Evolution v Creationism

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah it was coming eventually. :tongue2:

So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.

So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I put my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.

I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys :tongue2:).

From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.

Now, I'll await the barrage...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, the fossils are really old and such, so we don't know everything. They have traced it back fairly well though, I believe this is one of the common ancestors for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakalipithecus

[Ice]

Yeah it was coming eventually. :tongue2:

So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.

So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I but my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.

I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys :tongue2:).

From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.

Now, I'll await the barrage...

A biology class would be very helpful in your comparison of evolution and creationism.

[JAG]

Rhyfelwyr View Post, where you been man, there has been a whole series of programmes on the BBC over the last months, due to it being such a significant year, in terms of evolution and Darwin. Even watchign some of the quite brilliant programmes that have been shown would have helped you understand the concept and the reality of evolution.

(I believe you are from the UK)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Tbh, I think in order to criticize anything you need to know about it. I also suggest taking a Bio class before taking on the subject of evolution.

EDIT: Does anyone want me to post the conversation from the EB Tavern between Rhy and The Celtic Viking about this subject? There are no swears or anything.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Rhyfelwyr View Post,

I have trouble spelling his name too :laugh4:


where you been man, there has been a whole series of programmes on the BBC over the last months, due to it being such a significant year, in terms of evolution and Darwin. Even watchign some of the quite brilliant programmes that have been shown would have helped you understand the concept and the reality of evolution.

(I believe you are from the UK)


Tbh, I think in order to criticize anything you need to know about it. I also suggest taking a Bio class before taking on the subject of evolution.



I don't think ya'll read his post carefully. He's asking about anthropology not biology.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't think ya'll read his post carefully. He's asking about anthropology not biology.

Well it spilled somewhat into a mixture of both in the EB Tavern social group. Him and TCV went into arguing about the significance of humans sharing 98% of their DNA with apes etc...

EDIT: Again, should I post the conversation from the EB Tavern, it could clear some things up about the origin of this thread.

[woad&fangs]

If I remember correctly, one of the main evidences for ape -> human evolution is the similarity in our chromosome number and structure.

here is a quick link (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00679.htm) explaining the similarities

An example of this in the animal kingdom is the relationship between the wild Mongolian horse and modern domestic horse. Mongolian wild horses have 66 chromosomes and modern horses have only 64 chromosomes. Despite this, they are able to reproduce with each other due to their high degree of genetic similarity. http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/przewalski/index.htm

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I believe in God, and believe the almighty could have created the whole shebang, whole-cloth, in 6 calendar days had God chosen to do so.

I do not believe that is the means God chose. "Let there be light," began the show and evolution has rolled onwards from there. Mysterious ways and all that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Thanks for those links folks, I'll give them a good read tomorrow.


Rhyfelwyr View Post, where you been man, there has been a whole series of programmes on the BBC over the last months, due to it being such a significant year, in terms of evolution and Darwin. Even watchign some of the quite brilliant programmes that have been shown would have helped you understand the concept and the reality of evolution.

(I believe you are from the UK)

I watched one of the episodes, but a lot of it was about how Darwin thought his children acted like monkeys, which just shows similarities not necessarily a direct connection. And then they started playing the flute to a worm which was just weird...

[JAG]

Watch the one with Attenborough, brilliant. Literally one of the best informative programmes I have ever seen.

[Don Corleone]

While I absoutely and ardently hold to evolution (one does not 'believe' the leading theory of the day, one 'believes' religious dogma, one holds to a theory), it is depressing to me the number of people who claim it as fact without 1) understanding that it is an untestable theory can never be accepted as fact (indicating a woeful ignorance of science) and for the record, to the tests we can currently construct, gravity and electromagnetism (where I make my living) are still theories as well and 2) understanding the mechanism of natural selection (indicating a woeful misunderstanding of the theory put forth by Charles Darwin, and the 'evolution' it has enjoyed over the past 1.5 centuries).

If I hear one more person talking about frogs & ducks growing webbed feet to swim, or humans growing a thumb, as proof of evolution, I'm going to scream.

We ALL need to learn how much we have to learn in this field.

For example, it would probably surprise most people to learn that fossil evidence strongly indicates evolution follows a quantum/logarithmic, not a linear time scale, as most theories would have predicted.

For me, that 'spark' that generates the sudden burst of RNA energy, that is the fine hand of the creator at work. (Before you all mistake my last statement, I understand solar flares and the affect of algae blooms absorbing free radicals better than most of you, my point is, why does it all happen exactly when it does... I do not believe in 'luck', just randomness or determinism.).

I suppose that makes me a creationist, and in this forum at least, an idiot. :clown:

[Hooahguy]

wheres Che?

[CBR]

In science something can both be a fact as well as a theory. And evolution happens to belong in that category. It might be confusing to some but nonetheless it is a fact ~:)


CBR

[Don Corleone]

In science something can both be a fact as well as a theory. And evolution happens to belong in that category. It might be confusing to some but nonetheless it is a fact ~:)


CBR

Actually, I have to take issue with this statement. If it it is a proven fact, it becomes an axiom, no longer a theory.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I have a feeling this is going to end bad... When have thread touching religion ended well? And it is not so much the offensive material as it is the people's (especially mod's) hyper-sensitivity when it comes to this.

And how about debating things other than monkeys/Adam&Eve? There are too little facts in that. Are there any people in here who are young-earth creationists?

[CBR]

Actually, I have to take issue with this statement. If it it is a proven fact, it becomes an axiom, no longer a theory.
For a quick read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fact#Fact_in_science

There are of course multiple hits on your favorite search engine for more reading and opinions.


CBR

[Vuk]

Tempt me not satan! :beam: :clown:

[HoreTore]

To understand this issue, people have to come to terms with the fact that we know very, very little. We don't have the truth. We will likely never know it. So, your options are to either come to terms with the fact that you'll never know the truth, or you can choose to listen to someone who claim they have it(ie., the religions with creation myths).

CBR: We call it a fact, but it's only a truth until we disprove it...

[Fragony]

Inappropriate image removed

[Aemilius Paulus]

I have a feeling this is going to end bad... When have thread touching religion ended well? And it is not so much the offensive material as it is the people's (especially mod's) hyper-sensitivity when it comes to this.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I have a feeling this is going to end bad... When have thread touching religion ended well? And it is not so much the offensive material as it is the people's (especially mod's) hyper-sensitivity when it comes to this.

You posted that already. :inquisitive:

Maybe I will bring some of the stuff from the EB Tavern. The Celtic Viking sure knows how to fly off the handle when it comes to this, of course I would never do such a thing!

[Don Corleone]

For a quick read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fact#Fact_in_science

There are of course multiple hits on your favorite search engine for more reading and opinions.


CBR

I stand corrected, CBR, but while we were semantically disagreeing with each other, we agree more than you think.

I believe my erroneous statement stems from your choice of assigning the term "evolution" to both the observable phenomenon of the mechanism of physical change from generation to generation of species, and also to the hypothesis that we humans are directly descended from the same common ancestor as apes. In this sense, you are in fact correct, "evolution" is both a fact and a theory.

I was attempting to clarify the matter by reserving the term "evolution" for the latter only, as I consider the co-usage of the term needlessly confusing, and frankly, comes across to me as a semantics game. I think the arguments advanced by the scientific community are better served by refraining from introducing ambiguity by using the same language construct for both an observable fact and a theory that strives to explain that observable fact.

[Andres]

In all honesty, I don't really care if my ancestors were created by some supernatural creature or if I descend from monkeys.

I am here and now :shrug:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I stand corrected, CBR, but while we were semantically disagreeing with each other, we agree more than you think.

I believe my erroneous statement stems from your choice of assigning the term "evolution" to both the observable phenomenon of the mechanism of physical change from generation to generation of species, and also to the hypothesis that we humans are directly descended from the same common ancestor as apes. In this sense, you are in fact correct, "evolution" is both a fact and a theory.

I was attempting to clarify the matter by reserving the term "evolution" for the latter only, as I consider the co-usage of the term needlessly confusing, and frankly, comes across to me as a semantics game. I think the arguments advanced by the scientific community are better served by refraining from introducing ambiguity by using the same language construct for both an observable fact and a theory that strives to explain that observable fact.

I think it has a lot to do with the political battleground between evolution and creationism.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Some of the stuff I've been shown doesn't really prove anything, animals acting like carnal humans doesn't prove anything.

The stuff on the skeletons of the common ancestors is much more useful, I will look into that in more detail..

[Lemur]

I suppose that makes me a creationist, and in this forum at least, an idiot. :clown:
Actually, plenty of scientists believe that there is a role for a Creator in our universe, and your position sounds quite mainstream. When people refer to "creationism," they usually aren't talking about the notion that one accepts modern biology, geology and astronomy while reserving a role for a Maker. That's not really "creation science."

When I hear someone say that they believe in creationism, I usually check to see which manner of creationism they're talking about. Do they mean the Earth's age can be determined by tracing back the lineage of patriarchs described in the Bible? Or do they mean that they think God had a hand in shaping the universe? Big difference.

[Prodigal]

In science something can both be a fact as well as a theory. And evolution happens to belong in that category. It might be confusing to some but nonetheless it is a fact ~:)


CBR

Only till they find an orangpendek

[CBR]

I believe my erroneous statement stems from your choice of assigning the term "evolution" to both the observable phenomenon of the mechanism of physical change from generation to generation of species, and also to the hypothesis that we humans are directly descended from the same common ancestor as apes. In this sense, you are in fact correct, "evolution" is both a fact and a theory.
And yet there is no real difference between them. If we humans were different from any other species then one would expect us to be genetically unique and yet everything points towards us being related to apes and that the process seems no different from what has happened in nature over several hundred million years.

If a god was indeed involved then it looks like he used a rib from a specimen in the Hominina subtribe in the creation of Adam.

I think that is still uncomfortable to some people though and I guess that is based mostly on their religious beliefs because scientifically it does not make much sense trying to put humans above evolution.


CBR

[Rhyfelwyr]

The thing is, we are clearly different from other species. I'm not saying this means we could not have evolved, but I think the differences are just too extreme to reconcile with evolution. Although on the other hand the scientific evidence apparently points otherwise.

But still, even Darwin had always thought that humans were unique from other species, until on his travels he came across some savage natives, which for him showed the link between humans and animals. Which is fine, sometimes when I look at people acting carnally I can see where Darwin is coming from.

But at the same time, we do things that animals do not. For example, we show restraint. It does not matter what % of our DNA they share, from gorillas to dogs to salmon they all act 100% on their desires/instincts. Gorillas jump about shreiking when they feel like it, animals mate when they feel like it, you get those birds that stuff their faces with maggots until they are too fat to fly and just die. But people are different, we act on much more than instinct. Of course its all a matter of degree. But then, how do you explain restraint in the evolutionary model? Human society is the polar opposite of the natural, wild life, and yet we are the only species which practice it. And this is not a matter of degree, you either live in such a society or you do not. Of course, some animals have their herds and whatnot, but even then they live purely base, instinctual lives. Us humans have always been doing the opposite, we are always coming up with ideologies which fight against this sort of existence. It doesn't have to be religious either, look at stoicism for example.

This is one thing which appears to seperate us from the animals, just as much from our 'close relatives' as much as any other creature.

[Don Corleone]

The thing is, we are clearly different from other species. I'm not saying this means we could not have evolved, but I think the differences are just too extreme to reconcile with evolution. Although on the other hand the scientific evidence apparently points otherwise.

But at the same time, we do things that animals do not. For example, we show restraint. It does not matter what % of our DNA they share, from gorillas to dogs to salmon they all act 100% on their desires/instincts. Gorillas jump about shreiking when they feel like it, animals mate when they feel like it, you get those birds that stuff their faces with maggots until they are too fat to fly and just die. But people are different, we act on much more than instinct. Of course its all a matter of degree. But then, how do you explain restraint in the evolutionary model? Human society is the polar opposite of the natural, wild life, and yet we are the only species which practice it. And this is not a matter of degree, you either live in such a society or you do not. Of course, some animals have their herds and whatnot, but even then they live purely base, instinctual lives. Us humans have always been doing the opposite, we are always coming up with ideologies which fight against this sort of existence. It doesn't have to be religious either, look at stoicism for example.

This is one thing which appears to seperate us from the animals, just as much from our 'close relatives' as much as any other creature.

Actually, I'd argue in many ways, primates and ceteceans show a remarkable amount of restraint and other "human" characteristics. I'm not that well versed on the latest in developmental intelligence studies, but I do know that toothed whales in particular have shown remarkable reasoning powers and human-like emotional responses. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that their intelligence is on par with ours, just that they don't have the same social constructs that we do (now that really is a hypothesis, I don't believer there's any hard data indicating toothed whales have human-level intelligence.... YET).

[Kadagar_AV]

Wait a second...

The very BASIS of this discussion is utterly stupid. There IS no "evolution vs creationism".

One is a scientific theory, the other is a belief based on faith.

Just by bringing this UP, by responding to it as if creationism in any way had scientific claims means it's a lost battle.

Intellectual people must never try to meet creationism on an equal footing, as there is no equal footing.

This discussion might aswell be: "The stars, are they made of teapots?"

Why even respond?


Rhyfelwyr, just take a biology class, or so some related searches. The facts are all out there.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kadagar:

Were you trying to assert that the argument is insoluble as the two points of view are predicated on entirely different systems for establishing the criteria to assess argumentation, or were you seeking to dismiss one of those belief systems as "stupid?"

Be careful sir, how you answer. The former is a legitmate concern relevant to argumentation in general. The latter would be offensive and might be construed as a personal attack.

[Ronin]

One is a scientific theory, the other is a belief based on faith.



If you say this 3 times in front of your bathroom mirror I´m pretty sure you can summon Navarros :laugh4::wiseguy:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well I have self-authenticating knowledge that God, specifically the Christian God exists. Nobody has to believe that, to you it can be just as silly as believing there is an elf on your shoulder, but you can never disprove such claims.

So that is the framework from which I view things. I don't take that view just because I think God exists, but because I know. Debating whether or not that is possible is something else entirely.


Actually, I'd argue in many ways, primates and ceteceans show a remarkable amount of restraint and other "human" characteristics. I'm not that well versed on the latest in developmental intelligence studies, but I do know that toothed whales in particular have shown remarkable reasoning powers and human-like emotional responses. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that their intelligence is on par with ours, just that they don't have the same social constructs that we do (now that really is a hypothesis, I don't believer there's any hard data indicating toothed whales have human-level intelligence.... YET).

That's interesting, but intelligence is not something that can seperate us from other species, since they all have it to some degree. But do these whales actually show human characterstics such as a rejection of the 'natural' way of life? Humans are the only creatures which I think actually show disdain for the natural world, and seperate themselves from it in search of the spiritual, as if we were not made for this world.

[CBR]

Why is social restraint not partly instinct too? Any herd animal would be split between its individual needs and the needs of the group and therefore not much different than humans. Chimps can figure out to live in a small tribe and yet hunt and kill chimps from other tribes. It's hardly that different from hunter-gatherers in say New Guinea.

Monkeys jumping up and shrieking is part of their communication. It looks silly to you perhaps but works for them.

I have yet to see any birds stuffing themselves the way you describe. I would have expected to see many dead birds in the garden if that was normal behavior. With the increasing levels of obesity in the world one could question just how good we are at restraining ourselves when it comes to tasty foods.


CBR

[Rhyfelwyr]

Us folk take the restraint thing way beyond any sort of use for resource management, to the point that it becomes plain unhealthy.

Also I agree people can become consumed in this world and become like animals but almost all our major belief systems have been about rising above that.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I have yet to see any birds stuffing themselves the way you describe. I would have expected to see many dead birds in the garden if that was normal behavior. With the increasing levels of obesity in the world one could question just how good we are at restraining ourselves when it comes to tasty foods.


CBR

Seems like any birds prone to that activity would have died out long ago. Anyway, birds have pretty fast metabolisms and burn a ton of energy. They eat throughout the day I believe.

We seek out tasty foods because they are fattening and fatter used to equal more likely to survive. Current abundance of food and sedentary lifestyle results in mass obesity. One wonders if it will correct itself eventually?

This is a side note, I lost track of what you were talking about with that other guy.

[Reenk Roink]

I'd really love to hear what demarcates evolution from creationism so you can say that one is a science and the other isn't.

To Rhyfelwyr, if you want to learn about evolution in a detailed way, first take a general biology class and then pick up a copy of Futuyama's Evolution. Though you might want to take a class on evolution that uses that book (hard to get through). Will tell you all you need to know about principles and mechanics in general (unless you want to know the specifics of a certain organism's evolution).

[Rhyfelwyr]

There is just too much stuff in this world to learn about... history, philosophy, theology, biology, anthropology, politics... ugh. I'm starting to wonder how anyone can ever give a meaningful opinion on anything except their specialised subject.

The thing is they all tie together in a person's worldview so its hard to focus on one and know you might be missing something important in the other.

Like I used to say to my classmates when they talked about political stuff at school - "do you have a degree in economics?, and if not then maybe you should stop giving opinions and accept that other people know better". I would make a really inspiring teacher wouldn't I? :laugh4:

[Kadagar_AV]

Seamus Fermanagh, I claimed the topic was stupid, not the OP. You can never compare science and belief, and by doing so you fool lesser intellects into believing there is actually a serious debate about it, where there are none.



Rhyfelwyr, you know god exists, fair enough. Some people are equally sure aliens exist, or ghosts, or dragons or...

That is why we have science, science is not about what you believe, or even KNOW. Science is about what you can prove, and have others repeat the same experiments and come to the same conclusion based on the facts at hand.

So, you know God exists? Good for you! However, if you want to bring your own personal belief, or knowledge as you think of it, into a scientific discussion, you will have to accept to take the discussion on scientifical terms. IE, what you know is 100% worthless to others unless you can prove it (again, from a scientific perspective).


Well I have self-authenticating knowledge that God, specifically the Christian God exists. Nobody has to believe that, to you it can be just as silly as believing there is an elf on your shoulder, but you can never disprove such claims.

SCIENCE has no interest in disproving God. It is followers of religion who have to scientificly prove gods existance, if they want to bring him into scientifical matters. Or, in this example, scientificly prove there was a creator. Untill you can do that, there is no debate creationism vs evolution, as you bring a football to a hockey game.



Reenk Roink,
I'd really love to hear what demarcates evolution from creationism so you can say that one is a science and the other isn't.

Creationism is ATTACKING a theory, evolution IS a theory. Creationism in itself has no theoretical value if you substract a creator, and as that is not scientifical proven, creationism can't be called a theory.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That is why we have science, science is not about what you believe, or even KNOW. Science is about what you can prove,

Prove that the world around you exists and is not an illusion please.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm not trying to prove creationism I'm just asking how strong the evidence for evolution is. In my head at least, its creationism v evolution, since creatonism is what I believe from a basic reading of the Bible, but I could think again if the evidence against it was overwhelming.

[Jolt]

Evolution? Creationism? Nonsense! It is obvious that human beings descended from the British islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilt_down_man), which proves the superiority of their race!

[rasoforos]

There must have been like 50 of these posts the past 7 years...if not more.

So I ll sit this one out because the dread of deja-vu is overwhelming.

P.S I have prehensile toes...

[Kadagar_AV]

Prove that the world around you exists and is not an illusion please.

Impossible as that leaves to few factors to work with.



Rhyfelwyr,
I'm not trying to prove creationism I'm just asking how strong the evidence for evolution is. In my head at least, its creationism v evolution, since creatonism is what I believe from a basic reading of the Bible, but I could think again if the evidence against it was overwhelming.

The evidence for evolution is strong enough for it to be seen as the only plausible theory.

However, why ask this question on a forum dedicated to a game? Sure there is where you get the best answer?

BBC and others have had some great programs lately, just watch them, judge for yourself.

[Rhyfelwyr]

However, why ask this question on a forum dedicated to a game? Sure there is where you get the best answer?

This place is generally pretty good for getting level-headed responses. If I posted it on the Christian sites I use I would get very unreliable stuff, if I posted on the TWC or somewhere I would just get flamed.

I'm trying to find that Darwin series from the BBC on google video...

[Reenk Roink]

Creationism is ATTACKING a theory, evolution IS a theory. Creationism in itself has no theoretical value if you substract a creator, and as that is not scientifical proven, creationism can't be called a theory.

Creationism makes many claims. If it came about as an attack on a theory then so be it, but it makes plenty of claims about the world.

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions :shrug: These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

[Kadagar_AV]

Creationism makes many claims. If it came about as an attack on a theory then so be it, but it makes plenty of claims about the world.

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions :shrug: These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

No, see, there is where you are wrong.

creationism, as you say, is dependant on a X-factor. If you remove the creator from creationism, nothing is left. And again, as this creator is not proven to exist creationism fails from a scientific viewpoint.

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

That is science strenght, the same results WILL show no matter if it is a christian, atheist, buddhist, daoist, muslim or whatever who repeats the experiments.



As an example, my personal belief or knowledge tells me mind reading exists, as I have witnessed things in my life that lead me, personally, to this conclusion. I can try to convince you too. However, I would NEVER say it's scientificly proven that mind reading exists just because I think/know so, as I can't have you repeat the same things I have been through.

It does not mean I am unsure about mind reading, it just means I can not prove it scientificly.

In my example, I believe science one day will reach the same conclusion I did, that mind reading to in fact exist.

And if YOU are sure God exists, then why oppose science? IF God exists, i am sure science will come to that conclusion sooner or later. As it seems today though, there is no evidence of a God, or a creator.

Did this make it more clear?

[Kadagar_AV]

This place is generally pretty good for getting level-headed responses. If I posted it on the Christian sites I use I would get very unreliable stuff, if I posted on the TWC or somewhere I would just get flamed.

I'm trying to find that Darwin series from the BBC on google video...


Problem here is, none of us (I believe) is qualified to explain this to you.

This means that a failure to make you believe in evolution is due to OUR inability to explain the theory correctly, not because of the theory itself.

Get my point?

[Hax]

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys :tongue2:).

Theistic evolution is possible. My father is a devout Muslim and is a biologist who accepts the theory of evolution.

/getsoutofthread

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.



Impossible as that leaves to few factors to work with.

:coffeenews:

[Lemur]

In fairness, biological evolution is a testable, disprovable theory. After over a hundred years of challenges and tests, it's still standing. All of modern biology is based on it. Reject evolution, and you might want to reject its products, such as antibiotics and most forms of modern medicine.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based on faith, and thus untestable. You cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago.

So yeah, although Kadgar has been a little ... forceful ... in his arguments, the man has a point. You cannot hold a legitimate debate between creationism and evolution, since they operate in entirely different spheres. It's like saying let's have a debate between physics and oil painting, or a footrace between thermodynamics and communion. Although evolution and creationism address the same issue ("Where did all of this stuff come from?") they are playing by entirely different rules.

[Jolt]

Creationism makes many claims. If it came about as an attack on a theory then so be it, but it makes plenty of claims about the world.

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions :shrug: These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

What about Viking Creationism? I'm sure they have some good claims too.

[Reenk Roink]

No, see, there is where you are wrong.

creationism, as you say, is dependant on a X-factor. If you remove the creator from creationism, nothing is left. And again, as this creator is not proven to exist creationism fails from a scientific viewpoint.

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

That is science strenght, the same results WILL show no matter if it is a christian, atheist, buddhist, daoist, muslim or whatever who repeats the experiments.

I understand what you are trying to say Kadagar, if you do remove the metaphysical assumption of a creator, then creationism has the rug pulled from underneath it.

However, the X factor of evolution is pretty clear. Remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism, and of evolutionary theory does not matter.


In fairness, biological evolution is a testable, disprovable theory. After over a hundred years of challenges and tests, it's still standing. All of modern biology is based on it. Reject evolution, and you might want to reject its products, such as antibiotics and most forms of modern medicine.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based on faith, and thus untestable. You cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago.

So yeah, although Kadgar has been a little ... forceful ... in his arguments, the man has a point. You cannot hold a legitimate debate between creationism and evolution, since they operate in entirely different spheres. It's like saying let's have a debate between physics and oil painting, or a footrace between thermodynamics and communion. Although evolution and creationism address the same issue ("Where did all of this stuff come from?") they are playing by entirely different rules.

You have given a demarcation criterion: testability (also falsifiability). Good.

But then you apply in a really weird way. You essentially want to apply testability to the metaphysical assumptions that creationism rests on, instead of its empirical claims.

Let's be perfectly clear. When we say evolutionary theory is testable and falsifiable, we say that it is so because of claims it makes such as humans and apes evolved from some common ancestor. We don't apply the testability criterion to the metaphysical assumptions it holds such as naturalism or the commitment to an existence of a mind independent world.

Creationism (here used in the young earth sense we see here in America by certain Christian groups) makes many empirical claims. Claims about the age of the earth, the existence of an global flood, the cohabitation of certain species. All of these are fully testable and falsifiable (in fact some would say that they have been tested and falsified).

Making creationism out to be something that is not in the league of evolutionary theory is incorrect. In fact, I would think it would be better for proponents of evolutionary theory to actually admit that creationism operates at a very similar theoretical level as evolutionary theory, and state that the methods at that level lend more credence to the latter.

[Lemur]

When we say evolutionary theory is testable and falsifiable, we say that it is so because of claims it makes such as humans and apes evolved from some common ancestor.
Not exactly. Evolution is a process, not a description of the world. You can test the evolutionary process with a jar full of fruit flies. It's tested every day in pharmaceutical companies. It's the law of the land. If viruses were not capable of evolving, drug companies would be in very bad shape, indeed. One antibiotic would do us for the rest of eternity.

The notion that we emerged from a common ancestor with the great apes is a logical thought once you've accepted evolutionary theory, but the theory itself is pretty neutral on the subject. If it turned out that we evolved from, say, stingrays, evolutionary theory would be fine with that. Or if we uncovered evidence that homo sapien had been around much longer than previously thought, this would do nothing to discredit the theory,


We don't apply the testability criterion to the metaphysical assumptions it holds such as naturalism or the commitment to an existence of a mind independent world.
Um, because evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world," whatever that happens to mean. Evolutionary theory is neutral, in much the same way that gravitational theory is neutral. Understanding any of these theories isn't predicated on any particular worldview or religious/atheist positioning. Theism and scientific theory are perfectly compatible.


Creationism (here used in the young earth sense we see here in America by certain Christian groups) makes many empirical claims. Claims about the age of the earth, the existence of an global flood, the cohabitation of certain species. All of these are fully testable and falsifiable (in fact some would say that they have been tested and falsified).
I have never, ever seen a young Earth creationist respond to evidence that contradicts the young Earth claim. At least, not in print, and certainly not in a peer-reviewed environment.


Making creationism out to be something that is not in the league of evolutionary theory is incorrect.
Disagree. Discussions with young Earth creationists inevitably lead back to a holy text and faith, ares that a scientific theory cannot and does not attempt to compete. The two are incompatible.

[Kadagar_AV]

Reenk Roink, well put but it doesn't hold up.


However, the X factor of evolution is pretty clear. Remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism, and of evolutionary theory does not matter.

You need to elaborate on this one.

What do you mean with "remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism?"



But then you apply in a really weird way. You essentially want to apply testability to the metaphysical assumptions that creationism rests on, instead of its empirical claims.


Well, if empirical claims was valid, you would have to convert to Buddhism, as they have more followers than the Christian religion... They can't all be wrong, can they?

So either accept that empirical evidence isn't worth anything in these questions OR agree to have a debate only based on empirical claims. Looks dark indeed for christianity either way.



Let's be perfectly clear. When we say evolutionary theory is testable and falsifiable, we say that it is so because of claims it makes such as humans and apes evolved from some common ancestor. We don't apply the testability criterion to the metaphysical assumptions it holds such as naturalism or the commitment to an existence of a mind independent world.


That wasnt perfectly clear in my book, can you explain it so a swede understands?

what is "naturalism?" last I studied naturalism was a style of writing who popped up in the 19th century, Russia had the most known writers in this genre...


Creationism (here used in the young earth sense we see here in America by certain Christian groups) makes many empirical claims. Claims about the age of the earth, the existence of an global flood, the cohabitation of certain species. All of these are fully testable and falsifiable (in fact some would say that they have been tested and falsified).

Again, empirical data is meaningless if we talk about science. You can object to that, but you can't object to it AND still want a scientific debate.

So there was a global flood? I agree, however, it's a LONG leap of faith to automaticly believe it was caused by a "God".

So the bible was right about the flood? Whopdido, stories about the great flood exists in many cultures unrelated to the bible.


Making creationism out to be something that is not in the league of evolutionary theory is incorrect.

Wrong, you already agreed that if you remove the scientificly unproved god from creationism nothing remains. Again, please do have your fath, endorse it, but dont mix it up with science.



In fact, I would think it would be better for proponents of evolutionary theory to actually admit that creationism operates at a very similar theoretical level as evolutionary theory, and state that the methods at that level lend more credence to the latter.

Would you also agree that Einstein worked at a similar theoretical level as, say, an Imam?

Or did I get you wrong?

[Reenk Roink]

Yeah, the macro evolutionary claims are extrapolations. Take micro evolutionary claims as the one that are testable. The point is that the claims it makes are testable.

You said that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago."

This is a critique of the metaphysical underpinnings of creationism, not of its empirical claims.

It is akin to saying "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not their exists an actual world outside of our sensory perception that actually corroborates to it" or that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws" which underpin evolutionary theory.


Um, because evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world," whatever that happens to mean. Evolutionary theory is neutral, in much the same way that gravitational theory is neutral. Understanding any of these theories isn't predicated on any particular worldview or religious/atheist positioning.

Yes it does...

One must accept the metaphysical views that I have mentioned above, to accept conclusions about evolutionary theory (or gravitational theory).


I have never, ever seen a young Earth creationist respond to evidence that contradicts the young Earth claim. At least, not in print, and certainly not in a peer-reviewed environment.

Not only do (young earth) creationists engage in much polemic and respond to evolution, they actually revise their theories quite a bit. Just take a look at the creationist literature at the turn of the 20th century and compare with today. They are constantly making attempts to revise and refine their theories.


Disagree. Discussions with young Earth creationists inevitably lead back to a holy text and faith, ares that a scientific theory cannot and does not attempt to compete. The two are incompatible.

They are incompatible, sure.

But creationism makes empirical claims that are both testable and falsifiable just like evolutionary theory does.

The age of the earth is a testable and falsifiable claim. Ditto the cohabitation of certain species. Ditto the existence of a global flood. And so on...

In this vein they are exactly alike.

[Reenk Roink]

Reenk Roink, well put but it doesn't hold up.



You need to elaborate on this one.

What do you mean with "remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism?"




Well, if empirical claims was valid, you would have to convert to Buddhism, as they have more followers than the Christian religion... They can't all be wrong, can they?

So either accept that empirical evidence isn't worth anything in these questions OR agree to have a debate only based on empirical claims. Looks dark indeed for christianity either way.




That wasnt perfectly clear in my book, can you explain it so a swede understands?

what is "naturalism?" last I studied naturalism was a style of writing who popped up in the 19th century, Russia had the most known writers in this genre...



Again, empirical data is meaningless if we talk about science. You can object to that, but you can't object to it AND still want a scientific debate.

So there was a global flood? I agree, however, it's a LONG leap of faith to automaticly believe it was caused by a "God".

So the bible was right about the flood? Whopdido, stories about the great flood exists in many cultures unrelated to the bible.



Wrong, you already agreed that if you remove the scientificly unproved god from creationism nothing remains. Again, please do have your fath, endorse it, but dont mix it up with science.




Would you also agree that Einstein worked at a similar theoretical level as, say, an Imam?

Or did I get you wrong?

Naturalism is the claim that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

I don't really see how the rest of the post is really pertinent to the discussion (don't care about whether or not a global flood took place, other bronze age or earlier flood stories, Einstein or Imams).

My position is that there is really no way to draw a line between evolutionary theory and creationism saying one is a science and operates at this theoretical level and creationism operates in another.

I gave the many examples of testable and falsifiable claims that creationism makes to rebut the idea that testability and falsification are demarcation criteria for science.

I took issue with the way Lemur used testability by applying it to a metaphysical underpinning of creationism. He should apply it to the empirical claims that it makes.

Because when we discuss evolutionary theory, we consider it testable and falsifiable because its empirical claims are such, not its metaphysical assumptions.

[Kadagar_AV]

Naturalism is the claim that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

No, that is only one version of what naturalism means in the intellectual society.

nat⋅u⋅ral⋅ism   /ˈnætʃərəˌlɪzəm, ˈnætʃrə-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [nach-er-uh-liz-uhm, nach-ruh-] Show IPA
–noun 1. Literature. a. a manner or technique of treating subject matter that presents, through volume of detail, a deterministic view of human life and actions.
b. a deterministic theory of writing in which it is held that a writer should adopt an objective view toward the material written about, be free of preconceived ideas as to form and content, and represent with clinical accuracy and frankness the details of life. Compare realism (def. 4b).
c. a representation of natural appearances or natural patterns of speech, manner, etc., in a work of fiction.
d. the depiction of the physical environment, esp. landscape or the rural environment.

2. (in a work of art) treatment of forms, colors, space, etc., as they appear or might appear in nature. Compare idealism (def. 4), realism (def. 3a).
3. action arising from or based on natural instincts and desires alone.
4. Philosophy. a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

5. Theology. a. the doctrine that all religious truth is derived from a study of natural processes and not from revelation.
b. the doctrine that natural religion is sufficient for salvation.

6. adherence or attachment to what is natural.



I don't really see how the rest of the post is really pertinent to the discussion (don't care about whether or not a global flood took place, other bronze age or earlier flood stories, Einstein or Imams).


If you do not see how it makes sence... I somehat feel forced to question your ability to comprehend.
Jury is still out on that one.



My position is that there is really no way to draw a line between evolutionary theory and creationism saying one is a science and operates at this theoretical level and creationism operates in another.

Again, that probably says more about you than the topic at hand. If you can not tell the difference between the arguments "the bible says it is so" and "scientific research says it is so"... Then I struggle to see a way to convince you.


I gave the many examples of testable and falsifiable claims that creationism makes to rebut the idea that testability and falsification are demarcation criteria for science.


Please do elaborate on this one...


I took issue with the way Lemur used testability by applying it to a metaphysical underpinning of creationism. He should apply it to the empirical claims that it makes.

Must I again explain that empirical data has nothing to do with science of this level - what so ever.


Because when we discuss evolutionary theory, we consider it testable and falsifiable because its empirical claims are such, not its metaphysical assumptions.

Are you even aware of what empirical means?

For maybe the fifth (?) time, empirical data is NOT, again: NOT worth a damn.

If we were giving in to empirical data, we would still have forests filled with trolls and goblins. We have advanced a bit since then, haven't we?

*with "we" I mean "me"*

[Lemur]

You said that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago."

This is a critique of the metaphysical underpinnings of creationism, not of its empirical claims.
Feel free to link to or provide an example of an empirical test conducted by young Earth creationists. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


It is akin to saying "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not their exists an actual world outside of our sensory perception that actually corroborates to it" or that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws" which underpin evolutionary theory.
You appear to be slipping into a sort of factual relativism. There are plenty of phenomena that are outside our "sensory perception" which we are able to test and learn from. Nobody has "seen" a quark, for example, but we are able to extrapolate their existence and test for it. Likewise, nobody has "seen" a black hole, but we know what sorts of effects one would have, and we can look for the evidence. Thus your "outside our sensory perception" formulation trips over its own feet (and are there non-sensory perceptions?)

I think you're referring in an oblique and unclear way to spiritual reality versus the physical world. You seem to believe that the opposite of young Earth creationism is pure materialism, or that evolutionary theory somehow requires abjuration of all things divine. It doesn't.


One must accept the metaphysical views that I have mentioned above, to accept conclusions about evolutionary theory (or gravitational theory).
Must one? Must one really? Perhaps if one could articulate "the metaphysical views" that one must accept one would understand what the heck one was talking about.


Not only do (young earth) creationists engage in much polemic and respond to evolution, they actually revise their theories quite a bit. Just take a look at the creationist literature at the turn of the 20th century and compare with today. They are constantly making attempts to revise and refine their theories.
From what I have read, they revise their theories to respond to outside forces (in much the same way that Coca-Cola markets itself differently now than it did in 1901), not because of testing and observation. They alter their message for purposes of proselytizing, not to refine a proper theory.


But creationism makes empirical claims that are both testable and falsifiable just like evolutionary theory does.
Back that one up, please. And not with vague generalities about what one must suppose if one is supposed to be supposing. Gimme something concrete, preferably with links.

[Kadagar_AV]

Back that one up, please. And not with vague generalities about what one must suppose if one is supposed to be supposing. Gimme something concrete, preferably with links.

I second that.

But that does not mean you can dismiss my last post.

Please do attack it :book:

[Reenk Roink]

Feel free to link to or provide an example of an empirical test conducted by young Earth creationists. Just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think it's pretty well known that young earth creations empirically claim things. There are many claims (some are linked below).

Enjoy:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/young-age-evidence


You appear to be slipping into a sort of factual relativism. There are plenty of phenomena that are outside our "sensory perception" which we are able to test and learn from. Nobody has "seen" a quark, for example, but we are able to extrapolate their existence and test for it. Likewise, nobody has "seen" a black hole, but we know what sorts of effects one would have, and we can look for the evidence. You seem to believe that the opposite of young Earth creationism is pure materialism, or that evolutionary theory somehow requires abjuration of all things divine. It doesn't.

How am I seeming to believe any of these things you attribute to me by bringing up the fact that the theory of evolution by natural selection rests on the metaphysical views of naturalism and realism? :inquisitive:

Please provide the statement of my beliefs.

I have already defined these many times, but I will do it again (copy paste makes it easy):

realism: there exists an actual world outside of our sensory perception that actually corroborates to it

naturalism: all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws

To believe in the conclusions reached by evolutionary theory you have to accept these positions in some form. They aren't empirically testable whatsoever. They can't be. They're metaphysics.

It makes no sense to say evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable as it rests on the untestable assumptions of naturalism and realism. Analogously it makes no sense to say that creationism is unfalsifiable as it rests on the untestable assumptions of a creator god.

What we check is the empirical claims of evolutionary theory. These are clearly testable. But then, so are the empirical claims of creationism


Must one? Must one really? Perhaps if one could articulate "the metaphysical views" that one must accept one would understand what the heck one was talking about.

But I have repeatedly stated them... :wall:

You seem to not like my explanations of them so here are some links:

Realism in the sense I speak of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_realism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism

Naturalism in the sense I speak of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Just consider what these metaphysical positions are and then maybe you will reconsider your positions that:

"evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world," whatever that happens to mean"

and

"evolutionary theory is neutral, in much the same way that gravitational theory is neutral"

(what does "neutral" mean even)

and

"understanding any of these theories isn't predicated on any particular worldview"


From what I have read, they revise their theories to respond to outside forces (in much the same way that Coca-Cola markets itself differently now than it did in 1901), not because of testing and observation. They alter their message for purposes of proselytizing, not to refine a proper theory.

What exactly do you mean by "outside forces"? If you mean court decisions and what not, then yes, that is certainly part of it with the "intelligent design" movement and all (although this kind of stuff happens in the so called scientific community as well).

But they certainly alter their positions on other outside forces too, like data, evolutionary claims, and so on.


Back that one up, please. And not with vague generalities about what one must suppose if one is supposed to be supposing. Gimme something concrete, preferably with links.

But I already did? In the very next line after the one you quoted too... :wall:

"The age of the earth is a testable and falsifiable claim. Ditto the cohabitation of certain species. Ditto the existence of a global flood. And so on..."

I have no idea how one can dismiss something as specific as creationist claims on the age of the earth as "vague generalities" but man, you did it.

But here, the link may satisfy you more than my word:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH310.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH311.html
and more...

I never thought it wasn't common knowledge that young earth creationists made claims that there was a global flood or that the earth is 10000 years old or such.

Now here is the kicker:

The claim "the earth is 10000 years old" is just as testable and falsifiable as the claim that "the earth is 4.6 billion years old" is it not?

If not, please demonstrate how...

This is why it makes absolutely no sense to just dismiss creationism as not being science by virtue of appealing to demarcation criteria like testability and falsifiability.

Better yet not to make this demarcation and I don't know, actually treat creationism like falsified theories like phlogistic chemistry?

After all, stating that the claim that the earth is around 10000 years old has been tested and falsified in many ways is a lot more convincing than saying that "creationism is untestable and unfalsifiable" when it demonstrably isn't. :rolleyes:

Finally, just so you won't go and claim I am a creationist or other misrepresentations, I linked to these sites because you asked for them. I'm not here to speak about how good or bad these tests are, how good or bad these empirical claims are.

I am merely demonstrating that creationists DO make empirical claims.

[Reenk Roink]

Kadagar, the reason I am more and more reluctant to respond to your posts is because unlike Lemur, you seem content to just parse my posts and be disagreeable in any way possible and throw in little snide comments that I don't care to respond to.

For example, why the heck did you bring up a dictionary to dispute what I meant by naturalism? For petessake the context is pretty darn clear. We obviously aren't talking about literature or art...

Do statements like these even dignify a response?


If you do not see how it makes sence... I somehat feel forced to question your ability to comprehend.
Jury is still out on that one.



Again, that probably says more about you than the topic at hand. If you can not tell the difference between the arguments "the bible says it is so" and "scientific research says it is so"... Then I struggle to see a way to convince you.

You're just throwing snide comments and making really oversimplified strawmen. It's just boring to be honest, I don't see the need to waste my time. :shrug:

[Lemur]

Ah, I see, you're having a philosophy moment. That's okay. Most people go through that. (How many philosophers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Well, first you have to define your terms ....)

Yes, you're quite right, accepting scientific theory involves a great many assumptions, such as, "I exist," and "I will give some credence to what I perceive with my eyes," and "I will look for some answers in what I accept as consensual reality," etc. And guys like Hegel made a (rather poor) living by classifying and giving strata to all of the positions, some of which you have cited from Wikipedia. You're making the assumption that you are not, in fact, in Plato's cave, looking at shadows. Or if you are, you're going to play along. That works too.

So yes, accepting any scientific method involves a "metaphysical view," although a rather common and incomplete one, and much the same "metaphysical view" required to get through your day, park your car or cope with work. A reality-based view, but hardly an all-encompassing one. You need to trust your senses and your logic a bit to park your car, but you can still believe that unicorns guide your heart to love. Likewise, you can believe in the scientific method and still have theist tendencies.

But this isn't at the crest of the definitional hill you've chosen to defend to your last breath. No, it appears to be this false equivalence you're drawing between a tenet of faith and a scientific theory.

As you are probably aware, in science you start with reality, hypothesize why something works how it works, and then you come up with a repeatable test to see if you're right. With creationism, on the other hand, you start out with received knowledge (the holy book), and you look for ways to justify the literal text by shoehorning fact and evidence to fit your original notion. The two are fundamentally different.

Do young Earth creationists make disprovable claims? Looking at your links, it appears they do, and then get debunked. Which does nothing to slow them down, which speaks to why they are operating under a completely different set of rules.

Where are the legions of Lamarckians? Oh, right, he was disproved decades ago, and is now a footnote in history. Where are the vocal supporters of the aetheric theory of light transmission? Oh, yeah, that turned out to be completely bogus. Once again, nothing but a footnote for science geeks. How about phrenological theory? Where are the phrenologists' websites?

Theories can be disproved. Faith (by definition) cannot. So you can have a meaningful and productive debate with people who hold theories, but argue with someone about faith? That's a dead-end street I try to avoid.


The claim "the earth is 10000 years old" is just as testable and falsifiable as the claim that "the earth is 4.6 billion years old" is it not?

If not, please demonstrate how...
Gladly. If a geologist and an astrophysicist disagree on the age of the earth, they both produce their evidence, and one of them is more right than the other. This settles the matter (and in fact, geology got a bad name for a while for being wildly off about the age of the earth, while the astronomers got to say "Nanny nanny boo boo").

A creationist, on the other hand, will move right on from a disproved claim, since proof does not matter to him. He knows the correct answer, and will stick to it, no matter what evidence is presented. He doesn't do this because he is stupid or a bad person; rather, he is operating under a different set of rules. This is a fundamental difference that you seem to be at pains to deny.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by creating a false equivalence between faith and theory, but I suspect it has something to do with philosophy and definitions. Hence the lightbulb joke.

[Kadagar_AV]

Kadagar, the reason I am more and more reluctant to respond to your posts is because unlike Lemur, you seem content to just parse my posts and be disagreeable in any way possible and throw in little snide comments that I don't care to respond to.

Fair enough, I am happy if you just answer the posts in a scientific way, no flames needed. That ok mate?


For example, why the heck did you bring up a dictionary to dispute what I meant by naturalism? For petessake the context is pretty darn clear. We obviously aren't talking about literature or art...

I really had never heard about naturalism used in that context before, and I wanted to make sure I didnt get you wrong. "Naturalism" is a very vague word indeed.


Do statements like these even dignify a response?

I would hope so! I am sorry, but being raised as an agnostic and educated in a world where facts matters, I struggle to understand the perspective of people led by a one-thousand-nine-hundred-fifty year-old book says.

Oh, and that is me being positive. If we go by the last edition of the bible it is much younger than that, as the church leaders of that time realised the original writing really wasnt enough to convince the masses.


You're just throwing snide comments and making really oversimplified strawmen. It's just boring to be honest, I don't see the need to waste my time.

Don't get me wrong. I do assault your arguments but not you as a person. Heck, come over to the alps and I'll buy you a beer or two!

I will never ever tolerate people with a religious mindset who cant back their mindset up with a proof or two. It does not, however, mean I am against those individuals, I am against their arguments.

Do you want to challenge me about religion?

Say I believe the world is run by "pink invisible unicorns".

Prove me wrong, please.

Now, all that is needed to believe in pink invisible unicorns is a bit of faith... much the same as believing in god.

If YOU prove pink invisible unicorns does not exist, I might start to give you some credit for whatever "god's" existance.

If you can not prove that pink invisible unicorns does not exist, can we please keep this topic on a scientific level?

[Lemur]

I will never ever tolerate people with a religious mindset who cant back their mindset up with a proof or two.
But faith, by definition, is not provable. If it were provable it would be a fact, not a faith. So you're taking what seems to be a needlessly antagonistic approach to the vast majority of your fellow human beings who have some sort of faith or another.

I have the same attitude toward religion that I have toward drugs: As long as it doesn't mess with your ability to do your job, or function within consensual reality, it's not a problem.

[Kadagar_AV]

But faith, by definition, is not provable. If it were provable it would be a fact, not a faith. So you're taking what seems to be a needlessly antagonistic approach to the vast majority of your fellow human beings who have some sort of faith or another.

I have the same attitude toward religion that I have toward drugs: As long as it doesn't mess with your ability to do your job, or function within consensual reality, it's not a problem.

Agreed.

Don't get me wrong, if you want to sit at home and chant at whatever altar you have, FINE!

However, if you want to get out on the internet (again, INTERNET, not socialnet) you ought to have one argument or two as to why your belief is the "correct" one.

Welcome to the internet!

Here we have buddhists, agnostics, muslims, christians, daoists, budhists, atheists.... must I go on?

So if you really, really, for whatever reason, think "your" religion is the correct one, even if you are a minority in the world (like christians), you ought to back it up with a proof or two.

If you have no "proof" except the proof granted by your own religion, it mights be a wise thing to lean back and listen to others. Not necessarily believe what others say, but at least listen, and learn.

I am swedish, we used to have the Norse mythology.. However, the church came and transferred their religion into ours, so they could tame the vikings, and stop them from plundering England.

In sweden, half of the national holidays are still the original norse-mythological ones. The pape and catholic church has given their blesings.

It is quite interesting that swedes still dance around a HUGE penis stuck into the ground, with the virgins in the inner circle, to celebrate that spring is here.

All this is christian, of course, who could dream of anything else?

Again, I have nothing about religion as such, but if you want to claim YOUR religion is the correct one, you really have to back it up with scientifical arguments, if you want a debate about science.

OR you just say "I know this is so because god told me", if that is the case, what else is there to discuss?

[rory_20_uk]

I personally ascribe to Terry Pratchett's philosophy. Small Gods was probably the seminal work on the subject. Gods are shaped by Men and in turn shape Men.

I liked the Founding of Life thanks to Rincewind's Sandwich in one of the other Books of Pratchett.

Time did not have quite the same meaning, but Rincewind did rise from the dead as well as having a detour for some time around the afterlife.

To be honest I feel as a view point it has as much evidence behind it as any other - barring scientific facts.

~:smoking:

[CBR]

From TalkOrigins FAQ: Evolution and Metaphysics (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/metaphysics.html)


Conclusions of this FAQ
Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory dealing with scientific data (Berry 1988:139), not a system of metaphysical beliefs or a religion. It does, however, set the sorts of general problems biology deals with, and also acts as a philosophical attitude in dealing with complex change.


Now obviously the FAQ is a bit longer than the quoted conclusion and too long to quote here me thinks.


CBR

[Pannonian]

I personally ascribe to Terry Pratchett's philosophy. Small Gods was probably the seminal work on the subject. Gods are shaped by Men and in turn shape Men.

A superb work, better than many "classics" I've read, and Pratchett's contribution to "literature". Both in the details and in its overall span, Small Gods gets it right everywhere.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ah, I see, you're having a philosophy moment. That's okay. Most people go through that. (How many philosophers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Well, first you have to define your terms ....)

...


I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by creating a false equivalence between faith and theory, but I suspect it has something to do with philosophy and definitions. Hence the lightbulb joke.



Well, studying philosophy certainly improves ones reading comprehension :bounce:

But that's ok. Most people make mistakes. *pats on head* ~:rolleyes:

[Reenk Roink]

Long post Lemur, but many strawmen and non seqiturs. Let's briefly restate my position once more so that you aren't able any more to misinterpret it.

I asked: what demarcates science from non science so that you can say evolutionary theory is a science and creationism is not?

To be honest, while I was expecting the boring and inadequate answers of testability and falsifiability, I was hoping for something better.

Maybe a very detailed account on basing oneself on certain metaphysical world views but not others or maybe what I consider to be the best, if somewhat arbitrary one, that science is what scientists say it is. :2thumbsup:

Instead I got the answers of testability and falsifiability which have been knocked down as possible criteria for a while... :shrug:

Testability and falsifiability you say. All right.

I gave many examples (which you first called vague and then just ignored when the links were given (Reenk < links :sad:) of creationism making many empirical claims that were testable and falsifiable just like the claims of many scientific theories.

The claim that the age of the earth is 10000 years old is as testable as the claim that it is 4.6 billion years old amirite?


Ah, I see, you're having a philosophy moment. That's okay. Most people go through that. (How many philosophers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Well, first you have to define your terms ....)

Um ok. This really has nothing to do with philosophy, because the discussion is not about which metaphysical worldview one should hold at all. Rather I made a claim that scientific enterprise relies on metaphysical assumptions (to make the larger point about separating science from non science) which took quite too long for some to admit...


Yes, you're quite right, accepting scientific theory involves a great many assumptions, such as, "I exist," and "I will give some credence to what I perceive with my eyes," and "I will look for some answers in what I accept as consensual reality," etc. And guys like Hegel made a (rather poor) living by classifying and giving strata to all of the positions, some of which you have cited from Wikipedia. You're making the assumption that you are not, in fact, in Plato's cave, looking at shadows. Or if you are, you're going to play along. That works too.

Who the hell said I wasn't looking at the Forms? The Forms!

You have to stop attributing things to me Lemur. Focus on my argument on the demarcation criteria you gave, that's where I'm keeping it.

Still it is good to see you have nuanced your previous views that:


evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world"


understanding any of these theories isn't predicated on any particular worldview

We can now move on.


So yes, accepting any scientific method involves a "metaphysical view," although a rather common and incomplete one, and much the same "metaphysical view" required to get through your day, park your car or cope with work. A reality-based view, but hardly an all-encompassing one. You need to trust your senses and your logic a bit to park your car, but you can still believe that unicorns guide your heart to love. Likewise, you can believe in the scientific method and still have theist tendencies.

Well, this isn't an argument about whether you can be a theist and believe in the scientific method at all so I'm not sure what you're going at.

This is a critique of your demarcation criteria that testability and falsifiability. Namely, you said that evolutionary theory was testable but creationism wasn't, but then you went and made the most bizarre argument against it testability by using the criteria on its metaphysical assumption that there is a creator - this is not how it works.. :inquisitive:


But this isn't at the crest of the definitional hill you've chosen to defend to your last breath. No, it appears to be this false equivalence you're drawing between a tenet of faith and a scientific theory.

As you are probably aware, in science you start with reality, hypothesize why something works how it works, and then you come up with a repeatable test to see if you're right. With creationism, on the other hand, you start out with received knowledge (the holy book), and you look for ways to justify the literal text by shoehorning fact and evidence to fit your original notion. The two are fundamentally different.

More attributions?! :drama: No I am certainly not doing what you attribute to me. Perhaps if I haven't mentioned it enough, what I am criticizing is your criteria for demarcating science.

But anyway, you have an absolutely idealized view of science going here, and an idea of creationism that even a non creationist like me would flat out say is a grossly oversimplified strawman.

Science doesn't occur in a vacuum. The naive inductionist view of science you paint here is not how it works. Scientists begin with existing theories, they are inspired by (admittedly non scientific areas like art and imagination and myth). You cannot gather the facts without having a scope on what facts are relevant. One will have a vague idea of his hypothesis before even gathering the relevant data...


Do young Earth creationists make disprovable claims?Looking at your links, it appears they do, and then get debunked. Which does nothing to slow them down, which speaks to why they are operating under a completely different set of rules.

So they do make disprovable claims! Finally you are coming through. :2thumbsup:

Now, the second part of your argument deals with behavior of scientists and creationists (why do I like the demarcating factor to be the consensus of scientists again? :2thumbsup:) and not with the methodology so I don't see the need to continue (though later I will mention how creationists have changed their views).


Where are the legions of Lamarckians? Oh, right, he was disproved decades ago, and is now a footnote in history. Where are the vocal supporters of the aetheric theory of light transmission? Oh, yeah, that turned out to be completely bogus. Once again, nothing but a footnote for science geeks. How about phrenological theory? Where are the phrenologists' websites?

Theories can be disproved. Faith (by definition) cannot. So you can have a meaningful and productive debate with people who hold theories, but argue with someone about faith? That's a dead-end street I try to avoid.

Gladly. If a geologist and an astrophysicist disagree on the age of the earth, they both produce their evidence, and one of them is more right than the other. This settles the matter (and in fact, geology got a bad name for a while for being wildly off about the age of the earth, while the astronomers got to say "Nanny nanny boo boo").

A creationist, on the other hand, will move right on from a disproved claim, since proof does not matter to him. He knows the correct answer, and will stick to it, no matter what evidence is presented. He doesn't do this because he is stupid or a bad person; rather, he is operating under a different set of rules. This is a fundamental difference that you seem to be at pains to deny.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by creating a false equivalence between faith and theory, but I suspect it has something to do with philosophy and definitions. Hence the lightbulb joke.

Firstly, you were unable to note any distinguishing factor between the two claims themselves, and once again resorted to making an argument between the behavior of scientists and creationists... Disappointing.

Even going on this point you make:

Sorry to burst your very idealized bubble of science, but the entire history of science proves you wrong. It takes a LOOOONG time for theories to just be scrapped. One or two falsifications don't cut it. Rather than the theory being scrapped, auxiliary hypothesis are first scrapped.

A well supported heliocentric model was around for over 2000 years in the Western world. It was generally adopted about 500 years ago as the geocentric model prevailed over that span.

Levasseur had the foundations of modern chemistry set in the 1600's providing a complete model, but it was in the late 1700's when the scientific community rejected phlogistic chemistry.

Instead of explaining the odd findings inconsistent with gravitational theory by saying that parts or all of the theory is mistaken, most scientists postulate a new, absolutely ad hoc and unobservable entity: dark matter. Only recently have some voices come out advocating a revolution in the field.

Lastly, creationists like I have said, have vastly changed their claims in the past 100 years. I know you will not take my word and ask for links, so when I'm at school, if you wish, I can give you journal articles documenting these changes.

[Reenk Roink]

Just a last note so I may not be further misrepresented.

I'm not saying creationism is good science (or even science). I don't think it should be taught in classrooms. But as someone who is studying evolutionary biology at the moment, I am going to point out that these attempts to draw a strict demarcating line between it and scientific theories fail, miserably.

It is much better for proponents of evolutionary biology to take the empirical claims made by creationists and show how they have been tested and falsified.

As for the teaching both side by side, the argument should be that we should not teach creationism just as we should not teach say phlogistic chemistry or Fresnel's theory of optics and light as these have failed many tests. Not that creationism is some kind of different beast altogether (because that will be well nigh impossible to show).

[Lemur]

We can now move on.
Indeed. Since none of my answers appear to satisfy, engage or aid the discussion according to you, I'll bow out. I have no desire to "misrepresent" you, to build strawmen, to sow the fora with "non-sequiturs," or engage in any of the long list of misdeeds you say I have committed. Whatever it is that you're trying to accomplish, I wish you the best of luck!

[Askthepizzaguy]

You shall be added to a very long list of people who have argued with Reenk about something and made zero headway reaching any sort of common ground. :laugh4:

I admire his ability to argue, but at times I have no idea what he is talking about, or what precisely he is getting at. He seems to be saying that you cannot prove anything and that it takes belief to have evidence, therefore everything is exactly the same as religion and there's no difference between religion and science. He says, if I remember correctly, that that is NOT what he is arguing, but that's the best I can come up with. I freely admit, I haven't a clue what he's on about sometimes. He may one day be up there with the greatest philosophers of all time, arguing about metaphysics and whatnot and defeating people or drawing countless debates over definitions and demarcations and all kinds of proofs and rebuttals until the opposition loses the will to argue.

In the end, it's almost like he's arguing there is no difference between hot and cold, because cold does not exist. It is all simply levels of how much heat energy there is... there's no negative force, just positive. So in the metaphorical sense, science and religion are the same because they both rely on various amounts of "faith" as he defines it.

However, science requires very few assumptions, such as "I exist" and "other things exist, and I can prove it to a reasonable degree", which are assumptions every single sane person on this planet makes. So they are hardly incredible assumptions which must be dismissed. Religion and faith require assumptions such as "God's name is Jehovah and he exists everywhere at once while being invisible and watches everything you do and is a force of good and mercy and compassion but he does nothing to stop war or genocides and he will burn you forever and ever in a burning pit of agony should you fail to exercise the free will that he gave you and the mind that he gave you and the independent spirit that he gave you to question the assumptions of men in funny robes and hats who claim to talk to God, because it's absolutely for sure that they know what they talk about but the man on the street corner who babbles about God doesn't know what he's talking about at all because that's somehow different from Revelation and of course the earth was created in 6 days and an all-powerful God needs to rest once a week and likes animal sacrifice and will destroy the earth using an ARMY someday rather than just poofing the evil out of existence like a God would and he must physically capture satan and put him in the lake of fire because somehow with his infinite Q-like power he can't just obliterate Satan using his mind."

To be fair, that's a bit more of an assumption to make than "If I see the ground, feel it, hear things impact it, smell the flowers on it, and taste the fruit that comes from it, it might, just might, be real."

It's a bit of a leap to suggest that the scientific method is on the same level of assumption as religion. And, religion does not blink in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, whereas science, in order to be credible, must revise the theory.

Note how Rhyfelwyr "knows" that God exists. He has no proof and there is no reason for him to know this scientifically. It is a belief, and he erroneously uses the word "know" instead of "believe" as if to put this "special" knowledge on a higher pedestal than stuff he hears, smells, tastes, sees, touches, and feels. It's much better knowledge because it requires no proof whatsoever, and doesn't rely on the senses or even intuitive logic. Much of what his God does is rather counter-intuitive, like his Word being divine, but he is also capable of lying to people. How does that work? Does his lie become true when he speaks it? Can he simply override his previous truth and make it a lie? What's the deal with that? This "special" knowledge that believers refer to is not knowledge by any definition I can find or think of, not one that we commonly agree on, nor use as a scientific definition.

You cannot compare scientific theory with "spiritual knowledge" because they don't exist as anything related to the other in any way, shape, or form. However, because science yes involves the belief that we exist... Reenk can correctly say it is a form of belief. However I think that whitewashes science and faith as being the same thing when they are polar opposites. The energy from fusion at the center of a star is much hotter than the background radiation of the universe, in the extreme. However, both are forms of energy. Faith involves so numerous and so counter-intuitive assumptions that it is the reason it's classified as belief, not knowledge. Science involves assumptions so basic and so self-evident that it not only doesn't require much in terms of belief, on the contrary it challenges all assumptions, all data, all theories, and all methods, but the few assumptions that we make in order to call it science are so essential to sane living in this universe, that if you countered those assumptions, you'd be liable to die pretty quickly and have your radical theories disproved by the force of a Mack truck hitting your face.

The more unfounded and unreasonable the assumption, and the more of these types of assumptions you make, the less likely it is for it to be true. I'd refer people to my Fire-Breathing Leprechaun in a Magic Box theory of existence... it's not science because it's based on nothing but assumptions and wild and counter-intuitive statements which are in direct contradiction of the scientific method or any system of self-evident logic. However, it's in the same category of knowledge as any other religion, because the evidence that it could be true (you can't disprove it) is once again, the primary argument in its defense.

I do find it interesting that Reenk feels he is being intentionally misrepresented... frankly I don't see it. I do believe that people are honestly, and without spite or any other motivation, simply misunderstanding what you're saying, why you're saying it, and what relevance it has to anything if it puts everything under the label "belief", and in such a case there's no point in arguing anything because you can always disagree without giving a reason besides "that's YOUR opinion."

I find it to be radical skepticism, not legitimate theory, but Reenk has disagreed that that is his position, and instead asks his debate opponents to "prove" certain things in order to prove their case, and when they fail to "prove" that science is not the same as belief under his definitions, he declares the argument won. That is what appears to be going on, to me, but once again I have probably misinterpreted his positions. However, I will never understand his positions, so forgive me if this is the best I can come up with; I feel it is pretty darn close.

Under Reenk's standards of proofs, there is no proof of anything nor is it possible to prove anything because it relies on "metaphysical assumptions" he disagrees with and "sensory perception" which he apparently also disagrees with. As such, there is no point in the argument because eventually, you will have to make a metaphysical assumption or a sensory perception to prove a thing, or a logically self-evident and non-contradictory statement, and in all cases, it will not be enough because it all involves some shred of belief, and therefore invalidates it under Reenk's standard of proof.

As such, I haven't a clue how to argue with him. And I don't fully understand his argument, so he can over and over, correctly, point out how what I am saying doesn't quite respond to what he wants me to respond to, or satisfy his standards, or claim that it is a misinterpretation and it isn't what he means. Yet he fails to dumb down the argument so I can keep up with and respond to his arguments, so I once again sit baffled and can't really debate him. But at the same time, I feel he does demand an unreasonable standard of proof and is radical in his position that science is on the same level as faith, based on reasonable definitions of both. But he claims that isn't what he's arguing, and so I am lost and we make no headway.

It's a vicious little circle. I still think that somewhere, somehow, there is a loose end which if tugged, proves that such thinking unravels all reasonable thought and undermines the existence of knowledge at all, and if followed to it's logical conclusion, would destroy the human mind as we know it. As such, even if it were somehow true, there would be no point in believing in it because it would be wholly destructive and disconnect us from the ability to live together in a civilized and enlightened society, because we could never agree on laws or ethics or have any frame of reference from which to build the ability to communicate.

But that's probably a strawman or something, and as such, I respectfully withdraw it and apologize. There's a reason I stayed out of this one until now, and would be happy to bow out once again.

Faith (creationism/religion) versus reason (science); we had this debate already. I made a strong case for reason, and demonstrated using my opponent's own words that they undermine their own arguments and the logical conclusion of their argument is the destruction of reason, and as such, absolute faith is incompatible with reason and inherently dangerous. However, my opponents simply disagree and argue using different definitions and avoid my points, and as such, there is no progress to be made.

This topic, creationism versus evolution, at least focuses on two different specific theories, but the underlying argument is the SAME. Faith does not rely on evidence, and exists in spite of evidence. Science is a different animal entirely, but some compare the two as equals and call one a scientific theory when it is not, and the other a religious theory when it is not. Because we are comparing apples to unicorns, there will be no common ground, no consensus, and no forward progress for the human mind. The discussion was a dead end before it began... religion is not science and religious theories are not based in science and cannot be compared to science. They are different things.

If I said one thing weighed 200 pounds and you countered that pineapples are juicy, I doubt that we would be talking about the same thing and while I am arguing about weight and you are arguing about juicy, we will make no headway. It's a fruitless exercise, no pun intended.

[ajaxfetish]

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions:shrug: These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.No, see, there is where you are wrong.

creationism, as you say, is dependant on a X-factor. If you remove the creator from creationism, nothing is left. And again, as this creator is not proven to exist creationism fails from a scientific viewpoint.

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

I know you guys have carried on along this line, but this is the point where it's easiest for me to address. Science does indeed rely on certain assumptions about the nature of the universe: assumptions which cannot be proven, however difficult it may be to imagine them being wrong.

We assume the existence of cause and effect. We assume that, other factors remaining constant, causes will have the same effect regardless of place and time. And so forth.

A religious approach to the natural world requires more assumptions than 'pure' science, and thus according to Ockham's razor (itself an assumption of sorts) is less preferable. The real distinction is that we all, religious or otherwise, accept the assumptions on which science is predicated. Religious assumptions, however widespread, are not universal.

Personally, I have opinions similar to Seamus and Don Corleone on the matter. I think theistic evolution is entirely possible. From a scientific perspective, it doesn't really matter whether I think that spark of randomness comes from some metaphysical being. I rely on science to know the what and the how of it all.

Ajax

[ajaxfetish]

I will never ever tolerate people with a religious mindset who cant back their mindset up with a proof or two. It does not, however, mean I am against those individuals, I am against their arguments.

Do you want to challenge me about religion?

Say I believe the world is run by "pink invisible unicorns".

Prove me wrong, please.

Now, all that is needed to believe in pink invisible unicorns is a bit of faith... much the same as believing in god.

If YOU prove pink invisible unicorns does not exist, I might start to give you some credit for whatever "god's" existance.

If you can not prove that pink invisible unicorns does not exist, can we please keep this topic on a scientific level?
This makes no sense to me. Why should I need to prove my religion to you? What does it matter to you? I hate fish. Do I need to prove to you that fish are abominable, or can't I just hold that as a personal opinion, even express it in a public setting, and be tolerated for it? I have no interest in proving your pink invisible unicorn belief wrong. I really don't care whether you believe in them.

If I was proselytizing you, or trying to convince you my faith is correct, then I could see a reason for you to take issue with me. But just refusing to tolerate me for my mindset? :thumbsdown:

Ajax

[Crandaeolon]

Interesting discussion, though most of it has been done a million times already.

Here's a link to a fairly comprehensive database of claims made by creationists and rebuttals to them: http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/list.html

And here is a list of counter-rebuttals: http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims

Finally, to quote something specific to this discussion:


Claim CA301:
Science is based on naturalism, the unproven assumption that nature is all there is.

Response:

1. The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically (e.g., Astin et al. 2000; Enright 1999). It gets little attention because it has never been reliably observed. Still, there are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature.

2. The very same form of naturalism is used by everyone, including creationists, in their day-to-day lives. People literally could not survive without making naturalistic assumptions. Creationism itself is based on the naturalistic assumption that the Bible has not changed since the last time it was read.

3. Naturalism works. By assuming methodological naturalism, we have made tremendous advances in industry, medicine, agriculture, and many other fields. Supernaturalism has never led anywhere. Newton, for example, wrote far more on theology than he did on physics, but his theological work is largely forgotten because there has been no reason to remember it other than for historical curiosity.

4. Supernaturalism is contentious. Scientific findings are based on hard evidence, and scientists can point at the evidence to resolve disputes. People tend to have different and incompatible ideas of what form supernatural influences take, and all too often the only effective way they have found for reaching a consensus is by killing each other.

Hopefully this is helpful to someone.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I think Reenk Roink was simply arguing that the metaphysical preumptions which creationism makes does not mean that science cannot be used to prove it, as Kadagar suggested. I don't think Reenk was suggesting so much that evolution has dubious foundations, rather that creationism's own foundations does not mean that science cannot be applied to it.

Having said that this is complicated so I could be totally wrong. :shrug:

Also ATPG, please do not attack Christianity, especially when you don't understand the basics of the religion. You can hardly hope to understand it by reading the Skeptics Annotated Bible. :no:

[InsaneApache]

Excellent post ATPG. :bow:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I think Reenk Roink was simply arguing that the metaphysical preumptions which creationism makes does not mean that science cannot be used to prove it, as Kadagar suggested. I don't think Reenk was suggesting so much that evolution has dubious foundations, rather that creationism's own foundations does not mean that science cannot be applied to it.

Perhaps he was saying that. I honestly got lost somewhere in the middle of it all. Maybe you could translate for me. :grin:


Having said that this is complicated so I could be totally wrong. :shrug:

Or, perhaps not. :grin:


Also ATPG, please do not attack Christianity, especially when you don't understand the basics of the religion. You can hardly hope to understand it by reading the Skeptics Annotated Bible. :no:

Where was I attacking Christianity?

Even if I were, if Christianity is allowed to attack that which it disagrees with (i.e. condemning people to hell for not accepting Jesus) I can criticize it all day long under the rules of a fair argument and, by the way, freedom of speech.

And I would be delighted to tell you how I really feel about religion. I've been pulling my punches to be civil and productive... :laugh4:



Excellent post ATPG.

Many thanks! Sometimes I get drowned in posts from my critics, I almost forget some people agree with me on stuff. :bow: The support is much appreciated.

[Rhyfelwyr]

ATPG your contributions are always very good and well thought out, but you do have a tendency to attack religions when it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. What was the point with the bit in spoilers in your main post here? Also, I haven't told anyone they are going to hell in this thread, and while there is nothing wrong with attacking Christianity, it has a time and a place.

[Askthepizzaguy]

ATPG your contributions are always very good and well thought out, but you do have a tendency to attack religions when it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. What was the point with the bit in spoilers in your main post here? Also, I haven't told anyone they are going to hell in this thread, and while there is nothing wrong with attacking Christianity, it has a time and a place.

The point was obviously to highlight the many unsupported assumptions one must make when accepting as fact a religion's teachings. You not only must believe there is a God, but his name is Joe (Jehovah) and he sleeps only on Sundays, and he's really nice unless you believe he didn't kill his own son, in which case he burns you forever and ever, while being infinitely merciful. Look, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, or that it's right or wrong to BELIEVE it is true, but it is wrong to state it like it's a known and proven fact. It's belief, not knowledge, by the definitions of both.

A long string of increasingly strange assumptions, wild and counter-intuitive ones... hey, maybe it is the truth! Maybe the universe does exist precisely as your interpretation of a religion says it does! That's one heck of a lottery winning. I don't dispute that it could be true. I dispute that it's an established fact, and it most certainly isn't knowledge. For it to be knowledge you believe it to be true, and it has to be true, and there should be some neutral way of using evidence to prove it to be true. For example, I can prove using evidence what my actual name is. I can't prove using actual evidence that God's name is Jehovah. One Bible says "Jehovah" another calls him "Allah". He's got many names, apparently. In many languages. It's not an attack on Christianity to point out that it has unsupported assumptions to a much larger degree than what we call science. It's a fact, and facts are usually quite neutral things.

If I say my name is Daniel and you say it is not, I wouldn't get angry, I'd use facts to prove it. If you say God's name is Jehovah and I say that you can't know that, you could use facts to prove it; but there aren't any facts about God. That's why it's not knowledge, it's belief.

It's not an attack; it's reality.



Also, I haven't told anyone they are going to hell in this thread

PS- not in this thread, no. In others, yes. It doesn't disappear. You can condemn people to hell in one thread, but you cannot get mad at a criticism of religion in another, which discusses the difference between religion and science, which involves pointing out the unfounded assumptions of a particular religion as an example. One is a bit more hurtful than the other, might I add, but that's beside the point. I'm a big boy and I can handle whatever God dishes out as punishment for using the free will, critical mind, and independent spirit that he GAVE me as a gift and then expected me not to use.

[Rhyfelwyr]

"God's name is Jehovah and he exists everywhere at once while being invisible and watches everything you do and is a force of good and mercy and compassion but he does nothing to stop war or genocides and he will burn you forever and ever in a burning pit of agony should you fail to exercise the free will that he gave you and the mind that he gave you and the independent spirit that he gave you to question the assumptions of men in funny robes and hats who claim to talk to God, because it's absolutely for sure that they know what they talk about but the man on the street corner who babbles about God doesn't know what he's talking about at all because that's somehow different from Revelation and of course the earth was created in 6 days and an all-powerful God needs to rest once a week and likes animal sacrifice and will destroy the earth using an ARMY someday rather than just poofing the evil out of existence like a God would and he must physically capture satan and put him in the lake of fire because somehow with his infinite Q-like power he can't just obliterate Satan using his mind."

The problem is that so much there is just plain wrong. I don't have a problem with people attacking the idea of Christianity, but if they want to go into specifics then they should get it right.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The problem is that so much there is just plain wrong. I don't have a problem with people attacking the idea of Christianity, but if they want to go into specifics then they should get it right.

Perhaps there is hyperbole in there, but so far as I'm aware most of it is correct. However, if you'll agree to the definition of knowledge and belief as found in a mutually agreed upon dictionary, I'll agree that the teachings of your religion are precisely what it says in your Bible and no one else's, and especially not what they teach to children or to people who attend church.

Also, we're now quibbling over the specifics of a religion, but you don't deny that the religion's teachings are a long series of assumptions which aren't supported by fact in the way science does. So you concede that it was a relevant example, even if some data was flawed. I'll use the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun in a Magic Box religion next time as an example, to avoid confusion, misinterpretation, or offending anyone's sensibilities.

:bow:

[InsaneApache]

I'm constantly amazed at how some people could take as fact the ramblings of an iron age psychotic who couldn't get his hands on any lithium. But that's just me. :juggle2:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm constantly amazed at how some people could take as fact the ramblings of an iron age psychotic who couldn't get his hands on any lithium. But that's just me. :juggle2:

To be honest, I find much of what the religion teaches to be of value to people of that era. Some of it not so much.

These days we have education, philosophy, freedom of religion, ethics, law... many things which fill in the goal of a church or especially a state sponsored church. And I say people can believe in the ramblings of a man from thousands of years ago... some philosophers who lived around the time of classical Greece were valuable thinkers, some men were saintly, some men held belief but also made logical sense and contributed positively. People can also freely choose to join the church of Scientology if they want, or start their own religion. Doesn't bother me; just don't call it "knowledge" and speak as if you know something the rest of us do not, because you can't. You don't have access to something the rest of us do not unless you're claiming to actually BE God or Godlike. In which case, a simple demonstration of your power would convince me. Cure all the world's diseases in the next 24 hours.

I am timing you. And...... go!

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm constantly amazed at how some people could take as fact the ramblings of an iron age psychotic who couldn't get his hands on any lithium. But that's just me. :juggle2:

Do you think I am a Christian because I read the Bible and it convinced me, or instead that I became a Christian and then felt compelled to read the Bible?

[InsaneApache]

Do you think I am a Christian because I read the Bible and it convinced me, or instead that I became a Christian and then felt compelled to read the Bible?

My view is brainwashing.

[Kadagar_AV]

ATPG>>> I applaud your first post...

ajaxfetish>>>
I know you guys have carried on along this line, but this is the point where it's easiest for me to address. Science does indeed rely on certain assumptions about the nature of the universe: assumptions which cannot be proven, however difficult it may be to imagine them being wrong.

Yes AND no. "Rely" is the wrong word to use. If we would all one day wake up and realise that we are all someones imagination then science could deal with it. Again, science is neutral. Change the facts and science will change with it.

religion however is static, why else would religion have fought against science so hard?

There is some assumptions such as: "I think, therefor I exist". These are NOT universal TRUTHS, but something we can universably agree on. Religions assumptions is something the world as a whole can NOT agree on. No matter what religion you choose you will always belong to a minority.

So to compare the basic assumptions of religion and science is not doable. And they are def not on an equal footing.


This makes no sense to me. Why should I need to prove my religion to you? What does it matter to you? I hate fish. Do I need to prove to you that fish are abominable, or can't I just hold that as a personal opinion, even express it in a public setting, and be tolerated for it? I have no interest in proving your pink invisible unicorn belief wrong. I really don't care whether you believe in them.

If I was proselytizing you, or trying to convince you my faith is correct, then I could see a reason for you to take issue with me. But just refusing to tolerate me for my mindset?

Where did you get that from? You might want to re-read what I had written.

My point was: religion is based on faith *am I repeating myself, I think I am*. If you want a scientific debate, you will have to leave faith out of it.

We can either have a discussion where you base your arguments on a faith in god, and I base my arguments on the belief in a invisible pink unicorn... Or we can decide to leave faith out of the debate and instead back our arguments up with scientific arguments.


Rhyfelwyr>>>
Maybe I misunderstood, but I think Reenk Roink was simply arguing that the metaphysical preumptions which creationism makes does not mean that science cannot be used to prove it, as Kadagar suggested.

Science can never prove that a faith is wrong. And since creationism is based on faith, science can't prove it wrong. Science can only adress the scientifical claims creationism makes, however, science can never attack the foundation of creationism (and have no intent on doing it either).

If some people want to believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns, or in God, or Allah, or Fire-Breathing Leprechaun in a Magic Box and so on, fine... Science has nothing against it! In fact, very many scientists belong to one religion or another.


Do you think I am a Christian because I read the Bible and it convinced me, or instead that I became a Christian and then felt compelled to read the Bible?

Who cares? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This topic, creationism versus evolution, at least focuses on two different specific theories, but the underlying argument is the SAME. Faith does not rely on evidence, and exists in spite of evidence. Science is a different animal entirely, but some compare the two as equals and call one a scientific theory when it is not, and the other a religious theory when it is not. Because we are comparing apples to unicorns, there will be no common ground, no consensus, and no forward progress for the human mind. The discussion was a dead end before it began... religion is not science and religious theories are not based in science and cannot be compared to science. They are different things.

No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?

[Kadagar_AV]

No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?

Such as?

"there is a creator?"... or?

[Ironside]

No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?

And that evaluation has already concluded that creationism is wrong, unless "God did it" is a valid argument. Occationally they do have a relevant point, but it's often clouded by either going into "you're wrong thus I'm right by default" or having no valid alternative explaination (after all, science is about trying to get the most correct answer, getting THE correct answer is impossible) or one that can easily be debunked by some more research on the subject.

And they are also often forgetting the most important thing to remember about science: Most hypothesies will be wrong and are always incomplete (due to not being sure about ever reaching THE correct answer), thus you can find flaws in the theories. But usually it's a modification that's needed and not the complete rewriting that creationists wants to.




For example, it would probably surprise most people to learn that fossil evidence strongly indicates evolution follows a quantum/logarithmic, not a linear time scale, as most theories would have predicted.


Personally, it makes perfect sence. It is how life acts: It always tries to adapt, no matter how the deck is stacked (the genes). So rapid changes gives rapid adaptation. There's also some quite fresh research about the expression of genes, that's very influencial and flexible. Shows signs of Lamackism for example. Wouldn't surprice me if that's a major part of the development of new species.

[Reenk Roink]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I think Reenk Roink was simply arguing that the metaphysical preumptions which creationism makes does not mean that science cannot be used to prove it, as Kadagar suggested. I don't think Reenk was suggesting so much that evolution has dubious foundations, rather that creationism's own foundations does not mean that science cannot be applied to it.

Having said that this is complicated so I could be totally wrong. :shrug:

No this is indeed part of my position. :2thumbsup:

My interest at this point is about the demarcation from science from creationism, the problems that exist with certain criteria.


No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?

:yes: Exactly!

This whole discussion isn't about the correctness of the assumptions anyway, I merely pointed the metaphysical assumptions of naturalism and realism to make the point that when a system (I hesitate to say theory because I must speak of creationism here and some people get mighty riled up about that) is said to be testable and falsifiable, it is NOT speaking about the testability and falsifiability of the metaphysical assumptions it rests on.

This is why I haven't bothered to address Kadagar anymore, who I think sees me as some sort of creationist and believes I am using the bible when I haven't even so much as referenced it until now.

Or Askthepizzaguy who despite noting my denials of things attributed to me sees my position as some kind of radical skepticism and makes me out as having the claim that science and religion are the same because neither can be proven.

[Reenk Roink]

And that evaluation has already concluded that creationism is wrong, unless "God did it" is a valid argument. Occationally they do have a relevant point, but it's often clouded by either going into "you're wrong thus I'm right by default" or having no valid alternative explaination (after all, science is about trying to get the most correct answer, getting THE correct answer is impossible) or one that can easily be debunked by some more research on the subject.

Yes! The best way to proceed against creationism is to show that its claims have certainly been put to the test and falsified.

For example, young earth creationism's claim on the age of the earth has not held up very well against the testing. Is this not more convincing then saying creationism is not testable and occupies a whole other division than science?

[Kadagar_AV]

reenk roink,

A) Do you agree that creationism as a model totally fails if you remove god from it?

B) Do you agree that the idea of a god is un-testable and a matter of own belief?

Simple yes/no answers is quite ok :)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

reenk roink,

A) Do you agree that creationism as a model totally fails if you remove god from it?

B) Do you agree that the idea of a god is un-testable and a matter of own belief?

Simple yes/no answers is quite ok :)

Kadagar, how carefully have you read the thread?

Simple answer on a scale of 1 to 10 3 is quite ok :)

[Rhyfelwyr]

My view is brainwashing.

So I brainwashed myself? :dizzy2:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm not trying to prove creationism I'm just asking how strong the evidence for evolution is. 1) Life is self-replicating

2) This replication has variants through mixing (sex) and mutation

3) Not all life replicates at the same rate


Voilà. Neither of these three maxims is in much serious dispute. Just take it from these three. One can even deem '3' superflous.
It follows that evolution is one of the strongest, most elegant explanatory theories of science. :2thumbsup:

[Kadagar_AV]

Kadagar, how carefully have you read the thread?

Simple answer on a scale of 1 to 10 3 is quite ok :)

I fail to see your point?


Rhyfelwyr, are you american?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Creationism could be exactly the same as normal science, if you explain the Big Bang by "God did it". You can also dispute there was ever a Big bang, there are alternative theories, however all science seems to point at an origin of the universe and even precious fractions of a second thereafter, mathematically speaking.

The only claim creationism can make that's any different from actual science is how, and the order in which, things were created. The how is God; that's not exactly testable, is it? And in which order, that's not quite testable at this point either, but we do have strong evidence from the fossil record, from observing thermodynamics and gravity and the current motion of planets, stars, and the galaxies, the redshift, and all other physical phenomena which seems to lead to the conclusion that events happened along a path very similar at the very least, if not exactly like, current Big Bang theory and the resulting explanations about the motion and settling of objects in the universe.

What claim, Rhyfelwyr, Sasaki, anyone.... what claim does creationism make besides God did it? Is there a specific dispute with evolution or big bang? If they are saying everything poofed into existence 6000 years ago involving a supernatural deity, there is no evidence of that; it's pure belief. If they are saying it happened millions or billions of years ago but the process has been sped up by God, there's no evidence of that either. Some believe in an inflationary period of the universe based on math, but that didn't last very long in the cosmological sense.

Creationism covers a wide variety of theories, from the plausible (Big Bang, but not in the Godless sense... Big Bang being evidence of God's existence :2thumbsup:) to the implausible (Biblical creationism from 6 to tens of thousands of years ago, with God creating creatures specifically in a certain order which seems to have been disproved by the fossil record and many other things that we think about evolution of cells and organisms) so perhaps we should... define our terms.

*scary violin noise* *shower stabbing scene from Psycho*

If creationism is just current scientific theory, but coupled with "I think God is the reason behind the science" then whatever, that's valid enough. But if you say "Scientific findings by the majority of scientists are wrong because my religion says.... plus this theory by a religious scientist which has been discredited or can never be proven says..." then it's not science, it's religion.

[Strike For The South]

I didn't get shot into an acidy hole, beat out 100 million look alikes, force my way into an egg and lose my tail to get shot out of said hole and then immedaitly worry about the meaning of life and why we are here. I'm going to secs and booze have fun playing Plato.

[InsaneApache]

So I brainwashed myself? :dizzy2:

So are you trying to tell me that you woke up one morning, having never heard of christianity, never been exposed to the bible and decided that it would be nice if you became a christian?

Why not a hindu/moslem/buddhist/zoroastran/b'haism/scientologist/moonie/jew/sikh/jainism/baal? :inquisitive:

[Pannonian]

So are you trying to tell me that you woke up one morning, having never heard of christianity, never been exposed to the bible and decided that it would be nice if you became a christian?

Why not a hindu/moslem/buddhist/zoroastran/b'haism/scientologist/moonie/jew/sikh/jainism/baal? :inquisitive:
I prefer a Navaros-type Jew, ie. someone who used to be a Christian, but decided the New Testament was heretical and that the Old Testament was the way to go. I'd vote for him in an election, just to see what kind of government policies he'd propose.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhyfelwyr, are you american?

Yes. My repeated claims to being Scottish, the order of flags in my sig, are all lies. Further, Methuselah made up the myth that I am Welsh, and later Cornish, just to further hide the fact that I am in fact American.

OK sorry for being sarcastic but I have a sore head, no I am not American.


1) Life is self-replicating

2) This replication has variants through mixing (sex) and mutation

3) Not all life replicates at the same rate


Voilà. Neither of these three maxims is in much serious dispute. Just take it from these three. One can even deem '3' superflous.
It follows that evolution is one of the strongest, most elegant explanatory theories of science. :2thumbsup:

I wasn't arguing against that, and so I probably haven't defined my terms as ATPG suggested. Creationism as I used the word meant that God put people on the earth at some point seperate from the animals, and so we don't have any ape-like ancestors. No need for it to be just 6,000 year ago either, or the other stereotyped young earth creationist stuff.


So are you trying to tell me that you woke up one morning, having never heard of christianity, never been exposed to the bible and decided that it would be nice if you became a christian?

Why not a hindu/moslem/buddhist/zoroastran/b'haism/scientologist/moonie/jew/sikh/jainism/baal? :inquisitive:

For a start, only Christianity and Islam (and Judaism, but I'm not Jewish) offer the idea of a God anything like the one I imagine. Islam is about weighing up your good against your evil, meriting entry into Heaven by good your works. Christianity is about admitting you are sinner and no man could ever deserve to see Heaven - I know which one is appropriate for me at least.

Also, from your point of view, cultural influence is hardly equal to brainwashing.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I wasn't arguing against that, and so I probably haven't defined my terms as ATPG suggested. Creationism as I used the word meant that God put people on the earth at some point seperate from the animals, and so we don't have any ape-like ancestors. No need for it to be just 6,000 year ago either, or the other stereotyped young earth creationist stuff.

1. Why is our DNA 98 percent compatible with a chimpanzee? And the evolutionary ancestors of the chimpanzee still related to human DNA to a gradually lessening degree?

2. Why are our bodies covered in hair, why do we have similar blood, brains, bone structure, internal organs, why are we mortal, have animal-like instincts, fears, impulses, etc?

3. Why does the fossil record show modern humans appearing around the same time many of the other genus Homo went extinct?

4. Do you not see the connection between modern man and Neanderthalus?

5. Why did God create all these other species and why are they not mentioned in the Bible?

6. If God created all species without the use of evolution, why are new species evolving constantly, and throughout the billions of years life has been on this planet? Why does it not mention the GRADUAL creation of all species, and why does the Bible get the order of creation all wrong according to all scientific evidence?


Genesis 1:24
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.

Seems to be an endorsement of evolution to me. Now, is it really so strange that if God created all creatures this way, he could create man the same way, using basically the same parts and DNA as a chimpanzee? Why are ALL the other species on this planet related to one another through genetics and evolutionary processes, but not human beings, yet that's what the evidence shows?

Why would God choose man to be the only living being not descended from the primordial form of life? Why, if that is so, is he so similar, not unique in size or strength or speed, and so enslaved to his desires, his passions, his fears and prejudices, excepting through education and training to overcome it?

Man existed once as a wild, barbarous, hunting animal without a spoken language or form of laws or religion or philosophy, according to all evidence to date. Man also co-existed with other now extinct examples of the genus Homo, and the spread of Man seems to be the reason they were wiped out. But their fossils exist, and they exist at the same time as Man, and they are even more closely related to Man than the chimpanzee.

But don't take my word for it. Please, check into what science has to say about evolutionary biology, especially where it relates to man, since that seems to be your dispute.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah I always wondered why people used that Genesis verse to say animals don't evolve, doesn't really suggest that at all.

I don't read too much into the DNA similarities. Bananas share 50% of our DNA but we don't consider them to be half human.

Still, I am trying to look into this to try to understand evolution better...

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't read too much into the DNA similarities. Bananas share 50% of our DNA but we don't consider them to be half human.

I'll take that argument and run with it. :bow:

What makes them so different, on the cellular level? Since we are multicellular organisms and DNA exists on a cellular level, look at the cells.

They are about 50% of what you'd expect to find in a human cell. Maybe better. See the nucleus, see the ribosomes, see all the same parts... except for that cell wall on top of the cell membrane. And the photosynthetic properties of certain plant cells. So, yes there are differences in morphology; in the extreme. But on the cellular level... they are about 50% of what you'd expect to find in a human, and that explains why 50% of their DNA (as you say) is the same. I'm not sure that's the exact figure.

They aren't half human, they are 100% banana. However, their DNA makes them still part of the family of DNA-based multicellular life forms from Planet Earth. That makes them related to us, however distantly. We eat them... much like other animals eat other things they have a common ancestor with. Birds eat other birds. Mammals eat other mammals. People eat monkey brains. Just because we eat them, that doesn't mean we are so different from them that we are a totally alien life form from a separate family of God's creation. He made us basically the same way, and gave us a little bit more intelligence and so forth, if He was responsible for us being created at all.

Notice how plants evolve. Humans have even created new species and hybrids of plants. They did the same with animals; see the dog and the wolf. We've domesticated animals for thousands of years and just in that frame of time, we've seen new species created by... intelligent design coupled with evolution. Imagine! :yes:

But! New species are created all the time through random chance and natural selection. Look at bacteria, viruses, and new adaptations of plants and animals since humans started altering the environment, temperature, and acidity levels, among other things. That didn't happen by design, it happened through an unrelated event and natural selection. And species mutate rather randomly on their own as well.

Even human beings are known to be born with genetic mutations, as we call it. Imagine how the various "races" of human came to be... men from africa moved to the north, gained more body hair, and lost their melanin, and survived much better under those conditions. We weren't always white, you know. Others gained even darker skin and lost more of their body hair. They adapted better to those conditions. Some developed fatty deposits around their eyes, others developed in certain other ways. But we are still human beings and to me there's no difference between black and white skin or blonde or black hair, curly or straight. We're all in the family of man, the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

If human beings went to different isolated planets and procreated, eventually you'd end up with different species. Notice the larger difference between Caucasian DNA and Native American DNA than say, others. Those genetic pools were isolated from one another and didn't intermarry. Had this gone on for millions of years, enough differences might have made us incompatible to mate with one another, much like various species of birds once started as one species and then morphed through adaptations and natural selection into several different kinds which can no longer even physically mate with one another due to behavioral patterns, isolation, or different morphologies. It's all well documented and observable, repeating phenomena, which human beings are not immune or excluded from. We've been changing since we arrived here. You look much different from your ancestor of just 200 years or 1000 years ago... very different in terms of skeletal structure. People are taller now, for example, ever so slightly. That trait has been naturally selected for, and even today, shorter people have more difficulty finding mates than taller people.

women typically describe their ideal man as "tall, dark, and handsome". Some describe it in other ways, but short is not typically the ideal trait, and it is therefore not selected for. As such, over time, the species is getting progressively taller. Other traits, like native american ancestry, are being slowly diluted into the rest of the population, and they aren't procreating at the same rate as others. The bottom line is that down the road, the human race will be taller, darker skinned, and more homogenous. You can basically kiss being "white" goodbye. I'm white and I say good riddance... it's fun being unique but I prefer racial inequality and divisiveness to go away. By the time it happens, everyone who once thought about racial pride will be long, long, long dead, and no one alive at the time will even consider race to be a factor. They might notice some slightly darker or lighter skin, but since we will all be a shade of mocha, it's not going to bother them that much. African Americans have an increasing amount of white in them, as well as other races. And white people are increasingly procreating with hispanic, asian, and african people. Eventually we will be one big happy family. It will take more time in racially intolerant and homogenous cultures, however the path towards ending racial prejudice and intolerance is one we will always walk, in an inexorable evolutionary path towards a united homo sapiens sapiens "race".

And then, we will colonize other planets and there actually will be differences again. There might be such a thing one day as "Martian DNA" or "Jupiter's Moon DNA" or human DNA in other star systems. Provided we overcome our intolerance and ignorance of one another, I'd say that could potentially be a good thing, as it would ensure the survival of mankind for a long time, hopefully.

And... I think I've derailed myself quite fully now. Righting the train...

DNA is an impressive design, or a very impressive spontaneous accident. Whatever it is, you share it with a Banana. You're not completely dissimilar, therefore, to a banana. You're also made out of the same stuff, carbon, as Diamonds. So, "shine on, you crazy diamond", seeing as you're also atomically related to Diamonds, and made of the same matter as the rest of the twinkling lights in the heavens.

You're a child of the stars themselves. I think that's pretty spiritual, myself. And if God did create all this, it's very beautiful. But it does appear that he used evolutionary processes and at least something SIMILAR to the Big Bang to accomplish it. Why would he make it appear otherwise? A test of faith? Why put dinosaurs in the ground, etc, create them and then destroy them? What's the point?

He either used evolution, or he makes mistakes. The second one seems to be in direct contradiction of everything you've been taught about him, so I would go with the first option.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Once again I didn't say evolution has/does not happen, maybe we humans just had a different starting point is all.

It's not surprising our bodies share so much DNA with bananas, its the building block of all life. But then, I like to think there is something which humans have that a banana does not... some kind of soul/consciousness. If we don't, we are really just biological robots.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Once again I didn't say evolution has/does not happen, maybe we humans just had a different starting point is all.

It's not surprising our bodies share so much DNA with bananas, its the building block of all life. But then, I like to think there is something which humans have that a banana does not... some kind of soul/consciousness. If we don't, we are really just biological robots.

We are biological robots...but not "just" biological robots.

[Rhyfelwyr]

We are biological robots...but not "just" biological robots.

What do you mean?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What do you mean?

Soul implies that there is some part of us separate from our biological body and mind--but that's a problematic claim. But, we are more conscious that any other animal, so I wouldn't say "just".

[Askthepizzaguy]

Once again I didn't say evolution has/does not happen, maybe we humans just had a different starting point is all.

Okay, but where, and why a different starting point? Is it because of the Bible, or because of the idea of being related to other life forms on this planet is somehow distasteful? It's not 100% proven, so you can believe what you like. But why, I ask, do you think humans are special? Other than being intelligent and moral?

I'd argue that a well trained, and well-loved, canine companion is fairly moral, loyal, and intelligent. Dolphins are the same way. There are other, lesser forms of intelligence and morality in this world, and it occurs naturally in animals. Like mothers who instinctively guard their young, in spite of their other instinct to survive. It might be un-intelligent instinct but it's also the morally correct thing to do. Other animals eat their children, and I'm not so sure that's the moral thing to do. And which species survived and became the dominant species? The human being, who is intelligent, moral, and loves their children and does not eat them.

Seems morality is naturally selected for!


It's not surprising our bodies share so much DNA with bananas, its the building block of all life. But then, I like to think there is something which humans have that a banana does not... some kind of soul/consciousness. If we don't, we are really just biological robots.

I'd like to think so too, maybe we do have a spirit form. But in this mortal shell, we are operating "just biological robots" as our mode of transportation and corporeal existence. When we die, the homo sapien that we are dies, not our soul. So isn't that shell... just a biological robot? One that breaks down and stops functioning?

Consider if you have a soul, yes maybe we do. I consider our existence to be very much not confined to our little weak mortal bodies. An everlasting soul? I don't know. But I do know our mortal flesh is not divine or godlike, and it is nothing more than an animal. A biological robot, if you will. I command this robot, just as I command my computer to type things. it's just a shell for your consciousness to float around in. When it is gone, you either disappear and get a new one, or your consciousness is gone as well. I'm not sure which, and since I can't stop it from happening, I don't really care. It will happen, then I will find out.


We are biological robots...but not "just" biological robots.

Ah... indeed. I believe that we are something more, I just know not what.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ah... indeed. I believe that we are something more, I just know not what.

The problem with saying "robots" is that our robots suck :tongue3:

We would be very complex robots...but clearly there is no metaphysical "me" inside my body/mind anywhere making choices. So in that sense we are just robots.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah don't get me wrong our bodies are just biological machines, I would gladly trade mine for an armoured electronic machine with a jet pack and rocket launchers any day.

But I do think there is more to us that just our bodies and brains. Or maybe our brains could be said to be our consciosness/soul. Hmm... any thoughts?

[Kadagar_AV]

Once again I didn't say evolution has/does not happen, maybe we humans just had a different starting point is all.

It's not surprising our bodies share so much DNA with bananas, its the building block of all life. But then, I like to think there is something which humans have that a banana does not... some kind of soul/consciousness. If we don't, we are really just biological robots.

what's so scary about being related to the rest of the world? And exactly what properties does humans have that animals don't?



I have seen a giraffe mother who refused to leave her dead baby. She was aware of the fact it was dead, but she was grieving. She stayed at the body some days after her flock had went on, protecting her dead baby from raptors.

Gorillas has been known to have sex out of love. They even sue the missionary position, looking each other deep in the eyes as they have sex, then stroking and kissing each other before doing it all again...

I'm just curious, what separates us from the animals? Cars?

We have evidence of grief, love, hate, jelousy, valour, bravery and so on from the animal world...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yeah don't get me wrong our bodies are just biological machines, I would gladly trade mine for an armoured electronic machine with a jet pack and rocket launchers any day.

But I do think there is more to us that just our bodies and brains. Or maybe our brains could be said to be our consciosness/soul. Hmm... any thoughts?

Our brains being our "soul" is certainly the simpler explanation (why suppose the existence of some sort of ephemeral personality or "ghost in the machine"?) and I believe the correct one. For example, when someones brain is damaged, their personality changes. How can damaging just the physical part damage the soul? And how can the soul affect anything in the mind if it isn't made of substance? The greek's theorized that it "curved atoms" or something like that but that seems like a huge stretch to me.

Seems more accurate to say "we don't have souls, but it's better to act like we do". Especially since that's our natural inclination...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't understand why people talk about emotion as a human trait that seperates us from animals, to me it just looks like animal instinct at its worst. I'm a bit of a stoic.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm just curious, what separates us from the animals? Cars?



Well, do animals have cars? :juggle2:

[Kadagar_AV]

Well, do animals have cars? :juggle2:

Sooo... cars is what dictates we have a soul and animals dont? Or what do you mean?

[Rhyfelwyr]

There's so much seperating us from animals its hard to know where to begin....

But I know, that's not proof for creationsim any more than DNA similarities are for evolution.

Hmm, where were we...

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well, do animals have cars?

I'm fairly sure I've seen a chimp driving an automobile in a movie. Heck, they even recently went into space, long after it happened in real life. Hollywood gives chimps their wheels so they can cruise the zoos and pick up chimpcks, and lets them blast into space so they can find intelligent life somewhere in this universe.

:bounce:


We would be very complex robots...but clearly there is no metaphysical "me" inside my body/mind anywhere making choices. So in that sense we are just robots.

Biological robots... hmmm...

I think it would be very difficult for science to replicate using a robot machine the biological processes of a cell. So far we can do all kinds of surgery with a DNA strand, but we certainly can't create a cell out of chemicals that are just lying around without using other cells.

If we can't reproduce the cell on our own, I think we've got a VERY long way to go in creating a robot as complex as human beings. And if we did... we would be in one sense nearly as powerful as a God. I'm not sure that's a good idea. I don't like some of the things we are trying with cloning, for example. As soon as cloning starts happening for humans I'm seriously going to fight for legal protections for them.

[Askthepizzaguy]

There's so much seperating us from animals its hard to know where to begin....

Please, begin anywhere, and give me as many examples of such as you care to. I'm genuinely curious.

[InsaneApache]

Sums it up for me. :book: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d_2BXNvdm0)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Please, begin anywhere, and give me as many examples of such as you care to. I'm genuinely curious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOK49CnJj-4

[Ironside]

Once again I didn't say evolution has/does not happen, maybe we humans just had a different starting point is all.

It's not surprising our bodies share so much DNA with bananas, its the building block of all life. But then, I like to think there is something which humans have that a banana does not... some kind of soul/consciousness. If we don't, we are really just biological robots.

It's interesting that the just is what we fear, that if our mind is only chemicals moving inside our brains, we're suddenly becoming lesser in some way. If our consciousness stems from our biological robots are we then less conscious?


Soul implies that there is some part of us separate from our biological body and mind--but that's a problematic claim. But, we are more conscious that any other animal, so I wouldn't say "just".

More aimed at Rhyfelwyr, but most relevant in this context.

So... at what point is the consciousness of a child higher than of an animal? Is that the point where the soul enter the body? :mellow:

Also related, if the soul exist and are of a more eternal state, but the soul's expression is dependant on the brain the soul inhabit (shown by personality changes, or even better, split personality), how can it be any certainy that animals don't have a soul?


I don't understand why people talk about emotion as a human trait that seperates us from animals, to me it just looks like animal instinct at its worst. I'm a bit of a stoic.

You haven't given this one much thought have you?

For starters, why shouldn't I murder if I can get away with it and it's logically beneficial for me? An even more important question is how could I decide that's it's beneficial for me without emotions?
One simple example is if you got to choose between two times at the dentist. One is next week and the second is a month from now. You're not busy at any of the times. Logically, which time is better? Neither, so how do you logically choose?

Also, one well-known state of lack of emotions is known as apathy, hardly the state any human strives for.

And finally, when did you logically decide that God exist? Remind you that knowing things are in the realm of emotions. :evilgrin:

To summarise, while logic thinking is a great tool, it's the emotions that drives us.


There's so much seperating us from animals its hard to know where to begin....


I can give a few fairly advanced traits that animals have (and some humans lack). Self-restraint (choose a large reward later instead of a small one now), logic thinking (solving a problem in your mind before even trying and then use that experience to solve a even more complicated one), preparation (adapt so when you got bad luck one day, you gotten enough resourses to handle that. This in a non-natural way, so it requires more than instinct) and lying (not a nice achivement, but it is harder than telling the truth).

That's a few ones I got in mind at the moment, but feel free to add stuff that separates us from the animals and I'll see at least some of the research on that area.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOK49CnJj-4

A few notes, stupidity=lack of soul or "the ghost in the machine"?

Second, it's hard to determine purpose with lack of communication. Simply put, the dog may very play around in that video and not really caring about capturing the squirrel (that hardly act scared anyway).
How can we be certain that an animal doesn't have a philosophical thought, when we don't know how to fully communicate with them? Parrot and ape conversations were they learnt a bit of human language would be quite interesting to see.

[Lemur]

Well, do animals have cars? :juggle2:
Yes, but they're not happy about it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWQvFmtmXc8).

[Rhyfelwyr]

Things like logical thought are just our brain doing its 'robotic' bit, doesn't really say anything about whether or not we have a 'soul'. For the self-restraint thing, waiting for a better reward is not what I had in mind. Animals don't actually deny themselves just for the sake of it like us folks do. We are by nature very restrained compared to any animal.

As for the things with emotions, I think we act the way we do because of morals, not just our genes hardcoding us with emotions to manipulate how we act. When I see people get angry and go in a rage, it just looks completely ridiculous, honestly some people give Darwin credit. Animal-like emotions such as hate, fear, anger, some elements of 'love', they are the polar opposite things like morality which people should base their actions upon.

I guess I am coming from the Stoic position, maybe this can clarify things a bit. Just replaced the 'logos/nature' with 'God/godliness' and you have my position. Taken from Wikipedia:

The ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts in the past than they do today. The word 'stoic' has come to mean 'unemotional' or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from 'passion' by following 'reason.' The Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions, rather they sought to transform them by a resolute 'askēsis' which enables a person to develop clear judgment and inner calm [22]. Logic, reflection, and concentration were the methods of such self-discipline.

Borrowing from the Cynics, the foundation of Stoic ethics is that good lies in the state of the soul itself; in wisdom and self-control. Stoic ethics stressed the rule: "Follow where reason leads." One must therefore strive to be free of the passions, bearing in mind that the ancient meaning of 'passion' was "anguish" or "suffering",[23] that is, "passively" reacting to external events — somewhat different from the modern use of the word. A distinction was made between pathos (plural pathe) which is normally translated as "passion", propathos or instinctive reaction (e.g. turning pale and trembling when confronted by physical danger) and eupathos, which is the mark of the Stoic sage (sophos). The eupatheia are feelings resulting from correct judgment in the same way as the passions result from incorrect judgment.

The idea was to be free of suffering through apatheia (Greek: ἀπάθεια) or peace of mind (literally,'without passion)'[24], where peace of mind was understood in the ancient sense — being objective or having "clear judgment" and the maintenance of equanimity in the face of life's highs and lows.

For the Stoics, 'reason' meant not only using logic, but also understanding the processes of nature — the logos, or universal reason, inherent in all things. Living according to reason and virtue, they held, is to live in harmony with the divine order of the universe, in recognition of the common reason and essential value of all people. The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy are wisdom (Sophia), courage (Andreia), justice (Dikaiosyne), and temperance (Sophrosyne), a classification derived from the teachings of Plato.

Following Socrates, the Stoics held that unhappiness and evil are the results of ignorance. If someone is unkind, it is because they are unaware of their own universal reason. Likewise, if they are unhappy, it is because they have forgotten how nature actually functions. The solution to evil and unhappiness then, is the practice of Stoic philosophy — to examine one's own judgments and behaviour and determine where they have diverged from the universal reason of nature.

[rory_20_uk]

What are these morals by the way?

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

What are these morals by the way?

~:smoking:

Godliness. Try to be more specific and you end up with everything breaking down.

[rory_20_uk]

Right, well that was my attempt to garner some interest shot down.

Is this the "ascribed, current view of Christian Godliness" held by yourself, or something slightly more useful?

Else that really is so much marsh gas.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well are you asking what the morals are? Ten Commandment etc?

Or are you asking what makes them morals, or how are they universal, or something like that?

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, what they are is interesting. Obviously the come from God so why or how are not relevant.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

"whatsoever you require that others should do unto you, that do ye to them" covers a lot of stuff. Also, you should remove yourself from all carnal things and primitive emotions because these things are selfish and remove you from the logos as the Stoics say, or God as I say.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

More aimed at Rhyfelwyr, but most relevant in this context.

So... at what point is the consciousness of a child higher than of an animal?

Depends on the animal.


Also related, if the soul exist and are of a more eternal state, but the soul's expression is dependant on the brain the soul inhabit (shown by personality changes, or even better, split personality), how can it be any certainy that animals don't have a soul?

Exactly...or rocks or trees for that matter.




A few notes, stupidity=lack of soul or "the ghost in the machine"?


Second, it's hard to determine purpose with lack of communication. Simply put, the dog may very play around in that video and not really caring about capturing the squirrel (that hardly act scared anyway). [/quote]

Intelligence is the defining human factor.




How can we be certain that an animal doesn't have a philosophical thought, when we don't know how to fully communicate with them? Parrot and ape conversations were they learnt a bit of human language would be quite interesting to see.

How can we be certain trees don't have a philosophical thought? They can communicate with each other...

[Sigurd]

Who says animals don't have souls? :mellow:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Who says animals don't have souls? :mellow:

Maybe they do, but they are not bound by the same rules as us regardless.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Maybe they do, but they are not bound by the same rules as us regardless.

Lousy laws of physics. Never there when you need them. :no:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Lousy laws of physics. Never there when you need them. :no:

You know what I mean. :whip:

[Fixiwee]

I am a bit late with quoting that, but...

Actually, plenty of scientists believe that there is a role for a Creator in our universe, and your position sounds quite mainstream.
... I have to post this:

According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95 percent of NAS biologists are atheists or agnostics.
source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWEzZGRiMzE0ZDRhNzE2ZGJjMjVjYTZhMzJiZjJmMzI

[Che Roriniho]

What a lot of words. I'm too tired to read them, so sorry if this is has been mentioned before: https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D. Rhy, watch that. It's mainly aimed at YECs, but the general idea comes accross. You should learn a lot from it.

Okay. So what I have gleamed from scanning the past 2 pages is that the Creationists among seem to have very little knowledge of scientific theory, combined with a good dose of Argumentam ad ingorantiumum, Argumentum ad verecundiam, and enough Straw Men to fill Ohio.

They also tend to be religious, which is yet another logical fallacy, unfortunately I am unable to remember what this fallacy is called, but it's the one where it is dependent on an outside condition of the arguer to be true, as opposed to being uncaring as to the arguer, as all arguments must if they are logically correct. Anyway, I'm sure someone will remind me.

Anyhoozle, unless something can be explained by process of natural law (or Occams Razor if you prefer), it is up to the theory maker (In this case creationalists) to provide the scientific explaination. Not our job to do your work.

So yeh, the ball is in your court creationalists. Evolution is as much natural Law as Magnetism or Gravity.

[InsaneApache]

Thanks for that link. It really cheered me up. :laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Evolution and Creationism both seek to explain a set of phenomena and both have assumptions that undergird their efforts.

That said, Creationism's central assumption -- an omnipuissant creator -- is the bigger "given." Evolution, by contrast, only takes on the central assumptions common to science -- that their is an explanation for all phenomena and that evidence and testing are central to determining the validity of an assertion regarding some phenomenon.

The Theory of Evolution has, to date, "passed" all such evidentiary and logical tests.

I, personally, can accept the flow of evolution running back to the "Big Bang." Whereupon we arrive at a conundrum: from whence came that impossibly dense singularity?

For me, the answer is simple: "Let there be light."

[Kadagar_AV]

What a lot of words. I'm too tired to read them, so sorry if this is has been mentioned before: https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D. Rhy, watch that. It's mainly aimed at YECs, but the general idea comes accross. You should learn a lot from it.

Okay. So what I have gleamed from scanning the past 2 pages is that the Creationists among seem to have very little knowledge of scientific theory, combined with a good dose of Argumentam ad ingorantiumum, Argumentum ad verecundiam, and enough Straw Men to fill Ohio.

They also tend to be religious, which is yet another logical fallacy, unfortunately I am unable to remember what this fallacy is called, but it's the one where it is dependent on an outside condition of the arguer to be true, as opposed to being uncaring as to the arguer, as all arguments must if they are logically correct. Anyway, I'm sure someone will remind me.

Anyhoozle, unless something can be explained by process of natural law (or Occams Razor if you prefer), it is up to the theory maker (In this case creationalists) to provide the scientific explaination. Not our job to do your work.

So yeh, the ball is in your court creationalists. Evolution is as much natural Law as Magnetism or Gravity.


Oh, spoil sport!


Seamus Fermanagh, Oh, so now "God" created the Big Bang, huh?

I hope you were sarcastic in that post.

One question though: The christian religions have had to retreat against science for some couple of hundred years now.

Not without a fight, mind you, the church has always put up a valiant fight but lost in the long run.

So now you believe the church is forced to commit: "Ok, so science was right about everything and church was wrong about everything, but God still created the big bang!"

May I ask you, when WILL the church wave the white flag? Say we get scientifical answer to the big bang, will you have some other outpost to hide behind?

And mind you, we are, as I write, planning to send up technology to inspect the very beginning of the big bang.

Where is your next retreat?

"Ok, so science explained everything beyond the big bang, but still hasn't explored all dimensions. God is in one of these dimensions, I ASSURE YOU!".

Can you actually define the last religious retreat?

[Reenk Roink]

Evolution and Creationism both seek to explain a set of phenomena and both have assumptions that undergird their efforts.

That said, Creationism's central assumption -- an omnipuissant creator -- is the bigger "given." Evolution, by contrast, only takes on the central assumptions common to science -- that their is an explanation for all phenomena and that evidence and testing are central to determining the validity of an assertion regarding some phenomenon.

Great insights as always Seamus you got what I was getting at in one sentence, though I would disagree that creationism's metaphysical assumptions are "bigger" the reason being that there is really no value neutral way to distinguish between metaphysical assumptions.

[Tribesman]

Che Roriniho thanksfor that link :2thumbsup:
Oh dear do you see the flaw here the creationists have tried to use numbers:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
cretinist maths is funny

[Banquo's Ghost]

:beadyeyes2:

Ironically, there is a lot of unpleasant sneering by some anti-religionists in this thread, which smacks of an "holier-than-thou" attitude.

You might advance your opinions more effectively with a little more humility and a lot more respect.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ironically, there is a lot of unpleasant sneering by some anti-religionists in this thread, which smacks of an "holier-than-thou" attitude.
:bow:

MUCH agreed.

Look; I am not a religious person and I know better than to just write off those that have faith as being some sort of morons. Non-religious people do NOT have all the answers and cannot explain WHY the Big Bang happened. There is orderliness and logic in the universe, and morality does exist. Did it all happen spontaneously? Maybe. But the more I look at the universe through the eyes of a philosopher and a scientist, rather than a theologian, I see the possibility of a designer or a creator of it all.

I don't think He intervenes in everyday affairs nor sends prophets down or whatnot, nor do I think we have a single thing correct about him that we claim to "know". However, dismissing creationism as being stupid is also the height of arrogance when you don't have all the answers yourself. I don't know if there's a God, and neither does anyone else truly know, one way or the other.

[Tribesman]

Non-religious people do NOT have all the answers
The problem there is that they don't make that claim in the first place do they .
Whereas certain people do claim to have all the answers and that all the answers are available in one handy little book .

[Askthepizzaguy]

The problem there is that they don't make that claim in the first place do they .
Whereas certain people do claim to have all the answers and that all the answers are available in one handy little book .

Yes, and I've taken them to task on that point, repeatedly, and at length. However, I do draw the line at insinuating that they are stupid for believing in something that isn't proven and saying they know it is proven, because I get that same rolling eyes reflex whenever I hear theoretical physicists talk about how wormholes are real and they can take you to other dimensions, and they think they can prove it using math.

Of course, since our understanding of the universe changes every day, and math has been based on false premises before, claiming to KNOW there are other universes that we can interact with, in spite of the fact that if matter and energy are flowing from one reality to another, that makes them part of the same overall reality.... and we don't know much about theoretical physics because it's theoretical to the extreme. The dirt under your feet is much less theoretical, and I can buy claims that we know it is there. But forgive my skepticism when scientists claim to KNOW some pretty bizarre and unprovable things. They used math to "prove" how massive the universe was... and then later had to refine their math because it was wrong.

That kind of over-reaching is what we need to avoid, both in science and in theology. People need to admit there isn't much we can be reasonably sure about when we can't prove certain things.

[Incongruous]

The problem there is that they don't make that claim in the first place do they .
Whereas certain people do claim to have all the answers and that all the answers are available in one handy little book .

No, alot of them don't, but some of them are mighty sure that certain other explanations are absolutely wrong, when in fact they are at the moment niether provable or otherwise.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Those videos were about young earth creationism and weren't even about people just the age of the earth etc.

[Kadagar_AV]

ATPG>>>


The dirt under your feet is much less theoretical, and I can buy claims that we know it is there. But forgive my skepticism when scientists claim to KNOW some pretty bizarre and unprovable things. They used math to "prove" how massive the universe was... and then later had to refine their math because it was wrong.

But that is the difference isn't it?

Scienctifical theories can be wrong, they are even quite often wrong! Parts of them are usualy right though, and science takes one step further. So what is the difference? Well, when science is wrong, science correct it.

Christianity, however, have been more or less stagnant for some two thousand years. Only ever giving ground to new evidence when the situation became so absurd they were laughed at.



Let's make sure to separate two things here, so as not to confuse.

1) I will laugh at creationists just like I would laugh at someone believing the world came to exist when he was born. This has nothing to do with religion as such. This has to do with people believing in something that again and again been proven wrong.

2) I would however never laugh at someone with a belief. I am agnostic, I would have to laugh at myself.

So, if someone says "The earth was created 6000 years ago"... Why shouldn't I laugh? In this modern society quotes like that does indeed seem laughable.

However, if someone say "I believe there is more to the creation of life than suggested by science"... Then I would have no reason to laugh at all, science hasn't been able to explain how life started.

So mods and others, make sure to separate laughing at individuals who support a false theory, and laughing at people for having a faith.




PS: I still wonder how far christianity can retreat. Can it handle big bang being explained? Can it handle extra terrestial life? What does it take for a christian to wave the white flag?

[Tribesman]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those videos were about young earth creationism and weren't even about people just the age of the earth etc.

So obviously you didn't watch them did you :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

So obviously you didn't watch them did you :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

In the first video talks about the flood, then about water on other planets, and then the shape of the orbit of the earth....

The next one it is the about the sun and eclipses, then the next one is about a theory on the flood, the next one is also about the flood, the next one is also about the flood, the next one is about calculating the age of the earth, the next one is about how evolution doesn't necessarily make you bigger, the next one it about whether DNA is too complex to have developed itself, the next one is about creationists misrepresnting scientists, the next one is about if there's more than one way for life to come into existence.....

Che himself said it was aimed at young earthers. :shrug:

[Kralizec]

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

I asked: what demarcates science from non science so that you can say evolutionary theory is a science and creationism is not?

I'm not extremely well versed in scientific philosophy, but I'll give it a shot.

You mentioned the naturalistic axiom somewhere, i.e. the world can be explained and understould in terms of cause and effect without resorting to metaphysical explanations. This axiom is one of the cornerstones of science- while creationists argue that many things, in particular the existence of mankind, can't be explained in purely physical causes and effect and that you have to resort to divine intervention to make sense of anything. That's what demarcates science from non-science. (and I am aware that axioms are unprovable) It's not unscientific to question the theory of evolution, adhering to theories that contradict scientific axioms is.
More generally, creationists challenge any method used to falsify their derived claims (like that the Earth is 6.000 year old, thus carbon dating has to be false). People may try to formulate their ideas about creation such that they sound objective, but ultimately won't ever accept that their claims have been proven false.

Theistic evolution stands or falls with "regular" evolution and isn't logically inconsistent, but the claim that "God did it" is still non-scientific precisely because it relies on metaphysical explanations.

[Che Roriniho]

The latter videos answer your question better. Sorry about not mentioning that.

And yes, we do have an holier-than-thouattitude, for the same reason most peole do wheen confronted with someone who claims to have pixies living in his Y-fronts. It's the exact same thing, except there are more of you than there are with Y-front dwelling Pixies. That is the only difference.

[InsaneApache]

The latter videos answer your question better. Sorry about not mentioning that.

And yes, we do have an holier-than-thouattitude, for the same reason most peole do wheen confronted with someone who claims to have pixies living in his Y-fronts. It's the exact same thing, except there are more of you than there are with Y-front dwelling Pixies. That is the only difference.

Well said that man. :2thumbsup: :yes:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The latter videos answer your question better. Sorry about not mentioning that.

And yes, we do have an holier-than-thouattitude, for the same reason most peole do wheen confronted with someone who claims to have pixies living in his Y-fronts. It's the exact same thing, except there are more of you than there are with Y-front dwelling Pixies. That is the only difference.

Having a holier-than-thou attitude implies that you believe you had choice in being an atheist and in not believing in pixies...but that is an irrational belief, no?

[Rhyfelwyr]

If there is no more reason to believe in God than pixies or leprechauns or whatever, then it is a great coincidence that He has so many followers.

When I was an atheist I thought religion was stupid, but at least I admitted there was something behind it, even if it was just an evolutionary function.

[Ironside]

Depends on the animal.

Intelligence is the defining human factor.



Well, beating an amoeba in intelligence will hardly make intelligence a remarking trait that makes humanity special so I'll think I go with the most intelligent animals, like dophins, apes, parots, crows (they're surpricingly intelligent) and simular.

How much more intelligent must humans be to be special compared to the rest of the animals? Do they need to break the average human intelligence or simply to most stupid humans? Is there's an average amoung the specie or only the most brilliant mind that's needed?

Personally I would go with the complex language, but like with all human traits, the basic framework excist in other animals, only expressed much stronger in humans.

Are blue whales special because they're huge?


If there is no more reason to believe in God than pixies or leprechauns or whatever, then it is a great coincidence that He has so many followers.

When I was an atheist I thought religion was stupid, but at least I admitted there was something behind it, even if it was just an evolutionary function.

So does Shiva. Pixies and leprechuans have the downside of actually needed to leave some physical proof behind, at least occationally.

Anyway, the elusivness of the gods by being poor of true supernatural miracles leaves at least the religion and science free from eachother. If the way any god work is thruogh natural means, then science works great to describe the world, no matter the existance of any god. The downside is of course proving that they exist, but it's fairly certain that they don't plan to make it easy on that matter.

btw, self-restraint is the framework whom Stoism stands on. Without it, you're slave under your passions. And animals do show self-restraint for other things than food, it's just that it's the easiest and most non-personal thing to test.

Did you know that (at least some) religious experiences seems to be located into a speciffic center of the brain? For whatever reason, but it certainly indicates that religiousity has an evolutionary function.

Seamus, evolution and big bang theory thrown together? :shame:

[Reenk Roink]

I'm not extremely well versed in scientific philosophy, but I'll give it a shot.

You mentioned the naturalistic axiom somewhere, i.e. the world can be explained and understould in terms of cause and effect without resorting to metaphysical explanations. This axiom is one of the cornerstones of science- while creationists argue that many things, in particular the existence of mankind, can't be explained in purely physical causes and effect and that you have to resort to divine intervention to make sense of anything. That's what demarcates science from non-science. (and I am aware that axioms are unprovable) It's not unscientific to question the theory of evolution, adhering to theories that contradict scientific axioms is.
More generally, creationists challenge any method used to falsify their derived claims (like that the Earth is 6.000 year old, thus carbon dating has to be false). People may try to formulate their ideas about creation such that they sound objective, but ultimately won't ever accept that their claims have been proven false.

Theistic evolution stands or falls with "regular" evolution and isn't logically inconsistent, but the claim that "God did it" is still non-scientific precisely because it relies on metaphysical explanations.

If I understand correctly you are making a demarcation criterion based on a certain metaphysical axiom (i.e: naturalism among many). Is this correct?

If so then I would certainly agree with you that this is a much better demarcation than say a naive testability or falsification. :yes: I gave this and another criterion based on the consensus of the scientific community as alternatives to the testable/falsifiable distinction.

Of course there remain problems with such an attempt (I nuanced it to avoid the charge of blatant circularity that a scientific theory is one that relies on the scientific axiom) and it may not eliminate all forms of "psuedoscience" but I feel that alternative criteria like these are the much sounder way to go, as opposed to what is generally argued in court cases today (relying on the testability/falsifiability criteria).

One day, should the creationist lobby not botch the case badly and get a guy who can argue convincingly against this usually used but fatally flawed demarcation principle, it would be an embarrassment for evolutionary biology...

This is an journal article from Science, Technology, and Human Values following up on a certain court decision on creationism a while back that talks about this issue pretty concisely and convincingly:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/688928

(might not be viewable in public domain)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, beating an amoeba in intelligence will hardly make intelligence a remarking trait that makes humanity special so I'll think I go with the most intelligent animals, like dophins, apes, parots, crows (they're surpricingly intelligent) and simular.

How much more intelligent must humans be to be special compared to the rest of the animals? Do they need to break the average human intelligence or simply to most stupid humans? Is there's an average amoung the specie or only the most brilliant mind that's needed?

Personally I would go with the complex language, but like with all human traits, the basic framework excist in other animals, only expressed much stronger in humans.

Are blue whales special because they're huge?


Special is a vague word. Restaurants have specials.

You're questioning the anthropocentric view, yes? Rather than asking about the differences between people and animals your asking what the significance of the differences is?

[Che Roriniho]

@ Sasaki Kojiro:

Yes, you do. It's called thinking, and my Species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is particularly good at it (hell, it's in our name! Sapiens = wise). We have in fact, over the years developed a couple of remarkable ideas: logic and reason. Work very well in rooting out faeces of a bovine nature.


@Rhys

No, it's not a coincidence, it's just that your imaginary friend happened to be a cosmic Jewish Zombie whose views at the time were very liberal, and so a large amount of followers surrounded him and his legacy. They only worshipped him because that's what people tended to do at the time: worship people who did good, and there is no doubting that Jesus, historical or not, but probably historical, did some good.
The sole reason that your version of lunacy was adopted by Constantine the *ahem* Great, the leader of the biggest single nation in the world at that point, and so got some influence out.

So yes, it is entirely coincidental that so many believe in your Cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his Own Father (and yet also not his own father, whilst still being... you can see where that's going).

To believe otherwise is a mixture of two logical fallacies, and is, therefore, insubmitable as an argument: Argumentum ad numerum, and Argumentum ad antiquitatem. I also notice a nice icing of Argumentum ad ignorantiam, to add to the sponge sandwhicch of the previously mentioned logical fallacy recipes.










Oh, and +5 points if you have any idea where I was going with that last analogy.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wouldn't normally quote from this site (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/differences.asp), but it came up on a Google search and it seemed pretty funny.

It does raise some good points - surely the fact that we even question the meaning of our existence seperates us from the animals?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

To believe otherwise is a mixture of two logical fallacies, and is, therefore, insubmitable as an argument: Argumentum ad numerum, and Argumentum ad antiquitatem. I also notice a nice icing of Argumentum ad ignorantiam, to add to the sponge sandwhicch of the previously mentioned logical fallacy recipes.


@ Sasaki Kojiro:

Yes, you do. It's called thinking, and my Species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is particularly good at it (hell, it's in our name! Sapiens = wise). We have in fact, over the years developed a couple of remarkable ideas: logic and reason. Work very well in rooting out faeces of a bovine nature.

For someone who loves pointing out logical fallacies... :bounce:

Since you like logic...

"The past controls the present and future.
You can't control the past.
Also, you can't control the way the past controls the present and future.
So, you can't control the present and future."

So, how did you choose to be an atheist?



Btw, do you think saying "99% of climate scientists believe global warming is caused in part by man" to be a rational argument?

[Sigurd]

I so want to participate here, but I have no access to the org at work except via my cell phone. Yes I am typing this on a mobile.

Just to put the animals vs. Humans to rest, the bible ( the proclaimed sole source of doctrine in Christianity ) distinguishes humans and animals on one parameter only. It says that man was made in the image and likeness of God. Interpret it however you want.

If any of you remember I did an exercise with Genesis ( again the proclaimed sole source of creationist doctrine ) and showed how you could interpret it very close to the scientific theory of how our world was made. What the young earth creationists are thinking, is beyond me. They have absolutely no suport for their ideas anywhere in the Bible.

I want to make a longer reply, but there is just no more time today.

[Askthepizzaguy]

1:11 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.
1:12 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.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

1:14 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:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 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.

The stars in the heavens, the sun and the moon (lesser light? It's just a light-reflecting surface, not a light source) came after the plants and fruits and grasses and seeds?

What drove their photosynthetic processes, if there was no sun? Granted, the simple cure-all answer is "God did it, that explains it, that's the end of it" but that's absolutely inverted from the scientific theory of the origins of the universe.

That is what the Young Earth literalist creationists are on about; they think it happened precisely as it is written, in the exact order of Genesis. And of course they have to believe that because if Genesis was wrong about the order of creation, it's not the word of God.

*sigh* Maybe Moses made a typo? Editor's error? Or non-literal interpretation might work...

[rory_20_uk]

Asking which bibile I always find is a good place to start.

Odd that the absolute and irrefutable works of God can have so many different absolute and irrefutable ways of being written, often contradictory.

~:smoking:

[Sigurd]

If I could have linked the thread in question I would. Genesis speaks only about the creation of this world and possibly this solar system. I am sounding like a believer aren't I?
The order of things can seem confusing, but I did explain a possible solution.
The entire creation is viewed by Moses with an earthly perspective. The first light in verse 3 is the ignition of the Sun, while the later verses speaks of seasons and earthly motions. The stars, which existed prior to this solar system, become visible when at last the sun has pushed all the dense dust and ice away for them to become visible from this planet. And there is waters in the deep which is uncreated. Check verse 1. You do know what the ancients called Hydrogen?

[Askthepizzaguy]

If I could have linked the thread in question I would. Genesis speaks only about the creation of this world and possibly this solar system. I am sounding like a believer aren't I?
The order of things can seem confusing, but I did explain a possible solution.
The entire creation is viewed by Moses with an earthly perspective. The first light in verse 3 is the ignition of the Sun, while the later verses speaks of seasons and earthly motions. The stars, which existed prior to this solar system, become visible when at last the sun has pushed all the dense dust and ice away for them to become visible from this planet. And there is waters in the deep which is uncreated. Check verse 1. You do know what the ancients called Hydrogen?

Sigurd, you're a wise fellow and a respected friend.

I find that this explanation however, is grasping at straws. There's far, far more in Genesis that doesn't make sense, and even if we create wild theories as to how it does, the criticism is not with people who make the Bible adhere to science, it's people who make science adhere to the Bible. Changing the order of things so that it matches their interpretation of Genesis is entirely unscientific, and they create entire museums dedicated to showing how men walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

That is the real problem. I honestly, honestly don't care about the rationalizations ex post facto making the Bible conform to science. (especially when the Bible is full of supernatural miracles and amazingly, the human species being viable after the first two people had a bunch of male offspring. Not only is that genetically unhealthy, but you really have to wonder where all the women came from, and why they weren't worthy of having a backstory) At that point it is religion, and religions can say whatever they please.

What I care about is when people take a great idea like science, and then take a big poop all over the concept of science by mixing it with religion by making science conform to religious texts even when it's completely wrong to do so. It's not science, it's fairy tales at that point. There's a Biblical explanation, yes.... and a scientific one. Where they are compatible, fine they are. However, there are places where they aren't, and rewriting science to make it seem kosher doesn't make any sense. If science has to conform to the Bible, why have science to begin with? Since everything can be explained by prophets, why bother learning anything else, I wonder?

[Sigurd]

Respect right back at you ATPG.

That was the point I was trying to make last time too. You can't really use anything in the bible as "evidence" for reality. The creationists use Genisis as basis for their arguments against what they call Darwinism. I used the same record to show that it does in fact conform to the last scientific theory we have on the origin of our solar system. Some believers evem aplauded it. And some non believers got offended. It was a typical exercise in what is commonly kmown as the Aquinqas fallacy. Which you incidently descibe in your last paragraph. They forget that religion is more about faith than evidence and that religion and science never mix well.
The Bible does not support creatio ex nihilo. Nor does it support a metaphysical deity or a young earth theory. And as you pointed out, it does not really support an orgin of man with Adam, Eve and Cain. Abel was slain, remember? besides, Cain was cursed.

[Che Roriniho]

For someone who loves pointing out logical fallacies... :bounce:

Since you like logic...

"The past controls the present and future.
You can't control the past.
Also, you can't control the way the past controls the present and future.
So, you can't control the present and future."

So, how did you choose to be an atheist?



Btw, do you think saying "99% of climate scientists believe global warming is caused in part by man" to be a rational argument?

I never chose to be an athiest. In fact, I contend that we are both, and in fact all athiests. When you realise why you ignore other deities, then you will realise why I reject yours.

And even if I did, then as I said, it would be through reason:

People say that god exists.
God is against Nature (Natural sciences)
People are Nature
Therefore is against people, and therefore irrational.

Not brilliant, I know, but I'm tired so can't becopulated to make anything more advanced.

The human mind has remarkable decision makin properties, and the decision (or not, see above) to become an athiest is because of the frankly utterly ridiculus ideas from the other side.

Let me get this right: You think that there is a Jewish deity-figure who is his own father that lives in the sky and watches everything we do because... well, no reason is given as to why this God would want to care 2 cents about some insignificant collections of Carbon-based self-replicating molecules on some rock orbiting a fairly boring and average star in a forgottten corner of a galaxy that itself is fairly boring, average, and unimportant.


And while that argument could not be used as an argument in itself (argumentam ad numerum and argumentum ad verecundiam), it COULD be used in argument, provided that was not the only evidence submitted, and that the evidence given justifies the use of a line. On it's own, however,it is insubmittable.


Asking which bibile I always find is a good place to start.

Odd that the absolute and irrefutable works of God can have so many different absolute and irrefutable ways of being written, often contradictory.

~:smoking:

My thoughts exactly. If we accept the King James version, then we must asume that James I was a messiah. Otherwise, how could he translate it from latin perfectly, and still contain the word of god?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I never chose to be an athiest. In fact, I contend that we are both, and in fact all athiests. When you realise why you ignore other deities, then you will realise why I reject yours.

Let me get this right: You think that there is a cosmic Jewish Zombie who is his own father that lives in the sky and watches everything we do because... well, no reason is given as to why this God would want to care 2 faeces about some insignificant collections of Carbon-based self-replicating molecules on some rock orbiting a fairly boring and average star in a forgottten corner of a galaxy that itself is fairly boring, average, and unimportant.


I've always been an atheist...I'm not arguing for the existence of god. For all we know, if one did exist, he'd send all the atheists to heaven and the religious people to hell :driver:

But I think taking a holier-than-thou attitude towards all religious people paints them with too broad a brush. First I would say it's hypocritical.

If you go back 200 years you see that the people then believed all sorts of silly things, yes? So why would you assume that 200 years from now people won't be laughing at your beliefs? Also, most people are atheist because of their upbringing. Either their parents were atheists or they were overbearingly religious.

Secondly, you can't simply say "that which is rational and logical is better that the irrational and illogical". Humans are naturally irrational--it is essential for our mental well being.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Humans are naturally irrational--it is essential for our mental well being.

DOES NOT COMPUTE. DOES NOT COMPUTE. HTTP 404. REJECTING PARADOXICAL STATEMENT. PURGING MEMORY FILES. PURG-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

https://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb225/askthepizzaguy/yak.jpg


Image loaded. Systems shutting down. Admiring mystical bovine. Absorbing zen qualities. Purging desire and the Self. Attaining Nirvana.





:unitedstates: :unitedstates: :unitedstates: Adding patriotic symbolism for good measure. :unitedstates: :unitedstates: :unitedstates:

[Che Roriniho]

DOES NOT COMPUTE. DOES NOT COMPUTE. HTTP 404. REJECTING PARADOXICAL STATEMENT. PURGING MEMORY FILES. PURG-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

https://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb225/askthepizzaguy/yak.jpg


Image loaded. Systems shutting down. Admiring mystical bovine. Absorbing zen qualities. Purging desire and the Self. Attaining Nirvana.





:unitedstates: :unitedstates: :unitedstates: Adding patriotic symbolism for good measure. :unitedstates: :unitedstates: :unitedstates:


Now THIS is a guy you should pray to.

[Askthepizzaguy]

:bounce:

Prayers are fine, but I prefer cash.

[Che Roriniho]

:bounce:

Prayers are fine, but I prefer cash.

How about virgins Blood?

[Askthepizzaguy]

How about virgins Blood?

I drink a nice cold glass of it every day. Keeps my hair shiny and manageable.

[ajaxfetish]

Seamus Fermanagh, Oh, so now "God" created the Big Bang, huh?

I hope you were sarcastic in that post.

. . .

May I ask you, when WILL the church wave the white flag? Say we get scientifical answer to the big bang, will you have some other outpost to hide behind?

. . .

Where is your next retreat?

"Ok, so science explained everything beyond the big bang, but still hasn't explored all dimensions. God is in one of these dimensions, I ASSURE YOU!".
I can't speak for Seamus, but personally I think this line of argument is irrelevant. Retreating to a 'God of the Gaps' mentality is silly, but the argument that it's either God or science is a false dilemma. In my personal belief, God is responsible for the creation of everything in the universe. Science is a vessel to better understand his methods and perhaps learn something transcendent in the process.

Did God create the universe? Sure. How? Well, let's study it and find out. Looks like it may have been through some kind of 'Big Bang.' Did God create humans? Sure. How? Well, let's study life and find out. Looks like it may have been through divergent evolution, probably powered by natural selection. Etc.

A person can choose to believe in God (any variety), or not to believe. That's a matter of faith, to be neither proved or disproven by scientific inquiry. Regardless of their faith, however, science is still the place to turn for explanations about the natural world. (edit: after all, revelation is filtered through all sorts of fallible humans. The natural world is created directly by God, the Bible only indirectly. I'll put my trust in the primary source, and look to the secondary sources for interpretation and opinion, as in any manner of study)

the criticism is not with people who make the Bible adhere to science, it's people who make science adhere to the Bible.
Unfortunately, as you point out, religious people are even more prone to the above false dilemma than nonreligious types.

Ajax

[Che Roriniho]

The key is to not be Christian, but to be Christ-like.

[ajaxfetish]

The key is to not be Christian, but to be Christ-like.
And these are mutually exclusive?

Ajax

[Che Roriniho]

And these are mutually exclusive?

Ajax

Often, they are.

[ajaxfetish]

Often, they are.
The key is to not be a banker, but to be honest. Because, . . . often bankers are dishonest.

Couldn't that be simplified to the key is to be honest? Even if you are a banker?

Ajax

[Askthepizzaguy]

I can't speak for Seamus, but personally I think this line of argument is irrelevant. Retreating to a 'God of the Gaps' mentality is silly, but the argument that it's either God or science is a false dilemma. In my personal belief, God is responsible for the creation of everything in the universe. Science is a vessel to better understand his methods and perhaps learn something transcendent in the process.

Did God create the universe? Sure. How? Well, let's study it and find out. Looks like it may have been through some kind of 'Big Bang.' Did God create humans? Sure. How? Well, let's study life and find out. Looks like it may have been through divergent evolution, probably powered by natural selection. Etc.

A person can choose to believe in God (any variety), or not to believe. That's a matter of faith, to be neither proved or disproven by scientific inquiry. Regardless of their faith, however, science is still the place to turn for explanations about the natural world. (edit: after all, revelation is filtered through all sorts of fallible humans. The natural world is created directly by God, the Bible only indirectly. I'll put my trust in the primary source, and look to the secondary sources for interpretation and opinion, as in any manner of study)

Unfortunately, as you point out, religious people are even more prone to the above false dilemma than nonreligious types.

Ajax


Good post. :bow:

[Fixiwee]

I'm not so sure if people can choose what they belive in. Schopenhauers free will and all...

[seireikhaan]

Often, they are.
In order for two "things" to be mutually exclusive, it must mean that one absolutely cannot ever happen if the other does. Thus, it is literally impossible for two objects to be "often" mutually exclusive.

[Ironside]

Special is a vague word. Restaurants have specials.

You're questioning the anthropocentric view, yes? Rather than asking about the differences between people and animals your asking what the significance of the differences is?

Yes. I don't deny that we are more intelligent than animals one average, but I won't say that this difference is enough to say that humanity is somehow special compared to the rest of the living beings on earth.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well... I guess one has to define intelligence...

We live in small appartments, wage war on each other and develop nukes...

Dolphins swim around in the ocean and have fun...

How do you know they are not questioning our intelligence?

[Fixiwee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBQRy0aV3P4
:square:

edit: be aware of foul language, you 13 year old kids on this board.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes. I don't deny that we are more intelligent than animals one average, but I won't say that this difference is enough to say that humanity is somehow special compared to the rest of the living beings on earth.

I missed this post, sorry. Without humans there is no "special"; it's a human concept. I feel like this is the line of thinking that leads to radical environmentalism and the animal rights movement. You can't say the earth would be better without humans, because without humans there is no "better".

[Kadagar_AV]

I missed this post, sorry. Without humans there is no "special"; it's a human concept. I feel like this is the line of thinking that leads to radical environmentalism and the animal rights movement. You can't say the earth would be better without humans, because without humans there is no "better".

Your point is that animals are unable to think, or to define things as "good and bad" or "better and worse"?

It would be interesting to see you back that up with a fact or two.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Just saw this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html


In what could prove to be a landmark discovery, a leading paleontologist said scientists have dug up the 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans.

Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth. One is known as the tarsidae, a precursor of the tarsier, a tiny, large-eyed creature that lives in Asia. Another group is known as the adapidae, a precursor of today's lemurs in Madagascar.

Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs.

A fossil discovery suggests humans may be descended from an animal that resembles present-day lemurs like this one.
Philip Gingerich, president-elect of the Paleontological Society in the U.S., has co-written a paper that will detail next week the latest fossil discovery in Public Library of Science, a peer-reviewed, online journal.

"This discovery brings a forgotten group into focus as a possible ancestor of higher primates," Mr. Gingerich, a professor of paleontology at the University of Michigan, said in an interview.

The discovery has little bearing on a separate paleontological debate centering on the identity of a common ancestor of chimps and humans, which could have lived about six million years ago and still hasn't been found. That gap in the evolution story is colloquially referred to as the "missing link" controversy. In reality, though, all gaps in the fossil record are technically "missing links" until filled in, and many scientists say the term is meaningless.

Nonetheless, the latest fossil find is likely to ignite further the debate between evolutionists who draw conclusions based on a limited fossil record, and creationists who don't believe that humans, monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Scientists won't necessarily agree about the details either. "Lemur advocates will be delighted, but tarsier advocates will be underwhelmed" by the new evidence, says Tim White, a paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "The debate will persist."

The skeleton will be unveiled at New York City's American Museum of Natural History next Tuesday by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and an international team involved in the discovery.

According to Prof. Gingerich, the fossilized remains are of a young female adapid. The skeleton was unearthed by collectors about two years ago and has been kept tightly under wraps since then, in an unusual feat of scientific secrecy.

Prof. Gingerich said he had twice examined the adapid skeleton, which was "a complete, spectacular fossil." The completeness of the preserved skeleton is crucial, because most previously found fossils of ancient primates were small finds, such as teeth and jawbones.

It was found in the Messel Shale Pit, a disused quarry near Frankfurt, Germany. The pit has long been a World Heritage Site and is the source of a number of well-preserved fossils from the middle Eocene epoch, some 50 million years ago.

Prof. Gingerich said several scientists, including Jorn Hurum of Norway's National History Museum, had inspected the fossil with computer tomography scanning, a sophisticated X-ray technique that can provide detailed, cross-sectional views. Dr. Hurum declined to comment.

Although the creature looks like a lemur, there are some distinctive physical differences. Lemurs have a tooth comb (a tooth modified to help groom fur); a grooming claw; and a wet nose. Dr. Gingerich said that the adapid skeleton has neither a grooming claw nor a tooth comb. "We can't say whether it had a wet nose or not," he noted.

Since the fossilized creature found in Germany didn't have features like a tooth comb or grooming claw, it could be argued that it gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans, which don't have these features either.

[Fixiwee]

Lemur. Why did you never tell me? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! *falls of the cliff*

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think Lemur needs to be informed that he's our daddy. Someone forward him the link.

[Sigurd]

So the hierarchical trees need to be adjusted again like so many times before.
Does this prove that humans descended from monkeys? No it doesn't. This is the problem with this theory. Yes there have been found countless remains of hominid creatures that are very similar looking to humans. The fact that they are similar or appear logically connected does not prove that one is ancestor to the other. Similarity does not prove decent.
If so we could conclude that a '92 Volvo 240 descended from the '75 Volvo 144.

[Fixiwee]

But it doesn't prove it to be wrong either.

[Askthepizzaguy]

So the hierarchical trees need to be adjusted again like so many times before.
Does this prove that humans descended from monkeys? No it doesn't. This is the problem with this theory. Yes there have been found countless remains of hominid creatures that are very similar looking to humans. The fact that they are similar or appear logically connected does not prove that one is ancestor to the other. Similarity does not prove decent.
If so we could conclude that a '92 Volvo 240 descended from the '75 Volvo 144.

But one can conclude that a 92 Volvo and the 75 Volvo both come from the same original design; an vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine. Without the one, you could not have the other two. We can conclude that all domesticated dogs came from the same root animal, the wolf. We can conclude that all bunny rabbits came from the same common ancestor rabbit. We can conclude that many different mutations of a virus came from the same strand.

My question is; if one is to be called a scientist, or if one is to enter into a scientific discussion, one has to agree that it is possible that the theory is correct. And, if one were to be impartial, one would understand that there is overwhelming evidence that this theory is closer to being the truth than all other theories, especially ones with little or no scientific basis.

While the theory isn't 100% proven, it is a valid theory, and there is no reason to simply disbelieve it because it isn't 100% proven. Most scientific theories aren't 100% by such standards of proof. But to just dismiss it as unproven and therefore unreasonable is wrong. We will make no scientific progress if we simply brush aside mountains of evidence and reasonable conclusions as being wrong because it doesn't necessarily lead to those conclusions... what other conclusions could it lead to?

If new species don't evolve from older ones, then why have there been multiple mass extinctions, yet there's an extreme diversity of life on this planet? Why do species die out at a rate of hundreds or thousands per year, yet there are still millions of differing species on this planet? Why do we detect new species all the time, and how have we ourselves created new species using various natural methods?

Why do new species appear at times in the fossil record? Where did they come from? Why did they suddenly appear and disappear? If they were all "created" at once, where did the new ones come from and why did it take so long for them to get here?

Why did human beings only arrive in the fossil record recently? Why do they look very similar to many other forms of hominids? Why do they resemble various species on this planet genetically and physically in a pattern which matches the arrival of those species in the fossil record, according to present theories of evolution? How do we explain all of those coincidences if we are to assume that creatures do not evolve or that humans have not?

There is no other scientific explanation that I can see. We weren't beamed here by aliens, or at least there is zero evidence of that, and we are not significantly different in terms of biology from other animals, and we are part of nature and part of the fossil record as well.

If one is to seriously challenge this theory, one must bring more to the table than mere skepticism and/or religious texts. There needs to be contrary theories based in science, and right now, there aren't any. Until then, perhaps we should consider this our best working theory.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So the hierarchical trees need to be adjusted again like so many times before.
Does this prove that humans descended from monkeys? No it doesn't. This is the problem with this theory. Yes there have been found countless remains of hominid creatures that are very similar looking to humans. The fact that they are similar or appear logically connected does not prove that one is ancestor to the other. Similarity does not prove decent.
If so we could conclude that a '92 Volvo 240 descended from the '75 Volvo 144.

You have one massive problem with that position. DNA.

Since extant primates share substantial DNA, one can track the branching very easily. Thus creatures that have similar skeletal structures in the fossil record can be fitted quite neatly into a taxonomy.

This may not be proof in the mathematical sense, but it is a huge weight of evidence - evidence that no other theory comes close to explaining. Again, few dispute this clear taxonomic relationship when it applies to bivalves, but get terribly wound up when it comes to hominid ancestry.

BTW chaps, Lemur is not the daddy. Adapids are clearly not lemurs, which is why they are so exciting. (Not to say that prosimians are unexciting, but in a different way). :beam:

[Sigurd]

The DNA evidence is a stretch.
How do you tell one descended from the other? The can't even tell if Neanderthals is the forefather of humans because the DNA evidence is ambiguous. They can't tell if The Neanderthals, our supposedly closest ancestor is related to us or is a completely different species

As to my Volvo analogy, it should be clear that cars don't reproduce. That was the whole point.
BTW, I do not offer any alternative theory. I am just stating the problem with hominid descent theory trough putting bones from different strata into hierarchy trees and conclude that this one is a descendent from that one. Similarities do not equate decent.

[CBR]

The DNA evidence is a stretch.
How do you tell one descended from the other? The can't even tell if Neanderthals is the forefather of humans because the DNA evidence is ambiguous. They can't tell if The Neanderthals, our supposedly closest ancestor is related to us or is a completely different species
The debate about Neanderthals is whether it should be Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. It is really just details as to when the split happened because either way we share a common ancestor.


CBR

[Tribesman]

the 47 million-year-old fossil
Well there you go , its obviously another hoax by the so called "scientists" .
Everyone knows the world was only created 6000 years ago on a tuesday afternoon and fossils like this are a result of the big flood 4400 years ago .

[Sigurd]

The debate about Neanderthals is whether it should be Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. It is really just details as to when the split happened because either way we share a common ancestor.


CBR
There you go - and what is the current status in this debate? And we have DNA samples of this common ancestor which proves that both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens are descendants of this common ancestor?


Well there you go , its obviously another hoax by the so called "scientists" .
Everyone knows the world was only created 6000 years ago on a tuesday afternoon and fossils like this are a result of the big flood 4400 years ago .
The Creationists can't deny the fact that there are fossils in the stratas of this earth. IF most of the creatures including dinosaurs and evil men died in the great deluge, it would follow natually that their bones would be found in the same strata. Is this so?
And the Bible does not really support any of what the young earth creationists have to say about the matter anyway.

I could postulate that God created the earth and withdrew Deist style and then let the clockwork earth run its due. Multimillion years later he revisits and finds mr. and ms homo sapien evolved from life in clay and blows spirits into their frames. I could do this and back it up with scriptures from the KJV Bible.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well I agree you don't have to believe the earth is just 6,000 years, I don't believe that anyway. But it is stretching it to say God created us through evolution. IMO God created quite a lot of people out of dust/whatever and Adam was the patriarch of them.

[LittleGrizzly]

But it is stretching it to say God created us through evolution.

Why ?

I assume your argument is along religious lines as you admitted yourn not to hot on the science of evolution...

What is there in the bible that paticularly rules out evolution, that is if you interpret it a certain way (because its all about interpretation right ?) could Gods creation of man not been an event spanning millions of years, with God being somewhat an entity outside our universe time means nothing to him...

Couldn't it come under the 'God works in mysterious ways' such as breaking someones x box so they'll spend time with friends and family for example ?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah when I said that I was, of course, meaning from a Biblical perspective. I try not to make "private interpretations" of the scripture as it warns me against, instead when it put things bluntly I accept it.

Also, I don't think God works in mysterious ways. My take on it all is very straight-forward and kind of morbid as some people say but hey.

[Adrian II]

The DNA evidence is a stretch.The Bible is a bigger stretch.

Radiocarbon technique allows dating back to 45.000 years ago, which should put a definite lid on the 6000 years old earth crap.

As for DNA: it proves kinship between species, not descendance. DNA specimens prove that the dodo was a close cousin of the pigeon, not that the dodo was the pigeon's predecessor or that the dodo and the pigeon have a common ancestor. DNA also proves that humans are related more closely to chimps than to mice, even though we share about 95% of our genome with both species - the difference being in the kinds of genes we share with either.

Hence phylogenetic trees do not flawlessly represent species evolution. However, other forms of tracing and sequencing (proteins, molecules, morphology, physiology) plus dating methods like radiocarbon have enabled scientists to come up with more a than tentative picture of historic speciation. New research (such as the recent massive sequencing of bird dna across a large range of bird species) constantly produces new insights on phylogenetics. Even so, every phylogenetic tree remains a hypothesis. That's how science works.

Do you have a better hypothesis? Bring it on.

For reference, I point the honourable gentleman from Norway (whose independent thinking I have always respected and welcomed) to a brilliant essay by Stephen Jay Gould. One quote deserves to be highlighted:


Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Fellows, it's clearly obvious we were poofed into existence from the massively hot breath of the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun, lucky be thy name. IMO we were fashioned together out of horseshoes and rabbits feet and four-leaf clovers. Then the Magic Box closed and we can no longer see the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun. However, he placed a symbol in the sky to remind us of our true origins: The Rainbow. It is said that at the end of the Rainbow, you will find the Pot 'O Gold and become rich beyond mortal dreams. It's clear that the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun created two people, and only two people, who then had a bunch of sons. Those sons then reproduced with what I assume to be unicorns, because there were no women besides their mother. And that is why men have a prominent "unicorn" below their stomach. My guess is that the women were just unlucky and theirs fell off somehow. Probably from kissing the Blarney stone.

I present this as the "Lucky Design" theory, as an alternative to Intelligent Design and Evolution.

However, beyond the physical evidence of the Rainbow, the Clover, the Horseshoe, and Rabbits, not to mention gold and blarney stones, there's no scientific basis for this theory, and I readily admit it is far, far more of a stretch to conclude that everyone was created by a divine being in a supernatural method which directly contradicts fossil and DNA evidence, and using a family tree which could only result in incestuous couplings and severe birth deformities and infertility, involving imaginary women.

Have a pint anyway. :medievalcheers: Surely there is room enough for our personal religious views AND science in this world, but we have to admit, they are based upon different ideas: One is the idea that we know something we cannot possibly know except "with our hearts", and the other is the idea that we don't really know anything, but we have strong evidence which leads to some fairly reliable conclusions. The two ideas do not mix and cannot be compared to one another, otherwise some fairly ridiculous notions can be associated falsely with science, such as the idea that some ethnicities are not human beings because they look slightly different from us, and we know this because we looked at them and saw a slight difference and so therefore they aren't human beings.

As sad as that theory is, it's very similar to the idea that human beings are completely disassociated with the animal kingdom, because we are more intelligent. Nevermind our biological processes are nearly identical, we share almost identical DNA with a very small margin of difference, in our embryonic state we develop almost exactly the same way as other vertebrates, our fossils appeared in the record millions of years ago along with many others, the fact that we are born and then we die... in other words, virtually identical in every way to the nearest primate, but some believe we were given different, exclusive to human-beings, otherworldly supernatural origins poofed out of dust, rather than evolving like all other species have done, in spite of a lack of supportive evidence and physics that doesn't involve what amounts to magic.

[Askthepizzaguy]

By the way, Adrian II, your signature is offensive to me. It shows that Mohammed had two left feet, when it is patently obvious he was an awesome dancer.

[Adrian II]

I present this as the "Lucky Design" theory, as an alternative to Intelligent Design and Evolution. :laugh4: :medievalcheers:

[Fwapper]

What we need is a poll for this, over 200 posts is just getting too rambly.... :P

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yawn the old randrom diety stories are fun to make up but they don't help much, nobody has felt the fiery presence of the leprechaun god.


What we need is a poll for this, over 200 posts is just getting too rambly.... :P

I wonder what the opinion of the man from officialy the most atheist city in the UK might be?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Yawn the old randrom diety stories are fun to make up but they don't help much, nobody has felt the fiery presence of the leprechaun god.

I have. I am witness to the awesome power of His Lucky Charms. I know it to be true. Random Deities beat randrom diety any day of the week. :bounce: And it's not random, it's LUCKY. There's a difference.

One, two, three, four, I declare a holy war! :charge:

[Ironside]

Yawn the old randrom diety stories are fun to make up but they don't help much, nobody has felt the fiery presence of the leprechaun god.


God is a bit dull on the fiery presentations nowadays isn't he? A shame as large scale miracles would be really convincing stuff.

Instead he goes around, poking around in the "godly presence center" in the brain for people to feel his fiery presence.

Makes sence if He planned to get to humans through evolution, how else would He keep humans to be prone to belive in Him while keeping the low profile he does by not doing obvious wonders.

[Askthepizzaguy]

HEY!!

Hey, hey hey. They found Jesus on a Cheeto (http://guanabee.com/2008/07/woman-finds-jesus-on-cheeto-baptizes-him-cheesus). Don't tell me there aren't miracles.

:angel:

[Rhyfelwyr]

I have. I am witness to the awesome power of His Lucky Charms. I know it to be true. Random Deities beat randrom diety any day of the week. :bounce: And it's not random, it's LUCKY. There's a difference.

One, two, three, four, I declare a holy war! :charge:

If you were being genuine, there would be no reason not to go with it. :shrug:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I have already declared a Chee-had against the infidel. However, just like in other religions, when you declare a Chee-had, it is instead an inner, spiritual struggle. We fight using our minds.

(Psychic powers)

[Sigurd]

Fellows, it's clearly obvious we were poofed into existence from the massively hot breath of the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun, lucky be thy name. IMO we were fashioned together out of horseshoes and rabbits feet and four-leaf clovers. Then the Magic Box closed and we can no longer see the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun. However, he placed a symbol in the sky to remind us of our true origins: The Rainbow. It is said that at the end of the Rainbow, you will find the Pot 'O Gold and become rich beyond mortal dreams. It's clear that the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun created two people, and only two people, who then had a bunch of sons. Those sons then reproduced with what I assume to be unicorns, because there were no women besides their mother. And that is why men have a prominent "unicorn" below their stomach. My guess is that the women were just unlucky and theirs fell off somehow. Probably from kissing the Blarney stone.

I present this as the "Lucky Design" theory, as an alternative to Intelligent Design and Evolution.

However, beyond the physical evidence of the Rainbow, the Clover, the Horseshoe, and Rabbits, not to mention gold and blarney stones, there's no scientific basis for this theory, and I readily admit it is far, far more of a stretch to conclude that everyone was created by a divine being in a supernatural method which directly contradicts fossil and DNA evidence, and using a family tree which could only result in incestuous couplings and severe birth deformities and infertility, involving imaginary women.

Have a pint anyway. :medievalcheers: Surely there is room enough for our personal religious views AND science in this world, but we have to admit, they are based upon different ideas: One is the idea that we know something we cannot possibly know except "with our hearts", and the other is the idea that we don't really know anything, but we have strong evidence which leads to some fairly reliable conclusions. The two ideas do not mix and cannot be compared to one another, otherwise some fairly ridiculous notions can be associated falsely with science, such as the idea that some ethnicities are not human beings because they look slightly different from us, and we know this because we looked at them and saw a slight difference and so therefore they aren't human beings.

As sad as that theory is, it's very similar to the idea that human beings are completely disassociated with the animal kingdom, because we are more intelligent. Nevermind our biological processes are nearly identical, we share almost identical DNA with a very small margin of difference, in our embryonic state we develop almost exactly the same way as other vertebrates, our fossils appeared in the record millions of years ago along with many others, the fact that we are born and then we die... in other words, virtually identical in every way to the nearest primate, but some believe we were given different, exclusive to human-beings, otherworldly supernatural origins poofed out of dust, rather than evolving like all other species have done, in spite of a lack of supportive evidence and physics that doesn't involve what amounts to magic.

Argumentum ad Hominem with the sub fallacy; Refutation by Caricature.
:smartass2:

[Rhyfelwyr]

I have already declared a Chee-had against the infidel. However, just like in other religions, when you declare a Chee-had, it is instead an inner, spiritual struggle. We fight using our minds.

(Psychic powers)

I hope you haven't abandoned the fiery little leprechaun god.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Pizza, you have some strange beliefs :shrug:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I hope you haven't abandoned the fiery little leprechaun god.

HE ABANDONED ME FIRST!!! I leave him messages on his answering machine saying things like:

"Hi, it's the pizzaguy. Love that green outfit. What are you doing Saturday Night? By the way, can you please let my local sports team win the pennant? Thanks. -Amen"

"Hey it's me again. I'm sorry I forgot to add that I'd really love to win the lottery. Could you make that happen? Thanks. -Amen

Oh, PS- where does life begin?"

"Hello Leprechaun. it's me, Pizzaguy. I am doing some soul searching and I want to know why you created Free Will and Evil and also a place to punish people for using their Free Will to create Evil even though you're infinitely compassionate and the one responsible for designing us intelligently. Thanks. -Amen"

"Hey it's me. Why don't you ever return my phone calls? I mean, what's up with that? -Amen"

"Ok, I'm really starting to get ticked off now. I don't treat you so coldly. Haven't I been a devoted worshiper ever since I converted to the faith? Be a nice, friendly God and talk to me or I'll convert to Invisible Pink Unicorn Religion or the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism."

"Ok sorry about the last phone call... I was feeling all stressed out. Will you forgive me? Love you. Kisses."

"Quick question... why do we have vestigial organs?"

"You still haven't answered my question as to where life begins."

"How come people are gay if they choose to be gay and it makes them unhappy to be different and to be persecuted? Wouldn't they just switch back? And why would they be born gay if you created them in your own image but you also say that it is a sin?"

"What should we do about underage women being forced to marry against their will in other cultures? What gives us the moral right to intervene?"

"I saw you on a box of Lucky Charms today. I LOL'ed!"

As you can see, since he doesn't return my phone calls, he abandoned me first. Or he's dead. But the important thing is that even though he doesn't talk to me, I continue to pray to him and ask him to change his Divine Plan, even though it wouldn't be much of a Divine Plan if he changed it to suit my whims.


Argumentum ad Hominem with the sub fallacy; Refutation by Caricature.

Much of the religious argument against evolution comes from the argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). See also "God of the Gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Usage_as_argument)".

[Rhyfelwyr]

Heh, well Yahweh is very real to me, in everything I do. It follows that since the message of the New Testament is so real to me, so is that of the Old Testament, Jesus was fulfilling those scriptures after all. Plus, you've got to admit, Daniel didn't do bad predicting the year of Jesus' death, and all the prophecies concerning Israel etc.

On a side note, if you were comparing your prayer to the Christian version, it's not quite like that. Trying to work through prayer is like trying to do stuff in the Matrix - Jesus says you have to know your prayer will be answered, otherwise you were not in accordance with God's will in the first place! Stop trying to hit me and hit me... see what I mean?

[Sigurd]

Much of the religious argument against evolution comes from the argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). See also "God of the Gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Usage_as_argument)".
Argumentum ad Hominem Tu Quoque :wiseguy:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I always knew Christianity was like the Matrix. Thanks for clearing that up. :bounce:

I'm just having fun, I believe that the real arguments have been passed back and forth, and ultimately since Creationism is a religious argument not based upon science but upon Scripture, there is nothing that can be said to change one's mind.

:shrug:

To call it a debate is silly because there is one side of the issue which won't budge regardless of evidence or argument, if it is based upon religion, because religion requires faith and faith isn't really evidence, and is considered superior to evidence by the faithful. I'm willing to discuss the real facts, but there is no alternative theory at the moment grounded in science and based upon evidence. There is only religion and skepticism. Skepticism I buy, because that is simply the position that we cannot know. However, even then, one should not totally dismiss evidence. As for religion, it hasn't advanced our knowledge of the universe, only our belief in aspects of it, and beyond, so they are different unrelated things.

As for prayer, in all honesty it can't hurt. However, it shouldn't be relied upon instead of medicine (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo), for example.


Argumentum ad Hominem Tu Quoque

You win the argument by default because your vocabulary is superior to my own. Curse my distaste of Latin! :grin:

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's fair enough, but remember a lot of people who argue against religion do so because they don't like some of its (debatable) effects. Things like holding back science, causing wars etc don't really do anything to prove whether the belief system is right or not.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Whether it is right or not is not knowable by any living being.

If one can remain skeptical of science, one needs to rely on the argument that we don't know everything, which puts religion on equal or lesser footing than science, because science relies on a foundation of impartial reasoning and evidence rather than a series of unprovable assumptions involving the supernatural.

If we aren't discussing whether it is true or not, we can discuss that the unwavering certainty of any viewpoint, and the intolerance of those who hold that view to opposing viewpoints, does usually result in negative effects on mankind, regardless of the truth of the message.

If I were set out to prove that 1+1=2, regardless of how true it is, would I be right to go to war over it, or to attempt to stop all attempts to research alternative theories, or to persecute those who believe there could be other answers? No... even if we "know" we are right, we have to accept that "being right doesn't give us the right" to do wrong. One can freely argue for intelligent design, or debate any scientific viewpoint. However, it rarely stops there. It usually ends when the offending viewpoint is abolished or declared heretical or illegal, if we base this on historical precedent. In recent years, it has reared its head once more, to infringe upon the rights of the individual.

Science and religion can coexist, but just like voodoo and astrophysics, they belong in different books.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think there's a bit of debate about whether or not it could be "knowable" by a little human such as ourselves. I came across a discussion once about whether religious experiences could be self-authenticating, in that they give a person 100% (no 99.999's) assurance of their truthfulness, beyond even the certainty you could place in your own minds reliability.

That's a horrendeously complicated debate, and again I suppose it wouldn't prove Christianity, just perhaps, if won, prove that some of its claims are possible.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

If there was ever "design", it sure as hell was of the stupid kind.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think there's a bit of debate about whether or not it could be "knowable" by a little human such as ourselves. I came across a discussion once about whether religious experiences could be self-authenticating, in that they give a person 100% (no 99.999's) assurance of their truthfulness, beyond even the certainty you could place in your own minds reliability.

That's a horrendeously complicated debate, and again I suppose it wouldn't prove Christianity, just perhaps, if won, prove that some of its claims are possible.

Using the same argument some use against the idea of proof, how can you use a religious "experience" as evidence of anything? The mind can dream, the mind can forget, mis-remember, misinterpret, misdiagnose, not to mention hallucinate. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if someone has a religious experience, it doesn't count as scientific knowledge unless the results can be repeated, predicted, and observed by neutral observers. I can see that there are cheetos that look like jesus, and I can also see that a closet door once closed "on its own" and a light bulb coincidentally turned off "on its own" within seconds of one another. However, given the billions of cheetos out there, it is almost a certainty that some will resemble other things, and the closet door in question had slightly changed shape due to changes in temperature, and while it usually would experience little friction when opening or closing, on that particular day it was open but experiencing pressure, until it moved enough that it suddenly popped closed. Coincidentally, at the same time the light bulb in that room turned off because it was a bulb that was inside a small hollow part of the ceiling, and it overheated.

You can bet that odd coincidences like that make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck, because even though I'm a person who thinks scientifically I am just an animal with instincts and unintelligent fears and/or phobias. Until I figured out what was going on, I felt a little freaked out. And if "God" appeared before me and started raining lightning bolts on me, I'd feel freaked out too. But then again, if I regained my composure, I might think that it would be possible I ingested something hallucinogenic, and I'd still need more proof than that to say conclusively that God exists. Bottom line is that I could also be insane. Which, if you were, you would have no way of knowing conclusively. Maybe everyone else is insane and you're the only one who sees clearly. :bounce:

Things that we "know" and are certain of can be wrong as well. We might find out one day that we were adopted. We might find out our birth certificate gives our middle name as "Jose". We might discover that the mole on our neck isn't a mole after all, but a malignant tumor. We could also find out one day that our ideas about science and/or God are all total baloney. I am always leery of the idea that one person knows something with absolute certainty, because that is almost certainly wrong.

I place more trust in things that don't come from our little weak opinions, such as things we all agree we can see with our eyes, hear with our ears, taste, smell, touch, etc. I also trust when we can repeat an experiment over and over again with the same results. I also trust when we find stuff in the ground that was never touched by human beings before, encased in a layer of solid rock, that it is not a fabrication by someone trying to sell some crackpot theory. Especially if thousands of people across the planet can find similar rock pieces. I also trust what seems to follow from logical examples of something similar... bacteria and viruses totally changing randomly, such that the ones who survive in their environments are the ones who just happen to be more resistant to our medicines and our immune systems. From that, one might conclude that if the environment of an ecosystem changed that trees which once had white bark now had black bark, now certain color adaptations tended to survive because they were better hidden from predators than before. We observe key changes in the population of the species and each succeeding generation having differences which allow them to survive better, until the species flourishes and spreads across the planet and changes once again by natural selection and adapts to its new surroundings... until you have very different looking animals.

So, we have proof of natural selection, and we have proof of genetic mutation. And we also can see, just from changes in species over time, just from the time frame of our own human observations, that certain species change so much they can no longer mate with former members of their own species, and they are now considered different species.

Once we see this, and we add that to what appears to be billions of years of fossil evidence showing these changes, species appearing and disappearing, with logical steps being taken for one species to radiate and change into several over time, and some species going extinct... and of the surviving species, we can see that there is a genetic similarity between species which seem to have the closest ancestry, and a genetic dissimilarity between species which have more distant ancestry... we have ample evidence that species radiate, change, adapt, and become new species over time, and others disappear. Which directly contradicts the idea that all species were created at once using magic and dust.

If there were evidence that a trillion species appeared suddenly billions of years ago, and since then, they have done nothing but disappear, we might reach a different conclusion. Then creationism might have more merit. But as it stands, there is literally no evidence which supports that theory over the theory of evolution or natural selection.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

One could pragmatically argue that a religious belief is 100% true.

Pizza, I see the problem with religion being that it is to dogmatic. That's the only real problem I can think of. But you are being quite dogmatic yourself...

[Askthepizzaguy]

I am arguing that you cannot know for certain something which is unprovable. I am also arguing that faith and science are different systems of thought. One exists in spite of evidence, the other requires evidence and often changes based upon that evidence. That's not a dogmatic viewpoint unless language itself and agreed upon definitions are dogmatic. In which case... praise the dogma!

We have a separation between art and science in our universities and so forth; painting for example is an art form, not a scientific discipline. While sciences and art sometimes overlap, they are distinct concepts. Religion and science have a similar relationship that art and science do; they are different schools of thought, based upon entirely unrelated things. If we teach religion as science, we are doing a disservice to both. If I take everyone's Bible and cross out everything which is not based in science, and try to pass it off as religion, that would also be a disservice to both.

Basically, they have no business intruding upon one another. What is dogmatic is trying to force one discipline upon another, and not respecting the boundaries of both, and the rightness of both existing independent upon one another. When you cross science with faith, you destroy both. Can they coexist? Sure! A religious person can easily be a scientist and believe in God and the afterlife and even Jesus' resurrection, because that is his personal belief. And at the same time, he can believe in evidence and science, and keep them separate in his mind. He could also hold out hope that one day science would conclude that his religious theories are correct, and not be necessarily wrong to do so. Or he might see it as a non-issue... it doesn't really matter if science validates his faith or not... he believes in it and that should be good enough for a person of faith. After all, it is faith.

Dogmatic is pushing your personal beliefs, in spite of evidence to the contrary and with a lack of a logical foundation or a lack of evidence, upon the scientific community. Dogmatic is attempting to abolish religion altogether or being intolerant of those of faith. I am not dogmatic. It is impractical to combine two unrelated things which are built upon foundations alien to one another to satisfy one's religious or non-religious convictions. I think you are confusing holding a strong opinion on an issue and believing in it strongly with being dogmatic. I readily admit the theories could be wrong, as all scientists do, and I am waiting patiently with an open mind for evidence to the contrary.

That's not dogmatic. Saying "I do not know" is the opposite of being dogmatic. I find often in these debates people use words which mean the exact opposite of how they are being used. If you want to say I am being dogmatic, you might do me the courtesy of saying how. :medievalcheers:

[CBR]

There you go - and what is the current status in this debate? And we have DNA samples of this common ancestor which proves that both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens are descendants of this common ancestor?
I think some of the latest would be from March this year:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40819/title/First_rough_draft_of_Neandertal_genome_released


Analysis of the genome reveals that humans and Neandertals share genetic roots stretching back at least 830,000 years.

And since the article use the term Homo neanderthalensis I guess they are considered a separate species.


CBR

[Adrian II]

Argumentum ad Hominem with the sub fallacy; Refutation by Caricature.
:smartass2:Argumentum schmargumentum. Why don't you answer my post #208?

I mean, I know Askthepizzaguy has been running circles around you, tying your shoelaces together and stealing your Volvo model 74. Or model 84. Or 92. But did you see where he crashed it?

That's right, into post #208. DA ROCK.

[Askthepizzaguy]

:laugh4:

Sigurd is one of my friends and a respected badass when it comes to mafia, so I hope he forgives Adrian II's exuberance.

:bow:

I am dead certain that in a highly formal, technical argument, Sigurd would utterly annihilate me. I believe I have the superior and correct side of the argument, however I am without the tools to defeat a master such as Sigurd. He would knock my head off with his awesome Battle Axe and feed my entrails to his pet dragon.

[Adrian II]

:laugh4:

Sigurd is one of my friends and a respected badass when it comes to mafia, so I hope he forgives Adrian II's exuberance.

:bow:

I am dead certain that in a highly formal, technical argument, Sigurd would utterly annihilate me. I believe I have the superior and correct side of the argument, however I am without the tools to defeat a master such as Sigurd. He would knock my head off with his awesome Battle Axe and feed my entrails to his pet dragon.Au contraire, I bet you could make Sigurd laugh himself unconscious and then roll him off a cliff. In his Volvo 76. Or 91. I never figured out which was the ugliest. :bounce:

[Tribesman]

If there was ever "design", it sure as hell was of the stupid kind.

It was a rush job, there is only so much you can do in a week , after all god isn't infallible is she.


Argumentum schmargumentum. Why don't you answer my post #208?

Give him a chance will ya , OK perhaps he can't answer that from the KJV of scripture but given enough time and enough versions of the one book an answer will be forthcoming.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Au contraire, I bet you could make Sigurd laugh himself unconscious and then roll him off a cliff. In his Volvo 76. Or 91. I never figured out which was the ugliest. :bounce:

If you two are willing to debate, I would moderate. And I like both of you, and believe it or not I can be very fair and impartial.

[Kadagar_AV]

*yawn* Is this thread still alive?

Has it moved forward since my post on page 1 explaining there is no way to debate evolution vs creation as one is based on facts and the other on faith?

No?

If all the combined evidence of evolution still does not satisfy the people who prefer to believe a 2000 year old book rather than modern scientifical research, then I am quite sure a topic in the backroom wont either.

You can never beat someone religious by using logic, as they don't see the world in a logical way.

And if you open up for a non-logical argumentation they already won.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Using the same argument some use against the idea of proof, how can you use a religious "experience" as evidence of anything? The mind can dream, the mind can forget, mis-remember, misinterpret, misdiagnose, not to mention hallucinate. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if someone has a religious experience, it doesn't count as scientific knowledge unless the results can be repeated, predicted, and observed by neutral observers.

But the debate is whether or not the knowledge can be self-authenticating. It wouldn't need to be proved or tested, but is instead made valid by it's own inherent truthfulness. I'm not arguing whether or not this has happened, but whether or not it is theoretically possible.

[Sigurd]

Well I agree you don't have to believe the earth is just 6,000 years, I don't believe that anyway. But it is stretching it to say God created us through evolution. IMO God created quite a lot of people out of dust/whatever and Adam was the patriarch of them.
I know you said that you should be wary of "private interpretations", but I would then ask; What authority do you need to make correct interpretations? Is there a correct interpretation? And why does 35 000 Christian denominations claim they have the correct interpretation? And finally, which one of them is right?
Your "God made many humans beside Adam and Eve out of dust" is not Biblical and is perhaps a private interpretation or a workaround on the question of how the human race came from Adam and Eve and their incestuous children?


http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40819/title/First_rough_draft_of_Neandertal_genome_released

And since the article use the term Homo neanderthalensis I guess they are considered a separate species.

That link had some interesting points. The lactose intolerance point especially. Is it true that the common trait for Homo Sapiens is to be lactose intolerant? Does that mean we in the north are a separate species? If so what to call us: Homo Sapien lactivorous ?


Argumentum schmargumentum. Why don't you answer my post #208?

I mean, I know Askthepizzaguy has been running circles around you, tying your shoelaces together and stealing your Volvo model 74. Or model 84. Or 92. But did you see where he crashed it?

That's right, into post #208. DA ROCK.
I did read it, but couldn't find anything that refutes my point on the hundred year old practice of using physical similarities as proof of descent.
The DNA thing is becoming more promising as they are doing advances in that area. But they aren't there yet. You know I am an agnostic and like to jump of the fence now and then to stir the pot so to speak, especially on topics like these. The Cars, in case anyone still wonders, can't have offspring and are all created by a creator. I am not saying that I discard evolution and uphold the Creationist view. I made the analogy to illustrate my point of similarity does not prove descent.

Au contraire, I bet you could make Sigurd laugh himself unconscious and then roll him off a cliff. In his Volvo 76. Or 91. I never figured out which was the ugliest. :bounce:
A debate between me and ATPG would result in walls of text and me crying : Argumentum Verbosium, Argumentum ad Plurium interrogationum and Argumentum ad Nauseam before my head exploded. :beam:

[Kadagar_AV]

But the debate is whether or not the knowledge can be self-authenticating. It wouldn't need to be proved or tested, but is instead made valid by it's own inherent truthfulness. I'm not arguing whether or not this has happened, but whether or not it is theoretically possible.



You got to be kidding?

So basicly, we'd have to accept anyones truth as, well, the truth?

The freaky guy who is sure that aliens visit us, and they use anal probes... We have to take him seriosly as "he knows it is so".

You want a society where any idiot can claim something is true, and then it is the truth?

If not, why don't we stick to science, where we test stuff, and repeat the tests, and so on...

Again, I sincerely hope your post was a joke.

But to answer your question: NO that is not theoretically possible.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You got to be kidding?

So basicly, we'd have to accept anyones truth as, well, the truth?

The freaky guy who is sure that aliens visit us, and they use anal probes... We have to take him seriosly as "he knows it is so".

You want a society where any idiot can claim something is true, and then it is the truth?

If not, why don't we stick to science, where we test stuff, and repeat the tests, and so on...

Again, I sincerely hope your post was a joke.

But to answer your question: NO that is not theoretically possible.

Well I'm glad you put so much thought into it, obviously the countless discussions on the matter are meaningless because you have the answer. :wall:

And no, nobody would have to support anyone making such a claim, because only the person making the claim would know if it was true, and they would be aware that only they could be expected to know that it is true. If someone tells me he has total assurance that aliens visit us, then I say fine go with it, I'll believe it if I am ever granted such knowledge myself.

[CBR]

That link had some interesting points. The lactose intolerance point especially. Is it true that the common trait for Homo Sapiens is to be lactose intolerant? Does that mean we in the north are a separate species? If so what to call us: Homo Sapien lactivorous ?
It appears to be around 75% of the worldwide population so it can be considered a common trait. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerant has a list of specific percentages in different parts of the world. I guess it is such a minor trait that it is not worth thinking in terms of a subspecies.


The DNA thing is becoming more promising as they are doing advances in that area. But they aren't there yet.
Hmm I'd say endogenous retroviruses(ERVs) are pretty good. Of course the die hards can still claim that their god just made it look like evolution was at work.


CBR

[Kadagar_AV]

Well I'm glad you put so much thought into it, obviously the countless discussions on the matter are meaningless because you have the answer. :wall:

And no, nobody would have to support anyone making such a claim, because only the person making the claim would know if it was true, and they would be aware that only they could be expected to know that it is true. If someone tells me he has total assurance that aliens visit us, then I say fine go with it, I'll believe it if I am ever granted such knowledge myself.

Exactly, and it's the same with religion.

Fine, go with it, I'll believe it if I am granted such knowledge myself.

Untill then, I'll stick to repeatable scientifical research :)

:logic:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Exactly, and it's the same with religion.

Fine, go with it, I'll believe it if I am granted such knowledge myself.

Untill then, I'll stick to repeatable scientifical research :)

:logic:

Which nobody argued against. :idea2:

But remember you came into this thread to tell me that I can never use science to prove my ideas.

[Kadagar_AV]

Which nobody argued against. :idea2:

But remember you came into this thread to tell me that I can never use science to prove my ideas.

Have you tried?

EDIT: And if you tried, what was the result? And what method did you use?

[Adrian II]

If you two are willing to debate, I would moderate. And I like both of you, and believe it or not I can be very fair and impartial.I don't want to debate, I want an answer from Sigurd because I appreciate his views. Sigurd never takes the easy way out and we never needed a moderator to keep us honest. So thanks for the offer. Besides, you'd kill us with your jokes and charades before we got to round three. You're quite an asset to this forum, Pizzameister. :bow:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Have you tried?

EDIT: And if you tried, what was the result? And what method did you use?

Personally, no. But then neither have most poeple who believe we evolved from ape-like creatures (or is it lemurs now?), they just accept what scientists tell them and then say OMG creationist ROFL.

Earlier on, you were arguing I have no right to try since I would be going into the study with presuppositions, and if I did I should be ignored.

[Kadagar_AV]

Personally, no. But then neither have most poeple who believe we evolved from ape-like creatures (or is it lemurs now?), they just accept what scientists tell them and then say OMG creationist ROFL.

Earlier on, you were arguing I have no right to try since I would be going into the study with presuppositions, and if I did I should be ignored.

Again: Repeatable and testable facts. That is why I believe science, oh, and of course because it makes logical sence.

You are more than welcome to have presuppositions, just try to leave them behind if you'r into science, mmmkay?

Did I just repeat what was said on page one and two? I think I did...