that, I question whether or not they steer away from a toddler they see walking in the street. Because, after all, who knows whether or not that child exists?
I prefer the rational opinion on knowledge, which is that it exists and we can perceive it. The opposing opinion is self-defeating and inherently worthless, because even if someone knew that there is no such thing as knowledge, they would ipso facto be completely wrong at the same time.
Ah, paradoxes. Sometimes they help us prove what cannot be true. Hence, knowledge.
DNA
Pwned. It's really all there is to it.
Even if we had no archaeological evidence about past species which are clearly (e.g. Scientifically proven) linked with us, why do we have closer DNA similarities with species (Simians, most notably the living species Pan Paniscus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo), who shares 98% of our DNA) who coincidently have biological, physical, psychological and social similarities with us (humans) then any other species? Is it because God (Maybe it was Zeus? Odin? Osiris?) wished us to have more furry and retarded brother? Pah-leeze. We have evidence, facts. Creationism has...Nothing. Creationism is a story, which cannot ever be proven. Evolutionism on the other hand, (I can speak at least in the Evolution of the Human Species) is well advanced, and although it still has many missing links, actually defines a plausible evolution based on scientific evidence. Creationism is just one big missing link, meaning it is a fairy tale story, created in a time where humans had no way to trace back their past.
Believing in Creationism, James Ussher using the Bible and various religious documents to trace back to the date where the world was created, he came up with a date: 4004 B.C.
Unfortunalty a modern science called "Geology" has already proved that there were natural materials existing far beyond that date. Pity.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-30-2008, 18:34
The existance of knowledge is a working assumption, without which we cannot form a frame of reference. It's still an assumption though.
Askthepizzaguy
12-30-2008, 18:38
The existance of knowledge is a working assumption, without which we cannot form a frame of reference. It's still an assumption though.
The existence of knowledge is as much an assumption as your existence, and the existence of the universe.
Yes, we must assume they exist, but they are self-evident. They require no further evidence than their existence. That is why when people question objective truth, knowledge, reason, logic, evidence, sense, and understanding, I question why they bother questioning.
Without knowledge there is no reason. Without reason there is no logic. Without logic, we are precisely as well-off dead as we are alive, so we should not lock anyone up for murders, nor bother to procreate.
One questions at that point why we bother breathing, if nothing matters and nothing is true or provable or knowable. I say, be bold. Question whether you can know. But you will never know that you can never know, because THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Askthepizzaguy
12-30-2008, 18:50
Unfortunalty a modern science called "Geology" has already proved that there were natural materials existing far beyond that date. Pity.
When one has unrelenting devotion to religious faith, one has equally unrelenting doubt in knowledge and proof. As such, religious people will always question the existence of knowable truth, but never question the existence of revelation.
When one has unrelenting devotion to religious faith, one has equally unrelenting doubt in knowledge and proof. As such, religious people will always question the existence of knowable truth, but never question the existence of revelation.
Simply put, people with unrelenting devotion to an unproven mythical being, have unrelenting doubt about proven facts? It's the same as having doubts that the sky is blue, that humans have feet, that humans have children.
Simply put, people with unrelenting devotion to an unproven mythical being, have unrelenting doubt about proven facts? It's the same as having doubts that the sky is blue, that humans have feet, that humans have children.
Doubting the obvious is okay. After all, without the tinfoil hatters and flat earthers the world would be a less exciting place to live in. Now, feeding this garbage to children, THAT is a problem.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-30-2008, 21:44
The existence of knowledge is as much an assumption as your existence, and the existence of the universe.
Yes, we must assume they exist, but they are self-evident. They require no further evidence than their existence. That is why when people question objective truth, knowledge, reason, logic, evidence, sense, and understanding, I question why they bother questioning.
Without knowledge there is no reason. Without reason there is no logic. Without logic, we are precisely as well-off dead as we are alive, so we should not lock anyone up for murders, nor bother to procreate.
One questions at that point why we bother breathing, if nothing matters and nothing is true or provable or knowable. I say, be bold. Question whether you can know. But you will never know that you can never know, because THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Ah, but this is where it gets slippery. You mentioned logic, but logic is based on the assumption that the measurable is repeatable, and that 1 + 1 will always = 2. This is actually a pretty big assumption, and it's what all modern science is based on.
1,000 years ago the existence of God would have been considered even more obvious. "Man is the measure of all things".
Ultimately the stance of the religious fundamentalist is as logical as your own, it simply has a different start point. You assume that your careful measurement of the natural world is accurate, they assume their holy text is accurate. You demand that the Holy text eqate to the natural world, or be proved false, and they demand that your conclusions from measurement equate with their holy text, or be proved false.
They have the advantage because they can refute any measurement you produce by declaring that it has been altered by God.
Askthepizzaguy
01-01-2009, 20:38
Ah, but this is where it gets slippery. You mentioned logic, but logic is based on the assumption that the measurable is repeatable, and that 1 + 1 will always = 2. This is actually a pretty big assumption, and it's what all modern science is based on.
1,000 years ago the existence of God would have been considered even more obvious. "Man is the measure of all things".
Ultimately the stance of the religious fundamentalist is as logical as your own, it simply has a different start point. You assume that your careful measurement of the natural world is accurate, they assume their holy text is accurate. You demand that the Holy text eqate to the natural world, or be proved false, and they demand that your conclusions from measurement equate with their holy text, or be proved false.
They have the advantage because they can refute any measurement you produce by declaring that it has been altered by God.
If there ever comes a time when 1+1 does not equal 2, then the fundamental nature of the universe will have changed. There is no evidence this has ever happened or ever will, and even if it did, that means nothing.
All my arguments pertain to THIS universe as it always has been and always will be. You HAVE TO THROW OUT any argument which pertains to a different universe, because it's irrelevant to this one.
Focus on this universe, because that's the only place our arguments matter. What you are saying in effect is that I could be wrong, but the nature of reality would have to change.
That's the same as saying you cannot refute my arguments, and that they are correct.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-01-2009, 22:20
If there ever comes a time when 1+1 does not equal 2, then the fundamental nature of the universe will have changed. There is no evidence this has ever happened or ever will, and even if it did, that means nothing.
All my arguments pertain to THIS universe as it always has been and always will be. You HAVE TO THROW OUT any argument which pertains to a different universe, because it's irrelevant to this one.
Focus on this universe, because that's the only place our arguments matter. What you are saying in effect is that I could be wrong, but the nature of reality would have to change.
That's the same as saying you cannot refute my arguments, and that they are correct.
It was only proved that 1+1=2 about twenty years ago, actually. That's not the point. The point is this:
The God about which we are talking is claimed to be all poweful, he can therefore change the nature of this reality whenever he wants to and leave no evidence it has happened, which makes your arguements irrelevant.
We get around this problem be saying that he doesn't, because he is a just God and does not lie.
Askthepizzaguy
01-01-2009, 22:32
It was only proved that 1+1=2 about twenty years ago, actually. That's not the point. The point is this:
The God about which we are talking is claimed to be all poweful, he can therefore change the nature of this reality whenever he wants to and leave no evidence it has happened, which makes your arguements irrelevant.
We get around this problem be saying that he doesn't, because he is a just God and does not lie.
The God of which you speak would have to contradict his own laws, making him a liar.
I don't believe in such a God, and my arguments are quite relevant.
The rule is, if you have to alter the laws of the known universe to make your opponent's argument irrelevant, then they are quite relevant.
Mangudai
01-01-2009, 22:37
Question: What hypothetical observations would disprove darwinism?
Askthepizzaguy
01-01-2009, 22:45
Darwinism? You'll have to be more specific.
The theory of evolution has many, many examples of proof, ranging from the geologic to the biological to the chemical, to modern observations regarding breeding new species of plant life, to the FACT that species die every year by the thousands, yet many many more remain. That suggests that new species are being created, otherwise there would have been unknown trillions of species at the beginning of the world, "4004" years ago.
New species have come into existence during humanity's existence, by our own doing. And it happens naturally as well. Artificial selection is real, and natural has been observed.
Viruses and bacteria mutate and become different strains. Mutations in genes occur. Biological links between species have been found. There is a logical progression of life from the simple to the complex, in our geological history.
The evidence is overwhelming. Creationism has no evidence, and if all the evidence was poofed into existence by a magic genie in a bottle, then science has no meaning.
I tend to disbelieve that science has no meaning, because progress has always been achieved by the rational mind using logical methods, and standing in the way of that progress has always been the superstitious, the phobic, the mystical, supernatural, religious, who disbelieve the rational and favor what cannot ever be proven.
Science has led to dead ends, but those dead ends proved that other avenues were possible. Even the dead ends helped us understand. Religion has never brought about one one-thousandth the amount of progress that reason has.
The theory of evolution has many, many examples of proof, ranging from the geologic to the biological to the chemical, to modern observations regarding breeding new species of plant life, to the FACT that species die every year by the thousands, yet many many more remain. That suggests that new species are being created, otherwise there would have been unknown trillions of species at the beginning of the world, "4004" years ago.
New species have come into existence during humanity's existence, by our own doing. And it happens naturally as well. Artificial selection is real, and natural has been observed.
Viruses and bacteria mutate and become different strains. Mutations in genes occur. Biological links between species have been found. There is a logical progression of life from the simple to the complex, in our geological history.
The evidence is overwhelming. Creationism has no evidence, and if all the evidence was poofed into existence by a magic genie in a bottle, then science has no meaning.
I tend to disbelieve that science has no meaning, because progress has always been achieved by the rational mind using logical methods, and standing in the way of that progress has always been the superstitious, the phobic, the mystical, supernatural, religious, who disbelieve the rational and favor what cannot ever be proven.
Science has led to dead ends, but those dead ends proved that other avenues were possible. Even the dead ends helped us understand. Religion has never brought about one one-thousandth the amount of progress that reason has.
Phew. And I was beginning to think that you were one of the guys who thought Dinossaurs were placed beneath the Earth by "god" to "test our faith". Such people irritate me beyond imagination (Mainly because I have excavated things from beneath the Earth myself, as an archaeologist)
Askthepizzaguy
01-01-2009, 23:02
Phew. And I was beginning to think that you were one of the guys who thought Dinossaurs were placed beneath the Earth by "god" to "test our faith". Such people irritate me beyond imagination (Mainly because I have excavated things from beneath the Earth myself, as an archaeologist)
I'm one of the Org's most outspoken blasphemers, and a heretic among heretics. I doubt anything that is supernatural, not proven, or not sufficiently proven, and I even doubt that all proof is foolproof. However, I believe evidence and repeated results and removing alternate conclusions, over preaching that there is a man inside an invisible box who watches everything that we do and sends us to burn inside eternal hellfire forever when we die.
I don't mind tests of faith, but when this God places everything on this planet in such a way that the results are counter-intuitive, I have to wonder why he considers suicide an unforgivable sin. It seems logical that if God is testing our faith by misleading us to the wrong conclusions, the biggest leap of faith of them all would be to kill oneself and see what happens.
As such, suicide bombers should be considered the most faithful of them all.
Hence my problem with faith. (Or, one of many)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-02-2009, 01:48
The God of which you speak would have to contradict his own laws, making him a liar.
I don't believe in such a God, and my arguments are quite relevant.
The rule is, if you have to alter the laws of the known universe to make your opponent's argument irrelevant, then they are quite relevant.
I agree, but I'm not trying to convince you of this, I'm merely expalining the mindset. There is a better answer to the proposition. You see, God is also omnipresent, in time and space. If God created the Universe 6,000 years ago and then, well backfilled the rest of history makes no difference than if he started with the big bang. Not only would there be no way to tell the difference, there would be no difference because God is timeless. As such he can start the universe at any temporal point and then go back and do the bits that came before.
Banquo's Ghost
01-02-2009, 09:16
Question: What hypothetical observations would disprove darwinism?
It's a good question. :bow:
Well, bearing in mind that Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species is now just a thread in a much more complex Theory of Evolution, I shall assume you mean the latter.
As noted above, there are many scientific disciplines outside biology that provide evidence, so one might be able to argue for say, evidence that invalidated the dating of rocks (ie some evidence that showed us stratification theory was wrong, or that our physics were wrong when measuring radioactive decay) might shake the usefulness of the fossil record.
The Theory of Evolution has been modified many times by observations - not least because Darwin had no knowledge of genetics. The Creationists tend to use this as an argument that the whole thing is utterly flawed, whereas it is quite normal for science. This replicates each philosophy - a creationist will distrust anything that does not emerge fully formed and free from doubt - a scientist welcomes revision of ideas - their evolution, if you will.
However, to be brief and flippant, I would say apply the same standards as the advocates of Creationism do. They constantly argue that no-one has seen a fish evolve into a frog, therefore, evolution is bunk. (Macro-evolution as they term it - I haven't seen any arguments that micro-evolution doesn't happen).
So, when a moose spontaneously appears out of thin air fully formed - ie we get to see creation in action and an observation that does not fit evolutionary theory - I might start questioning evolution.
More likely, I might start questioning whether it's wise to drive country roads under the influence. :wink:
Mangudai
01-05-2009, 05:44
It's a good question. :bow:
Well, bearing in mind that Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species is now just a thread in a much more complex Theory of Evolution, I shall assume you mean the latter.
As noted above, there are many scientific disciplines outside biology that provide evidence, so one might be able to argue for say, evidence that invalidated the dating of rocks (ie some evidence that showed us stratification theory was wrong, or that our physics were wrong when measuring radioactive decay) might shake the usefulness of the fossil record.
The Theory of Evolution has been modified many times by observations - not least because Darwin had no knowledge of genetics. The Creationists tend to use this as an argument that the whole thing is utterly flawed, whereas it is quite normal for science. This replicates each philosophy - a creationist will distrust anything that does not emerge fully formed and free from doubt - a scientist welcomes revision of ideas - their evolution, if you will.
However, to be brief and flippant, I would say apply the same standards as the advocates of Creationism do. They constantly argue that no-one has seen a fish evolve into a frog, therefore, evolution is bunk. (Macro-evolution as they term it - I haven't seen any arguments that micro-evolution doesn't happen).
So, when a moose spontaneously appears out of thin air fully formed - ie we get to see creation in action and an observation that does not fit evolutionary theory - I might start questioning evolution.
More likely, I might start questioning whether it's wise to drive country roads under the influence. :wink:
A thoughtful response, but not really adequate. I know a place in Wyoming where you can find terradactyl fossils in a layer of rock above my own footprints. Radioactive dating has a lot of controversy, especially C14 dating...
I'm not arguing against Darwinism or for Creationism. Darwinism is supported by a mountain of confirming evidence. What I'm really challenging is Popper's philosophy of science, based on the idea that scientific theories are falsifiable.
So, when a moose spontaneously appears out of thin air fully formed - ie we get to see creation in action and an observation that does not fit evolutionary theory - I might start questioning evolution.
That might do it... but I wonder if there could be an observation which would refute just Darwinism and not all of thermodynamics.
HoreTore
01-05-2009, 09:58
Sure. If course, only when and if it's accepted as a plausible explanation by the majority of the scientific community, just like evolution is.
That's how science works; we teach what know now, and when something better comes along, we swap instantly(relatively) for the improved shiny thing. It's flowing, not set in stone.
That day isn't going to come, however.
A thoughtful response, but not really adequate. I know a place in Wyoming where you can find terradactyl fossils in a layer of rock above my own footprints.
This argument is used frequently by the supporters of a young earth i.e Creationists.
That you find fossils, not only pterodactyl, in high layers could be the result of glacier activity or floods. I understand Wyoming has glaciers. Those babies gnaws at the ground, creating new landscape. Any host of nature forces can change the norm. In the Oil business, the knowledge of how this works helps us find trapped petroleum.
What is Creationism anyway? Isn't it a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter 1? To support the idea of a young earth, you must trust that the non existent original manuscripts of Genesis never was tampered with, that one day as written is 24 hours and not a undefined period of time.
Rhyfelwyr
01-05-2009, 15:57
Well the 6,000 years comes from the genealogy Biblical characters. One thing I have wondered about is how they calculate lifespans, and how we know how quickly they dropped.
Tribesman
01-05-2009, 16:22
Well the 6,000 years comes from the genealogy Biblical characters. One thing I have wondered about is how they calculate lifespans, and how we know how quickly they dropped.
One usual explanation for that is that when the Jewish scriptures were written for the egyptian library the timespan didn't add up with recorded Egyptian history so they added lots of years to the lifespan of the characters to get rid of the contradiction .
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-05-2009, 22:14
Well the 6,000 years comes from the genealogy Biblical characters. One thing I have wondered about is how they calculate lifespans, and how we know how quickly they dropped.
Largely by the ages recorded in Genesis I would imagine, until you get to Moses, at which point the supposed date locks into history pretty clearly. Except of course it doesn't, because Exodus doth not jive with secular history.
Vladimir
01-06-2009, 15:13
If we wish to disagree that facts exist, we start to question whether or not anything can be "true" or whether anything "exists". Which is fine, I can have that discussion, I've had it enough times. And I know, because I remember, because I was there, and there is proof of it, and the conclusion that "I think therefore I am" is justified.
Nothing exists (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html). Everything is just fluctuations in a vacuum.
Askthepizzaguy
01-06-2009, 15:26
Nothing exists (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html). Everything is just fluctuations in a vacuum.
Even a vaccuum has physical properties which affect both space and time. And if matter is a fluctuation of a vaccuum, then the vaccuum contains something, even in the abstract, which makes it no longer a vaccuum. And if there are fluctuations in spacetime, then there must first be the concept of existence.
Otherwise you couldn't be sitting here talking about it. Or standing, or whatever. The fact that I can discern the difference between sitting and standing is yet one of the infinite examples of there being reality around me.
Only by blinding yourself to reality can one say that it does not exist, and then one is stating that they do not exist, which is the same as saying "this statement is false". There's an inherent flaw in your reasoning, which negates the validity of your assertions.
One cannot say that they do not exist, unless they exist.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-06-2009, 16:52
cognito ego sum was an attempt to get over the problem of subjective knowledge, since then no philosopher has suceeded in extending that statement in any way, neither further than ego or sum.
Askthepizzaguy
01-06-2009, 16:54
It's a fact that if we don't exist, we aren't having this discussion either, so why are we wasting our time talking about it?
On the other hand, if we do exist, then I am correct. In either case, in 100% of the possible outcomes, it makes ZERO sense to argue with anyone that we do not exist.
Case closed. :smash:
Even a vaccuum has physical properties which affect both space and time. And if matter is a fluctuation of a vaccuum, then the vaccuum contains something, even in the abstract, which makes it no longer a vaccuum. And if there are fluctuations in spacetime, then there must first be the concept of existence.
Otherwise you couldn't be sitting here talking about it. Or standing, or whatever. The fact that I can discern the difference between sitting and standing is yet one of the infinite examples of there being reality around me.
Only by blinding yourself to reality can one say that it does not exist, and then one is stating that they do not exist, which is the same as saying "this statement is false". There's an inherent flaw in your reasoning, which negates the validity of your assertions.
One cannot say that they do not exist, unless they exist.
All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves.
Here's Tom with the weather. ~;)
Askthepizzaguy
01-06-2009, 17:19
All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves.
Here's Tom with the weather. ~;)
Okay, if that's the case, I dare you to shoot yourself. After all, what could possibly be the harm in it?
And WHY are we persecuting people for being mass murderers? There's no such thing as consequences if we aren't real. And for that matter, why bother breathing, or arguing with me about existence?
Because it's fun? No, it's nonexistent, remember, so there's no such thing as fun. There's no such thing as anything. Which is odd, because you people keep insisting on debating this point. Why are you engaging in the effort to accomplish anything, when nothing exists?
The point is, I can prove that you don't believe a word you just said, or else you wouldn't bother getting up in the morning and eating food. Just stay asleep, you're dreaming anyway.
I wouldn't mind entertaining the amusing notion that we aren't here, but those who claim to be a proponent of such theories are hypocritical when they bother talking.
Vladimir
01-06-2009, 17:57
You just like the attention, don't you?
Askthepizzaguy
01-06-2009, 18:11
You just like the attention, don't you?
I do like the attention, but that's not pertinent to the validity of what I am saying. :smash:
I'm not a talkative person in real life, so this is my outlet for expressing myself.
All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves.
Here's Tom with the weather. ~;)
The world is like a ride in an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it, you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time and they begin to question, is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, "hey - don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride..." ...It's just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money. A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.
Bill Hicks rules! :2thumbsup:
Banquo's Ghost
01-06-2009, 18:24
Nothing exists (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html). Everything is just fluctuations in a vacuum.
So it is true then.
Existence sucks.
:surrender2:
A thoughtful response, but not really adequate. I know a place in Wyoming where you can find terradactyl fossils in a layer of rock above my own footprints. Radioactive dating has a lot of controversy, especially C14 dating...
I'm not arguing against Darwinism or for Creationism. Darwinism is supported by a mountain of confirming evidence. What I'm really challenging is Popper's philosophy of science, based on the idea that scientific theories are falsifiable.
That might do it... but I wonder if there could be an observation which would refute just Darwinism and not all of thermodynamics.
I know loads of places where you can find material culture in layers which weren't the original ones. As Sigurd well said, that is the result of geological processes which alter the original position of the material culture, and that itself is also scientific evidence.
As for controversy in C14 dating, I'm unaware any such controversy exists. Unless you mean the needed calibration so the C14 dating can give a more accurate date, that isn't really a controversy. It's a matter of trial and error to find the right calibrations, and many labs already have quite accurate calibrations.
Askthepizzaguy
01-06-2009, 19:17
Jolt, Shhhh.
Santa Claus exists, and he mated with the Tooth Fairy to give us Jesus. That's a scientific fact which can never be disproved. And when Jesus comes back to life and mates with the Easter Bunny, she will give birth to the four horsemen of the Apocalypse and all the sinners will go burn in hell as the Earth is being destroyed. Again, everyone knows this is scientific fact, and so-called "evolution" has ZERO evidence.
There's way more evidence for my theory. After all, look around you... didn't you see lots of evidence of Santa Claus this year? He was freakin' EVERYWHERE. My teeth kept disappearing when I was a kid. Jesus and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are related, that's in the Bible somewhere in the back. So there's more proof here than evolution, which is just a bunch of nonsense. You can't prove anything by looking at rocks and examining the fossilized remains of creatures that God put there to test our faith. Furthermore, micro-evolution could never possibly be macro-evolution because history only started 6000 years ago, so there hasn't been enough time for it.
And Darwin makes baby Jesus cry. Be nice to Jesus.
:7teacher:
Papewaio
01-06-2009, 22:17
If there ever comes a time when 1+1 does not equal 2, then the fundamental nature of the universe will have changed.
Change the base number to 2 and it no longer does.
1 + 1 = 10
Change from scalar addition to vector addition and again you have different answers.
1 + 1 <= 2 in magnitude. :juggle2:
Askthepizzaguy
01-06-2009, 22:28
But of course, I should have been more specific. 1+1 = 2 in base ten, and using scalar addition.
Then again, it could have been implied by the nontechnical use of addition in a forum not dedicated to mathematics. But I'll confirm the above.
In any case, 1 + 1 = 2, and 10 is equal to 2 in base 1. To be frank, you won't find a lot of vector addition in a casual conversation not generally pertaining to mathematics. So, I'll amend my previous assertion by saying 1 + 1 equals two unless you change the fundamental nature of the universe, or the fundamental nature of the discussion, which does not generally refer to vector addition, and is typically base ten by default unless otherwise stated.
ajaxfetish
01-07-2009, 00:03
Question: What hypothetical observations would disprove darwinism?
Fossil evidence of all modern and extinct species having existed simultaneously as far back as there is any evidence of life would do quite a number on Darwin.
Ajax
Askthepizzaguy
01-07-2009, 00:11
It would be a sad thing if Darwinism was false.
Think of it... how many species go extinct each year? How many have gone extinct since the beginning of time? If species continue to go extinct, and no new ones "evolve", then eventually, all that will be left are people, cows, and chickens.
And then one good virus destroys our food animals and we go extinct. You folks better hope to your God that Darwin wasn't wrong.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-07-2009, 00:44
If you believe that you have a very narrow scientific background. I think Lamarkism has some possibilities, it has been pointed out that the means of viri evolving themselves outside a larger organism is unfathomable. Some Australian suggested that viri we see often are "rogue" from some animal or plant and that we use them to stranfer genetic ingformation.
So, Darwinism can be just as wrong as Newtonian Physics.
Askthepizzaguy
01-07-2009, 00:56
The theory of evolution could be disproved, but it hasn't been yet, and there's a mountain of evidence supporting it.
On the other side, creationism cannot be disproved because it's religious faith, not science. Therefore, no matter how established Darwinism is, the Theory of Evolution, or any future scientific theory, someone will always be able to counter it with completely unscientific untestable religious assumptions, and I'd prefer to stick with the most modern science we have, not the most ancient religious assumptions.
Papewaio
01-07-2009, 01:34
But of course, I should have been more specific. 1+1 = 2 in base ten, and using scalar addition.
Then again, it could have been implied by the nontechnical use of addition in a forum not dedicated to mathematics. But I'll confirm the above.
In any case, 1 + 1 = 2, and 10 is equal to 2 in base 1. To be frank, you won't find a lot of vector addition in a casual conversation not generally pertaining to mathematics. So, I'll amend my previous assertion by saying 1 + 1 equals two unless you change the fundamental nature of the universe, or the fundamental nature of the discussion, which does not generally refer to vector addition, and is typically base ten by default unless otherwise stated.
With Creationists they would conclude that you have just changed your theory and it is therefore defunct.
Problem arguing with religion is that it works on faith and absolutes. Science works best on data and probable outcomes.
So two different thought systems that have different criteria will naturally get different outcomes. That they disagree is no surprise, that they sometimes agree isn't either.
Askthepizzaguy
01-07-2009, 01:36
Not so much a change, but a clarification. But I agree, even a minor change and "oop! It's total nonsense now! Let's go back to the 6 day theory."
Papewaio
01-07-2009, 01:37
It would be a sad thing if Darwinism was false.
Darwinism is to Evolution what Newtonian Physics is to Relativity.
Askthepizzaguy
01-07-2009, 01:41
D'oh!
I'm not a scientist or even all that interested in the correct terminologies, so what I meant was evolution, when I used the two terms interchangeably and I shouldn't have.
I'll defer to you wiser and more experienced peoples who know what you're talking about. But you get the gist of what I was trying to express through my uninformed grunting.
Say, is that the mailman? I have to run! Tootles!
Papewaio
01-07-2009, 01:58
Don't worry just sharpening your claws, these debates have been happening for years.
darwinism started out as a crock with it's founder, darwin, and has retained its unfalsifiable core, crock-based ideas ever since. Which is why it remains an accurate term. darwin observed variation within a kind, then imagined that all life transformed into each other, and that imagination is all he had. Today, that remains the case. There is no proof, only faith in the accuracy of that particular imagining being true.
C14 dating, radiometric dating, and all forms of dating are unreliable and erroneous and often produce many different false results from the same sample. All have them rely on blind faith in the accuracy of circular reasoning and the underlying assumptions that go into them. There is no independent verification for any of those dating methods being accurate. Therefore, they may be believed in only by faith.
darwinism is completely unfalsifiable in the minds of darwinists. When some evidence comes to light that refutes it, the darwinist story just gets 're-written' around the facts, rather than discarded like it would be if it was legitimate science. It is assumed by faith that darwinism must be true, no matter what, period, and no consideration is allowed for the possibility that it's not. No evidence can prove it wrong. At most, evidence may only cause a re-write of the darwinist story. Everything must be spun in such a way that it can be ramrodded into the darwinist story that is held to be true based on pre-conceived bias; instead of letting the evidence dictate the facts, which is what legitimate science does.
HoreTore
01-08-2009, 12:36
Just wondering; just how and when was the bible proven correct, Navaros...?
darwinism is completely unfalsifiable in the minds of darwinists. When some evidence comes to light that refutes it, the darwinist story just gets 're-written' around the facts, rather than discarded like it would be if it was legitimate science. It is assumed by faith that darwinism must be true, no matter what, period, and no consideration is allowed for the possibility that it's not. No evidence can prove it wrong. At most, evidence may only cause a re-write of the darwinist story. Everything must be spun in such a way that it can be ramrodded into the darwinist story that is held to be true based on pre-conceived bias; instead of letting the evidence dictate the facts, which is what legitimate science does.
change "darwinism" by "inteligent design" and "darwinists" for "religious people" on that tirade of yours and you might be on to something.
Banquo's Ghost
01-08-2009, 14:33
darwinism started out as a crock with it's founder, darwin, and has retained its unfalsifiable core, crock-based ideas ever since. Which is why it remains an accurate term. darwin observed variation within a kind, then imagined that all life transformed into each other, and that imagination is all he had. Today, that remains the case. There is no proof, only faith in the accuracy of that particular imagining being true.
C14 dating, radiometric dating, and all forms of dating are unreliable and erroneous and often produce many different false results from the same sample. All have them rely on blind faith in the accuracy of circular reasoning and the underlying assumptions that go into them. There is no independent verification for any of those dating methods being accurate. Therefore, they may be believed in only by faith.
darwinism is completely unfalsifiable in the minds of darwinists. When some evidence comes to light that refutes it, the darwinist story just gets 're-written' around the facts, rather than discarded like it would be if it was legitimate science. It is assumed by faith that darwinism must be true, no matter what, period, and no consideration is allowed for the possibility that it's not. No evidence can prove it wrong. At most, evidence may only cause a re-write of the darwinist story. Everything must be spun in such a way that it can be ramrodded into the darwinist story that is held to be true based on pre-conceived bias; instead of letting the evidence dictate the facts, which is what legitimate science does.
Anyone else find it a delicious, cosmic irony that Navaros writes this post using a machine that is only possible because of the same physics he decries?
:beam:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-08-2009, 15:34
darwinism started out as a crock with it's founder, darwin, and has retained its unfalsifiable core, crock-based ideas ever since. Which is why it remains an accurate term. darwin observed variation within a kind, then imagined that all life transformed into each other, and that imagination is all he had. Today, that remains the case. There is no proof, only faith in the accuracy of that particular imagining being true.
Not exactly true, while Darwin did make a logical leap he observed such variation that indicated to him that life developed in varying directions to a very great degree. With this in mind, the growing evidence of exstinct species, and the evidence that the Earth was considerably older than the Bible says he determined that adaptation promoted survival and that cumulative adaptation produced new species.
C14 dating, radiometric dating, and all forms of dating are unreliable and erroneous and often produce many different false results from the same sample. All have them rely on blind faith in the accuracy of circular reasoning and the underlying assumptions that go into them. There is no independent verification for any of those dating methods being accurate. Therefore, they may be believed in only by faith.
This is true outside the laboratory, every kind of radiometric dating is open to contamination and this contamination would have made the counts longer in general, not shorter. Generally, however, laboratory tests are repeatable. Even so, the tests were conducted more than once in more than one place, so that overall we can be reasonably certain that the Earth is aproximately the age we think it is. Further, even the most pessimistic estimate places the Earth at some 175,000, years old.
darwinism is completely unfalsifiable in the minds of darwinists. When some evidence comes to light that refutes it, the darwinist story just gets 're-written' around the facts, rather than discarded like it would be if it was legitimate science. It is assumed by faith that darwinism must be true, no matter what, period, and no consideration is allowed for the possibility that it's not. No evidence can prove it wrong. At most, evidence may only cause a re-write of the darwinist story. Everything must be spun in such a way that it can be ramrodded into the darwinist story that is held to be true based on pre-conceived bias; instead of letting the evidence dictate the facts, which is what legitimate science does.
Scientific theories are not discarded until their fundamental principle has been disproven, even then the theory that replaces them often bears a great deal of similarity. Newton's mathematics have been discared, but his fundamental laws of motion are still taught in schools, becaue although they are not precise they do relate closely to modern physics.
Papewaio
01-08-2009, 21:38
Different forms of evidence that could prove/disprove each other.
Fossil Record
Radiometric Dating
DNA
Also C14 is not generally used beyond 60,000 years. Different elements are used for different date ranges because of the suitable half life and total amount of the element present in the matter.
I'll throw in a flare here.
I can't see that Genesis chapter 1 contradicts the theory of evolution (up until the creation of man) or the current scientific theory of the making of our solar system and our planet.
C14 dating, radiometric dating, and all forms of dating are unreliable and erroneous and often produce many different false results from the same sample. All have them rely on blind faith
You lost me here. Radiometric dating (And thus, C14 dating) is based on scientific evidence on how carbon atoms decay after the death of organical matter. And there is a pattern of decay, scientifically proven. How is that blind faith?
Crandaeolon
01-09-2009, 19:16
I'll throw in a flare here.
I can't see that Genesis chapter 1 contradicts the theory of evolution (up until the creation of man) or the current scientific theory of the making of our solar system and our planet.
I'll bite, am in the need of a quickie. ~;p
Genesis account:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
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.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Genesis order
1. Beginning
2. Primitive Earth composed of / covered in water
3. Light
4. Atmosphere
5. Dry land
6. Land plants
7. Sun, moon and stars
8. Sea creatures and birds (other flying things?)
9. Cattle, creeping things (insects?), other land animals
10. Man
Current scientific understanding
1. Beginning
2. Light
3. Sun and stars
4. Primitive earth, composed of dry land and superheated gasses
5. Water (earth cools down, water vapor condenses to water)
6. Sea creatures (and sea plants)
7. Some land plants, more sea creatures
8. Land creatures, more land plants, more sea creatures
9. Flying creatures (insects), more plants (fruiting plants), more sea creatures
10. Mammals + more of the rest
11. Birds + more of the rest
12. Man + more of the rest
No differences, eh?
Askthepizzaguy
01-09-2009, 19:24
Hmm... I was going to make a flippant joke here, but I'm actually tempted to see the response.
I don't want to discourage the rebuttal in any way.
All right… Let’s do this.
Genesis account contra science.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Introduction and header line to the account. No real information here except that we are informed that this account is about the formation of the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The earth is without form and is a void. Darkness rules and nothing is created yet. God is however moving upon the waters. Notice that it does not state that God created this water.
If this void with water contains an unformed earth, this could only be the dark cloud of dust and gas that will be our solar system in the future.
Science tells us that about 4.7 billion years ago our solar system was merely a cloud of gas and dust. The cloud consists of 75% Hydrogen. This cloud is affected by some external force, most likely a supernova that sets this cloud in a rotation motion. It is interesting that hydrogen means water source in Greek. The rotating cloud collapses because of the mutual gravitational attraction of the constituent gas molecules and dust particles. As the cloud becomes denser it starts to block out light from the surrounding universe. As the cloud continues to collapse, regions of higher density forms within it.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
At the center of the cloud the density is highest and the gravitational potential energy is converted to heat. The center is progressively getting hotter until the density and temperature is high enough for nuclear fusion of hydrogen (water) into helium. The ignition of nuclear fusion in the core of the densest part of the cloud gives birth to a new star.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
The new formed star is surrounded by darkness in the middle of the dust cloud. It begins blowing off the remaining dust and gas and clears the immediate space around it.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
That which is caught in the light of the star is called day and that which remains in darkness is night. The earth or that which will become the earth is one of amongst other denser areas in the cloud. The hotter regions close to the center only allows the formation of rocky planets, while further from the center where it is substantially colder, gaseous planets are formed.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
I am going to loop these verses together as they speak of the same thing.
These verses seem to describe the creation of an atmosphere and the formation of land and sea.
Volcanic activity from internal heating created the second atmosphere containing outgassed water, methane, ammonia, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. The earth is bombarded by large objects and the earth’s crust is continually fractured. Ocean basins are formed in this bombardment and the earth’s surface is cooled enough for rain to fall and fill the basins. The atmosphere consists of very little oxygen. However, in the basins of water photosynthesis by blue green algae begins to release oxygen into the atmosphere. But the formation of reduced minerals such as banded iron chert, detrital pyrite and uranite could not have been formed if even 0, 1 percent of the atmosphere had been oxygen. About 2.0 to 1.5 billion years ago levels of oxygen increased due to the activity of the blue green algae. No more reduced minerals are laid down and oxidized minerals are found. Ozone is also formed in this era that lasts until 800 million years ago. Ozone is an important component for life to be protected by UV radiation from the sun.
The continental plates are formed and the process known as plate tectonics begins. As the various continental plates collides mountain ranges form. Dry land appear.
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.
Plant life would be the obvious first choice to put on a earth. They consume carbon dioxide and produces life necessary oxygen. The earth was not favorable for life with its atmosphere of carbon dioxide, hydrogen, sulfur, methane etc. but lacked any free oxygen. Plant life such as the blue green algae (the oldest fossils found) would prepare the earth for animal life.
Land plants starts appearing about 420 million years ago but did not become common until about 360 million years ago. The first appearance of flowering plants was not until 120 million years ago. Grasses are not found until around 57 million years ago.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Ok not exactly chronological here… But this talks of the continuance of dispersing the dust from around the sun. When the dust finally was dispersed enough for the stars to appear as lights on the firmament, they could be seen from the surface of the young earth. These verses also speak of the fine-tuning of the earths movements. The revolution taking 24 hours, the tilting of the axis to produce seasons, the periods of changing light of the moon and the time it takes to make one orbit of the sun. The seasons can also be determined by which star constellations are visible at a given period of the year. All of it had to be fine tuned to produce the times and seasons we have now.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Amphibians were the first creatures on the earth and it states here that life came from the sea. The great dinosaurs were birdlike no? (Ok stretching this a bit). Anyway science agrees that life began in the seas and moved eventually to the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
After the creatures of the sea and the fowls on land, came primates and finally the hominids.
I’ll stop here as this point… but the order of things is very much in accordance with what comes through science.
I have no doubts of and would assume that over the years this record has been changed several times by translations and mistranslations. Even an early church with an agenda would likely change any of this.
A summation of days (or in science, periods)
Period 1 - formation of solar system - from 4.7 billion to about 3.8 billion years ago.
Period 2 - formation of atmosphere - from 4.0 billion to about 800 million years ago.
Period 3 - formation of continents and ocean, plant life - from 3.7 billion to about 57 million years ago
Period 4 - appearance of sun, moon, stars - from 4.5 billion to about 4.4 billion years ago
Period 5 - appearance of sea animals and birds - from 600 million to about 150 million years ago
Period 6 - appearance of land animals - from 370 million to about 19 million years ago.
All right… Let’s do this.
Genesis account contra science.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Introduction and header line to the account. No real information here except that we are informed that this account is about the formation of the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The earth is without form and is a void. Darkness rules and nothing is created yet. God is however moving upon the waters. Notice that it does not state that God created this water.
If this void with water contains an unformed earth, this could only be the dark cloud of dust and gas that will be our solar system in the future.
Science tells us that about 4.7 billion years ago our solar system was merely a cloud of gas and dust. The cloud consists of 75% Hydrogen. This cloud is affected by some external force, most likely a supernova that sets this cloud in a rotation motion. It is interesting that hydrogen means water source in Greek. The rotating cloud collapses because of the mutual gravitational attraction of the constituent gas molecules and dust particles. As the cloud becomes denser it starts to block out light from the surrounding universe. As the cloud continues to collapse, regions of higher density forms within it.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
At the center of the cloud the density is highest and the gravitational potential energy is converted to heat. The center is progressively getting hotter until the density and temperature is high enough for nuclear fusion of hydrogen (water) into helium. The ignition of nuclear fusion in the core of the densest part of the cloud gives birth to a new star.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
The new formed star is surrounded by darkness in the middle of the dust cloud. It begins blowing off the remaining dust and gas and clears the immediate space around it.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
That which is caught in the light of the star is called day and that which remains in darkness is night. The earth or that which will become the earth is one of amongst other denser areas in the cloud. The hotter regions close to the center only allows the formation of rocky planets, while further from the center where it is substantially colder, gaseous planets are formed.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
I am going to loop these verses together as they speak of the same thing.
These verses seem to describe the creation of an atmosphere and the formation of land and sea.
Volcanic activity from internal heating created the second atmosphere containing outgassed water, methane, ammonia, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. The earth is bombarded by large objects and the earth’s crust is continually fractured. Ocean basins are formed in this bombardment and the earth’s surface is cooled enough for rain to fall and fill the basins. The atmosphere consists of very little oxygen. However, in the basins of water photosynthesis by blue green algae begins to release oxygen into the atmosphere. But the formation of reduced minerals such as banded iron chert, detrital pyrite and uranite could not have been formed if even 0, 1 percent of the atmosphere had been oxygen. About 2.0 to 1.5 billion years ago levels of oxygen increased due to the activity of the blue green algae. No more reduced minerals are laid down and oxidized minerals are found. Ozone is also formed in this era that lasts until 800 million years ago. Ozone is an important component for life to be protected by UV radiation from the sun.
The continental plates are formed and the process known as plate tectonics begins. As the various continental plates collides mountain ranges form. Dry land appear.
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.
Plant life would be the obvious first choice to put on a earth. They consume carbon dioxide and produces life necessary oxygen. The earth was not favorable for life with its atmosphere of carbon dioxide, hydrogen, sulfur, methane etc. but lacked any free oxygen. Plant life such as the blue green algae (the oldest fossils found) would prepare the earth for animal life.
Land plants starts appearing about 420 million years ago but did not become common until about 360 million years ago. The first appearance of flowering plants was not until 120 million years ago. Grasses are not found until around 57 million years ago.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Ok not exactly chronological here… But this talks of the continuance of dispersing the dust from around the sun. When the dust finally was dispersed enough for the stars to appear as lights on the firmament, they could be seen from the surface of the young earth. These verses also speak of the fine-tuning of the earths movements. The revolution taking 24 hours, the tilting of the axis to produce seasons, the periods of changing light of the moon and the time it takes to make one orbit of the sun. The seasons can also be determined by which star constellations are visible at a given period of the year. All of it had to be fine tuned to produce the times and seasons we have now.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Amphibians were the first creatures on the earth and it states here that life came from the sea. The great dinosaurs were birdlike no? (Ok stretching this a bit). Anyway science agrees that life began in the seas and moved eventually to the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
After the creatures of the sea and the fowls on land, came primates and finally the hominids.
I’ll stop here as this point… but the order of things is very much in accordance with what comes through science.
I have no doubts of and would assume that over the years this record has been changed several times by translations and mistranslations. Even an early church with an agenda would likely change any of this.
A summation of days (or in science, periods)
Period 1 - formation of solar system - from 4.7 billion to about 3.8 billion years ago.
Period 2 - formation of atmosphere - from 4.0 billion to about 800 million years ago.
Period 3 - formation of continents and ocean, plant life - from 3.7 billion to about 57 million years ago
Period 4 - appearance of sun, moon, stars - from 4.5 billion to about 4.4 billion years ago
Period 5 - appearance of sea animals and birds - from 600 million to about 150 million years ago
Period 6 - appearance of land animals - from 370 million to about 19 million years ago.
Q.E.D.?
Tribesman
01-10-2009, 16:28
You lost me here. Radiometric dating (And thus, C14 dating) is based on scientific evidence on how carbon atoms decay after the death of organical matter. And there is a pattern of decay, scientifically proven. How is that blind faith?
It is blind faith because it isn't in the bible .:2thumbsup:
The Celtic Viking
01-10-2009, 18:47
Sigurd, you're joking, right?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-10-2009, 18:51
Why? Scared there might be some cosmic truth in the musty old scrolls.
The Celtic Viking
01-10-2009, 19:20
That's my second greatest nightmare, actually, just after bananas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4). ~;)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-10-2009, 19:33
Debunked: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo&feature=related
Sort of, Einstein's beliefs are very obscure, there are certain types of God I cannot concieve of either. So I'm not sure if he's an etheist, I'm also not always impressed by his philosophical reasoning.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/04/13/big.bang.collision/index.html I wonder, still... both are more interesting that Steady State, and the new model accounts for the "void" in Genesis.
Seriously though, what we be so bad about the universe having been created by a supreme being?
Crandaeolon
01-10-2009, 20:28
Sigurd, you're joking, right?
I think that was a profoundly awesome answer. :bow: Working on reply.
Furunculus
01-10-2009, 20:40
It would be a sad thing if Darwinism was false.
Think of it... how many species go extinct each year? How many have gone extinct since the beginning of time? If species continue to go extinct, and no new ones "evolve", then eventually, all that will be left are people, cows, and chickens.
And then one good virus destroys our food animals and we go extinct. You folks better hope to your God that Darwin wasn't wrong.
there have been a great number of times when the diversity of species has bottlenecked.
the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction reduced biomass by about 65% and biodiversity by 75%, and the Permo/Triassic extinction was even worse at 80% of biomass and 90% of biodiversity.
notice that biodiversity always dips more than biomass which is because the species least adapted to the changing environment go extinct wheras the remainder suffer but survive. and regardless of this new species emerge to fill ecological niches and biomass and biodiversity recover.............. until next time.
The Celtic Viking
01-10-2009, 20:44
Einstein believed in Spinoza's god, which basically makes him a pantheist as I understand it. That's, as Richard Dawkins said, is "glorified atheism". It doesn't really matter, though, as the point was simply to show that he did not believe in the Christian god, or any god at all that interfers with nature in any kind of way, as Comfort in the video claims he did.
Seriously though, what we be so bad about the universe having been created by a supreme being?
It's not that I see it as something bad if it was, it's simply that there is no evidence for it, and thus no reason to believe it. If the universe was created by a "supreme being" and you could prove it, then I would believe, but until then I remain unimpressed.
Rhyfelwyr
01-10-2009, 23:53
I've seen that Banana clip before, I thought it was a joke? Please don't tell me those guys were genuine?! :wall:
Seriously though, what we be so bad about the universe having been created by a supreme being?
It seems to me an inherently anthropomorphic explanation, when we seem to have overwhelming evidence that the universe is not anthropomorphic and certainly not anthropocentric. Basically the universe is very, very big and the overwhelming bulk of it seems to be entirely inaccessible to us. To me it stretches credibility far more to imagine that the Universe was created by God, for humans, than to imagine that God was an invention of humans, and which in turn arose naturally out of the Universe.
Not to mention explaining the Universe as having been created by a supreme being seems to raise more issues and apparent contradictions than it resolves. The one that bugs me most personally is "how does an omniscient creator get around Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?" but there are many more. One could simply hand-wave it all away as being "far beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals", or slightly more tolerably, "an impossible question for us to answer given the limitations of the Universe we live in", like asking "what's inside a Black Hole", or "what was around before the Big Bang". But that to me seems to carry implications that the Universe must ultimately be beyond our ability to comprehend, an intellectual dead-end I find deeply unsatisfactory and which I see no reason to accept until all other possibilities are exhausted.
Lord Winter
01-11-2009, 04:46
No wait what does Heisenberg's uncertainy principle have to do with God? Isn't just our inabillity to be certain of an electrons location? I wasn't aware of any metaphysical extensions.
At the same time the lack of a suprume being, also brings up contradictions. How did the universe get here? Why did it first start? and don't say the big bang since that doesn't fully answer the question (not to say its not true, it just isn't definitive on the whole god question. A theistic worldview doesn't mean crazed bible thumping christan or even organized religon at all.
Rhyfelwyr
01-11-2009, 10:31
I can never understand why anything exists at all. Some for of matter/thing must have had to exist for the big bang to take place, but where did that come from? On the other hand, how did God come into being?
Clearly my line of thought that everything must have a beginning and be created is wrong. But I'm completely stumped, I used to try to image complete nonethingness before and I just ended up feeling dizzy.
No wait what does Heisenberg's uncertainy principle have to do with God? Isn't just our inabillity to be certain of an electrons location? I wasn't aware of any metaphysical extensions.
It's a tad more fundamental than that.
In the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics (the Copenhagen interpretation) the uncertainty principle is regarded as absolute; it is not simply the case that the electron has a physical location and we just don't know what it is, the point is that the particle's location cannot be known by anyone since it literally is in a superposition of all possible states.
The contrary idea, that the location and momentum of particles do in fact have some definite value before we measure them but we just don't know what they are, has actually been experimentally disproven, since it places constraints on particle entanglement called Bell inequalities. As I understand it all attempts to check the Bell inequalities to date have found they do not hold, instead agreeing with the predictions of quantum mechanics.
Thus, as far as we can tell, it seems that particles really do exist in a superposition of states, that Schroedinger's cat, for example, truly is both alive and dead simultaneously. Furthermore it seems the universe must be inherently probabilistic rather than deterministic, since as far as we can tell particles behave in a way which implies that their momentum and position cannot be known simultaneously even by God, since they have no physical reality.
At the same time the lack of a suprume being, also brings up contradictions. How did the universe get here? Why did it first start? and don't say the big bang since that doesn't fully answer the question (not to say its not true, it just isn't definitive on the whole god question. A theistic worldview doesn't mean crazed bible thumping christan or even organized religon at all.
Certainly I would agree that the origin of the Universe (or in other words "What caused the Big Bang?) is an unanswered question. It is also very possibly an inherently unanswerable one. As far as I'm concerned, the current list of possible explanations for the cause of the Big Bang currently includes literally anything, since we have absolutely no observational data on conditions before the Big Bang. I suppose that somewhere on this infinite spectrum of possible theories is the idea of an intelligent creator. However, I see no reason to favour such a theory above others since it is anthropomorphic, and anthropomorphic or anthropocentric theories of cosmology have not historically been very successful. I prefer to keep an open mind on the entire question for the time being, since I suspect that if an answer ever is found, it will be quite as much of an out-of-the-blue curveball as quantum mechanics was.
I can never understand why anything exists at all. Some for of matter/thing must have had to exist for the big bang to take place, but where did that come from? On the other hand, how did God come into being?
Clearly my line of thought that everything must have a beginning and be created is wrong. But I'm completely stumped, I used to try to image complete nonethingness before and I just ended up feeling dizzy.
I wonder whether this points the way to a resolution to my little uncertainty principle paradox? That I am taking a far too absolute view of either time or causality, and that a supreme being would be free to muck around with one or both.
Askthepizzaguy
01-12-2009, 11:32
I encourage a blow-by-blow rebuttal to Sigurd's post. I am not a scientist, so my answer would be limited, even if it is as reasonable as possible.
I encourage a blow-by-blow rebuttal to Sigurd's post. I am not a scientist, so my answer would be limited, even if it is as reasonable as possible.
I would like to, but I am not quite sure what point he was trying to make. That Genesis accurately predicts current scientific understanding of the origins of the Earth and the life on it? Or that if you are reading Genesis as a metaphor, you can reinterpret it to mean just about anything?
I guess he has a point in that a non-literal reading of Genesis does not explicitly contradict the scientific account, at least in broad strokes, although this bit in particular seems a real stretch:
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Ok not exactly chronological here… But this talks of the continuance of dispersing the dust from around the sun. When the dust finally was dispersed enough for the stars to appear as lights on the firmament, they could be seen from the surface of the young earth.
It seems to me that this very clearly states that God made the Sun after the Earth, not simply that it was already around but only became visible later on. This would be a pretty huge discrepancy with the scientific model.
The trouble is though that these exact passages can and have been interpreted as agreeing with totally different models; we can't possibly conclude that Genesis exactly predicts only the scientific model and none other, with no room for ambiguity. In essence this seems like a statement that Genesis is worded vaguely enough that it can be contorted to agree with any model, so that it can be made to agree with the current scientific one is not surprising.
I would like to, but I am not quite sure what point he was trying to make. That Genesis accurately predicts current scientific understanding of the origins of the Earth and the life on it? Or that if you are reading Genesis as a metaphor, you can reinterpret it to mean just about anything?
I guess he has a point in that a non-literal reading of Genesis does not explicitly contradict the scientific account, at least in broad strokes, although this bit in particular seems a real stretch:
First of all, I proved yet again that scripture can be interpreted in a different way. I have made a point of mentioning there being 38 000 different Christian denominations, each subscribing to one book as basis for their doctrine, priesthood and authority. My logic dictates that they can't be all right. Most likely they are all wrong.
They have debated every point of doctrine that the Bible covers, and disagreement is abundant.
Why can't I interpret too? (argumentum ad hominem tu quoque :smartass2:)
To say that Genesis treats the creation of the entire universe, is hard pressed. Ergo, I assume it treats the creation of our solar system at most and only our planet at least. (That the original author had any concept of the difference between a solar system and the universe is unknown).
I would have thought that the strongest opposition to my "explanation" of Genesis would have come from the Creationists or anti Evolutionists.
It seems to me that this very clearly states that God made the Sun after the Earth, not simply that it was already around but only became visible later on. This would be a pretty huge discrepancy with the scientific model.
The genesis account lacks the words Sun and Moon. Instead it speaks of lights (though it says stars).
That is not to say the words do not appear in the Bible at all. The truth is, they are named sun and moon many times over (91 hits of the word sun just in the old testament KJV), even in parts of the books of Moses.
In verse 3 it says: let there be light and it was light. If we limit the scope of the creation to our solar system - I would assume this is the main light, ergo the sun. And the following verses speaks of dividing light and darkness, calling light day and darkness night. Why it says made in the 16th verse can be attributed to mistranslation or intentional changes to the original record. Can we even trust any of it?
I think I have demonstrated that the argument going on between creationists and evolutionists are merely based on assumptions. There are more common ground to be found than what is currently in camps IMO ... :wiseguy:
I would have thought that the strongest opposition to my "explanation" of Genesis would have come from the Creationists or anti Evolutionists.
Hey, so long as we are in the business of reinterpreting scripture to to fit observation and not the other way around, I'm happy.
I would disagree rather strongly with any assertion that Genesis accurately predicts what has later been found by science, which seems to have been an implication in some other posts, but which I acknowledge was not actually your point at all (which I seem to have rather widely missed in my previous post :shame:).
I would question, is there any theory which could be proposed for the origin of life which Genesis would unambiguously contradict? Certainly there must be a great many disparate theories which Genesis could be made to agree with.
The genesis account lacks the words Sun and Moon. Instead it speaks of lights (though it says stars).
That is not to say the words do not appear in the Bible at all. The truth is, they are named sun and moon many times over (91 hits of the word sun just in the old testament KJV), even in parts of the books of Moses.
In verse 3 it says: let there be light and it was light. If we limit the scope of the creation to our solar system - I would assume this is the main light, ergo the sun. And the following verses speaks of dividing light and darkness, calling light day and darkness night. Why it says made in the 16th verse can be attributed to mistranslation or intentional changes to the original record. Can we even trust any of it?
On this I am quite happy to concede, my knowledge of the Bible in its various versions and translations being cursory at best.
Crandaeolon
01-12-2009, 18:42
I encourage a blow-by-blow rebuttal to Sigurd's post. I am not a scientist, so my answer would be limited, even if it is as reasonable as possible.
A blow-by-blow rebuttal to something so heavily based on interpretation wouldn't really mean anything, except maybe as a fun thought exercise. Still, I'll humor you with the paltry couple of points that are even remotely "interpretation-proof."
One such point is "water" existing/appearing before dry land. In Hebrew, the word "mayim" is used throughout the account, and most likely does not mean other than water in the literal sense. AFAIK, evidence does not point to earth being completely covered in water at any time in its existence.
Another point is "plant life" appearing first. Even the algae mentioned by Sigurd are, according to evolutionary theory, too complex to be the first lifeforms. Of course, one could still theorize that God's message was distorted by contemporary understanding; something like "bacteria" would make little sense to the original author(s.)
In any case, Genesis quite unambiguously talks about grass, herbs and trees being the first forms of life. While some forms of red algae ("plants", but that is stretching it a lot) are the first discovered multicellular fossils, it's pretty universally recognized that "creeping things" (arthropods and whatnot) existed before anything that might be mistaken for grass, herbs or trees. Creepy crawlies would also be the first land animals, not amphibians.
Further dissection doesn't yield much stuff that wouldn't succumb to interpretation. I suppose one could point out that whales didn't appear before other mammals (they're descendants of land mammals), and birds as understood by "fowl" are seriously out of alignment as well.
Also, I'm pretty sure that sea creatures and land creatures are their own categories - it's a real stretch to say that life would spread from sea to land. Someone with more energy and interest might want to look up an analysis of the original Hebrew passage.
I would disagree rather strongly with any assertion that Genesis accurately predicts what has later been found by science
I don't think anybody really suggested here that Genesis has much explanatory or predictive value in science.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-12-2009, 21:00
I feel I'm somewhat on the sidelines at the moment, but I'll offer a couple of things in support of Sigurd's thesis. Something which is a relatively new developement is the theology of progressive revelation, which posit's man gradual understanding of God's will as a cumullative process over many generations. In this framework Genesis is an example of God making an early attampt to explain creation and man not understanding properly.
That's the theory.
The Celtic Viking
01-12-2009, 22:17
I encourage a blow-by-blow rebuttal to Sigurd's post. I am not a scientist, so my answer would be limited, even if it is as reasonable as possible.
You don't need to be a scientist: it's internally inconsistent and fallacious from get-go.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Introduction and header line to the account. No real information here except that we are informed that this account is about the formation of the heaven and the earth.
Yes, lots of information.
1. There is a "beginning". No such has been found through science.
2. There is something called "god", and it's not defined. Therefore, the word is empty and means absolutely nothing.
3. Heaven and earth were created. Science does not support this - in fact, the conservation of energy law blatantly states that this is impossible.
4. Heaven and earth existed from this beginning. As you is about to say yourself, this is false. See quote below:
Science tells us that about 4.7 billion years ago our solar system was merely a cloud of gas and dust.
No earth or heaven there. Ergo, heaven and earth weren't created in the beginning.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The earth is without form and is a void. Darkness rules and nothing is created yet. God is however moving upon the waters. Notice that it does not state that God created this water.
If this void with water contains an unformed earth, this could only be the dark cloud of dust and gas that will be our solar system in the future.
Science tells us that about 4.7 billion years ago our solar system was merely a cloud of gas and dust. The cloud consists of 75% Hydrogen. This cloud is affected by some external force, most likely a supernova that sets this cloud in a rotation motion. It is interesting that hydrogen means water source in Greek. The rotating cloud collapses because of the mutual gravitational attraction of the constituent gas molecules and dust particles. As the cloud becomes denser it starts to block out light from the surrounding universe. As the cloud continues to collapse, regions of higher density forms within it.
If the earth was without form, what was it? If it has no form, can it really exist?
"Spirit" and "god" are two undefined words, and thus empty and meaningless.
There is also no reason to think attribute the science behind it to god, other than you wanting it to be so.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
At the center of the cloud the density is highest and the gravitational potential energy is converted to heat. The center is progressively getting hotter until the density and temperature is high enough for nuclear fusion of hydrogen (water) into helium. The ignition of nuclear fusion in the core of the densest part of the cloud gives birth to a new star.
Now you're not just attributing something to this "god-thing" with no justification at all, you're even ignoring the scripture. Just look! It says quite blatantly that light was created (before any light-producing object, I might add - and also against the conservation of energy law) by this "god-thing's" word. No gravity, no density, no nuclear fusion: just a magic word.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
The new formed star is surrounded by darkness in the middle of the dust cloud. It begins blowing off the remaining dust and gas and clears the immediate space around it.
Did light really need to be "divided from the darkness"? I always thought it did a pretty god job at that by itself. ~;p
But again you're attributing it to this "god-thing" with no justification.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
That which is caught in the light of the star is called day and that which remains in darkness is night. The earth or that which will become the earth is one of amongst other denser areas in the cloud. The hotter regions close to the center only allows the formation of rocky planets, while further from the center where it is substantially colder, gaseous planets are formed.
Once again you admit that the Earth did not exist from "the beginning", as Genesis claims.
There is still no definition for the word "god", and it should be common knowledge by now that it is we humans who called the light time "day" and the dark time "night". That's blatantly against science.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
I am going to loop these verses together as they speak of the same thing.
These verses seem to describe the creation of an atmosphere and the formation of land and sea.
Volcanic activity from internal heating created the second atmosphere containing outgassed water, methane, ammonia, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. The earth is bombarded by large objects and the earth’s crust is continually fractured. Ocean basins are formed in this bombardment and the earth’s surface is cooled enough for rain to fall and fill the basins. The atmosphere consists of very little oxygen. However, in the basins of water photosynthesis by blue green algae begins to release oxygen into the atmosphere. But the formation of reduced minerals such as banded iron chert, detrital pyrite and uranite could not have been formed if even 0, 1 percent of the atmosphere had been oxygen. About 2.0 to 1.5 billion years ago levels of oxygen increased due to the activity of the blue green algae. No more reduced minerals are laid down and oxidized minerals are found. Ozone is also formed in this era that lasts until 800 million years ago. Ozone is an important component for life to be protected by UV radiation from the sun.
The continental plates are formed and the process known as plate tectonics begins. As the various continental plates collides mountain ranges form. Dry land appear.
"God-thingy" not justified nor defined, that he created anything goes against the conservation of energy law, a lot of "seeing that it was good", chemical reactions are not creation events, yada, yada, yada...
You're really boring me, you know.
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.
Plant life would be the obvious first choice to put on a earth. They consume carbon dioxide and produces life necessary oxygen. The earth was not favorable for life with its atmosphere of carbon dioxide, hydrogen, sulfur, methane etc. but lacked any free oxygen. Plant life such as the blue green algae (the oldest fossils found) would prepare the earth for animal life.
Land plants starts appearing about 420 million years ago but did not become common until about 360 million years ago. The first appearance of flowering plants was not until 120 million years ago. Grasses are not found until around 57 million years ago.
Again, we have this "god-thingy" (still not defined!!!) creating it with a magical word. With - a - magical - word. No science, just magic. You show your own bias when you try to defend that which is ridiculous by replacing it with science and pretending that's what it actually says, even though you know that it isn't so.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Ok not exactly chronological here… But this talks of the continuance of dispersing the dust from around the sun. When the dust finally was dispersed enough for the stars to appear as lights on the firmament, they could be seen from the surface of the young earth. These verses also speak of the fine-tuning of the earths movements. The revolution taking 24 hours, the tilting of the axis to produce seasons, the periods of changing light of the moon and the time it takes to make one orbit of the sun. The seasons can also be determined by which star constellations are visible at a given period of the year. All of it had to be fine tuned to produce the times and seasons we have now.
No, it talks about how this "god-thingy" (am I a fool for still waiting for a definition?) created more things with his magical words. Still no science, just plain magic. That's obviously not what science says, and you know that! :brood:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Amphibians were the first creatures on the earth and it states here that life came from the sea. The great dinosaurs were birdlike no? (Ok stretching this a bit). Anyway science agrees that life began in the seas and moved eventually to the earth.
This part clearly states that he created (RAPE! RAPE!! YOU'RE RAPING THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY LAW!! ~;p) every animal at the same time. This is so obviously against evolution that you should feel ashamed of yourself for ignoring it. Yes, I say you ignore it, because that's what you're doing! You know this, but because it's against your dogma you pretend that it's not there. It's being dishonest to yourself.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
After the creatures of the sea and the fowls on land, came primates and finally the hominids.
I’ll stop here as this point… but the order of things is very much in accordance with what comes through science.
I have no doubts of and would assume that over the years this record has been changed several times by translations and mistranslations. Even an early church with an agenda would likely change any of this.
"Even an early church with an agenda..." Hmpf. I will say that every church that has ever existed has an agenda, not just the early ones.
In any case, we're still talking about breaking the conservation of energy law and evolution, to just name two.
Let me say it again: I'm a simple layman, and still it's easy to see through this. An actual scientist (or simply someone who cares enough to put a little more energy in it than I deemed it worthy of) would undoubtedly find more objections, but it doesn't really matter. I have shown that the magical fairytale that is Genesis does not stack up with science.
I feel I'm somewhat on the sidelines at the moment, but I'll offer a couple of things in support of Sigurd's thesis. Something which is a relatively new developement is the theology of progressive revelation, which posit's man gradual understanding of God's will as a cumullative process over many generations. In this framework Genesis is an example of God making an early attampt to explain creation and man not understanding properly.
That's the theory
This makes no sense. Why would he not just say exactly what, when and how he did it from the beginning? Why would he write a document that is not only contradictive with science, but also with itself? Why didn't he just create us with the knowledge? Why would he make two different versions of Genesis? Why?
:shrug:
seireikhaan
01-12-2009, 23:32
Guys, sorry if I derail the thread ever so slightly. But something just occurred to me, and I frankly cannot imagine why it hadn't before.
Since I'm basically going to assume that The Celtic Viking has a more learned position regarding the scientific laws than myself(hey, I'm an accounting major ~;p), I'm going to issue the query in his direction. The law of Conservation of Energy does state that energy cannot be destroyed or created, correct? Just that it is transferred in some manner or another?
Well... yes.. that is correct... Things can't just appear from nowhere... (and yet they must come from somewhere).
I honestly believe that teaching children the creationism in school is NOT correct. They should learn the scientific (presumptive non-biased) versions in school... AND if their parents wish them to learn the other version they should go to the local church or something.
The fact that no-one can explain something at the moment, doesn't mean we should attribute those phenomena as something made by this "God".
The Celtic Viking
01-13-2009, 00:12
Guys, sorry if I derail the thread ever so slightly. But something just occurred to me, and I frankly cannot imagine why it hadn't before.
Since I'm basically going to assume that The Celtic Viking has a more learned position regarding the scientific laws than myself(hey, I'm an accounting major ~;p), I'm going to issue the query in his direction. The law of Conservation of Energy does state that energy cannot be destroyed or created, correct? Just that it is transferred in some manner or another?
Well, I wouldn't claim to sit in any kind of "learned position" either, but yes, you're correct.
Edit:
Well... yes.. that is correct... Things can't just appear from nowhere... (and yet they must come from somewhere).
Why? Why do you say it "must come from somewhere"? Why can't it just always have existed?
People seem to think it's fine that time will go on forever, so why do people have a problem with has gone on indefinitely? I'm not saying this is definitely so, I'm just saying that we know of no beginning as of yet, so there's no reason to assume there is one. Actually, it follows from the COEL that energy has simply always existed, albeit in different forms.
The fact that no-one can explain something at the moment, doesn't mean we should attribute those phenomena as something made by this "God".
Exactly.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-13-2009, 00:35
1. There is a "beginning". No such has been found through science.
2. There is something called "god", and it's not defined. Therefore, the word is empty and means absolutely nothing.
3. Heaven and earth were created. Science does not support this - in fact, the conservation of energy law blatantly states that this is impossible.
4. Heaven and earth existed from this beginning. As you is about to say yourself, this is false. See quote below:
1. Big Bang, a candidate at least.
2. Definition: I am.
3. Define created, physicists seem to think that there was a time when the universe was a tiny little something or other.
4. In the beggining there was God, it doesn't necessarily have to deal with the whole cosmos.
This makes no sense. Why would he not just say exactly what, when and how he did it from the beginning? Why would he write a document that is not only contradictive with science, but also with itself? Why didn't he just create us with the knowledge? Why would he make two different versions of Genesis? Why?
:shrug:
Free will, it allows you to ask why. It also means you do your own learning and make your own mistakes, just like a child. Like a child hummanity is guided by it's parent, God, and like a child it often fails to listen or understand.
About the conservation of energy law:
What if God is pure energy?
seireikhaan
01-13-2009, 00:39
Why? Why do you say it "must come from somewhere"? Why can't it just always have existed?
People seem to think it's fine that time will go on forever, so why do people have a problem with has gone on indefinitely? I'm not saying this is definitely so, I'm just saying that we know of no beginning as of yet, so there's no reason to assume there is one. Actually, it follows from the COEL that energy has simply always existed, albeit in different forms.
My apologies, but I feel I must point something out- this seems like a complete cop out. How exactly can something logically have "always existed"? I could just as logically state that God and some basic matter always existed, and that he just decided one day to terraform the heck out of everything and that humans just couldn't comprehend the Law of Conservation of Energy back when the bible was written, as it would have blown their minds.
My apologies, but I feel I must point something out- this seems like a complete cop out. How exactly can something logically have "always existed"? I could just as logically state that God and some basic matter always existed, and that he just decided one day to terraform the heck out of everything and that humans just couldn't comprehend the Law of Conservation of Energy back when the bible was written, as it would have blown their minds.
there is a difference between having the honesty to say "I don´t know exactly how that happened"...and making up fanciful stories.
seireikhaan
01-13-2009, 01:21
there is a difference between having the honesty to say "I don´t know exactly how that happened"...and making up fanciful stories.
If you can't explain something, how can you declare any possible explanation for it to be a "fanciful story" with any degree of certainty?
The Celtic Viking
01-13-2009, 01:42
1. Big Bang, a candidate at least.
Well, the Big Bang theory is a theory AFAIK, and thus not so much a "candidate" as a "winner". ~;)
Unfortunately, Big Bang is all about a transition from one state to another, not about creation.
2. Definition: I am.
Huh? How is that a definition for the word "god"? Are you saying that "everything is god"? I'm confused. ~:confused:
3. Define created, physicists seem to think that there was a time when the universe was a tiny little something or other.
To cause to come into existence, of course. That's kind of what the bible says when it claims that "god is the creator of everything", isn't it?
I don't see how the universe having been tiny is relevant here. :shrug:
4. In the beggining there was God, it doesn't necessarily have to deal with the whole cosmos.
That's just an assertion (both that there was a beginning and that there was something called "god", which you still haven't defined - at least not so that I can understand what you were trying to say).
If this "god" is supposed to have created everything, as the bible states, then yes, it does necessarily have to deal with the whole cosmos.
Free will, it allows you to ask why. It also means you do your own learning and make your own mistakes, just like a child. Like a child hummanity is guided by it's parent, God, and like a child it often fails to listen or understand.
Oh, don't get me started about free will... it's not good for anyone. :laugh4:
But okay, I'm kind of forced to, so I'll keep it short. "Free will" is one of those inconsistent things in the bible. Firstly: is god omniscient? Then he must know what you will "choose" to do before you actually do it - in fact, he must know what you would do even before he created you! There is thus only one option you can make, and there is no free will.
Secondly: does god have a plan? That's something people often say to condole someone who's mourning someone's death: "it was all a part of god's plan". But if god has a plan, and he enforces it to the point of killing/letting people die, then he's removing our free will. If he does anything at all to make his plan happen, then he's interfering with our free will.
Thirdly: can you really call it "free will" if he says "you're free not to do exactly as a tell you, but of course I'll torture you for an eternity if you don't"? It's like a parent telling his kids that he can paint his room any colour he wants - but if it isn't yellow by the time he finishes, he'll get his :daisy: kicked?
Fourthly: even ignoring all that and saying we have free will, god doesn't care about it. After all, in Exodus he "hardened the pharaoh's heart" so that he would not let the Jews go.
Fifthly, and lastly, we do not have free will. Scientifically speaking. I will provide you to a link where you can read a long essay about it that wasn't written by me, but it's an excellent read if you take the time for it. I can summarize it quickly and awfully poorly by saying that though we're not "programmed" to do x thing at y time, we necessarily react a certain way to the input we get. That is, when you see something, your eyes have no choice but to react the way it does, and send the signals to your brain, which in turn has no choice but to react upon that the way it does and so on. Since our brains dictate what we perceive to be "us" (you know - your personality, your memory... everything like that), we also have no choice but to react as we are, because that's simply how it must react.
Didn't I warn you that my summary would be awfully poor? ~;p You can read the mentioned article here (http://www.rationalresponders.com/free_will_why_we_don039t_have_it_and_why_that039s_good_thing), and it's called: "Free will: Why we don't have it and why that's a good thing".
About the conservation of energy law:
What if God is pure energy?
Huh? How would that change the fact that he couldn't create anything?
My apologies, but I feel I must point something out- this seems like a complete cop out. How exactly can something logically have "always existed"? I could just as logically state that God and some basic matter always existed, and that he just decided one day to terraform the heck out of everything and that humans just couldn't comprehend the Law of Conservation of Energy back when the bible was written, as it would have blown their minds.
You would, if it had not been for Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest explanation is the preferred one/the most likely. Since my version is much simpler than yours, it is also much more likely. You are bringing something to the table (god) which you have no evidence for, and I am not.
You're also getting it the wrong way around: I was mostly answering to the special plea of "everything needs a creator, except this god-thing that has always existed".
As a last side note, why would god create us with these mental facilities and the will to understand if he intended us to not be able to understand anyway?
Edit: Oh, and I might add that it's a little late here (01:57 to be precise), so be merciful on me when it comes to spelling and such. :sweatdrop:
I'm going to bed now.
Lord Winter
01-13-2009, 02:24
(Note: I'm not a creationist in the common sense of the word, I belive in science and the conclusions that we have drawn from it. However I am still a theist)
Well, the Big Bang theory is a theory AFAIK, and thus not so much a "candidate" as a "winner".
Unfortunately, Big Bang is all about a transition from one state to another, not about creation.
Usually theory needs be defined to the other side of the argument but it seems like it needs to be the other way here. A theory is a model attempting to explain a law. To become a theory it needs extensive data collection and evidence to support it. This data however DOES NOT make infallible. Instead, the theory is what we feel the most likely explanation is with the data we have (if we can make that explanation that is.) Overtime the theory is revised and the model corrected to become more attuned with our current findings. Take for example our understanding of gases, we went from understanding relationships between pressure, volume and temperature, to the kinetic molecular theory and finally corrected the assumptions made in the KMT. In short a theroy is one step in the scientific process. At the time we do not still understand gravity as a force or some of the finer details that are needed. Not saying that the big bang is false, I just wouldn't be surprised to see a new model in a hundred years or so.
I'll also try to stay brief in my discussion on free will. In the question of the existence of God freewill doesn't matter. Both sides are compatible with a theistic view point. You can either take the God made us as carbon computers rout or try arguing the dualism side of it. Either way it neither disproves or proves God. In fact you could argue that the fact that we are nothing more then bits of carbon is irrelevant to freewill. I would love to start a thread on this but I don't feel like the argument is realitive hear.
Finally, I wasn't aware that there was a clear consensus on freewill. The article you linked is from a clearly biases website. (We cure you of god!) Plus the author has no credentials what so ever. Find me a bio PHD then he'd carry more weight then you do in your arguements.
Papewaio
01-13-2009, 05:38
Fifthly, and lastly, we do not have free will. Scientifically speaking. I will provide you to a link where you can read a long essay about it that wasn't written by me, but it's an excellent read if you take the time for it. I can summarize it quickly and awfully poorly by saying that though we're not "programmed" to do x thing at y time, we necessarily react a certain way to the input we get. That is, when you see something, your eyes have no choice but to react the way it does, and send the signals to your brain, which in turn has no choice but to react upon that the way it does and so on. Since our brains dictate what we perceive to be "us" (you know - your personality, your memory... everything like that), we also have no choice but to react as we are, because that's simply how it must react.
That assumes a clockwork brain. Even a transistor isn't just 0 and 1 if the wrong input voltage is used. Our brains are capable of having many strategies for any given situation... and what is the trigger level? It could be lower then a chemical reaction, it could be a quantum computation... so we have several simultaneous states and just a probability matrix of what the reaction is.
We can also train/condition our brain to change the way we react. So I wouldn't with confidence say that we must react in a certain way, I would say we have a probability to do so.
Big_John
01-13-2009, 10:53
1. Big Bang, a candidate at least.
2. Definition: I am.
3. Define created, physicists seem to think that there was a time when the universe was a tiny little something or other.
4. In the beggining there was God, it doesn't necessarily have to deal with the whole cosmos.you do realize that this line of argument invariably leads to the obviation of the God you are arguing about, right?
Free will, it allows you to ask why. It also means you do your own learning and make your own mistakes, just like a child. Like a child hummanity is guided by it's parent, God, and like a child it often fails to listen or understand."free will" is some mighty shaky ground on which to rest and argument.
About the conservation of energy law:
What if God is pure energy?what if god is a 22 year old chinese lesbian that lives in a doll house at the center of the moon? why posit absurd questions?
If you can't explain something, how can you declare any possible explanation for it to be a "fanciful story" with any degree of certainty?
there is a difference between a theory based on observable facts and something just pulled out of thin air and imagination.
There are different degrees of possible "explanation".....
Scientific observation of the universe gives us clues that the universe is expanding, and by observing this expansion scientists theorized that at some point in the past all the universe was contained in one single point and expanded from there....they called this moment the big bang....this is a logical conclusion from observed facts.
where did the mater that constitutes the universe comes from? we don´t know.
what was there before the big bang? we don´t know.
....maybe someday we will find evidence that will give further insight into these questions...and maybe we won´t...honestly these questions don´t keep me up at night.
Simply going "when I can´t explain something, then God did it" is just a cop out...
it´s a fairy tale built upon nothing else but the fact that some people can´t deal with the "I don´t know" answer, for some strange reason I can´t fully grasp this freaks them out.
But the fact that some people like this "safety blanket" does not endow it with any logic value.
I could just as easily write a book about a magical creature called 'pillow-pants' and say that he created the universe and everything in it during a cosmic game of lego with his cousin 'Rashnavack'
Is this a silly and fanciful story? absolutely.... but it has as much going for it as any other God tale....
seireikhaan
01-13-2009, 13:01
Simply going "when I can´t explain something, then God did it" is just a cop out...
it´s a fairy tale built upon nothing else but the fact that some people can´t deal with the "I don´t know" answer, for some strange reason I can´t fully grasp this freaks them out.
But the fact that some people like this "safety blanket" does not endow it with any logic value.
I could just as easily write a book about a magical creature called 'pillow-pants' and say that he created the universe and everything in it during a cosmic game of lego with his cousin 'Rashnavack'
Is this a silly and fanciful story? absolutely.... but it has as much going for it as any other God tale....
1) I am NOT stating that "just because I don't know, it must be God". If you had read my first response to this thread, you would notice I do not favor teaching creationism as science, because it is not. So frankly, you can put the hostile connotations down.
2) You have yet to explain how one can simply abandon a particular theory regarding an unexplainable action just because it seems rather bizarre. Example: I imagine that before telescopes, trying to figure out if the earth or sun was the center of the universe(of course, neither are, but I digress) was, for all intensive purposes, impossible. Yet, should they have abandoned the idea that neither was the center of the universe and filed it away into "fairy tale" land just because it seemed so illogical?
You would, if it had not been for Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest explanation is the preferred one/the most likely. Since my version is much simpler than yours, it is also much more likely. You are bringing something to the table (god) which you have no evidence for, and I am not.
You're also getting it the wrong way around: I was mostly answering to the special plea of "everything needs a creator, except this god-thing that has always existed".
And, for the most part, Occam's Razor is fairly reliable. However, I return to my previous example of the center of the earth. Before telescopes, it seemed far most likely that the Earth or Sun(generally earth, though some deviated) was the center of the earth. They couldn't yet prove it one way or the other. But certainly, Occam's Razor would logically point to one of of these two as the answer. However, it is most certainly incorrect to state that either is the center of the Universe. Again, I am not saying with all certainty that what I proposed is correct- merely that discounting it as a fairy tale is actually quite illogical.
As a last side note, why would god create us with these mental facilities and the will to understand if he intended us to not be able to understand anyway?
Ah, but he did create us with the mental facilities. Certainly you and a boatload of scientists have comprehended the law of conservation of energy quite well. It just took us a few thousand years to get around to it. ~;p
As for the free will part... I don't particularly feel like going into an argument over that. I'll just summarize by saying I disagree with your viewpoint that evolution and socialization take all actual choice out of life.
2) You have yet to explain how one can simply abandon a particular theory regarding an unexplainable action just because it seems rather bizarre.
I am not saying a theory should be abandoned because it seems bizarre.......something might seem bizarre but if there are some facts that point towards it then it is a possible explanation.
what I am saying that if you have zero observable evidence to support an idea, then it is at the present time nothing more than fiction and not a theory.
This can of course change if further evidence is uncovered on the subject.
seireikhaan
01-13-2009, 14:07
what I am saying that if you have zero observable evidence to support an idea, then it is at the present time nothing more than fiction and not a theory.
This can of course change if further evidence is uncovered on the subject.
No, it is not quite fiction. It is an idea. Nothing more, nothing less. Personally, I value ideas, though in pertinence to the current discussion I stay rather agnostic on due to the inherent impossibility in attempting to comprehend it in any exact form. Interestingly, I also happen to appreciate open books.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Introduction and header line to the account. No real information here except that we are informed that this account is about the formation of the heaven and the earth.
Yes, lots of information.
1. There is a "beginning". No such has been found through science.
There is not a beginning of the creation of our solar system? Do you postulate that our solar system has always been there?
2. There is something called "god", and it's not defined. Therefore, the word is empty and means absolutely nothing.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, Post hoc ergo propter hoc
3. Heaven and earth were created. Science does not support this - in fact, the conservation of energy law blatantly states that this is impossible.
Maybe organized would be a better word. There are translations out there suggesting organizing would be a better translation than creating. But it is not too hard to imagine that an artist can create a masterpiece. But we implicitly understand it in the ex nihilo nihil fit, kind of way.
4. Heaven and earth existed from this beginning. As you is about to say yourself, this is false. See quote below:
See above
Science tells us that about 4.7 billion years ago our solar system was merely a cloud of gas and dust.
No earth or heaven there. Ergo, heaven and earth weren't created in the beginning.
See Creation vs Organization.
If the earth was without form, what was it? If it has no form, can it really exist?
It was disorganized as in being a cloud of gas and dust. Take the artist analogy again. A masterpiece without form would be an empty canvas; some tubes of paint, a paint brush and a talented artist's unfinished strokes.
"Spirit" and "god" are two undefined words, and thus empty and meaningless.
Again: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
There is also no reason to think attribute the science behind it to god, other than you wanting it to be so.
Strawman.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
...
Now you're not just attributing something to this "god-thing" with no justification at all, you're even ignoring the scripture. Just look! It says quite blatantly that light was created (before any light-producing object, I might add - and also against the conservation of energy law) by this "god-thing's" word. No gravity, no density, no nuclear fusion: just a magic word.
Strawman… nowhere in that verse does it say created.
It would be like me stating: “Let there be light” and then I switch on the light switch in my house, and make the follow up statement: “and there was light”.
Did light really need to be "divided from the darkness"? I always thought it did a pretty god job at that by itself. ~;p
If you were inside the dense cloud of gas and dust around the place of where the earth would be, then it might be that you wouldn’t have seen the light of the new born star. You would be in darkness because the dense cloud of dust and gas blocks out all light. However, the star is starting to blow away this gas/dust and as it clears the space immediately around it the light starts to fall on objects, Mercury being the first planet to witness daylight.
But again you're attributing it to this "god-thing" with no justification.
You are missing the point of my original post.
Once again you admit that the Earth did not exist from "the beginning", as Genesis claims.
I must disagree with your premise that Genesis speaks of the creation of the universe and I have never claimed that it does. Hence Strawman.
There is still no definition for the word "god", and it should be common knowledge by now that it is we humans who called the light time "day" and the dark time "night". That's blatantly against science.
Common knowledge? Arumentum ad populum.
"God-thingy" not justified nor defined, that he created anything goes against the conservation of energy law, a lot of "seeing that it was good", chemical reactions are not creation events, yada, yada, yada...
You're really boring me, you know.
Argumentum ad Hominem
Again, we have this "god-thingy" (still not defined!!!) creating it with a magical word. With - a - magical - word. No science, just magic. You show your own bias when you try to defend that which is ridiculous by replacing it with science and pretending that's what it actually says, even though you know that it isn't so.
Argumentum ad nauseam
No, it talks about how this "god-thingy" (am I a fool for still waiting for a definition?) created more things with his magical words. Still no science, just plain magic. That's obviously not what science says, and you know that! :brood:
I might at this point make the statement, that I didn’t make an argument for the existence of God, nor did I write the word “god” in any of my commentary on the factual scriptures which I quoted from the King James Version of the Bible.
STRAWMAN!!!
This part clearly states that he created (RAPE! RAPE!! YOU'RE RAPING THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY LAW!! ~;p) every animal at the same time. This is so obviously against evolution that you should feel ashamed of yourself for ignoring it. Yes, I say you ignore it, because that's what you're doing! You know this, but because it's against your dogma you pretend that it's not there. It's being dishonest to yourself.
Argumentum ad nauseam, Strawman, Argumentum ad baculum, Argumentum ad logicam etc..
"Even an early church with an agenda..." Hmpf. I will say that every church that has ever existed has an agenda, not just the early ones.
True, but we are talking about deliberately changing the texts in scripture here.
In any case, we're still talking about breaking the conservation of energy law and evolution, to just name two.
Again…. I have never argued for creatio ex nihilo, you assume this, therefore: Strawman.
Let me say it again: I'm a simple layman, and still it's easy to see through this. An actual scientist (or simply someone who cares enough to put a little more energy in it than I deemed it worthy of) would undoubtedly find more objections, but it doesn't really matter. I have shown that the magical fairytale that is Genesis does not stack up with science.
Yes.. and you missed the point of my post completely.
If you want to debate the existence of God or any topic around this, I am game. But my original post was meant as a stab against creationism and not to prove that the bible describes current science. Heck, I am not sure what current science says anymore.
Besides, I am no Thomas Aquinas.
:smartass2:
Rhyfelwyr
01-13-2009, 15:25
Celtic Viking, I have to say that I agree with your views on free will. PVC represents one school of thought on the Christian views on the matter, however I believe that the scripture makes it clear that free will doesn't exist. Without getting theological, I've always thought that everything we do is inevitable, every signal transmitted through our brain was always going to react the way it did to the previous one. Even when I roll a die, I may have to treat the situation as if chance exists because I have no foreknowledge, however it's inevitable that I roll the number that I do, because I was always going to pick up the die in a certain way, drop it from a certain height, and as a result it would roll a certain distance. Maybe I just watched the Matrix too much when I was young, but that's my view on free will.
The matter of predestination is one of the most controversial topics within Christianity, and I've heard many say that the God of John Calvin is a "murderous God". But as God replied when Israel said God was unfair, "are my ways not equal?". While I understand why some people may dislike the idea of predestination when we're brought up in a culture that teaches us to be proud and value ourselves, the free will approach to salvation is no more appealing IMO - either certain people must be more deserving than others, or God merely leaves it down to chance. In such a situation, Christians should look to what the scripture tells them, and it clearly points towards predestination.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-14-2009, 01:57
I'm not going to argue Calvinism vs Free Will here, sufficed to say that generally predestination is an element of religion, not atheism. As such I am surprised atheists are trying to use the "we are all just computers" arguement, because it begs the question, "who programmed the computer?"
Celtic Viking: When I said "I am" is the definition of God I meant that this is the self definition of God. When Moses askes "Who are you?" God's reply is, "I am, that I am."
The God of the Old Testemant defies definition, he refuses to expalin himself, he does not justify his judgements, nor his punishments.
LittleGrizzly
01-14-2009, 02:10
because it begs the question, "who programmed the computer?"
Im guessing the answer would be evolution
As such I am surprised atheists are trying to use the "we are all just computers" arguement
Its not far off what i think, not really due to scientific reasoning, just whilst thinking on life and fate, i do tend to believe that roger is destined to tip his coffee and hit that kid whilst he's driving, and that kid is destined to chase the ball across the road because he was destined to kick it too hard... im probably 60/40 or 55/45 in favour of destiny
As a child i often used to go to take step and then quickly turn around and step a different way, to try and step away for what destiny or god planned only to then think thats probably what god or destiny had planned anyway. It's something i believed more as a child... possibly due to being brought up with a belief in god...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-14-2009, 04:52
I don't buy it at all, computers are incredible clumsy and primative things when compared to the human mind. We can't even build a robot that can see properly yet. This is why I am a catholic Christian (different to a Roman Catholic) rather than a Calvinist or a Muslim.
LittleGrizzly
01-14-2009, 05:12
Well evolution is much better at creating 'things' than us.... in fairness evolution has had longer to build us than we have had to build robots...
TBH i see the 'we are all just computers' as a way of simply presenting the argument rather than the actual argument itself...
I didn't know muslims also believed in pre destination, learn something new every day! (also means i can safely ignore teachers in uni today)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-14-2009, 05:46
In Islam God is effectively constrained by fate, in Classical Christianity God is in no way constrained, nor defined; to the point that we say, "He is not powerful, he is not just, he has no knowledge" etc.
Forgive me if I'm wrong... but so far... The god believers have only stated that science can't prove God doesn't exist... However you have neither showed a proof that god DOES exists...
2400 years ago... people thought there where many gods... now people believe there's only one god... perhaps tomorrow we will know there's no god... (Ok... well maybe not tomorrow)
Lord Winter
01-14-2009, 06:40
Forgive me if I'm wrong... but so far... The god believers have only stated that science can't prove God doesn't exist... However you have neither showed a proof that god DOES exists...
2400 years ago... people thought there where many gods... now people believe there's only one god... perhaps tomorrow we will know there's no god... (Ok... well maybe not tomorrow)
It can't, science is separate from it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that in the end there's no way to be sure you can either follow Pascals wager, approach with philosophical reasons or just disbelieve it doesn't matter to me as long as you keep an open mind throughout it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-14-2009, 14:25
Actually, there has never been any progress on the issue of God's existence, the current version of God/Gods are the winners in the race thus far, not new arrivals.
As far as Pascal's Wager goes, it doesn't work. Belief in salvatory gods is almost universally required to be open and free, i.e. not coerced. In other words, if you go in expecting salvation you probably won't get it.
Rhyfelwyr
01-14-2009, 14:58
In other words, if you go in expecting salvation you probably won't get it.
I always thought it was important to let people know that God offers them salvation. Of course, you cannot simply think that speaking the words of a prayer for forgiveness will get you into Heaven as US Evangelicalism leads many to believe, wanting salvation just to get into Heaven would not be in the Christian spirit at all. However, when evanglising, you have to make people aware of just how much they are in need of forgiveness - if they ask for salvation knowing the true state of sin they are in, the God would never refuse it. They can expect salvation if they are genuine, not because they feel they deserve it, but because they know that Jesus paid the price for them. The below passage is from a letter written by Oliver Cromwell, I'd just like to post it because to me it is inspiring and reassuring. He knew that God had given him salvation, he could expect it knowing God's mercy, however nowhere does he suggest that he was deserving of it:
"Truly no poor creature hath more cause to put himself forth in the cause of God than I. I have had plentiful wages before hand; and I am sure I shall never earn the least mite. The Lord accept me in His Son, and give me to walk in the light, as He is the light! He it is that enlighteneth our blackness, our darkness. I dare not say He hideth His face from me. He giveth me to see light in His light. One beam in a dark place hath exceeding much refreshment in it. Blessed be His name for shining upon so dark a heart as mine! You know what my manner of life hath been. Oh, I lived in, and loved darkness, and hated light! I was a chief, the chief of sinners. This is true; I hated godliness, yet God had mercy on me. Oh, the richness of His mercy! Praise Him for me - pray for me, that He who hath begun a good work would perfect it in the day of Christ."
LittleGrizzly
01-14-2009, 15:05
How does pascal's wager work out if you pick the wrong god... i mean if i was asking Ra to forgive my sins (although i don't think thats his proper use but lets pertend) would that annoy the christian god less, more or as much as being an atheist... ?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-14-2009, 16:38
I always thought it was important to let people know that God offers them salvation.
Why? Is it not enough that He is Great, that he is Good, that his is God?
Of course, you cannot simply think that speaking the words of a prayer for forgiveness will get you into Heaven as US Evangelicalism leads many to believe, wanting salvation just to get into Heaven would not be in the Christian spirit at all.
They don't actually teach that, effective performance (You make a gesture and God makes an action) is not a part of Evangelical Christianity. Of course, that doesn't mean they are insincere.
However, when evanglising, you have to make people aware of just how much they are in need of forgiveness - if they ask for salvation knowing the true state of sin they are in, the God would never refuse it.
You focus on ther personal too much here. Why do they need to ask for forgiveness? Is it because they have sinned, or because they need salvation?
I would say the answer is because they have sinned, regardless of whether or not they will recieve salvation. If a criminal commits murder, he should admit it, he should still be hung if that is the law.
They can expect salvation if they are genuine, not because they feel they deserve it, but because they know that Jesus paid the price for them.
They should not expect savlation, they should hope for it. Your Calvin went further, and said that most Christians would go to hell even though they glorified God, because they were not chosen.
The below passage is from a letter written by Oliver Cromwell, I'd just like to post it because to me it is inspiring and reassuring. He knew that God had given him salvation, he could expect it knowing God's mercy, however nowhere does he suggest that he was deserving of it:
"Truly no poor creature hath more cause to put himself forth in the cause of God than I. I have had plentiful wages before hand; and I am sure I shall never earn the least mite. The Lord accept me in His Son, and give me to walk in the light, as He is the light! He it is that enlighteneth our blackness, our darkness. I dare not say He hideth His face from me. He giveth me to see light in His light. One beam in a dark place hath exceeding much refreshment in it. Blessed be His name for shining upon so dark a heart as mine! You know what my manner of life hath been. Oh, I lived in, and loved darkness, and hated light! I was a chief, the chief of sinners. This is true; I hated godliness, yet God had mercy on me. Oh, the richness of His mercy! Praise Him for me - pray for me, that He who hath begun a good work would perfect it in the day of Christ."
Cromwell believed he had been elected to salvation, regardless of his actions. This allowed him to murder a great many people and place the Commonwealth under an oppressive martial law. He is not an example I would choose.
Anyway, we're getting off topic. If you really want to hash this out PM me and we can start a Debate topic in a week or so when I have more free time.
LittleGrizzly, well spotted. It doesn't, or rather it goes from a good wager to a bad one.
Ibn-Khaldun
01-14-2009, 18:21
This all makes me think that America is not that free at all.
Lord Winter
01-15-2009, 01:26
This all makes me think that America is not that free at all.
:inquisitive::inquisitive: :inquisitive:
Care to expand?
Not sure if your talking about our insane fringe, or the recent turn in the debate.
If its the first I agree...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.