Religion, what do you think?
- Thread starter Dr. Funk
- Start date
- Status
FallaciaSonata
Member
*sigh*
All right, then. Let's call them "separate things". Now that they're separate, only two dire questions remain.
What is it you want to know about evolution?
What is it you want to know about carbon dating?
All right, then. Let's call them "separate things". Now that they're separate, only two dire questions remain.
What is it you want to know about evolution?
What is it you want to know about carbon dating?
FallaciaSonata
Member
Okay.
every berries:
Please be more specific. You continually quote me but you aren't asking me anything. What are you looking for? Proof of proof or disproof? I'm sort of confused on that one.
If you're looking for evidence for Creation, look around you. Check out the Grand Canyon, for example.
In order for the Colorado river to have formed it through erosion over a small eternity, the river would have had to run uphill for quite a while. Look at the geographical map of the canyon.
All these fossils dumped together? A fish fossilized inside another fish's mouth? Fossils of animals found in lower layers and birds in higher ones?
Sounds logical that a flood occurred. It would explain all of that.
Guardian:
Your last post I didn't see until 11:20. Sorry 'bout that. *ahem*
Kent Hovind? I never said the guy was perfect. No man is. I also do not claim to be part of his particular sect. Personally, tax evasion is against the law -- and the Bible agrees with that. It says to obey the laws of the land. Even if those laws are anti-Christian....(Such as paying taxes to support a theory that has been debunked.)
You also have to remember that the vast majority of our media is liberally controlled, and therefore will tear apart any sort of moral, Christian background, or anything that goes against evolutionism. It does not surprise me that Wikipedia rips him up.
Dr. or not, is irrelevant. The definition of science is studying something through observation and experimentation. So by that term, sure, you can't observe Creation. But you can't observe evolutionism either.
How scientific something is? You mean there's degrees of credibility? Now that's odd.... So is that sort of like a partial truth, or a half-lie?
Here we go again, labeling only Creation as "religious" and accepting evolutionism as "science". They're both religions.
Non-living matter does not morph into living matter. It never has and currently isn't.
Care to elaborate on this evidence?
This is starting to sound like an argument to me, just a little, and I really don't want it to go there. I like you people.
every berries:
Please be more specific. You continually quote me but you aren't asking me anything. What are you looking for? Proof of proof or disproof? I'm sort of confused on that one.
If you're looking for evidence for Creation, look around you. Check out the Grand Canyon, for example.
In order for the Colorado river to have formed it through erosion over a small eternity, the river would have had to run uphill for quite a while. Look at the geographical map of the canyon.
All these fossils dumped together? A fish fossilized inside another fish's mouth? Fossils of animals found in lower layers and birds in higher ones?
Sounds logical that a flood occurred. It would explain all of that.
Guardian:
Your last post I didn't see until 11:20. Sorry 'bout that. *ahem*
Kent Hovind? I never said the guy was perfect. No man is. I also do not claim to be part of his particular sect. Personally, tax evasion is against the law -- and the Bible agrees with that. It says to obey the laws of the land. Even if those laws are anti-Christian....(Such as paying taxes to support a theory that has been debunked.)
You also have to remember that the vast majority of our media is liberally controlled, and therefore will tear apart any sort of moral, Christian background, or anything that goes against evolutionism. It does not surprise me that Wikipedia rips him up.
Dr. or not, is irrelevant. The definition of science is studying something through observation and experimentation. So by that term, sure, you can't observe Creation. But you can't observe evolutionism either.
How scientific something is? You mean there's degrees of credibility? Now that's odd.... So is that sort of like a partial truth, or a half-lie?
Guardian":3e2clvhf said:
Here we go again, labeling only Creation as "religious" and accepting evolutionism as "science". They're both religions.
Guardian":3e2clvhf said:
Non-living matter does not morph into living matter. It never has and currently isn't.
Guardian":3e2clvhf said:
Care to elaborate on this evidence?
This is starting to sound like an argument to me, just a little, and I really don't want it to go there. I like you people.
yes. in fact, there was not one but a series of floods throughout that chapter of geographical history.
actually fyi the vast majority of major media nowadays has strong right-wing leanings. these aren't in all cases as strong as the leanings of global or the fox network but if one side is underrepresented I'd say it'd be more the liberal side that's getting the short end.
yes because miracles can be proven via the fossil record and the theory of evolution was originally given to charles darwin by a talking turtle deity.
By your logic it is "impossible to prove the evolutionary theory correct".
In a similar vein it is impossible to prove the creationism theory correct.
I would much rather believe in a system based on tests and finding the truth than a system based on believing what was said many years ago.
History is not accurate, you're right. But remember the Bible was not written as a History book. It was written as a guidebook for a religion. A set of values and morales, based on short stories so they would be easy to follow.
The works of Bede are quite laughable in fact (i.e. a historian) but they were written as an account of what happened, and historiography as a study was set up to discover the truth behind "the history of history" - picking apart history to discover the truth, if you like. Now, when the Bible is picked apart like this, the studies are jumped upon as being "wtf? my bible?". If it is a history book then it is open to study and is likely biased, and so we should not take everything in it as truth, just like we wouldn't Bede's work.
In a similar vein it is impossible to prove the creationism theory correct.
I would much rather believe in a system based on tests and finding the truth than a system based on believing what was said many years ago.
History is not accurate, you're right. But remember the Bible was not written as a History book. It was written as a guidebook for a religion. A set of values and morales, based on short stories so they would be easy to follow.
The works of Bede are quite laughable in fact (i.e. a historian) but they were written as an account of what happened, and historiography as a study was set up to discover the truth behind "the history of history" - picking apart history to discover the truth, if you like. Now, when the Bible is picked apart like this, the studies are jumped upon as being "wtf? my bible?". If it is a history book then it is open to study and is likely biased, and so we should not take everything in it as truth, just like we wouldn't Bede's work.
FallaciaSonata
Member
All right then....so what you're saying is you don't believe in evolutionism either? After all, it was written by a "Christian" man, and is merely his "opinion", about a "theory".
Not to mention the fact that Darwin's book was only written by himself, but the Bible was written by multiple authors who never contradict each other. I would rather believe something that has been around for a while that has yet to be proven wrong, than believe something that was just one man's very questionable opinion.
Just thought I'd point out an "amusing" note as well. Was Darwin the root of racism?
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/racist.shtml
Not incredibly important, but interesting nonetheless.
I would also like to point out that the only counter-arguments you people are giving me are simply questioning my sources and their credibility.
....Where exactly are *your* sources for what *you* believe? And how do you "know" they are more accurate than mine? Are you not merely "children of your culture", as was Darwin?
every berries:
Is this what you meant?
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml (Salvation plan, once again, is of a different sect. However, the science is the same.)
Not to mention the fact that Darwin's book was only written by himself, but the Bible was written by multiple authors who never contradict each other. I would rather believe something that has been around for a while that has yet to be proven wrong, than believe something that was just one man's very questionable opinion.
Just thought I'd point out an "amusing" note as well. Was Darwin the root of racism?
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/racist.shtml
Not incredibly important, but interesting nonetheless.
I would also like to point out that the only counter-arguments you people are giving me are simply questioning my sources and their credibility.
....Where exactly are *your* sources for what *you* believe? And how do you "know" they are more accurate than mine? Are you not merely "children of your culture", as was Darwin?
Trees?
The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old. Because these trees are still alive and growing, and because we don't yet know how old they will get before they die, this indicates that something happened around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. 13,14,15 Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings. Janelle says 1700. This is significant because we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1500 - 1800 years before the Worldwide Flood.
Magnetic field?
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on the earth. 23,24,25,26 In other words, it seems likely that the Earth's magnetic field is, in fact, quite young, suggesting that the earth itself is young also.
The fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying is well documented. For example, a recent NOVA Special on this subject brought this out very clearly. In fact, at present rates of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years from now. And although, the NOVA special strongly suggested that this may simply mean the earth is getting ready for another reversal, such may not be the case, as Dr. Humphreys work suggests. A brief portion of Dr. Humphreys findings are quoted below.
"Shortly after that I published a review of the evidence for past polarity reversals, reaffirming their reality (Humphreys, 1988). Then I developed my dynamic-decay theory further, showing that rapid (meters per second) motions of the core fluid would indeed cause rapid reversals of the field’s polarity (Humphreys, 1990). I cited newly discovered evidence for rapid reversals (Coe and Prévot, 1989), evidence in thin lava flows confirming my 1986 prediction. Since then, even more such evidence has become known (Coe, Prévot, and Camps, 1995).
The reversal mechanism of my theory would dissipate magnetic energy, not sustain it or add to it, so each reversal cycle would have a lower peak than the previous one. In the same paper (Humphreys, 1990, p. 137), I discussed the non-dipole part of the field today, pointing out that the slow (millimeter per second) motions of the fluid today could increase the intensity of some of the non-dipole parts of the field. However, I concluded by saying the total energy of the field would still decrease.
Despite these creationist answers, skeptics today still use Dalrymple’s old arguments to dismiss geomagnetic evidence. Much of that is probably due to ignorance of our responses, but some skeptics are still relying on the non-dipole part of the field. They hope that an energy gain in the non-dipole part will compensate for the energy lost from the dipole part.
I said, “hope,†because it appears that since 1967, nobody has yet published a calculation of non-dipole energies based on newer and better data. So that is what I will do below. It turns out that the results quash evolutionist hopes and support creationist models." 27 Emphasis Added
Another major problem with old-earth beliefs in this regard is the timing of the earth's last reversal. Old earth believers claim that it took place 780,000 years ago; however, at current rates of decay, only about 10,000 years ago the earth would have been so hot that no life could have survived on its surface. And even if we assume that in the past the earth's magnetic field decayed much slower than today, then we are still only looking at about 20,000 years ago that life could have existed on the earth. This means that the old-earth dates for the earth's past magnetic reversals (arrived at using radiometric method) are probably incorrect. This is due to the fact that radiometric methods all require at least three assumptions, and often many more.
The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old. Because these trees are still alive and growing, and because we don't yet know how old they will get before they die, this indicates that something happened around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. 13,14,15 Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings. Janelle says 1700. This is significant because we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1500 - 1800 years before the Worldwide Flood.
Magnetic field?
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on the earth. 23,24,25,26 In other words, it seems likely that the Earth's magnetic field is, in fact, quite young, suggesting that the earth itself is young also.
The fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying is well documented. For example, a recent NOVA Special on this subject brought this out very clearly. In fact, at present rates of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years from now. And although, the NOVA special strongly suggested that this may simply mean the earth is getting ready for another reversal, such may not be the case, as Dr. Humphreys work suggests. A brief portion of Dr. Humphreys findings are quoted below.
"Shortly after that I published a review of the evidence for past polarity reversals, reaffirming their reality (Humphreys, 1988). Then I developed my dynamic-decay theory further, showing that rapid (meters per second) motions of the core fluid would indeed cause rapid reversals of the field’s polarity (Humphreys, 1990). I cited newly discovered evidence for rapid reversals (Coe and Prévot, 1989), evidence in thin lava flows confirming my 1986 prediction. Since then, even more such evidence has become known (Coe, Prévot, and Camps, 1995).
The reversal mechanism of my theory would dissipate magnetic energy, not sustain it or add to it, so each reversal cycle would have a lower peak than the previous one. In the same paper (Humphreys, 1990, p. 137), I discussed the non-dipole part of the field today, pointing out that the slow (millimeter per second) motions of the fluid today could increase the intensity of some of the non-dipole parts of the field. However, I concluded by saying the total energy of the field would still decrease.
Despite these creationist answers, skeptics today still use Dalrymple’s old arguments to dismiss geomagnetic evidence. Much of that is probably due to ignorance of our responses, but some skeptics are still relying on the non-dipole part of the field. They hope that an energy gain in the non-dipole part will compensate for the energy lost from the dipole part.
I said, “hope,†because it appears that since 1967, nobody has yet published a calculation of non-dipole energies based on newer and better data. So that is what I will do below. It turns out that the results quash evolutionist hopes and support creationist models." 27 Emphasis Added
Another major problem with old-earth beliefs in this regard is the timing of the earth's last reversal. Old earth believers claim that it took place 780,000 years ago; however, at current rates of decay, only about 10,000 years ago the earth would have been so hot that no life could have survived on its surface. And even if we assume that in the past the earth's magnetic field decayed much slower than today, then we are still only looking at about 20,000 years ago that life could have existed on the earth. This means that the old-earth dates for the earth's past magnetic reversals (arrived at using radiometric method) are probably incorrect. This is due to the fact that radiometric methods all require at least three assumptions, and often many more.
every berries:
Is this what you meant?
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml (Salvation plan, once again, is of a different sect. However, the science is the same.)
I hate when people start using words like "validate, strawmen, platitudes" in discussions like these. Especially when it comes to something like religion. If there was hard evidence of the existence of God, everybody would believe and there would be no need for discussion.
I think some people have built up a resentment towards religion for whatever reason, and the mere idea of an intelligent force behind creation gets their panties all in a bunch, even if the "intelligence" is not one of our earthly gods. I also think some people love to lord their enlightened minds over all of the superstitious peons who still believe in fairy tales...
Here we are, on a forum full of creative people, people who share a common interest in fantasy and sci-fi stories. You would think there would be a bit more open-mindedness going around. The notion that the universe with all of its amazing mysteries and wonders, just sprung up out of nothingness without reason or guidance...that takes a pretty big leap of faith. And lowly human beings proclaiming to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no such divine intervention seems to me more than a little arrogant.
A simple "maybe, maybe not. I dont know." would satisfy me.
I think some people have built up a resentment towards religion for whatever reason, and the mere idea of an intelligent force behind creation gets their panties all in a bunch, even if the "intelligence" is not one of our earthly gods. I also think some people love to lord their enlightened minds over all of the superstitious peons who still believe in fairy tales...
Here we are, on a forum full of creative people, people who share a common interest in fantasy and sci-fi stories. You would think there would be a bit more open-mindedness going around. The notion that the universe with all of its amazing mysteries and wonders, just sprung up out of nothingness without reason or guidance...that takes a pretty big leap of faith. And lowly human beings proclaiming to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no such divine intervention seems to me more than a little arrogant.
A simple "maybe, maybe not. I dont know." would satisfy me.
The point of science is not to prove something, but rather to bring a theory to the point of closest possible validity.
People who study the science behind something are looking at clues which will point them in one direction or another. And any theoretical scientist worth their salt will tell you that it is not the pursuit of PROOF that is their calling, because nothing in the dimensions we find ourselves in can be PROVEN to EXIST in a physical OR meta-physical manner. The only thing which can come close to "proof" is math, and even then the numbers themselves are simply constructs of our minds.
It is more apt to say you need evidence, which will lead you to better cementing a theory.
By the way: the theory of evolution does NOT include the theory of the creation of all matter.
The Origin of Species reflects upon a THEORY of how advanced physical life transpired from single-celled organic matter. It does not try to pinpoint the creation of said matter. So everyone talking about creationism v. evolution in the area of the birth of matter is incredibly fallacious.
The Big Bang Theory v. Creationism is more apt.
But the Big Bang theory is also incredibly outdated as a theory. It depends on gravity as an aspect of keeping the density of mass stable (i.e. mass can possibly be contrived from a zero-point stress field) ... when actually it may be more the work of electromagnetism--atoms may be comprised of "rubber bands" of electric current which was formed by magnetic pressure (not gravitational).
But there are lots of theories.
Big Bang, Big Crunch, Recycling Universe, Inflation Theory, Steady-State Theory, String Theory ...
Honestly it is pointless to contend creationism with any scientific theory, as the religious nature of conjecture is accepted as an indisputable proof instead of the pursuit of data.
People who study the science behind something are looking at clues which will point them in one direction or another. And any theoretical scientist worth their salt will tell you that it is not the pursuit of PROOF that is their calling, because nothing in the dimensions we find ourselves in can be PROVEN to EXIST in a physical OR meta-physical manner. The only thing which can come close to "proof" is math, and even then the numbers themselves are simply constructs of our minds.
It is more apt to say you need evidence, which will lead you to better cementing a theory.
By the way: the theory of evolution does NOT include the theory of the creation of all matter.
The Origin of Species reflects upon a THEORY of how advanced physical life transpired from single-celled organic matter. It does not try to pinpoint the creation of said matter. So everyone talking about creationism v. evolution in the area of the birth of matter is incredibly fallacious.
The Big Bang Theory v. Creationism is more apt.
But the Big Bang theory is also incredibly outdated as a theory. It depends on gravity as an aspect of keeping the density of mass stable (i.e. mass can possibly be contrived from a zero-point stress field) ... when actually it may be more the work of electromagnetism--atoms may be comprised of "rubber bands" of electric current which was formed by magnetic pressure (not gravitational).
But there are lots of theories.
Big Bang, Big Crunch, Recycling Universe, Inflation Theory, Steady-State Theory, String Theory ...
Honestly it is pointless to contend creationism with any scientific theory, as the religious nature of conjecture is accepted as an indisputable proof instead of the pursuit of data.
FallaciaSonata
Member
Venetia":2nh31k4h said:
Once again, no one seems to accept Creation as a scientific theory.... Why is this? I know the answer to my own question, but this entire thread is becoming pointless.
It's apparent that the majority of the posts on here do not accept it as a theory, yet they allow "evolution", which requires more faith and religious aspects.
If you honestly pursue data, it becomes rather obvious that the Earth cannot be as old as some think. So, the religion of evolutionism requires that you accept the "millions and millions of years old" policy as "indisputable proof."
I don't know about you guys, but I'm done here.
westingtyler06
Member
I have just read the last post, and I want to point out some logical fallacies while pointing out how pointless such discussions are.
Science isn't a form of faith. It is simply a method of examining empirical data gathered through the use of the five senses.
Now, having FAITH that science is a worthwhile endeavor or that it can reveal the true nature of the universe is definitely a form of faith just as valid/invalid as faith in invisible men.
There is a single scale of human experience: at one end is logic, and at the other end is feeling. Feelings cannot be quantified or standardized, so we choose not to rely on them when trying to understand any kind of absolute nature for the universe.
But, then, some would say that feeling is more valid than mathematics. But because feelings can be interpreted so many different ways (ask the Summer of Sam killer if he was doing the right thing) it's best not to make others live their lives based on YOUR feelings. Mathematics and scientific data, when used correctly (and anything can be misused) can give us a more broad and all-encompassing understanding of the universe as seen through the eyes of an unbiased judge.
Some would say that math is the language of god and science is how we unravel and learn program coding, thereby allowing us to better appreciate the complexities of the program.
Empirical data shows us these things: dinosaur bones, radio-carbon analysis (and other age-telling methods that are based on physical laws with nothing subjective about them), rocks that --without bending the principles of gravity and time--have taken more than a few thousand years to develop, light that has reached here from other stars that are MORE than a few thousand light years away, evidence in everything that over time organisms can both adapt and become more or less complex depending upon the environment presented.
Occam's razor helps: we do IN FACT receive light from stars over 10,000 light years away. We would be making an unnecessary ASSUMPTION to say that God must have distorted time in the past to allow that to happen. Because there is not empirical data to indicate God's existence, we ASSUME he does, and because we can ASSUME anything, why assume anything?
The main point is that science is not subjective and religion/feelings are. A scientist can be wrong about data, but data is data and is NOT open to interpretation, no matter who interprets it wrong. With feelings, there is nothing BUT a subjective form of measurement and there is nothing BUT subjective interpretation.
Three guys eyeball the length of a bomb fuse and guess it will take 3, 9, and 15 seconds to explode. Science can take all intuition out of this and show us exactly that it will take 9.73 seconds. When feelings and data don't mesh, seriously, which one are you gonna listen to?
If you wanna talk about the Bible that's a whole other story. The Bible is a historical document in the eyes of scientists, just as the Odyssey is. There is evidence that some parts of some stories are based on fact, but there are other parts that follow the same pattern that any legend->myth has followed over the ages, so who has any reason that this single book, out of the world of mythology and legend, should be taken as fact?
People who debate the existence of god are missing the point. Debates are supposed to end after evidence for both cases has been presented and discussed. Debates have a clear winner.
If someone is trying to prove that God exists, it's not gonna happen. Proof denies faith, and the existence of a universe-creating god can never be proven. (Now, we COULD prove that some giant alien whale baby created our universe, but that doesn't prove that God exists; because God is the one who created HIM and everything else.)
If someone is trying to prove that God does NOT exist, it's not gonna happen. No matter how much evidence you've gathered, it's too possible that you still have just not gathered enough.
The five senses can be fooled. Math and science cannot. They can be calculated wrong, but in math and science there is only one right answer (even if the answer is multiple answers).
Seriously, if you can't trust math and science, which are the ONLy standards that aren't arbitrary, then there are NO standards for ANYTHING, and we can't talk about ANYTHING EVER.
The real problem that arises on a practical level is this: people use the bible, or some other book of faith, to tell others how they can or can't help the world become a better place. Did you stone your children to death when they disobeyed you? If not, you're picking and choosing. The Bible should not be open to interpretation if it was written by an omnipotent god.
Why follow the Bible's faith-based parts when there are a hundred other religious books with EXACTLY the same amount of empirical data (and often MORE who FEEL they are right) to back it up?
YOU CANNOT BACK UP GOODNESS OR BADNESS WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN FAITH, WHICH IS A SUBJECTIVE FEELING. EVER. END OF STORY.
Nobody said there aren't historically accurate parts of the Bible. Just as there are historically accurate parts of the Rig-Vedas, the Quran, etc. But you have to take any old book with a grain of salt.
So don't arbitrarily choose ANY old book to tell everybody else to live their real lives by. That is not justice, nor is it fair, nor is it right just because it says it is.
Science isn't a form of faith. It is simply a method of examining empirical data gathered through the use of the five senses.
Now, having FAITH that science is a worthwhile endeavor or that it can reveal the true nature of the universe is definitely a form of faith just as valid/invalid as faith in invisible men.
There is a single scale of human experience: at one end is logic, and at the other end is feeling. Feelings cannot be quantified or standardized, so we choose not to rely on them when trying to understand any kind of absolute nature for the universe.
But, then, some would say that feeling is more valid than mathematics. But because feelings can be interpreted so many different ways (ask the Summer of Sam killer if he was doing the right thing) it's best not to make others live their lives based on YOUR feelings. Mathematics and scientific data, when used correctly (and anything can be misused) can give us a more broad and all-encompassing understanding of the universe as seen through the eyes of an unbiased judge.
Some would say that math is the language of god and science is how we unravel and learn program coding, thereby allowing us to better appreciate the complexities of the program.
Empirical data shows us these things: dinosaur bones, radio-carbon analysis (and other age-telling methods that are based on physical laws with nothing subjective about them), rocks that --without bending the principles of gravity and time--have taken more than a few thousand years to develop, light that has reached here from other stars that are MORE than a few thousand light years away, evidence in everything that over time organisms can both adapt and become more or less complex depending upon the environment presented.
Occam's razor helps: we do IN FACT receive light from stars over 10,000 light years away. We would be making an unnecessary ASSUMPTION to say that God must have distorted time in the past to allow that to happen. Because there is not empirical data to indicate God's existence, we ASSUME he does, and because we can ASSUME anything, why assume anything?
The main point is that science is not subjective and religion/feelings are. A scientist can be wrong about data, but data is data and is NOT open to interpretation, no matter who interprets it wrong. With feelings, there is nothing BUT a subjective form of measurement and there is nothing BUT subjective interpretation.
Three guys eyeball the length of a bomb fuse and guess it will take 3, 9, and 15 seconds to explode. Science can take all intuition out of this and show us exactly that it will take 9.73 seconds. When feelings and data don't mesh, seriously, which one are you gonna listen to?
If you wanna talk about the Bible that's a whole other story. The Bible is a historical document in the eyes of scientists, just as the Odyssey is. There is evidence that some parts of some stories are based on fact, but there are other parts that follow the same pattern that any legend->myth has followed over the ages, so who has any reason that this single book, out of the world of mythology and legend, should be taken as fact?
People who debate the existence of god are missing the point. Debates are supposed to end after evidence for both cases has been presented and discussed. Debates have a clear winner.
If someone is trying to prove that God exists, it's not gonna happen. Proof denies faith, and the existence of a universe-creating god can never be proven. (Now, we COULD prove that some giant alien whale baby created our universe, but that doesn't prove that God exists; because God is the one who created HIM and everything else.)
If someone is trying to prove that God does NOT exist, it's not gonna happen. No matter how much evidence you've gathered, it's too possible that you still have just not gathered enough.
The five senses can be fooled. Math and science cannot. They can be calculated wrong, but in math and science there is only one right answer (even if the answer is multiple answers).
Seriously, if you can't trust math and science, which are the ONLy standards that aren't arbitrary, then there are NO standards for ANYTHING, and we can't talk about ANYTHING EVER.
The real problem that arises on a practical level is this: people use the bible, or some other book of faith, to tell others how they can or can't help the world become a better place. Did you stone your children to death when they disobeyed you? If not, you're picking and choosing. The Bible should not be open to interpretation if it was written by an omnipotent god.
Why follow the Bible's faith-based parts when there are a hundred other religious books with EXACTLY the same amount of empirical data (and often MORE who FEEL they are right) to back it up?
YOU CANNOT BACK UP GOODNESS OR BADNESS WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN FAITH, WHICH IS A SUBJECTIVE FEELING. EVER. END OF STORY.
Nobody said there aren't historically accurate parts of the Bible. Just as there are historically accurate parts of the Rig-Vedas, the Quran, etc. But you have to take any old book with a grain of salt.
So don't arbitrarily choose ANY old book to tell everybody else to live their real lives by. That is not justice, nor is it fair, nor is it right just because it says it is.
westingtyler06
Member
We have seen things change over time. So evolution is a valid theory. We have seen intelligent beings create things, so that is a valid theory. Which one has MORE empirical data to back it up will, in the end, determine which is the more SCIENTIFIC one. Does it affect ANYBODY"S life? No. The pursuit of science must continue, and whatever is wrong will be shown to be wrong, so go about your life.
I personally trust science OVER feeling when there is a conflict, though I never discount feeling as a valid form of understanding as well. Apart from my philosophy in life, which is this: benefit life and don't harm life, I'm just not gonna govern others based on my feelings because their feelings are just as valid.
What good is all the data in the world if we don't FEEL the COMPASSION to use it to help others live better lives (like with medicinal discoveries)?
And what good is our compassion if we don't use our logical faculties to most efficiently benefit others? Why should we ever slow ourselves down from making the world a better place to live for all humanity just because some random old "book of the day" says we should?
But seriously, guys, you'll wear yourselves out eventually when you realize you're not gonna convince the other side no matter what because you're BOTH living based on feelings.
Here is the real question anyway: which is a more valid way to live your life: based on feelings or based on logic and data?
Once again, there is NO RIGHT ANSWER. And both sides will find they are both about 50/50. Even scientists love their wives. And even religious fanatics do their taxes.
I personally trust science OVER feeling when there is a conflict, though I never discount feeling as a valid form of understanding as well. Apart from my philosophy in life, which is this: benefit life and don't harm life, I'm just not gonna govern others based on my feelings because their feelings are just as valid.
What good is all the data in the world if we don't FEEL the COMPASSION to use it to help others live better lives (like with medicinal discoveries)?
And what good is our compassion if we don't use our logical faculties to most efficiently benefit others? Why should we ever slow ourselves down from making the world a better place to live for all humanity just because some random old "book of the day" says we should?
But seriously, guys, you'll wear yourselves out eventually when you realize you're not gonna convince the other side no matter what because you're BOTH living based on feelings.
Here is the real question anyway: which is a more valid way to live your life: based on feelings or based on logic and data?
Once again, there is NO RIGHT ANSWER. And both sides will find they are both about 50/50. Even scientists love their wives. And even religious fanatics do their taxes.
Excuse me west while I apply occam's razor on all of this. Science is based on empiricism, which is a very narrow way of percieving and understanding the world. It only cares about what can be tested, measured and verified from experimentation.
"God did it." Is not testable, measurable or verifiable in any realm other than perhaps philosophical debate which is allowed to throw out empiricism. And while such navel gazing is very interesting it isn't science. You are trying to compare apples to oranges, Fallacia.
westingtyler06
Member
Thank you. I barely answered the question in a billion pages and you did it in one paragraph. Is that a quote from somewhere?
Incognitus
Member
I see Fallacia has brought up the connection between Darwinism and Racism. It really makes you consider that she might have a point, considering racism didn't exist before the Origin of Species. It really makes you wonder how people justified things such as the slavery or genocide that went on beforehand, eh! :haha:
Whilst we're on the subject Fallacia, Darwin's Origin of Species is not, as you seem to think, comparative to a Bible on evolution. In fact, Darwin has been shown to have been flawed in much of his thinking, and much of his attitudes to other groups of people are, quite obviously, outdated.
The difference between scientists and many religionists is that scientists can and will alter their views based on the evidence that is at hand.
In response to your PM:
I don't actually want to know anything. Leastways not from you, and not in the sense in which you seem to be asking: I have read Creationist tracts by the people who write about this stuff best and frankly I was not impressed. I have many read books which take apart some of the absurd arguments they make. Many of them are based upon a rather bad "cartoon" version of Evolution, which frankly is not really their fault: newspapers, television and radio have never been particularly good at portraying evolution or the origins of the universe successfully. Many scientists will tell you that the situation is worse in America - mainly because old ideas (religious or factual) will die hard and thus we are still stuck with ridiculous canards like "Man evolved from a monkey", "What good is half an eye" or the discovery of Red-Shift "doesn't prove shit".
Richard Dawkins (keep reading!) did a documentary a while back in which he met one of these famous "Creation Scientists". He was giving the old line about there being no evidence, and to present the evidence - and he did. He listed off dozens of case studies. The look on the Creation Scientist's face was great! You've would never have seen someone so stunned, yet she obviously did not understand any of it, and nor was she willing to examine them further, as she was quite content to find those small strawmen pieces from various publications (many outdated by at least half a century) and parrot the same old lines. Ignorance is not an excuse.
I was hoping that you would be able to state a good case for creationism, or at least make a point that would challenge the foundations of evolution. Fortunately, the High Priests of Atheism and Godlessness are currently not shaking in their shoes. Neither are any of the faithful who have accepted what we know about the universe.
I have been following a recent debate, ongoing in some of the popularist science magazines, but probably wrong or already outdated, that most cosmologists are beginning to consider a steady-state universe again: I'm willing to adjust my worldview according to what empirical evidence is produced and what theories make sense in light of that evidence, so fortunately my own belief system is very much not intact, and is much the better for it.
Please read articles on this website before posting next:
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2437/
If you need anymore, just type "debunking creationism" into google. The above was merely the first hit.
Whilst we're on the subject Fallacia, Darwin's Origin of Species is not, as you seem to think, comparative to a Bible on evolution. In fact, Darwin has been shown to have been flawed in much of his thinking, and much of his attitudes to other groups of people are, quite obviously, outdated.
The difference between scientists and many religionists is that scientists can and will alter their views based on the evidence that is at hand.
In response to your PM:
I don't actually want to know anything. Leastways not from you, and not in the sense in which you seem to be asking: I have read Creationist tracts by the people who write about this stuff best and frankly I was not impressed. I have many read books which take apart some of the absurd arguments they make. Many of them are based upon a rather bad "cartoon" version of Evolution, which frankly is not really their fault: newspapers, television and radio have never been particularly good at portraying evolution or the origins of the universe successfully. Many scientists will tell you that the situation is worse in America - mainly because old ideas (religious or factual) will die hard and thus we are still stuck with ridiculous canards like "Man evolved from a monkey", "What good is half an eye" or the discovery of Red-Shift "doesn't prove shit".
Richard Dawkins (keep reading!) did a documentary a while back in which he met one of these famous "Creation Scientists". He was giving the old line about there being no evidence, and to present the evidence - and he did. He listed off dozens of case studies. The look on the Creation Scientist's face was great! You've would never have seen someone so stunned, yet she obviously did not understand any of it, and nor was she willing to examine them further, as she was quite content to find those small strawmen pieces from various publications (many outdated by at least half a century) and parrot the same old lines. Ignorance is not an excuse.
I was hoping that you would be able to state a good case for creationism, or at least make a point that would challenge the foundations of evolution. Fortunately, the High Priests of Atheism and Godlessness are currently not shaking in their shoes. Neither are any of the faithful who have accepted what we know about the universe.
I have been following a recent debate, ongoing in some of the popularist science magazines, but probably wrong or already outdated, that most cosmologists are beginning to consider a steady-state universe again: I'm willing to adjust my worldview according to what empirical evidence is produced and what theories make sense in light of that evidence, so fortunately my own belief system is very much not intact, and is much the better for it.
Please read articles on this website before posting next:
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2437/
If you need anymore, just type "debunking creationism" into google. The above was merely the first hit.
then you're setting ridiculous standards for your discussions. when people make claims such as "our side has more proof" without bothering to clarify, it becomes necessary.
if you're going to rely on "natural miracles" such as the grand canyon to plead creationism's case, you should really look up Darwin's finches. by these criteria of yours, the finches alone should be enough proof of evolution to at least set it on an even keel.
why are you assuming that evolution necessitates a godless universe, anyway? I think any religious scholar worth their salt has long since stopped thinking of the bible as a literal history of the universe, and it's not as if whoever might be up there couldn't set a natural process in motion to accomplish Its ends. acts of whatever god you're into don't necessarily have to be flashy physics-breaking miracles.
I feel strange commenting on stuff all the way at the top of the page, but I need to answer these questions.
Everything else has been addressed by the others.
Science is the study of evidence. Sometimes, evidence can be faked or formulas can be altered to fit a certain need. So yes, there is partial truth, depending on how the experiments were conducted.FallaciaSonata":2gqx3lii said:
I agree that they're both religions. But science changes with new evidence. I don't see anyone editing the Bible. (Don't read too much into that; I only implied it in the context of changing.)FallaciaSonata":2gqx3lii said:
Sorry if I start sounding too intense. I get really into these discussions. I'm not saying evolution is absolutely right, but that it's simply the most plausible theory at the moment. I'll change my ideas if new evidence comes up.FallaciaSonata":2gqx3lii said:
Everything else has been addressed by the others.
- Status