Evolution v Creationism

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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 :)

[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 :)

Which nobody argued against.

But remember you came into this thread to tell me that I can never use science to prove my ideas.