Sickening at times, frustrating and maddening always. The claims of a Y.E.C. (Young Earth Creationist), who purports the earth is less than ten thousand years old, have nothing to base their claims upon other than a book deemed sacred by its creators. Instead, with little to substantiate any assertion they make, the YECs go on the offensive and attempt to attack evolutionary theory, a well supported scientific understanding in regards to the process of change in biological organisms over time and how this explains biodiversity on the planet.
- Evolution is not a theory that explains the origin of the universe, that field of study is referred to as Cosmology and it is a field of study not covered by Charles Darwin’s, The Origin Of Species.
- Evolution is not a theory that describes the first origination of life on this planet, that field of study is called Abiogenesis. While Darwin might have remarked his feelings about the theory in a letter to a colleague, it is not part of the scope of evolution, which by definition describes the change in species over time and natural selection.
- Evolution is not inherently atheistic, the theory describes nothing regarding the existence of god, it is a scientific theory confining itself to prediction and observation of the natural world.
- The theory of evolution does not say, “humans came from monkeys”. The theory shows clear evidence supporting the hypothesis that at some point around 6 million years ago, humans, the great apes and primates diverged from a common ancestor.
- The theory of evolution does not say dogs come from frogs, a rock will turn into a duck or as some former TV personalities like to claim, will produce a half crocodile, half duck (crocoduck).
- Evolutionary theory is the best supported scientific hypothesis we have for describing the diversity of life on Earth. It is not a religion, a belief system, a faith or any other ambiguous religious term sometimes attached to it by YECs.
When pressed for evidence in favor of the young earth model, the creationists do not have supporting data. The YECs do not want to admit the biblical account is not a scientific theory, but rather that it is a ‘belief’ and cannot conduct a fair fight. Instead, they attempt to establish a false dichotomy, saying if evolution is flawed and possibly wrong, then creationism must be true.
None of these behaviors establish young earth creationism as a valid competing theory and many of the statements from its proponents only serve to display vast and overarching ignorance of what is being argued against.
THERE IS NO GOD! I CAN PROVE IT… THERE PROVED IT.
The Bible is not a bunch of fairy-tales and myths. How do we know Alexander the Great lived? Well, there were Historic eyewitnesses said he existed and told his story. The same is true with Jesus Christ. Why just quickly rule out the supernatural for Creation(our beginning). #1 Law of Thermodynamics says Nothing can make Nothing; you can’t have nothing make something. If you have nothing, where do you get something(this destroys Evolution). I am a Christian and I looked at the evidences and Logic for Atheism(which has NO hope) and Christianity. I am making a Forum called “Skeptics” on this Forum post you arguments against Christianity. This is coming Soon!!
jackbauer2009 said
>#1 Law of Thermodynamics says Nothing can make Nothing; you can’t have >nothing make something. If you have nothing, where do you get something(this >destroys Evolution).
evolution does NOT explain the origin of the universe or the origin of life on earth so your comment makes no sense.
Please read the article above again. specifically the part that says
#2 Evolution is not a theory that describes the first origination of life on this planet, that field of study is called Abiogenesis. While Darwin might have remarked his feelings about the theory in a letter to a colleague, it is not part of the scope of evolution, which by definition describes the change in species over time and natural selection.
Okay, then if you don’t know where we came from how the heck are we here, what is here, what hope do we have, what is our purpose, what is right and wrong? If christians have an answer on how and why we are here,why are you so quick to say “no” to our beliefs. Evolution degrades human life saying that we are just animals evolved? How is that not degrading. This does promote abortion, Euthanasia, Homosexuality, Rape,and Murder, because hey it’s just or natural ways. I can’t MAKE you believe anything and I’m not forcing you to believe what I believe. If anyone has presumptions then I can’t change your mind and that’s not my objective as a Christian. I am here to Glorify God- and so are you, he created you whether you agree or not. If I think the truth is Evolution and you believe the truth is Willy-Wonka made us in his chocolate factory, which one of our truths are true? What if I believe your truth is a lie? When I said nothing can make nothing I mistyped I am sorry and take FULL-responsibility, my point was nothing can make nothing. I am not a judgmental christian neither any other christian should be. I just want everyone to know that their is a Hope and that Evolution, Atheism, Islam, and all other religions don’t have that same Hope. I am making a website soon and will alert all of it’s date of arrival. God Bless all, I’m signing out.
Okay, a few things…
i. Cool your jets. No one–not even the writer of this article–is attacking your religion, and, on a personal note, I think Jesus Christ is (for lack of eloquence) pretty kick-ass. That said, the only thing disputed here is the lack of reasonable dialogue from those who have pretty zany ideas about the age of our planet, pretty zany ideas that–given the nature of their zany-ness–require some pretty substantial justification, other than the bible, which brings me to my next point.
ii. The Bible is awesome. It provides us with all kinds of useful information that can allow us to live better lives, closer to the way God would intend us to to, i.e. the Golden Rule. But it CANNOT provide us with a historical account of what actually happened thousands of years before Jesus was born, especially because citation-based reliable historical writing hadn’t even been invented yet, (Yes, I’m talking about Livy, the roman writer who started citing sources somewhere around 50BCE, before this people just made up dialogue for historical figures and events and pretended to know what they were writing about. They cant be blamed, it was the BCE’s for crying out loud.) and while I believe that the accounts of Jesus are much more reliable, that part of the Bible is the New Testament, not the Old Testament, N.B: the part of the Bible in question here. Which brings me to my next point.
iii. Evolution and Religion can coexist easily. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that they cant. The former is a theory given to us by observations of the natural world, while the latter is a path to spiritual fulfillment. So forget the nonsense of this absurd claim that evolution is predicated upon the claim that “what was nothing created something,” seriously: stop.
iv. Even if people don’t believe in a higher power or holy scripture, it doesn’t mean they are the kind of people that endorse rape or euthanasia. Atheism DOES NOT = morally bankrupt. Before you freak out and have a coronary, look up UTILITARIANISM. People have also argued for moral frameworks based on human ‘agency,’ something that does not require a belief in a god as necessary for endorsement.
v. “Our purpose” and/or “morality” aren’t provided to us by God in most cases. In most cases reason provides us with these things. I say this because there are many cases where people can misconstrue scripture to justify whatever twisted agenda they like, even to the point of moral bankruptcy, as is the case with the anti-homosexual movement. In this and other cases, it takes a rational person to realize that what Jesus WOULD do is LOVE people, not single them out, ostracize, or disenfranchise them simply because Levitican Law says that a man shouldn’t lay with a man right before it says we shouldn’t cut our hair. In reason lies the ability to recognize hypocrisy, and those who purport to love Jesus should know better.
vi. I’m not done but I have to make dinner. In closing I will say this: I wish people would go to school and learn to re-interpret their beliefs (spiritual and epistemological) instead of regurgitating whatever it was they’ve been told by others, be it the evangelical pastor vomits whatever sermon into the air in an effort to bring in more congregants and make more money, or your parents because they loved you enough to give you a spiritual upbringing; but one thing is true, America runs on subjugating all such people as a means to incredibly selfish and immoral ends. Choosing to remain in such a state of ignorance as to allow yourself to be used as a means, is one of the greatest injustices of all.
Very well written. Very well said. Kudos.
I agree, well stated
“In reason lies the ability to recognize hypocrisy, and those who purport to love Jesus should know better.” – I bow down to you. Nicely put.
What is real ignorance? Is it not knowing or perhaps its more than not knowing! Perhaps ignorance is getting up on your high horse and shouting out against something that you don’t understand or are simply afraid of?
Why do people have extreme opinions? I think its because of fear! Perhaps we need to ‘walk in the other mans shoes’ before we are in a position to comment on the beliefs or opinions of others etc.
As far as others ‘remaining in a state of ingnorance’ there is little you can do to a closed mind unless that mind is your own! So rather than shout our views at the top of our voices why not look into the views of others to try and understand what makes them so passionate?
Must go, the kids will be back in class soon!
I totally agree with this viewpoint. Live and let live, judge not lest you be judged…those sayings came from somewhere and they mean something. Nothing you will say, do, prove, or convey to a believer of christianity or any other religion is ever going to change their minds. Think about it this way, if you sat down with a room full of the top scholars on the subject of the bible and they told you everything you could possibly want to know about the bible and their interpretations of what it really means, how much of their beliefs would you be willing to accept as your own? My guess is probably little to none, judging by your written opinion above…which I agree with fully and completely by the way. For people who choose to believe in “religion”, no matter which one it is, they believe and are passionate about their beliefs just as you and most other people are about their own. But it isn’t very often that you hear the wisest thing that could ever be muttered by anyone on this subject and that is “I don’t know…” Truthfully, none of us really knows what happens when we die, or where life originated, or why we were put here on earth or even whether or not there is a god and if so what he/she/it really looks like. Beliefs are nothing more than opinions that we allow ourselves to fully and completely accept as truth…not “our own truth” but “universal truth”. The whole concept is ridiculous, because really, no one knows.
I do believe with all my heart that if Jesus Christ were alive today and saw just what a twisted, demented, sick and evil poison religion has become – how his beautiful message of peace and love and humanity has gotten so lost in the man-made rules and laws that we “must” follow to get to some “heaven” – he would be so sad. Nothing that Jesus or any other great spiritual leader has ever taught is remotely close what religion has become. It is, in fact, the exact opposite. Religion judges, condemns, turns away less fortunate, is greedy, perverted, sick and full of ridiculous lies…why? Because it is man-made, not God-made, and the worst part of all is that the leaders of these religions know just how vulnerable people are, and that they will believe anything and everything they are told to believe. When you ask yourself W.W.J.D. stop and think about that statement for a minute before you answer. Then ask yourself if your religious leader is walking that same walk. If not, at the very least be open to the fact that WE JUST REALLY DON’T KNOW. Period.
Jess,
What church have you been to that you have seen turn away the less fortunate, be greedy and perverted? And before you answer that please remember that it isn’t fair to generalize. I know that some of the things you speak of have happened in the bigger churches but religion as a whole is not about that. You were right in what you said about the religious leaders, but again you cannot generalize because not all religious leaders are like the ones that we hear about on the news.
I do not see how Evolution and Religion, specifically Christianity, can co-exist. First of all, the Bible says that the creator created ALL creators at one time. Therefore, they co-existed. Evolution says that all living things share a common ancestor. Totally different. One or the other is false. Not both can be true. And if we cannot take the creation story’s word, why take any of the Bible’s word.
Stop trying to appease Christians who have been wrong with their ideas from the Bible over and over again. The Earth is not on a firmament. The Universe is billions of years old. And, contrary to what someone said above, there is little or no secular evidence of a Jesus Christ with supernatural powers existing near 30 A.D. If there is proof, I would like to see some. At best it is speculation.
For all those who say they get their morals from the Bible, well, I am sorry for you. I am sorry that you condone the killing of homosexuals, people who work on the Sabbath, disobedient teenagers, etc. You must be really nasty people.
It’s pretty simple to have them at the same time, it’s called reading the bible not literaly, but as a metaphore. It’s just that simple.
Pretty messed up metaphore, you ask me. My friend’s been blogging his way through the bible and of course ^^ being a good friend I have to critique…
And yeah. Go read some of your ‘metaphore’ sometime, huh?
“Okay, then if you don’t know where we came from how the heck are we here”
I’ll make this really simple just for you. I’ll even add God in the equation just so you can wrap your little brain around it (even though it goes against science).
God-> Big Bang-> Universe-> The Elements (consult your periodic table)-> Galaxies-> Solar Systems-> Planets-> Molecules (such as water)-> Micro-organisms (such as bacteria)-> Single Celled Organisms(such as polyps, coral etc.)-> Marine Life(such as fish and arthropods)-> Land Dwellers (such as insects, amphibians, reptiles)-> Aviators & Mammals (such as rodents & birds) -> About 250,000,000 years later -> Primates -> Millions of years later -> Homo Sapien Sapien -> Thousands of years-> Some assholes write down some bullshit into a book because they didn’t have the means to discover their origin-> 2,000 years later-> We now have the tools to see where we’ve come from and I’m wondering why there are retards that still believe the shit written thousands of years ago. Simple enough right?
“what is here”
We are here, experiencing ourselves subjectively.
“what hope do we have”
The hope that one day we can stop basing our beliefs off outdated and outlandish claims, such as religion. To further expand our science, technology and philosophies while being humble to ourselves and our future kin. The idea that we should love to be proven wrong so that we can evolve into greater beings.
“what is our purpose”
To one day live in a resource based society, free from the clutches of money and religion, in peace and harmony. Advancing our technology to the point where we can explore space, both inner and outer for all of eternity.
“what is right and wrong”
The Golden Rule – Treat others only in the way that you would like to be treated. We can do this absent religion.
“If christians have an answer on how and why we are here,why are you so quick to say “no” to our beliefs.”
Because I’ve managed to answer these questions WHILE PROVING CHRISTIANITY WRONG.
“Evolution degrades human life saying that we are just animals evolved? How is that not degrading.”
You are the one that is degrading the human race! Evolution proves how great the human race really is! We have created love, medicine, art, taste, culture, and humanity, ON OUR OWN, THROUGH EVOLUTION! God didn’t do it. Jesus didn’t do it. We fucking did it. Shame on you for disparaging how far we’ve come over the millions of millennium.
“This does promote abortion, Euthanasia, Homosexuality, Rape,and Murder, because hey it’s just or natural ways.”
Nobody can explain why humans do the things we do. That is why we have EVOLVED into psychiatrists, doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc to try and stop these things from happening. I don’t see where this even fits into context dude.
“I can’t MAKE you believe anything and I’m not forcing you to believe what I believe.”
It sure sounds like you are.
“If anyone has presumptions then I can’t change your mind and that’s not my objective as a Christian”
Then why don’t you shut the fuck up and sit down while we evolve into things better than you.
“I am here to Glorify God- and so are you, he created you whether you agree or not.”
Hmm now it really sounds like you’re pushing your unproven beliefs on me, you motherfucker.
“If I think the truth is Evolution and you believe the truth is Willy-Wonka made us in his chocolate factory, which one of our truths are true?”
God now you don’t even make sense. You’ve totally lost it bro.
“What if I believe your truth is a lie?”
Then I think you’re scared to let go of something.
“When I said nothing can make nothing I mistyped I am sorry and take FULL-responsibility”
It’s okay, we forgive you. You’re just a retard.
“my point was nothing can make nothing”
Are you serious? You just did it again???
“I am not a judgmental christian neither any other christian should be. I just want everyone to know that their is a Hope and that Evolution, Atheism, Islam, and all other religions don’t have that same Hope”
You really need to get out of your house and see this world. Good luck surviving long with that attitude. You need to step down off your pedestal and realize that you in fact are the uneducated one here.
“I am making a website soon and will alert all of it’s date of arrival.”
I won’t hold my breath.
“God Bless all, I’m signing out.”
Amen to that!!! Thank you God for releasing us from this stupidity!
maybe you shlould him onto a Bill Hicks video?
Two words: Simply. Amazing.
I normally hate to comment on things like this but I really must say that if you view jackbauer2009′s post as ignorant or unintelligent then I need to point out that yours was just as bad and even quite rude. To post on a public forum about your opinions is not pushing your religion or ideas on someone else. It is voicing your opinions in a public forum which is our God given and Constitutional right. Just like the writer of this entry voiced their opinion and even in an insulting tone towards the opposite opinion.
You should apply your Golden Rule to yourself. If you want the right to share your thoughts and be heard with an open mind then you should grant that to others instead of jumping down people’s throats, insulting, and even cussing at the opposite opinion.
Our state of mind and view of the world is based greatly on perception. If you felt insulted in any way that is because you chose to feel that way, not because he was trying to make you feel that way.
That was beautifully stated. Thank-you….
How can you answer irrational people except somewhat irrationally yourself? Deal with it. If someone is going to act like an idiot, they should be treated like an idiot. If someone says that some long-haired man made fish and bread fall from the sky, they should be treated as insane.
I am going to answer this as politely as I can, even though you’re not showing me the same courtesy.
To say “answer irrational people except somewhat irrationally yourself” is a terrible way to handle any situation. Does that mean then that if someone is acting violently that you should in turn react violently? If you’re answer is yes then I can say honestly and without guilt you’re wrong in that thinking. You only continue the cycle of uncontrolled emotion. Just because someone is acting negative in any way does not justify you acting the same. You must take responsibility for your own actions and learn to control yourself despite your initial feelings. The best way to handle an irrational person is to keep your head and react logically and with well-thought out words.
Can it be? A Christian practicing what they preach and actually acting like a human?
First off, I respect you immensely for your personal code of conduct in a public forum, it seems to be better than my own =]. I do somewhat agree with forscore however, it is oftentimes a waste of time to use warm-hearted logical statements and kindly arguments on the hordes of mindless zealots (be they christian, atheist, or buddhist). Let me just state that sometimes fire needs to be fought with fire, although it takes a deft hand to accomplish this without feeding the flames. Oh and I don’t agree with how most of these people react, but I certainly can understand it.
(well placed ambiguous sarcasm often works well for this purpose)
Lol. You made me laugh and made me sad at the same time. I’m glad that someone thinks I’m not being rude. I’m trying very hard to not give someone a reason to yell at me.
Makes me sad though that apparently you’ve encountered more unfriendly and rude Christians than not. For that, I apologize. I think tolerance on both sides could be a lot better than it is.
I can see how it seems like it won’t help at all to be nice. I know that I have had to go back and retype some of the things I wanted to say before submitting my responses. I also know that I have never ever gotten anywhere by reacting negatively. It might have made me feel better in the past, but as a Christian I am only harming my testimony by being rude. I have a god’s heart bracelet on my wrist, a gift from my future MIL, to cheer me up and remind me to think before I speak and before I act.
I suppose fire could be fought with fire, but I think in religious and political conversations it only serves to strengthen the other side’s negative opinion towards us.
I think I like you =]. It’s nice to see a friendly face over there across the trenches once in a while… makes me feel like humanity isn’t completely lost. I generally try to be nice, but have been known to be… less-than-nice to people that are in need of such treatment. (Its quite a task to actually make me angry… but you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.)
And I agree it is much easier to strengthen the other side’s beliefs than to change them. Has anyone ever changed beliefs based on any sort of online discussion? I would hazard to guess that this is a rare event indeed. Generally people discussing these issues already know their mind thoroughly and are prepared to defend their stance to the last. I would rather convince someone to have an open mind than to convince them to ‘convert’ to atheism. No one wants to really listen to what other have to say… that’s the worst part =[.
Myself I live in a grayish area, that leans toward atheism, but have been known to teeter on theistic notions now and again when presented with someone who knows how to present persuasive arguments. None of them have quite been enough though… Oh well the quest continues, nice to meet you taeray.
When you hear a lot of laughter you can tell there is a fool in the room – not that the fool laughs (fools don’t laugh), but that the wise are laughing at him.
[a paraphrase of a quotation I have already lost]
The intolerance toward the intolerant is a good joke and the Creator of this world must laugh a lot.
Tho many people find the kind of irrationality found in much religious faith risable, I myself don’t.
Or no more than I do that of those who believe economic growth will make everyone rich – once we get this thing going fast enough it will never stop! – or any dogma based on incomplete knowledge.
The human drama is one of irreconcilable tensions between an irrational faith in reason, and an inborn sense of the numinous. For an ignorant nation to believe in the literal truth of the bible is one expression of the belief in reason to uphold the irrational.
If the faith-based were able to ditch reason entirely and say
“I believe because it is impossible.”
– Terence
then we would be getting somewhere.
Wow. Look at little Miss Know It All here. She is somebody that’s not even here to discuss the debate in hand, but to pick fights with people because “somebody said something mean on the internet!”. Grow up sweetheart. I’ve read several of your posts on here and you do nothing but play the “I’m so sweet and innocent I don’t have to debate. I’ll just try to pick apart other people’s conversations that I’m not even a part of, while trying to sound smart”. How about you pick your battles and stay on topic. You’re just trolling into other people’s discussions just to input your two cents and it’s not even relevant nor does it make sense. At least what I say is well thought and doesn’t contradict my points. If you don’t like how blunt or vicious I am then that’s fine, don’t read it. But don’t try to lecture me on perception and reality because I don’t think you have a clue what either is.
You sound to me like you’re just a product child of whatever your college professor throws at you. Bouncing from one interest to the next while never sticking to a belief. You’re the type of girl that tries to include herself where she isn’t even wanted. So fucking phony. Get off your high horse think about what you’re going to say before you spit that nonsense. I don’t need your little interpretation of what the original poster meant or his intentions, and its not even any of your business. So shut the fuck up and quit trying to get a rise off everyone you troll.
^.^ Completely off topic, completely unprovoked, completely unnecessary and completely ignorant. I have only responded to things other people have brought up.
I’m sorry my being nice and polite bothers you so much. How sad. I’ll stop after I say have a nice rest of your day. Ta!
Why so serious?
Seriously, though, calm down, dude. She has as much right to post here as anybody else. Did something she say offend you or something?
@Dave B
First of all, I have to say that I do really appreciate your comment. You seem to be the kind of atheist that “stays out of polemics”. I knew some other folks who called themselves atheists but who where not able to express their opinion without offending those who do not share their views. After all, “you atheists” shouldn’t make the same mistake a lot of fundamental religious people do.
Did I say “you atheists”?
Yes, I did.
The thing is that my position is not clear at all about the subject.
I’m not an “atheist”.
Well, maybe, I am – referring to most of the people who call themselves “believers”. I’m not a religious person. According to the dogmas of ancient founded believe systems like Catholicism or whatever I am on the hiqhway to hell, just like “you”.
What a crap.
Which means, I’m not a “theist” either.
But:
In my opinion – beside all religious systems – I certainly do defend the old scriptures. They are just one way to see the world. We should not ignore that the authors of the Bible (YES, they were human like us) had no access to the kind of knowledge we have today. They tried to “explain” things using their imagination, using metaphors, and so on.
The Bible is a very interesting document about how folks saw the mistery of (human) life in ancient days. That’s it.
I think that it just depends on the interpretation.
And it does NOT excuse any kind of abuse till today in the name of “religion”.
I laughed so much this was amazing!
I would have you re-read the bible, and understand that it alone is the largest promoter of rape, murder, and slavery ever to end up on the back of a gas-station toilet. Take a look at the parable of the pounds, where Jesus uses quite a profane allusion to demonstrate something so plain as ‘kill your enemies.’ Only, his sentence was obviously fabricated with better speech ‘bring all of those who will not have me as their king, and slay them in my presence.’
Or the following passages, for instance:
“But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.” (Jesus) – Luke 19:27
“”For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.” Exodus 35:2
“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:… stone him with stones, that he die.” Deuteronomy 21:18
“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Leviticus 20:13
“if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.” Deuteronomy 22:13-21
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.” Colossians 3:22
“Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.” 1 Peter 2:18
Every single one of these passages presents an ongoing moral dilemma, where Christians themselves play to what is unanimously the ‘good’ side. On that side, murder, slavery, and rape are wrong. These are from the bible, they tell you: kill your kids, kill your sexually curious daughters, kill ‘fags’. (But also that god ‘creates’ man in his own image–no where does it say except homosexuals, this one of the most obvious discrepancies within Ezra’s fables.) Deny what you will, but these passages have vindicated such ruthless tyranny as the crusades and the inquisition; they have been justifying killing in the name of god since the conception of the ‘immaculate conception’. This is testament of your poor reasoning, because by the standards of your very public ‘perfectly moralled’ book, you’re defying your very god.
When I mention free will to most misguided Christians, they say God has granted them volition to ‘test their faith’–that makes God a deceiver; calling god a deceiver is blasphemy. (Not to mention, believing that someone is somehow ‘all powerful, all seeing’ but that they can’t peer into the fabric of existence and see what path you might choose is paradoxical.)
Ghandi was Hindu; Anne Frank was Jewish; Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery. According to you, all of these people, otherwise world renowned for doing great and/or honorable things, are most certainly in hell right now.
To give a point from the mouth of Sam Harris–Biology texts will make you aware of the fact that it is common for women to conceive a child, but not know she has. Before the fetus amounts to much, her body will send it out with her waste. Having said this, if god gives every baby a soul as soon as it’s conceived in the womb, than, again, as Sam Harris has put it ‘this makes god the most notorious abortionist of all time.’ And I would ask you what kind of sadistic deity are you worshipping? Obviously, the kind who knows the cure for cancer and AIDS, but ignores you when you beg for him to give you the recipe.
Now, I beseech you, don’t go on saying that Evolution is degrading to human kind, but then saying that we need religion to control ourselves. THAT is degrading.
While you are ranting on about a subject you can’t possible understand (ie; anything in the Bible) you are only showing your ignorance. The natural (unspiritual) man can’t perceive spiritual things because they are discerned by those who are spiritually alive.
By rejecting God and his word you show that you are spiritually dead in sin and trespasses and have no hope of understanding anything spiritual
because it is beyond your finite mind to grasp.
Only those who have been born-again, and have received salvation through Jesus Christ can understand the scriptures as they are intended. None of them question the veracity of scripture because they know the author personally and in knowing him they also know his word is true.
For you to teach a Christian anything about the Bible is about as ludicrous as an alien coming to earth, and instantly understanding everything about humans with flawless logic and understanding even though he cannot even grasp the word human. It will never happen.
Salvation begins with the revelation God has given each of us deep down within that we are sinners and rebels against him. Until you get to first base and repent of your sins you are just going to have to ramble on about God with your ignorance blatantly evident to those who know him. It is a pitiable state to be in.
While you are ranting on about a subject you can’t possible understand (ie; anything involving science) you are only showing your ignorance. The religious (non-scientific) man can’t perceive scientific things because they are discerned by those who are capable of reason.
By rejecting science and empirical evidence you show that you are intellectually dead and have no hope of understanding anything about the world around you because it is beyond your finite mind to grasp.
Only those who have read a single textbook, and are open to new ideas when sufficient evidence is available can understand science as it is intended. No religious zealots question the veracity of science because they assume a being they have never met, never touched, never found any evidence for touched them personally provided them doctrine that is absolutely true, despite a complete lack of evidence for their position.
For you to teach a scientist anything about science is about as ludicrous as the son of God coming to Earth. All that blindly believe they instantly understanding everything about humans based on unfounded assumptions from a book of questionable origin cannot even grasp the word “logic.” It should have never happened.
Intelligence begins with the scrutiny of evidence. Until you get to first base and drop your baseless beliefs, you are just going to have to ramble on about science with your ignorance blatantly evident to those who are capable of rational thought. It is a pitiable state to be in.
lol I was planning to parody this too after reading the first paragraph… damn you richard! Nice job though lol.
And fonsoc… you, jackbauer2009, and the likes really scare the crap outta me. How did your minds become so closed to anything resembling a reasonable thought?
Say what you want, Remember these these words: born once – die twice, born twice – die once! One day you’ll see who was right….
What’s really tragic is that after you die and become utterly nothing, you won’t be around to day “Shit, I was wrong! I’ve wasted my life on a lie!”
I would like to bring into question Richard’s and ultimately the entire article in that they are acting under the assumption that “science” or “logic” or “data” is the ultimate truth at which everything else is subordinate.
This is a huge misconception that in times to come I believe will be held as the stereotype of our “modern” times. Science, mathematics, etc…are not but a language with which we articulate that which is around us; they are not what is most real in themselves.
For if one holds to the misconception they will have an incredibly narrow view of life and the universe. So narrow that no longer am I even annoyed by their ridiculous arguments, but I pity them.
The whole definition you have their Richard of “Religion = non-scientific” is so absurd I question whether to address it. That is a hallow definition constructed to fit into a solid argument, which is very easy to come up with when you invent all of the definitions for yourself.
I do not have time to fiddle to much longer, and cannot speak for “Religion.” But I will say that, as a Christian, the proper view of a Christian is the perspective of many parts to one body that is subordinate to God. Therefore Science, Art, Cooking, Plumbing are used by people and fit into the body as themselves without a strong hierarchy; they all need the other to function well. Therefore we (used as humanity) should seek each of them and do them well but they should be held in check by the other members. For a Christian it is not the question of Science or Faith….it is not a question of which is more valuable to do, for all is vanity….it is a question of the way in which you do it. And the way in which to do it is to be taking by the hand by the Almighty and seek him fully and wholly.
theokieza – only according to your religion, which has no more evidence for its veracity than any of the other several thousand (or more?) that humanity has dreamed up throughout history.
Interesting. So what about those have chosen to believe in God and Christ despite their scientific background? Are they just crazy and unintelligent? They must be since they don’t think exactly as you do.
I think there is plenty of room for a meeting of minds between those who are religious and those who are not. People as extreme as you are just as bad as those with extreme religious beliefs. I personally was raised by a Scientist father, taught about Pangaea and Evolution, and was immersed in a collection of scientific theories to explain our world and the universe.
Four years ago I was saved and baptized and believe whole heartedly in Christ as my savior and God as the creator. I do not view myself as unintelligent in any way, having graduated with honors and a 3.5 gpa. I am surrounded by many beliefs and ideas from friends and family, having come from a liberal family and attending a liberal arts school. But this was my choice for myself. I find myself taking slight insult at your assumption that all Christians are blind, ignorant, and illogical.
It’s usually mind boggling when a biologist is a Young Earth Creationist, or when a physicist is a devout believer in the Abrahamic god, let alone any deity. It’s as if these people live double lives, taking hold of what fits at any given moment, and tossing it aside when it doesn’t, and then switching back and forth–all based entirely on the situation at hand.
And, any time any person expresses their distrust and dislike of Christianity, or any other religion, and any time he or she puts forth the idea that belief in a higher power is rather silly, it’s seen as an attack. Just as you have. You’re insulted that he made an assumption that all Christians are blind, ignorant, and illogical. No where did he say that, that I can find. Even if any such assumption is never actually put forth, the very fact that a non-believer disagrees is automatically considered to be that assumption.
So, “go cry moar!”
Oh believe me, I’m not crying. My feelings can’t be hurt by a stranger’s opinion because their opinion doesn’t weigh that heavily on how I feel about myself. I’m more than confident enough to not care whether you or anyone disagrees with me or not.
I suppose I shouldn’t expect you to understand or pick up on the slightly (because I did say “slight insult”) insulting undertone of his post because you obviously agree with him. Rarely does one who agrees with another and would respond with a similar sarcasm and tone realize that it’s possible they are not acting in a way that might not be taken as polite.
Comments like:
“belief in a higher power is rather silly”
“intellectually dead” (because apparently ALL Christians have rejected science entirely)
“have no hope of understanding anything about the world around you because it is beyond your finite mind to grasp”
Directly imply that people who believe in God are (as you said) “silly” (definition: weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish) and (as he said) unintelligent (because if you’re intellectually dead then you are probably the opposite of intellectual, definition being: foolish, ignorant, simple, stupid).
I am going to assume that I don’t need to break down the last example for you.
So no he did not say that exactly but I’m not so simple minded that I can’t figure out he wasn’t being sweet and polite.
I don’t mind all that much what he said. I was simply trying to point out that there are plenty of well educated Christians, and religious people in general, out there. I also would like to point out that this is a common misconception. It is not nearly as foolish has some would like to believe. The concept of a higher power has existed in our culture much longer than the idea that one does not exist. By sheer scientific statistics the non-believers are outnumbered quite a bit and the odds are against them being correct.
Also, I don’t think that it is that odd for a person of science to believe in God. I could understand even a biologist to believe in a higher power or creator. True science is creating a hypothesis, seeking to prove or disprove it, and then altering the theory based on the findings. Then the scientist begins again.
Evolution is a scientific theory.
The Big Bang is a scientific theory.
I am sure there are people out there who have done their own research and found holes in these theories and theories like them. These people could then find themselves coming to the conclusion that perhaps science simply might not explain everything.
I can also understand how one might question the theories that man kind has come up with about our world and the universe, when we don’t even understand the full function of our own bodies. To this day there are questions about how and why the brain does what it does, and we actually have brains before us that we can study. Yet we then go on to theorize about things that happened thousands of years before our time and sometimes thousands of light years away.
I would like to also say that I was not trying to pick a fight with my earlier post. I prefer intelligent conversation and intelligent replies. I was simply stating and pointing out my opinion in response to the previous post. Take it as you want, of course, but you don’t do yourself justice by responding in anything but a mature and polite manner.
About 92% of scientists do not believe in god or are agnostic. This says to me that maybe only a bunch of crack-pot scientists do believe in God. It should be noted that this figure contrasts sharply with the public’s opinion of God.
I’m not even sure how to respond to this. Every post you have left in response to mine has been quite confrontational and impolite despite my best efforts to be as polite and well-spoken as I possibly can. You obviously strongly dislike the concept of God and that is your choice. I would like to know where you come up with your statistics though and whether they’re actually proven, scientific numbers.
I will say this, though I cannot back it up entirely, I think that the public’s opinion of religion is probably quite negative. I disagree that the opinion of God or the concept of a higher power is though, I know more people than not that believe in the existence of something akin to a God figure. Most statistics that I see online also disagree with your statement that people don’t believe in God.
And I don’t see how a scientist who chooses to believe in God is a “crack-pot”. I doubt you would appreciate the same kind of treatment and childish name-calling for not believing in Good.
Cute but as irrational as evolution being science. LOL!
Here is some information you should read:
Evolution is a religion
The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of
evolutionary thought. Ernst M ayr, for example, says that:
“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causation.”
Mayr, Ernst, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” Scientific American
(vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is
excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”
Todd, Scott C., “A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates,” Nature (vol.
401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.
It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as
Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine
of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific
philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist M ichael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is
their religion!
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is
promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to
Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true
of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
Ruse, Michael, “Saving Darwinism fron the Darwinians,”
National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
Another way of saying “religion” is “worldview,” the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview
applies not only to the evo lution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic
evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists
do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical
speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.
Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been
remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.
Rifkin, Jeremy, “Reinventing Nature,” The Humanist (vol. 58,
March/April 1998), p. 24.
They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of
deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its
constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for
unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no
matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute,
for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New
York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is
not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of just so
stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn’t make them true! An
evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:
“We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise
testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about.
Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians
conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for
flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes
are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and
preconceptions.”
Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press,
1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment
scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college
professors, he says:
“And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods
are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal — without demonstration — to
evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and
evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over
any evidence to the contrary.”
Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June
2000), p. 54.
Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the
frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious
atheism, as Ruse pointed out. W ill Provine at Cornell University is another scientist w ho frankly
acknowledges this.
“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of
people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only
if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”
Provine, Will, “No Free Will,” in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret
W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evo lutionists’ tirades notwithstanding. It is a
philosophical w orldview, nothing more.
(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as
well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is
that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31
Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that
is, macroevolution) is not “minimal.” It is nonexistent!
The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I
documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anticreationist
religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions,
as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the “liberal”
movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).
As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir
Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a “religion
without revelation” and w rote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:
Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most
comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.
Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper
and Row, 1964), p. 125
Later in the book he argued passionately that “We must change our pattern of
religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered
pattern.”
Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and
Row, 1964), p. 125
Then he went on to say that: “The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an
intellectual and moral burden on our thought.” Therefore, we must
construct something to take its place.”
Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and
Row, 1964), p. 125
That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of
evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.
In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is
reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are
included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have
shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.
References
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.
Ernst Mayr, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p.
83.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, op. cit., p.89.
Ibid.
Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American (vol. 271, October 1994), p.
78.
Ibid., p. 83.
Massimo Pigliucci, “Where Do We Come From?” Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 23, September/October
1999), p. 24.
Stephen Jay Gould, “The Evolution of Life,” chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, ed. by J.
William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic Press, 1999), p. 9.
J. O. Long, The Rise of Fishes (B altimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 30.
Niles Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998), p. 157.
Neil Shubin, “Evolutionary Cut and Paste,” Nature (vol. 349, July 2, 1998), p.12.
Colin Tudge, “Human Origins Revisited,” New Scientist (vol. 146, May 20, 1995), p. 24.
Roger Lewin, “Family Feud,” New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24, 1998), p. 39.
N. A. Takahata, “Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans,” Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics (vo l. 26, 1995), p. 343.
Lewin, op. cit., p. 36.
Rachel Nowak, “Mining Treasures from `Junk DNA’,” Science (vol. 263, February 4, 1994), p. 608.
Ibid.
E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, “A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of
Thermodynamics,” Physics Today (vol. 53, A pril 2000), p. 32.
Norman A. Johnson, “Design Flaw ,” American Scientist (vol. 88. M ay/June 2000), p. 274.
Scott, Eugenie, “Fighting Talk,” New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of
the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named, The National Center for Science Education.
Ericson, Edward L., “Reclaiming the Higher Ground,” The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October
2000), p. 30.
Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian
Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
Mayr, Ernst, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p.
83.
Todd, Scott C., “A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates,” Nature (vol. 401, September 30,
1999), p. 423.
Ruse, M ichael, “Saving Darwinism fron the Darwinians,” National Post (M ay 13, 2000), p. B-3.
Rifkin, Jeremy, “Reinventing Nature,” The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.
Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of
Books, January 9, 1997.
Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American
Scientist (vol. 88, M arch/April 2000), p. 169.
Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
Provine, Will, “No Free W ill,” in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W . Rossiter
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
Appleyard, Bryan, “You Asked for It,” New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.
Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989),
344 pp.
Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 125.
Ibid., p. 222.
Quote mining is a waste of time. All you’ve done is explain the nature of science – that which is asserted without evidence (such as the supernatural) can be dismissed without evidence.
I would like to bring into question Richard’s and ultimately the entire article in that they are acting under the assumption that “science” or “logic” or “data” is the ultimate truth at which everything else is subordinate.
This is a huge misconception that in times to come I believe will be held as the stereotype of our “modern” times. Science, mathematics, etc…are not but a language with which we articulate that which is around us; they are not what is most real in themselves.
For if one holds to the misconception they will have an incredibly narrow view of life and the universe. So narrow that no longer am I even annoyed by their ridiculous arguments, but I pity them.
The whole definition you have their Richard of “Religion = non-scientific” is so absurd I question whether to address it. That is a hallow definition constructed to fit into a solid argument, which is very easy to come up with when you invent all of the definitions for yourself.
I do not have time to fiddle to much longer, and cannot speak for “Religion.” But I will say that, as a Christian, the proper view of a Christian is the perspective of many parts to one body that is subordinate to God. Therefore Science, Art, Cooking, Plumbing are used by people and fit into the body as themselves without a strong hierarchy; they all need the other to function well. Therefore we (used as humanity) should seek each of them and do them well but they should be held in check by the other members. For a Christian it is not the question of Science or Faith….it is not a question of which is more valuable to do, for all is vanity….it is a question of the way in which you do it. And the way in which to do it is to be taking by the hand by the Almighty and seek him fully and wholly.
fonsoc, your entire post is an appeal to confirmation bias – you’re basically saying that you already have to believe in something to understand it, but then WHY are there so many different sects of christianity? They obviously believe in God, and the Bible, but they can’t agree on the meaning of everything in the Bible. Reality contradicts your argument.
There are no sects of Christianity. That is the biggest misunderstanding that has ever hit the secular community.
I must assume that you are referring to Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s
Witnesses, Christian Scientists and on and
on. Let’s purge the list of those who do not qualify as Christians and you have only protestants left.
Now we move among Protestants and find that many of them are either shallow and uneducated Christians or no Christians at all. To Clarify this I must qualify the Biblical understanding of what a true Christian is.
First, a Christian is a person who has acknowledged that they are a sinner – that is they live in defiance of God and his commandments. If this is a heart belief, and not merely mental acceptance, the person will be genuinely sorry for their sin and repent of it.
Genuine repentance gets the ear of God, and he answers no prayer for any person until that person repents of their sin and rebellion against God. It is at the point of repentance that God reaches out to the sinnner and through the blood of Christ shed on Calvary cleanses that one person of all the sin in their life and creates a relationship to God where there was none. The person who comes to God in this manner always finds him ready to forgive and God gives that person sure knowledge of their salvation. It is at this point that a person becomes a Christian.
There is no other way to become a Christian. John 14:6 states clearly; Jesus said; “I am THE way, THE truth and THE life; no man comes to the Father but through me.” In the book of Acts 4:12 declares when speaking of Jesus; “There is none other name given among men under heaven whereby we MUST be saved.” And I Timothy 2:5 affirms that “There is ONE God, and ONE Mediator between God and man – the man Christ Jesus.”
There are many in the Protestant world that have a form of godliness but deny the power. They say they love Jesus, but in works deny him. They say they love their neighbor, but never speak a word to help them get past spiritual ignorance and in many cases let them go out into eternity without hope in Christ while making excuses for thier spiritual apathy.
I came to Christ after coming out of prison in 1974. I had no preacher to tell me I needed to deal with sin. I just knew in my heart that God had convicted me of my wickedness and I had to do something about it. I prayed for forgiveness and asked God to reveal himself to me and he did. I believe it was because I humbled myself as a child and honestly wanted to change.
That is what Christianity is really all about. Religious sects don’t exist in the realm of real Christianity because the Bible makes it plain that all who have been forgiven are one body in Christ and there is to be no division. Many Christians belong to different denominations (ie; Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal churches, etc.) but the message is still the same – Jesus alone can deliver us from sin, death and eternal separation from God.
“Let’s purge the list of those who do not qualify as Christians and you have only protestants left.”
But even among protestants, there are hundreds of delineations. And what about Anglicans? Further, that is only your definition. Other branches will call themselves the only true branch of Christianity, and as such, lacking any objective evidence to clearly say what is and is not really Christian, do we say all of them are christian, or none?
ANYWAY, I’ll leave that argument alone, and cede it to you – that still doesn’t address the fact that your original argument is still an exercise in confirmation bias.
I will point you to the following page:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi.htm
There’s a lot of very interesting and well researched (and cited) data there in regards to how the various branches of protestant (and anglican) churches differ.
Fonsoc said
“While you are ranting on about a subject you can’t possible understand (ie; anything in the Bible) you are only showing your ignorance. The natural (unspiritual) man can’t perceive spiritual things because they are discerned by those who are spiritually alive.”
Just trying to understand here, do the above passages from your bible somehow change their meaning once you become born again? Do I need to become a believer before I can truly understand what’s written in the bible or once I figure out what these passages mean, then I am saved?
While many of us “can’t possible (sic) understand (ie; anything in the Bible)” please do your best to explain how the following passage can in any way not be interpreted as ‘I should kill my daughter if she has sex before marriage’.
“if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.” Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If you can explain this with something more than the “You wouldn’t understand because you are a heathen” type answer maybe it will help people see your point of view.
Hrm…I want to answer all of this but I think I’ll leave some of it for later. I’m in the process of looking up verses to respond to ones likeawhitecity1 posted, but work has kept me from being able to pull of them so far. I apologize.
Most importantly, the one thing I really wanted to point out was the verse from Deuteronomy. This falls under Levitical law, which was passed down by God through Moses. After Christ came he changed many of these laws. In John 8, Christ was brought a woman who had committed adultery. Those who brought her to him wanted to stone her and asked Christ if they should. He then answered “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”. The people then left and when the woman asked if he, Christ, condemned her he said no and sent her on her way.
This is but one example of many where Christ changed the laws that the Jews were given. With time came change and Christ brought it to them.
His most important lesson of all was love and forgiveness, but too many people forget that.
I get what Fonsac was saying about understanding the passages. They will mean something more to you when you have faith. You do not need to truly understand what is in the Bible to be saved though. All you need is faith and acceptance of Christ as your savior to be saved.
I don’t want to get involved in too much of a back and forth here, but I really wanted to reply to your posts of the scriptures. Yes there are a lot of saddening stories in the Bible but a lot of them are meant to teach us something. A few of the scriptures you quoted were taken out of context so I thought I would explain their context. Please don’t think I’m trying to pick your post apart, I just wanted to make sure that these scriptures are used only as they are meant to be.
“But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.” (Jesus) – Luke 19:27
This is from Luke 19, where Jesus recites a parable meant for those who believed that the Kingdom of God was coming right away. This was a lesson meant to show how things would be, that it would be his second coming not his first that would bring Heaven to Earth.
Luke 19:12 “So He said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return.”
While away the noble left money with his slaves and rewarded the slaves that invested the money had something to show for when he returned.
This is a message to Christians that while Christ is in Heaven we are supposed to do great works and leads others to Christ and lead faithful lives. After the rapture we will have to have something to show for of our lives here.
When Christ says “But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.”
This is meant for after the Second Coming when Christ brings his Kingdom to Earth. Though it is not specific I think it is meant for persecutors of Christ and his followers, who are also predicted in the Bible.
~~
”For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.” Exodus 35:2
This is one of many laws that were passed down by God through Moses, given to the Jews after they left Egypt. The Levitical law though does not apply to Christians, only Jews, because many of them were changed by Christ himself. This is one example of Levitical law that is no longer something we are meant to do. Now yes, it is in there and is a law God gave, and why I cannot say entirely. It was a different time, a much rougher and harsher time. No matter though, God saw fit to change these laws that had been handed down.
Working on the Sabbath is addressed in Matthew 12. The Pharisees seek to trap Jesus so they could accuse and condemn him. When they see his disciples picking wheat on the Sabbath they call him out. They also ask about healing on the Sabbath and doing work on the Sabbath. His most important reply is this:
“So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
~~
“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:… stone him with stones, that he die.” Deuteronomy 21:18
“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Leviticus 20:13
“If this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.” Deuteronomy 22:13-21
All of these are also Levitical law and can be addressed by one simple story from John 8.
A woman was brought to Christ who had been caught in the act of adultery. They brought her to him and asked if they should stone her. His response was this:
“He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7
The people then departed and when it was only Jesus and the woman he let her go, telling her that he did not condemn her.
To me, this story is the epitome of so much that Christ came to teach us. Forgiveness.
Thinking on it now, yes the Levitical law was quite harsh in treatment but looking at it as I write this you can see even more what Christ came to teach us with the Old Testament stories that came before. I’m having a hard time holding on to the the thought, but I kind of look at it like darkness and light. You can see and understand his lessons more when compared to how things were. Just like the light looks so much brighter when compared to the dark.
I would keep going but I have a feeling I am probably annoying you. I will leave it at that and hope that I have at least made you stop and think and consider more research on the verses before you cite them. Alone these verses support your opinions perfectly, but when in context there is so much more to be learned and thought about.
jackbauer:
Religion does not create morality. You’re saying that evolution degrades human life and promotes abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, rape, and murder. That’s quite the claim. Since we’re not dealing with proofs here, how about we call you a child molester. After all, I should be able to make wild claims too right? Not really. Chances are you’re not a pedophile, and since I have no proof to claim so, why should I both doing so. You should keep your own ridiculous claims to yourself as well.
I’m not quite sure how you managed to group Euthanasia and Homosexuality in there with Rape and Murder. Since Euthanasia as the act of mercy is a gift to those who suffer, and homosexuality of anyone is really no business of yours.
After all, who tells you that homosexuality is wrong? It certainly wasn’t “God”. It was someone who presumed to know the mind of “God”. Is this not hubris in the extreme?
And why would this “perfect God” create homosexuals if they were wrong, or an abomination. Sure, you can start claiming free will, but if you look at JudeoChristian “Gods” record, the deity in question has all the earmarks of a narcissistic psychopath.
What does it say to you when countries with a much higher rate of Atheism (eg. Scandinavian countries) have low crime rates, higher standards of living, and healthier populations?
Should I trust someone more because they think it’s the right thing to do to not steal from me if I leave money out, or if they don’t steal from me only because they’re afraid God will be pissed at them. (I surely don’t want to trust the latter if they can just say a few hail marys to get out of trouble AFTER they rip me off)
Altruism is not the sole provenance of religion.
Oh, and as for your ridiculous bit on evolution. Look up the terms: “experiment” “provable” “theory”, and then start googling for evolutionary biology. You will actually see evidence of evolution recorded in the genetic lines of life forms which reproduce thousands of times faster than humans.
I’ve yet to hear of any people willed into existence by omniscient beings. At least not in any peer reviewed journals.
While you are ranting on about a subject you can’t possible understand (ie; anything in the Bible) you are only showing your ignorance. The natural (unspiritual) man can’t perceive spiritual things because they are discerned by those who are spiritually alive.
By rejecting God and his word you show that you are spiritually dead in sin and trespasses and have no hope of understanding anything spiritual
because it is beyond your finite mind to grasp.
Only those who have been born-again, and have received salvation through Jesus Christ can understand the scriptures as they are intended. None of them question the veracity of scripture because they know the author personally and in knowing him they also know his word is true.
For you to teach a Christian anything about the Bible is about as ludicrous as an alien coming to earth, and instantly understanding everything about humans with flawless logic and understanding. It will never happen.
Salvation come through the revelation God has given each of us deep down within that we are sinners and rebels against him. Until you get to first base and repent of your sins you are just going to have to ramble on about God with your ignorance blatantly evident to those who know him.
I apologize. The post above fell under the wrong person for some reason. Please disregard it. I will copy and paste it and put it where it belongs.
Fonsoc –
“The natural (unspiritual) man can’t perceive spiritual things because they are discerned by those who are spiritually alive.”
This is an example of a Confirmation Bias. Please look it up. As a matter of fact, your entire post is an argument for confirmation bias.
I just wanted to address a couple things you said. Religion can create morality when it is practiced and understood as it is meant to be. Christians who strive to be like Christ then do good things because they believe that that is the right thing to do. Christ set the example of how we should be, of how we should strive to be better people. Fear of a wrathful God is not the motivation of all and from my experience with the Christians around me, it is rarely so.
I think if people are not taught to be moral by religion they are taught to be moral by culture. Yes, in the United States people are taught not to steal, not to cheat, not to kill because that is built into our Government and laws.
But in countries where it is acceptable to steal, where you can get away with murder, the people are different. If you took a relatively moral person that was born in American and instead had them be born in raised in a third world country they might turn into a completely different person. Psychological studies have shown that we are a product of our environment. I think there are people who are pre-disposed to be more kind or more selfless (just as there are people pre-disposed to be violent or cruel), but morality, right and wrong…these are things that are taught to us by our religion or our Govt. People in nature are not kind. We as a species are very selfish and I think when left to our own devices without strong and moral leaders, we create a big mess of things.
I also don’t think the fact that countries with a higher rate of atheists breeds low crime rates, higher standards of living, and healthier populations but rather countries with higher standards of living and a well established government see to the nations wants and needs more thoroughly and are often times more tolerant of multiple religious views. A higher atheist rate is a bi product of the country’s health, success, and power just like the low crime rate and high living standards. People are allowed to live as they wish and think as they wish. This argument seems more believable (to me at least) because the United States was founded by Christians and until recently has been a predominantly agnostic country. Despite that fact we are one of the most powerful and successful countries in the world. Religious or non-religious beliefs, I think, did not have as much to do with that as the well built Government that the founding fathers devised did.
Okay, then if you don’t know where we came from how the heck are we here, what is here, what hope do we have, what is our purpose, what is right and wrong?
The article doesn’t say we don’t know these things. It simply says that evolution isn’t all about those things. (Neither is gravity, or surgery, or knitting, but would you criticize those things on the basis that they don’t address the big questions?)
The problem with creationists, ZundappBella, is they claim to know everything. The Black Plague hits and people die, no-one could explain it because they didn’t know what a germ was, so they attributed it to their deity of choice.
Religion is a colossal cop-out. The point “You have to have something to make something, you cannot make something from nothing” is totally irrelevant.
The point i think you have failed to grasp is that you do not know. I don’t know. A creationist though will never accept not knowing and will give up all uncertainty to whatever god they believe in that all have as much proof of existence as pink unicorns (and that is indisputable).
If you would like to make a point for the existence of your personal god (which ever it is i think we can agree is an accident of birth) you will have to make it elsewhere, i do not see you gaining any ground.
I’m a christian also, but looking at a few posts from Jack, it reminds me of a quote that i can’t seem to find, but it was something like
“if you want to destroy a cause, join the side you’re against and have a faulty arguement”
His argument was not convincing even to me. Please, if you are going to debate this, make it intelligent.
to Propago- you’re saying ALL creationists? We claim to know everything? Hardly the fact. I would assume most claim God knows everything. I sure as hell don’t know much at all. Somebody looking at this might say “what a retard, doesn’t know how to spell” or “wtf is this prick talking about, he knows nothing”. But this is my opinion, I would hope I’m allowed to say something.
Using words like all or every makes it very hard statement to prove. The Black DEATH or BUBONIC plague, happened in the 1300s. Bacteria was discovered 400 years later, of course no one knew what the hell it was. You have to consider the circumstances of living in the middle ages AKA the DARK ages. Religion was a big part of their lives. Also, people corrupted religion. Please take a history class before making statements like that.
How is “You have to have something to make something, you cannot make something from nothing” totally irrelevant? Please explain.
“A creationist though will never accept not knowing and will give up all uncertainty to whatever god they believe in”
You make it sound as though you understand a creationist’s mind very well. Of course you just bundled up millions of diverse people of different backgrounds and beliefs into the word “creationist”. Yes, there are different beliefs in Christianity and in Creationism. Some believe in the YEC thing, but i don’t. They take the bible too literally. Of course humans tend to generalize, such as “all communists”, “all conservatives/democrats”, “all asians” and such. But you make a point and leave it at that. From the beginning you made your mind up that religion is a colossal cop-out and god is an accident of birth. You lack an open mind. If you don’t air it out, it’ll become moldy and rotting. You don’t believe fine, we’ll all find out when we die anyway.
Imjoeking,
I’ve been reading these posts and I think yours is the only one that I have read that makes any sense. My husband and I talk about the Bible sometimes because some of the things that are written in it he can’t wrap his mind around. I don’t claim to know or understand everything that is in the Bible myself, but I know this, the Bible is a guide. The stories in the Bible are meant as lessons, especially those in the New Testamnet. Lessons on how to treat your fellow man, lessons on how to live your life. I guess what I have a really hard time understanding is why it bothers some people so much that I believe in God. Is my belief some kind of threat to them? If so, why?
im sorry, but check your history, for all that the bible says that jesus was running around healing the world, theres very little evidence that he existed, none of the scholars of that time wrote about him. you sound like the kind of person with a very strong opinion but no clue what the hell they’re talking about
religion = Ignorance
History has much to say about Jesus Christ. Many of the Roman authors wrote about him and also a Jewish historian whose name was Josephus. Go to Wikipedia and do some honest research to start, then try to be objective enough to look all over the web for the substanial arguments against your little theory.
I have found that people like you inadvertantly feel the need to curse those who disagree with you and call them names or accuse them of being stupid and etc.
Your lack of respect and intelligent use of the English language betray you as an opinionated person who knows nothing about the subject he is tearing down and probably little to defend his own opinion.
I am not surprised at your immaturity – it is common among those who regard their opinion as absolute and refuse to entertain ideas that might effectively refute it.
Actually, there is a never-ending debate about the authenticity of the supposed references to a historical Jesus. Go to the Wikipedia article about Josephus on Jesus and check out the talk page where the behind-the-scenes discussoin goes on.
Historians don’t just believe Alexander the Great lived on the basis of a single document but actually as a result of a collection of evidence- both written and physical- from a range of sources so that example really doesn’t work. I don’t think it’s invalid to believe in Jesus but the ease with which creationists seek to erase the insurmountable body of evidence in support of evolution never ceases to be baffling to me.
“The Bible is not a bunch of fairy-tales and myths”
Yes it is. Most of the old and new testament was plagiarized or adapted from religions that predate the supposed ‘birth year’ of Christ. Christ mimics all of the same attributes of these ancient religions, which are in fact merely tributes to our nearest star, the Sun. Jesus is nothing more than a pagan mythological figure, just like Horus, Mithra, and Dionesis were.
“How do we know Alexander the Great lived?”
Because many well-noted historians have documented records of his existence which have been discovered in the great library of Alexandria. This evidence isn’t filled with unexplainable loophole and faith based inputs.
“Well, there were Historic eyewitnesses said he existed and told his story.”
So far there are records that show there were about 43 acclaimed & respected historians that lived within a hundred years or during the “time of christ”, and none of them documented any such person having ever lived. Not a single one. So you are dead wrong. Even if there were “eyewitnesses” they are not always reliable. What about the countless “eyewitnesses” who have claimed to see extra-terrestrials or ghosts? You have now immediately admit that your entire belief structure is based upon hearsay. Shame on you.
“The same is true with Jesus Christ”
No it’s not. Now you are just making blinded blanket statements. But you’re a fundamentalist nut who doesn’t know any better. I forgive you.
“Why just quickly rule out the supernatural for Creation(our beginning).”
How about read the article. From section 2. “Evolution is not a theory that describes the first origination of life on this planet, that field of study is called Abiogenesis.” For the sake of this argument I’ll leave it at that.
“#1 Law of Thermodynamics says Nothing can make Nothing; you can’t have nothing make something. If you have nothing, where do you get something(this destroys Evolution)”
So what was God made from then, you dolt? Let me guess. He has always existed, right? Then why not just cut out that unnecessary middle man and assume that the Universe has just always existed. Why not treat the Universe as if is our God and conclude that the Earth was made by the Universe, from which we have evolved over billions of years. Or let’s have it your way (because I don’t think your feeble mind can perceive such a concept). Let’s say there is a God and he created the Universe and from there we evolved over billions of years. Either way, science,math, and physics would still hold true instead of magic and mysticism. You need to educate yourself a little more.
“I am a Christian and I looked at the evidences and Logic for Atheism(which has NO hope) and Christianity”
Atheism is a ridiculous blanket statement… just like Christianity. Both are completely faith based, radical arguments that are merely living in a black and white world. To let you in on a little secret, we don’t know where we came from. Sorry. This is why we use tools like science and technology to help us try to understand. The scientific method is to create a hypothesis and a conclusion using only facts that can be proven. So far this scientific method has proven that evolution is fact. It is no longer a “theory”. The sooner people accept this, the faster we can evolve into smarter and more sophisticated beings, of this planet that we all must share.
“I am making a Forum called “Skeptics” on this Forum post you arguments against Christianity. This is coming Soon!!”
Please let me know. I will gladly go to your poorly designed forum and let you know just how outdated and void your statements are. Just know that one day Christianity will be a thing of the past. People are getting smarter everyday and breaking free from the bullshit you poison us with. Hopefully one day you will wake up from your fairy-tale dreamworld and join us for the sake of existence and intelligence. I’m sorry mommy and daddy lied to you your entire life, and made you go to church, instead of letting you figure it out on your own. My condolences.
I am a Christian. I think that it is utter ignorance that can only explain people’s views towards evolution. God, if you believe in God, did not put us on this earth to act like idiots and disregard every scientific theory that is studied. If you christians continue to be ignorant and defend your views based solely on religion then you are the reason why science and religion will never be able to work together. If you christians want something serious to talk about, why not ask one simple question? Is it possible that GOD CREATED evolution? GOD would have created science.
I am new to this blogging thing. Check mine out please!!!
http://therightchoicepolitics.wordpress.com/
Just picked up The Impossibility of God, a collection of essays that shows logically that the ideas of a all-powerfull transcendent god are contradictory; therefor, not true.
My argument against christianity is largely historical, that the history of religion is one of genocide and intolerance.
however neither the failure of believers to live up to their ideals nor the logical contradictions in the idea of god are sufficient in my mind to completely dismiss religiousity.
What I do however contend w/ is the Protestant literalism that attempts to give a book of inspirations a scientism that is at odds w/ the long history of interpreting the scriptures. The literal meaning of the bible is only the most basic level of understanding. The moral teachings are more sublime. The inner teachings are only available to those who completely immerse themselves (as John of the Cross, say) in the transcendent living word. And the final level of understanding of the bible is of prophecy of the coming of the kingdom of heaven.
The received understanding of a young earth cosmology is based on the most debased form of literalism that was current in the 19th century. This form of literalism completely ignores all bible scholarship, and the deep connexion scripture has w/ older texts that much of the bible cribs from. Not to mention 200 years of archeology that distinctly disproves much of the purport history of god’s chosen people. And in terms of historical references to Jesus as an actual person, actually there really aren’t any. Not from any of compulsive records that the Romans kept. Not really anything except Josephus, and if you accept the revised dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then The Teacher may refer to Jesus. But if that is the case then the Liar is clearly Paul. And then were does your literalism leave you? For Paul is the source for the doctrine of original sin, and w/out a literal genesis, then what is the real purpose of Jesus’ ministry?It is obvious that the whole structure of Paulianity is based on a hideous distortion of the teachings of the Disciples who actually knew Jesus, and the eventual suppression of the Church in Jerusalem lead to the conquest of the Church by Rome.
Believe lies if you like. Misunderstand thermodynamics if you like. Start a Skeptics and I will argue against xianity all the way to hell, and be there to greet you when Christ sez to you “I never knew you.”
Are all religious texts (or oral traditions) of equal integrity to the Bible? There are a great many of them around, you know, the majority of them grounded in their own regional histories, and some of them far older than the Bible. Why is the Bible the only one that is not a bunch of fairy-tales and myths, and the only one to be believed? Or is it just that the Bible’s huge and ongoing influence on Western culture makes it especially comfy?
If you can’t have something from nothing, how did God come from nothing? Because that’s still something from nothing, it’s just taking the crime scene back a step.
At the risk of overstating the obvious, the Theory of Evolution does not in any way state that something comes from nothing–it only states that something new can come from something very similar to it, roughly speaking. And your interpretation of the 1st Law of Thermo is not very solid to begin with, by the way.
I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss creationism.
You’re right. Darwinism doesn’t specify whether something came from nothing in the beginning. A Darwinist actually has two options: either something came from nothing, or everything always was. The current trend, though, seems to be in favor of the “something from nothing” theory. Of course, there’s also “something came from God,” but the Darwinist crowd tends to be of the opinion that you aren’t a real scientist unless you attempt to give a purely naturalistic explanation for everything, so you are unlikely to hear anyone admit that “something came from God.”
As for your question. We reject other texts because we believe in ours. If our book is true, then theirs cannot be. Yes, there is more to the story than that … we didn’t simply choose our book on a whim and go with it. But as a beginning point, we need to recognize that all religions cannot be equally valid. They might be equally false, but they can’t be equally valid.
As for ex nihilo. We don’t say that God emerged from nothing, for the quite simple reason that God did not emerge. We say there is an “ontological” difference between God and man. God’s nature is such that he cannot be an effect, but only a cause. He always existed and always will exist, because he is existence itself. By contrast, we only exist because God has lent the attribute of existence to us. He is the light who illuminates all color and shade, and the painter who splashes forth the pigments to receive that light.
Christian philosophers have always taught that finite things … the material world and much of the spiritual world … require a cause that exists necessarily and independently and uncaused by anything else. God is not limited by time or space; he dwells outside of time and space. Time and space had a beginning, but “beginning” is meaningless in reference to God’s own existence.
St. Anselm suggested that even if you postulate an eternal regression of finite causes into a past without a beginning, the problem remains that each and every one of those causes is by nature dependent upon something else for its existence, which means that none of those things are real causes, but only secondary causes; thus the eternal regression itself must be caused by God, who is dependent upon nothing and is therefore the real Cause who makes all secondary causes possible.
You fail to understand that this planet and everything on it is for mankind. Ther eis no other planet in our galaxy like it. Why are we in that exact position from the sun that allows life to exist on what we call earth? No God? Then what? Think. Think. And when your on your death bed. Who will you call out too? No God? Then who will you call out too?
1. The planet was around long before mankind arrived. I guess it was made for the dinosaurs first? Humans have been here for a fraction of Earth history… and you feel it was all put here for us? You’ve heard that the Universe does not revolve around the Earth, right?
2. We do yet not know if there are other planets in our galaxy like the Earth. There probably are.
3. Why is the Earth positioned just right to support life? It wasn’t. By pure chance life has developed on this particular planet. The ingredients for the only type of life we know was here for the mixing.
4. If you believe that the Earth was purposely placed in the ‘life friendly zone’ then ask yourself why the Earth and all of humanity is doomed to extinction when our star reaches the end of its life? We must plan for the day when we must abandon the Earth for a new home… otherwise all will be lost.
5. Who shall I call out to (notice it’s ‘to’ you twit!) on my deathbed? I do not know. I would hope that it might be to my loved ones… not to some imaginary, sky-dwelling landlord.
What say you to a person who believes in both science and God? Because I do.
One of the 12 social principles of my religion(the Baha’i’ Faith) is the Unity of Science and Religion. So I say that it is perfectly awesome and alright to believe in both!
I would ask where you place God in your reality. I’m Existentialist Agnostic so I believe its possible for it to go multiple ways.
Let’s say on the even days I’m a Theist (one who believes in a higher power). I would tell you that ‘God’ created the big bang and, from that point, has left the universe to itself to unfurl for all eternity. God watches over us, as merely the observer to his creation. God doesn’t interfere with us directly, but I would remind you of things like love, quantum physics, and the unanswerable mysteries of the universe in general. Even the sheer awesomeness of the universe itself seems way to coincidental, according to math and physics, to not have been orchestrated by some type of creator. Especially when you explore the essences of things such as string theory and Planck level fundamentals.
On the odd days I’m an Atheist. I would say that the idea of an invisible man watching over us is just plain ludicrous. If a God made the universe then what made that God? And if God has always existed then why can’t we simply believe that the universe itself has always existed. People should accept that the universe itself is our one and only creator. It holds all of existence, space, time, and matter within itself. There is no God because there is no point in having a God.
On the days that only I know, because they have yet to be described to you, I am God. I think therefore I am. The physical world around me is constructed only from thoughts within myself. I am just a sentient energy that has birthed a physical world in front of me which I take in through my senses, which also only exist because of my consciousness. If I hold everything that I’ve ever come to experience within myself, then doesn’t that make me God to my own reality? And since everything I know is objective, doesn’t that make me all knowing? For every time I learn something new that is just myself creating something that I haven’t experienced before. Which makes me the mightiest creator of all.
In any of these case scenarios, as long as something can be objectified you can always hold it, through math and science, to be true. Math and science is just a measuring tool of the objective truths that we experience within or without ourselves.
P.S. I <3 Mushrooms
While the Bible may have a lot of historical accuracy to it, that does not mean that every part of it is true. I believe the Jews did actually leave Egypt and conquer Palestine as the Old Testament describes. I also believe there may have been a religious radical leader named Jesus who was crucified around 30 AD. That doesn’t mean I have to believe he was the son of God or that Moses ever turned a staff into a serpent.
Slaughterhouse Five talks about the firebombing of Dresden, Germany during World War II, which living, breathing people still remember. We can be pretty sure that happened. However, that does not mean that Billy Pilgrim actually become unstuck in time and traveled the universe with toilet-plunger aliens called Tralfalmadorians. Even though the book starts with the line “This all happened, more or less,” it’s not all or nothing. You can believe some parts and disbelieve others.
This is especially true with the Bible, which had many authors and many many more editors.
The belief in evolution takes much more faith than the belief in a Creator.
Evolution is the religion.
Amazing that evolution is taught exculively in all U.S. public schools, yet most Americans still believe in Creation.
Cute.
Can someone please reconcile Darwin’s theory of the Origin of Species with the Biological concept of Minimum Viable Population?
MVP is the minimum number of individuals needed to have a healthy, growing population in the wild.
Darwin argues that some few individuals have some characteristic that makes them more likely to survive and/or produce more offspring.
The problem is that the MVP (for higher animals at least) is over 1000 and could be an average of over 4000.
For any new Species to emerge and survive there would need to be a breeding population of at least 1000 and probably over 4000. How do you ‘Evolve’ 4000 at once?
Evolution requires that 4000 individuals must evolve in a single generation in a single breeding population. I cannot make the math work.
That is probably the most illogical statement I’ve ever heard. The existence of God cannot be proven or dis-proven. And saying:
isn’t any kind of argument against the existence of God. I can say: “China doesn’t exist! I can prove it… there I proved it.” But is that logical? No.
There isn’t anything wrong with atheism and evolution isn’t a direct attack on the concept of creation, it is, like the author stated, “the best supported scientific hypothesis we have for describing the diversity of life on Earth.”
And “No, I don’t BELIEVE in the theory of evolution – I ACCEPT it.”
People BELIEVE in things like unicorns, elves, the inherent goodness of man, that they’ll have another cup of coffee, etc.
I ACCEPT the theories of gravity, evolution etc…
This is one of the best comments/rebuttals I have heard in a long time. You sir, win many internets.
That’s a pompous response with no substance to it. If you want to use the word “accept,” you should note that those young earth creationists, the Christians among them that is, were using it long before you. They talk about those who accept Christ and those who, like you, reject Him for fairy tales like evolution.
I never said I reject Him. Why are you putting words in mouth.
Religious people, especially priests, love putting things in your mouth against your will.
LMAO! that’s great
U just made my day.
Fairy tales like evolution? Read a fairy tale. Read the bible. Read the origin of species. Now tell me which is closer to a fairy tale. And I love the bible. And fairy tales. (But not so much people who try to put down complicated concepts with simple slanders).
Yes, fairy tales rock, but the Bible and what it teaches rocks even more! I love God with all I am, and though I am a young Christian, I know more about what I believe than some grown-ups. I extremely disagree with anyone who says I or my fellow Christians are ignorant because of our beliefs, there is tons of proof! I pray to my Lord with all that I am to forgive those who think he is a fairy tale, and to bring them to him. Guess what! God’s real and he loves you enough to let his own son die a horrible death so that you would have a chance to live in heaven with him forever! There I said it. I’ve wanted to witness for as long as I can remember. I hope you heed my words. Find out more! May God bless, forgive and keep you all your days.
sigh. why do christians always say this:
I extremely disagree with anyone who says I or my fellow Christians are ignorant because of our beliefs, there is tons of proof!
What proof. Stating there is proof without any sort of pointer to where the proof is doesn’t mean anything.
Evolutionists point to the theory of evolution, which if you read even the first few pages, would show that it has nothing to do with anything but how animals evolve. It has nothing to do with the earth. Nothing to do with the cosmos/heavens/whatever you want to call it. Nothing to do with time, or how everything began. it PURELY has to do with the verifiable proof that animals evolve to their surroundings.
You have nothing to point to except a book written by people who took a lot of magic mushrooms.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9522
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/960403.html
the guy who wrote the paper is a researcher in isreal
http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~bshanon/
but anyways, have fun pointing at straw man arguments.
there is tons of proof!
You must not have any faith, then. Faith is what happens when you believe in something despite not having proof that you’re right. (Look up the word in the dictionary if you wish to dispute this.)
Fairy-tales like evolution?
You’re obviously ignorant of what the Theory of Evolution is all about.
Here are some facts:
-We can re-produce evolution in the lab. Please see Nylon Eating Bacteria and Cit+ E. Coli bacteria.
-Those so called “missing links”? They haven’t been missing for years now. We have the fossils.
-Genetics supports Evolutionary Theory.
-The geological column, and the fossils therein, support evolutionary theory.
-Every form of radiological dating supports the findings of Evolutionary Theory (and they’re accurate, too, despite Creationist claims to the contrary – if you don’t believe me, just look up a user “potholer54debunks” on youtube, and find his video on carbon dating)
To close this rant, here’s a little snippet you might find enlightening:
“So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species”
National Academy of Sciences, 1999
Bottom line: All the evidence points to Evolutionary Theory being true (or at least, the best explanation currently available to us). Educate yourself, and accept the facts, or continue to live in ignorance. It’s your choice, but if you willingly chose to remain stupid, please understand when those who know more than you do, those who undertook the effort to LEARN, constantly correct you and your idiotic notions, they’re doing it because they can justify their position with evidence. You… can not.
You do realize, sir, that Charles Darwin made the single greatest individual contribution to the Divinely Mandated task of naming all the animals than anyone else in history, don’t you?
I accept a young earth…
Despite dendrochronology (tree ring dating) going back further than your supposed 6,000 years? Despite every form of radiometric dating showing signs of life going back further still?
So, are you willingly this stupid, or were you born this way?
I respect the theory of evolution for what it is and what it has accomplished but cannot completely disregard Creationism (proper name?) as to do so would be counter productive to the process of questioning ideas, theories, and hypotheses.
Creationism is not falsifiable, hence it is not a scientific theory. You are not having an open mind by not denying creationism. Falsifiability is the founding principle of science stating that every argument backed up by significant evidence can change or obsolete a scientific theory. The ultimate argument of any creationist when confronted with evidence will allways be: “The designer is testing your faith”, which is not scientific evidence fir obvious reasons.
Good day to you sir.
“…as to do so would be counter productive to the process of questioning ideas, theories, and hypotheses.”
The problem is that Creationism has no evidence to support it, and as such has no scientific merit. If there were a competing theory that had some evidence to support it, then you’d be justified in your stance. As things are, however, Creationism is not a Scientific Theory, it is merely a layman’s theory, and should be treated as such.
I would be hesitant to put creationism against evolution (i think in some way they can play nice – not all ways of course). Or say that all creationists are YEC. The intelligent design argument (i think) is a strong one and doesn’t go against evolution.
Genesis was never meant to go head to head with science – the christians who do that don’t understand what the Bible is actually for.
As for the article – the only ‘evolutionary’ events that have been observed are within species – and that’s a fact that only the most ignorant christian would deny.
The form of evolution that christians have a problem with is evolution that creates new species. Well, the OP hinted that evolutionists don’t believe that, he said, man didn’t come from monkey BUT from an ancestor (i.e. ancient man).
“Well, the OP hinted that evolutionists don’t believe that, he said, man didn’t come from monkey BUT from an ancestor (i.e. ancient man).”
No, the OP was saying exactly what Evolution says – that Man didn’t come from Monkey. Monkeys and Man both came from a common ancestor species of some kind. This is supported by mitochondrial DNA evidence.
“As for the article – the only ‘evolutionary’ events that have been observed are within species”
Demonstrably incorrect. We’ve witnessed speciation events even in fruit-fly experiments. I can provide you with links to the relevant scientific paper – their fruit flies branched off into two separate species that, given preference, would not mate with each other.
As further evidence of our observations of evolution, please see the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY
Ken Miller, himself a christian, explains the evolution of the whale. We’ve found 5 distinct steps between the whale’s land-based ancestor and the modern whale. In each step, the inner-ear is becoming more and more suited to hearing underwater, while the body undergoes other morphological changes to better suit its life in the sea.
For a further example of speciation, please see the Zebra and the Horse. They are obviously related in that they can mate and produce offspring, and are very similar animals. Less obviously, we can see track approximately how far back in time they separated using mitochondrial DNA analysis. HOWEVER, Zebras have 44 chromosomes, while horses have 64 (IIRC). They’re completely separate species.
We have actually witnessed hundreds of new species that have been created through evolution. Google “examples of speciation”.
This is not a “form” of evolution, as minor changes within a given species is not a “form” of evolution. It is all evolution. A new species forms when one group changes enough that its DNA is not compatible with that of its ancestors. From there, because no cross-breeding can occur, differences can become much more pronounced. There are no barriers to this in real life; there are no such things as “kinds”. Regardless of how we classify life, in reality it is all life; speciation is the only true thing separating different organisms and preventing them from cross-breeding.
You should visit my blog sometime. I am just getting it started, and I enjoy talking about life and what it really is all about. I do not try to force what I believe on anyone. We are all entitled to believe whatever we wish.
The catch is – we better be right when it comes to evolution and God. If evolution is right the grave is the end of all things for us. Nothingness!
If Christianity is right then eternity will be a very miserable place to be for multiplied millions, but a wonderful place for Christians to be.
I think that deserves rational and objective thought don’t you! People who are subjective are unteachable and therefore unreachable.
The “process of questioning ideas, theories, and hypotheses” is not a process at all. It’s a marketing strategy comprised of the bastardization of the peer review process in science. In software it’s known as FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) and is used as a business strategy by Microsoft (among others) to try to get potential customers to have second thoughts about competitors’ product.
In science, if you do an experiment and report your results, others in your field get to challenge you on your methods, your materials, your conclusions, most especially if others cannot reproduce your experiment with the same results. This is healthy and leads to discoveries and useful technology.
What gets bandied about by anti-science religionists is this notion that it’s healthy to just “question” things. But it doesn’t go anywhere. Saying “I question evolution” is tantamount to putting your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la la la I can’t hear you” because it’s not really questioning anything — it’s just doubting or denying with no interest in the thing being doubted other than to create more doubt about it.
No, people believe in anything that has a degree of doubt as to it’s certainty. Since evolution is a THEORY, there are degrees of doubt as to it’s certainty. Therefore, if you subscribe to evolution as the method as to how life on this planet unfolded then you are holding a belief. If you stand by that belief when others present their statements against it, then you have something called faith. No, this isn’t the exact same kind of belief of say God or your religion. If you only accept the theory of evolution, you are merely saying that it is a valid theory but you do not believe that it is the correct answer. Please note that validity does not denote truth.
I am not arguing for or against evolution here, I’m just tired of people thinking belief and faith are subject driven words. The two have a definition and apply to the general world.
As a side note, Pope John Paul II said this on evolution:
“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points….Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies — which was neither planned nor sought — constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour of the theory…Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.”
Further he stated this on cosmology which was noted in the blog:
“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.”
Matt, Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory. Yes, there is doubt, but among biologists who actually study this, there is no more doubt about the Theory’s veracity than there is that the sun will come up the next day. No belief is necessary – only confidence in careful procedure and objective evidence.
Matt,
You suffer from a popular misconception. The THEORY is about HOW it works — not WHETHER IT EXISTS.
There’s this popular notion that there is some kind of sequence, like you start with a notion, then it becomes an idea, then a hypothesis, a theory, and finally a proven fact; since theories aren’t fact it’s right to doubt them. But this is just ignorance.
A theory is a scientific tool, a model that explains something. A good theory needs to be testable or else it’s just an assertion. Also important is that a theory provide predictions. “If I drop a rock, it will fall at exactly this rate” is a testable prediction. Some theories are hard to test directly, so you try to prove the opposite or try to prove another, incompatible theory. Theories are useful constructs in science, not an unproven “pre-fact” idea. There are certainly unproven theories around, but because something isn’t a theory doesn’t preclude it from also being a fact.
Think about gravity. I think it’s fair to say that it’s been a fact for a very long time. Newton worked out some equations for gravity, but he freely admitted in his works that he had no idea HOW gravity actually worked — that is, he had no theory. There wasn’t a good one until Einstein came up with a valid, testable, to-date-not-disproven theory about how gravity works (the general theory of relativity).
So do you doubt gravity because “it’s a THEORY”? The FACT of gravity means we need be careful about tripping and falling off cliffs. The THEORY of gravity gives us the ability to make accurate astronomical observations and use GPS satellites, among other things.
Same with light? The FACT of light lets us see where we’re going. But the scientific THEORY lets us understand the electromagnetic spectrum, construct lasers, and more recently create negative-refracting materials that are demonstrating a certain level of invisibility (so far only microwaves, but cool to think about!). This is only possible with the THEORY that lets us make predictions, prove them, and go on to great discoveries.
Yet, by your thinking we should all doubt the existence of light because it’s a THEORY.
There are mountains of evidence that show evolution is a fact. The theories of natural selection, sexual selection, genetic evolution, evolutionary development, and more are each windows into a set of very complex processes. Just as Newton could explain how gravity affects things but didn’t know what it was, scientists are now able to explain where evolutionary processes have occurred or are occurring, even while they are actively working to understand how those processes work.
well put.
gravity does not allow itself to be accepted… but it might accept some measure of mass. a curious attraction, that gravity. wonder how prof chiao is doing with his gravity radio? roger babson, rip. gravity research foundation marches on.
oh, evolution. some people just don’t understand the gravity of all that.
I disagree with the theory of evolution. It is just that a theory. You highlight only a few parts of your theory. What about the notion that there was a big bang? If there was a “big bang”, who caused it. Why is there reason and logic behind everything (i.e. food chain, planets and how they orbit, and miracle of birth).
Clearly the theory is lacking in many areas. In addition, it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than to believe in the Almighty God. You would rather believe a million far fetched lies, than believe the truth. For sake of a balanced opinion, post this to your website.
Jule
Thanks Jule, you have provided the exact type of flawed argument described by the author BGH.
@Jule
huh?
um, Julie, I really hope you are just a Poe… but if not:
Regarding the big bang – see # 1 (short version: big bang was before life, so not part of evolution). How hard is it to read even one item on a list 6 items long?
The reason and logic of the food chain, the ‘miracle’ of birth, and any other random item that you come up with is likely a well understood area of study that a quick 10 minute browse through your local library would give you hundreds of books covering the topics you are asking about – notice I didn’t say interested in – and all it would cost you is the time to sit down and actually learn something about the world.
Hi Jule,
Clearly you didn’t read the above article that you just commented on, or you would have quickly seen that the Big Bang, and thus the origin of the universe is not covered in the Theory of Evolution. Please read the article again so you have a better understanding of why you are wrong here. Or you could just go back to reading your lovely stories written by people who were trying to explain the things that science eventually figured out. I have no problem with the possibility that God exists, but let’s not be closed minded to finding the mechanisms by which He creates. Science is your friend and can get along with religion perfectly well, if only you religious-types just took a minute to understand rather than admonish.
Chris
I never thought of it that way. Makes sense. You’re a smart guy!
Jule, first of all, it doesn’t matter what takes “more faith to believe in” what matters is where there is undeniable truth and scientific evidence. So by implication you think that Creationism is true because it is simpler? Creationism is in no way scientifically proven. That is a flawed theory.
I rest my case.
1. Loaded theory argument
2. Bringing big bang into a discussion of evolution?
3. Million far fetched lies over the truth?
Clearly those who flock to faith have an err in rationalizing why they want to deny main stream science.
Jule… if you are suggesting that a god caused the big bang, then who created your god ? …if god can come into existence from nothing, then certainly the big bang can be caused by nothing. The “first mover” argument is a dead end.
I suggest that if you disbelieve so much in scientific theory, and have so much faith in your deity, that you test the Theory of Gravity by jumping out of the nearest window (first floor only please, I don’t really believe your god will save you).
Whenever someone asks who created your god or something to that effect, they’re forgetting that the very definition of god is that which is self-existing and eternal, the uncaused cause. Suggesting that God had a creator is like trying to prove the existence of a married bachelor.
Or a pregnant virgin
WOW – you just won.
The definition of god:
interjection 10. (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?
——————————————————————————–
…but if god can self-exist, than so can anything ! You take away the need for a creator (because god/things can self-exist), then use the fact that the universe needs a creator as an argument that there must be a god ! LOL – The argument refutes itself !
The other weakness there is that even if you want to define a “first cause” you can’t say that the cause was a god. In fact, everyone knows that the first self-existing being was the Flying Spaghetti Monster (I read that on the Internet so it must be true).
Do you then accept the notion that the universe is eternal?
if the cosmic egg can come into existence from nothing, then certainly the big bang was caused by nothing. The “First Law of Thermodynamics” argument is a dead end.
I do not confuse evolution with Old Earth/Universe. I do think that many use the terms as synonyms because evolution requires long, very long, periods of time.
BTW, I accept creationism and do not subscribe to Old Earth but I do not accept to Young Earth either.
Glad you mention Gravity. Does any “scientist” pretend to “know” why gravity exists? Nope. Not one. Much of scientific “fact” is not really fact. It is simply a repeated “gee that sounds good”. Mass has Gravity. Fact. But why does ‘color’ not have gravity?
Jule, I don’t think you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
Anyway, the ability to create an ark large enough to hold all the different land species on earth to prevent them from drowning (and not eating each other while on the ark) is much more far fetched than the idea of natural selection. I would need tonnes of faith to try to even convince myself it is possible.
@Jule
Oh I agree completely. Evolutionary theory hasn’t proved the big bang! In fact I think they haven’t even mentioned the big bang in it! And can evolution prove the ‘planets and how they orbit’? Nope. Oh wait… it never claimed to do any of these things. Although, I do agree that the only easily understood all-encompassing explanation to everything is ‘God’. This explanation to me, however, is severely lacking, and is in fact a non-explanation. The idea of ‘God’ only pushes the questions back to another level, and offers no real explanation at all upon careful consideration (Where did this ‘God’ come from again?).
This mentality of thinking reminds me of when I was little and I didn’t understand how something like a garage door worked. I would try to figure the answers out myself, however, I often lacked the knowledge to figure it out on my own… I could see mechanical devices that were as mysterious as the cosmos to the uninitiated. For anyone to understand the workings of this simple (nowadays) device on their own, with no prior knowledge at all, could take a lifetime of work. You would need to deduce many mechanical and electrical principals. However, you are not on your own, we have many many generations of previous knowledge and experience to draw upon. Why not use this resource? Why not learn how things work, and learn which things still need to be worked out?
The mentality of a creator making the cosmos would be akin to the childish notion that a little man lives in the garage door and lifts it up whenever we need him to. Nevermind all those shiny and noisy mechanical gears. Wait why can’t I see the man? Must be invisible. What if someone tries to explain how it works to me? I plug my ears and sing, then when they are done, I explain to them how my faith in the little man is more important than their own notions about how things work. (‘If the little man doesn’t exist, how does he lift the door!!!!!! Duhhh think about it. He has to be there.’) I might even write myself a book that explains all of this… maybe in a thousand years or so, when the historical records can’t be found, it’ll be impossible to prove that garage doors didn’t work by invisible little men. Meh.
Anyway…
If you don’t understand that the collective knowledge of the human species leads to an ever more accurate picture of how the universe works, than you need to teach yourself some human history. If you don’t understand that evolution (along with other established biological principals) does in fact explain the ‘food chain’ and the ‘miracle of birth’, than you need to teach yourself biology. And if you are a young earth creationist living in the 21st century, you need to teach yourself well… everything. Especially a dash of logic.
Now I don’t claim that we know everything. Heck, I don’t think that we even know the questions to ask that could lead to an explanation of ‘everything’. But, time will tell, and if the human species survives long enough to figure everything out, I can’t imagine a scenario where the final answer comes out to be… ‘Ohhh so the Almighty Christian God did it after all!’
Oh and if you were just trolling (which i kinda suspect…) , thanks I was bored and wanted to write something longish =]
That sir is a brilliant argument.
*dance*
Sorry, nice try, but you’re bringing up the wrong theories again. Evolution doesn’t talk about the big bang. And quite simply, even if the theory of evolution is flawed in some way, there is still experimentally verifieable evidence for the idea. Your theory of creation can’t be experimented on, can’t be verified and is based on nothing more than a book written by a diverse group of men. Men…not god. If you can show experimental evidence for creation then do it. I’d honestly like to see a real debate based on evidence. But as long as your only evidence is the bibly, leave evolution, science and the science classroom alone. Teach your ideas in church and let people decide for themselves.
Jules said:
“What about the notion that there was a big bang?”
Jules, apparently you decided to reply without first reading what you were replying to… or you’re simply unable to understand the words and concepts found here. Sadly, that is typical of your type.
But just in case, let’s repeat it:
BGH said:
1. Evolution is not a theory [regarding] the origin of the universe, THAT field of study is referred to as Cosmology. [My clarification and emphasis.]
There are numerous discussions of cosmology to be found on the net, Jules, but this is NOT one of them.
Jules: “Why is there reason and logic behind everything…”
Everything? There’s not. For example, take a look at all of things YOU say and believe. There’s no logic and reason to any of that.
Jules: “Clearly the theory is lacking in many areas.”
Evolution? Lacking? We continuously discover more and more and more. If you wish to try to describe the previously unknown and/or the as-yet-unknown as “lacking,” then so be it. But by that definition, “tomorrow” is similarly lacking in many areas. And yet, you don’t doubt “tomorrow.” But if, in using the term “lacking,” you mean to suggest that the scientific theory of natural selection by evolution has some sort of major hole or flaw, then I have to tell you, in all sincerity, that you are hopeless and utterly wrong. Wrong. WRONG.
Jules: “…it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than to believe in the Almighty God.”
Well, well. That’s a very curious argument. I was under the impression that you felt that faith was a good thing. And yet, now you’re telling us that the “evolution” position is unworthy because, you claim, it would “take more faith” to believe it than to believe in God. Thus, you suggest that your “God” position is the stronger argument for the very reason that it would, so you claim, take “LESS” faith.
You seem to be saying that the argument that requires less faith and/or fewer unprovable elements, is the stronger position, on the whole. This is closely reminiscent to the principle of parsimony (aka Occam’s Razor). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Your point also reminds me of David Hume, in his discussion On Miracles, wherein he said “that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish.”
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, “X. On Miracles” (1748)
If faith is a good thing, as you usually claim, then a position requiring MORE faith should be better/stronger than a position requiring less faith. You say that evolution requires more faith, therefore you should accept evolution.
Alternately, if an argument gains in strength due to its requiring less faith than its counter-argument, as you have recently argued, then the best argument should logically be found amongst the “faithless.”
That’s all for now. I have to go do some research on an unrelated matter.
Consider this:
What if those things that they told you were wrong? What if they were mistaken? What if they were lying to you?
What if they weren’t? I do not understand why God and science can not co-exist. That has never made any sense to me. I’m not saying that evolution is wrong, too many discoveries over the years point to it, but neither is my belief in God wrong. I read in an earlier post by someone else that it is hard to believe in the story of the ark, well fine, don’t believe it, but by the same token, don’t belittle my faith. Just because it can’t be scientifically proven doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.
“I do not understand why God and science can not co-exist.” I do. Science attempts to describe reality. Religion is nothing more than bad science. The use of a deity to explain natural phenomena is long past its due date, superseded by far better explanations. As Jerry Coyne and Matthew Cobb wrote in a letter to Nature last year,
Amen.
“Just because it can’t be scientifically proven doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.” If I make the claim that there are pink unicorns prancing on Pluto, would you not demand evidence? And not just a little bit of evidence, or bad evidence, but a good deal of good evidence? If so, then how dare you mock my belief in pink unicorns on Pluto! Just because there is no evidence to suggest they exist, they might still! I’m sure of it!
Look, if you espouse belief in the fantasy of this extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence in support, you should expect mocking. That it is a religious belief is irrelevant. I give such beliefs the same credence I give to those who believe that extraterrestrials anal probe humans for sport, that vaccination causes Alzheimer’s and autism. And religion can be damaging to whole societies. Just look at the pope’s recent comments on condom use in Africa, which significantly runs counter to public health policy on that continent with regards to dealing with HIV.
Common decency demands that I respect your right to hold beliefs, but nothing says I have to respect the beliefs that you hold.
What about the notion that there was a god? If there was a “god”, who caused it?
The Theory of Evolution is called a “theory” in the TECHNICAL SENSE, as in “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.” The word is not used in the NON-TECHNICAL sense, as in a “conjecture” or “guess.” I assume your first language is not English.
“It is just that a theory”
So, you’re saying you have no training in science, then.
Evolution isn’t “Just a Theory” – it is a SCIENTIFIC theory, built upon innumerable facts, with mountains of physical evidence to support it.
Further, you’re talking about Big Bang theory and Evolutionary theory as though they’re related – they are NOT. One is about biology, one is about cosmology. Get your scientific fields straight. Until you know what the hell you’re talking about, I suggest you STFU and read a goddamn science book, learn what facts are supporting Evolutionary Theory, and perhaps LEARN something from an objective source.
“You would rather believe a million far fetched lies”
No, I’d rather believe every piece of physical evidence uncovered, every field of science and every logical argument than some dogmatic bronze age myths written by folks who couldn’t tell the difference between a bat and a bird, compiled and edited by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.
The bottom line is that if you’re too damn stupid and ignorant to know what the Theory of Evolution is even saying, then you should shut the hell up and learn about it before you categorically denounce it simply because you think it might be counter to your faith.
I am sorry to have to point out that there are startlingly few “facts” to support Evolution. It is a wonderful idea and has been defended for a century and a half (yet somehow has been unable to refute even the smallest arguments against it). Let’s look at a “Fact” shall we? There are fossils. Yes, bones turned to stone. How do stones support Evolution? “Survival of the Fittest”? Good question. Consider Fossil A and Fossil B. Did B evolve from A? To determine that, a bunch of Scientists get together at a meeting and decide that since B is not as deep in the ground as A and B looks mostly like A then B has “Evolved” from A. That is it folks. A bunch of Scientists (actually as few as 4 or 5) have the opinion that A evolved into B and there it is. “Scientific Fact”; the opinion of a small group of people. Not a single truth or Fact involved, just the opinion that rock B looks like rock A (many fossil species are represented by 10 or less bones, fossils are rare). How did you think they proved Fossils were different species? Did you think they got them to mate? In Truth Fossil A could have gone extinct and Fossil C (which has not been found yet) could be the ancestor of Fossil B. Of course, all the Scientists involved make their living digging up these rocks, no temptation to ‘create’ a new species to be named after a sponsor is there? Sorry, but Evolution is a compelling concept based on Scientists creating the “Facts” that support it.
“I am sorry to have to point out that there are startlingly few “facts” to support Evolution. ”
Your ignorance of the facts is in no way an argument against Evolution. Please see the Evolution of the Whale, by Ken Miller: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg – in this video, he cites the 5 different steps we’ve found between whales and their land-bound ancestors.
Please see Cit+ E. Coli and Nylon Eating Bacteria (both lab-repeatable examples of evolution).
Please look up EVRs, and explain to me why we and Apes share more EVRs in the exact same places in our genomes than can concievably be supported randomly.
Please see the clear fossil record of Foraminifera, a perfect and complete fossil record for alomst an entire PHYLUM of life going back to the mid jurassic.
Please see the genes for TEETH in CHICKENS.
Please see the geological column, stratified over several billion years (and we’ve various dating methods to prove this), with more and more complex examples of fossilized life present as time goes on.
Please see the ABUNDANCE of so-called transitional fossils – so abundant that the National Academy of Sciences in 1999 made the following statement: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”
“To determine that, a bunch of Scientists get together at a meeting and decide that since B is not as deep in the ground as A and B looks mostly like A then B has “Evolved” from A. ”
Straw-man argument. You’re oversimplifying the process of dating. Depth is important, but so is radiometric dating, geological activity in the region (as evidenced by the geological column), artifacts or other fossils found close-by (which may be of a known age), the type of material/rock the fossil was found in (and how long that type of material/rock takes to form) and many other factors on which I don’t have the space to go into here.
“Sorry, but Evolution is a compelling concept based on Scientists creating the “Facts” that support it.”
You’re obviously not aware of the peer review process. Science is a HARSH meritocracy, and when scientists publish their findings, people will rake their findings over the coals to see if there are any gaps or doubts in their arguments. Some scientists make their living (and their fame) just destroying these findings.
Your skepticism is healthy, but it is based entirely on ignorance of how these things actually work. Go educate yourself on the scientific method.
Can you please indicate where in this nearly 2 hour lecture you would like me to look at Ken Miller discusses Whales or do I need to listen to all 2 hours of it? Yes, I listened to him trying to promote his books on Biology.
As I said, this is one person’s opinion of what these rocks represent. I do not see any facts here. You see someone you consider an expert making statements and take them as Fact. Please consider this: What Scientific experiment you you use to test the ‘Facts’ he presents? You cannot experimentally test opinion. There are no Facts here.
Have *you* read the articles on the Nylon Eating Bacteria? Did you actually read it? This bacteria is a Strain, not a new species. This bacteria is just as simple as a particular breed of dog, evidence of change, but *not* of Evolution.
Genetics has posed far more questions than it has answered. How do identical genetics result in physical differences? (Twins do not have the same fingerprints.) It is not just important what genes an organism has or where they are but it may be even more important how many copies and how much ‘unused’ DNA they have.
You try to answer one for me now. With only 6 chemicals making up DNA how could so many different organisms have ‘Evolved’?
Look, if there were a Designer, do you think the designer *might* have re-used some of the sequences? I re-use my code all the time.
If cells are ‘Evolving’ every time you put different chemicals in the water (Nylon Eating Bacteria) it cannot work, we would have new ‘strains’ every time it rains and different chemicals are washed into the pond.
Why don’t “older” species always contain more unused DNA? They have had more time to adapt. They *must* have more unused DNA. Simple logic. That is a Fact (or a close as we are going to get). This Fact refutes Evolution so it must be thrown out. (Evolution is immune to The Scientific Method I guess.)
My problem is not with Dating (dating is a separate issue), it is with how Scientists use Fossils. Yes, I oversimplified some, but not all that much. The ‘Fact’ that one rock is the ancestor of another is simply the opinion of a small group of people (often only 1 or 2 people and from 3 or 4 bones). No ‘Facts’ at all, just opinion.
You even quote the National Academy of Sciences:
“that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”
Do you understand what they said? They said even they can’t tell one rock from another. Even they are not sure when/where a species diverged. They are not sure. They do not have ‘Facts’. They are guessing.
You refer to the “Peer Review Process”. Have you any idea how this process actually works? A paper is sent to a Publication. The Publication reviews it (note: no Peers yet). If they ‘like it’, if they believe it will help them sell more magazines, they send it to a group of Scientists (that the Publication hand picks). How could this process be filled with anything but bias? The publication would have to send all papers submitted to a randomly selected group of “Peers”. What if the paper does not agree with Evolution? Will the publication send it out for review?
Have you read any of the ‘Letters to the Editor’ of any of these publications, they are filled with disagreements (from Peers).
By the way, “Peer Review” is also used to decide who gets grant money and who does not. Do you think you will get more grants by agreeing with the Peers or by disagreeing? (Think about it.)
How could any “Scientists make their fame” by proving other Scientists wrong? Someone here is not doing real Science. How do you know which side is making up the Facts? Or is it just whose Opinion is the loudest? In the past, some of those making “their fame” by disproving others have in turn been shown to be in error.
Peer Review is meaningless unless you know who gets to pick the ‘Peers’. How may publications choose ‘peers’ from the PHD Biologists who call Vatican City home?
I am aware of the Scientific Method and you have yet to show me how to apply it to Fossils.
All I am trying to say is that Facts often take second place to opinion when People, large grants and Evolution are involved.
julie dearest, your response is odd. you say the theory is just that but you do not accept it. perhaps you do not accept portions of it, but it remains a theory nevertheless. as for the millions of lies, why does that sound like a bit of science politicized? what lies? and how can you prove any of them, whatever those might be, are lies?
Of course evolution is true. But I think I can prove the existence of God. If the universe is expanding into infinity, that means that all things that can happen, exist, all events…amything and everything….will happen right? Well, since the universe is expanding into infinity, and that all events and things eventually occur…does that mean the concept of God actually exists in some kind of physical form somewhere?
I took a lot of acid when I thought of this theory, feel free to flame me.
How does the universe expanding lead to the belief that all things can happen? The acid explains it a bit, but um, no. The fact that the universe is expanding (just recently tested with positive results) does not mean that somewhere out there Santa Clause is really reading the dreams of 2 billion Earth children…
Thanks for killing my dreams, jerk.
But seriously, as you approach infinity, does it not mean that their is an infinite amount of things that can and ultimately will happen? I think thats a pretty sound theory is it not?
google the 10th dimension, at least that might begin to explain my thought process. I was on acid, but it does sound right doesn’t it?
Just because matter is expanding outward does not mean it replicates itself. The universe expanding has no effect on the possibility of other life one way or the other.
The universe is expanding, but the mass-energy sum remains constant. Thus a continually expanding universe will only end with everything spreading out. Eventually all the mass-energy in the universe will get so spread out, so dilute, that everything will approach absolute zero and completely freeze. Not the cheeriest scenario, but hey, we’ll be long dead by then.
Of course, this is all based on the notion that the universe will continue to accelerate outward, and since we have no clue why it does so, its not the safest assumption to think that it will continue.
Fucking acid made me believe in unicorns and hot lesbians. It’s a fun thought though.
hot lesbians are more a myth than are unicorns. well, except for lindsay lohan.
okay… going to wash my mouth (finger tips) now.
I guess you have not heard of Dark Matter (which cannot be detected in any way and therefore could be easily increasing or decreasing) that may contain most of the mass of the Universe or Dark Energy (same problems). Look, it is all guess work. Lots and lots of equations completely understood by only a few people (in some cases only 1 or 2). Actually Dark Matter and Dark Energy exactly fit the classical definition of Angels don’t they?
Huh? What do you mean Dark Matter and Dark Energy cannot be detected? If that were the cast we would have no knowledge of their existence. We may not know what they are yet, but that doesn’t mean we CAN’T know. What we DO know is how much there is and what affect it has on the universe. How does this fit the “classical definition” of angels?
Not sure how you came to the conclusion that ‘anything and everything will happen.’ If the universe expands to infinity, the amount of energy per unit area will decrease asymptotically towards zero. What this means, of course, is that NOTHING can happen; quite the opposite of your claim.
Also, not sure how you jump “God exists” from the premise that all things occur. Do you mean that, given that everything will happen, God will exist? The problem here is that, logically, everything cannot happen, because “everything” is poorly defined. For example, does “everything” include “an area of space in which nothing ever exists”? If it does, how about “an area of space in which something always exists”? Both cannot be true for the same given area of space. So we already have an example by which some things are not possible–namely, two things that contradict each other cannot both exist.
In your case, the idea that “God exist” and “God does not exist” are two contradictory statements, so obviously both cannot exist. And we’re back to where we started.
Jule, I don’t quite see how you confuse the big bang with evolution. That would be like me comparing a car engine to a steak and cheese sandwich.
Or better yet it would be like me comparing the bible to a pornographic magazine. Not many similarities there….
You should try the old Testament. I’d compare that to a porno any day.
Ah yes, the part about Lot and his daughters was quite suitable for a young audience. No hint of sexual content or immoral behavior at all.
Ezekiel 23:20
“There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.”
Bet you feel inadequate now?
Who caused the big bang? That’s a loaded question already. At least ask “what” caused the big bang rather than who. Anyway, on to a more important point, why do we need to know what caused it in order to say something happened? I’ll make a morbid analogy… You come home one day and find your spouse dead and bloodied with knife wounds everywhere and the knife itself stuck in their back. You then call up the police and state “Help me! My wife has been stabbed to death!” Your response is akin to them asking “Oh yeah? Who did it? If you can’t tell me then it didn’t happen.”
There is plenty of evidence to say that a reaction akin to a giant explosion happened a long time ago. We might not know who or what caused it but there is a very, very high likelihood it happened.
which came first, the big bang or the appearance of god?
I’m going to say the Big Bang, as time is a linear continuoum where events occur usually in the order of increased chaos. Time requires space as a prerequisite (thus spacetime), and before the big bang, there was no space, and therefore, no time. There cannot be a “before” quantifier in a context where time does not exist.
The Big Bang always boggled my mind. Since there was no space or time, what did it explode into? I always wondered what’s beyond the universe. But this idea of infinity and nothingness is too much for my human mind.
But also God is supposedly eternal, meaning no beginning and no end. Big Bang began somewhere, so I stock with God.
But what is the universe expanding into? Is it the nothingness or is there some parallel universe? I think thinking about the almost infinity of this universe is enough.
“The Big Bang always boggled my mind. Since there was no space or time, what did it explode into?”
The explosion was of space itself – the expansion of reality as we know it. It wasn’t a literal explosion, that’s just a convenient word.
“I always wondered what’s beyond the universe. ”
So far as we can tell, nothing. We’ve no evidence of anything beyond it, anyway, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.
“But what is the universe expanding into? ”
Bad analogy. The universe is expanding, but it’s not a physical object like a baloon, expanding in your hands or in a room. The expansion of the universe is the expansion of reality itself.
Not just for your mind but for mine too.
Infinity, nothingness and eternity are beyond of anything human.
We are not able to imagine that stuff.
It’s just that simple.
Evolution is not “the best supported scientific hypothesis we have for describing the diversity of life on Earth,” but a natural result from the belief that no entity outside the natural world (i.e., outside the realm of science) was involved in the creation of the natural world. The same evidence used to support the idea that life as we know it evolved from some other form of life is the same evidence used to contradict that idea. It is as well supported as it is refuted, mainly because we cannot scientifically test or measure an event and/or process that took place in the past and/or is occurring so slowly today that we are incapable of measuring it. Also, since any entity capable of creating the natural world must exist outside it, we cannot use science (which is limited to the natural world) to either prove or disprove that entity’s existence. Which means, any logical and open minded person (as all scientists should be) must be willing to accept the possibility of at least one entity that exists outside of the realm of science. Once that possibility has been accepted, then other ideas about how life as we know came about become very plausible and equally well supported. They are equally supported because again, those ideas are about a past event or process that cannot be directly observed and so cannot be measured or tested by science.
Short answer – you are completely wrong.
Long answer:
We can, and actually have (contrary to popular belief) observed evolution in real time.
The whole ‘we cannot use science to disprove anything’ statement ignores the fact that while we cannot rule something out 100%, we can use standard math and statistics to show that many things are so improbable that we consider them to be impossible when making our daily decisions.
How a thought experiment regarding something existing outside of the natural world (what would that even mean other than non-real?) considered supporting evidence of the topic of the thought experiment is beyond me. Science deals with things you can actually test, whether physically or with math. Seeing things outside of the natural world is just seeing patterns in the clouds.
Dr. Cox (I’m assuming your name is meant as an attempt at being a troll):
“It is as well supported as it is refuted, mainly because we cannot scientifically test or measure an event and/or process that took place in the past and/or is occurring so slowly today that we are incapable of measuring it.”
Have you heard of superbugs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance
My good sir, while I do believe that God most likely exists (just a gut feeling of mine), I’m also inclined to believe in the obvious. In this case, I mentioned the example of superbugs because they’re the perfect example of evolution witnessed in real time.
Are you really a doctor, mr cox?
All the people who refute evolution are people who are either NOT in the scientific community, or lying that they are.
The theory of evolution says nothing about whether or not a god exists. So it is not incompatible with the possibility of a god. But I’m going to be explicit here, the theory of evolution is not compatible with the CHRISTIAN/ABRAHAMIC god. That is why you only hear about christians complaining about evolution. What I see here can be paralleled with another religion, Buddhism. Buddhist doctrine does not mention anything about the existence of a god. That is why it was able to be accepted readily in China and the rest of the far east.
But the Christian and related bibles relate happenings that completely contradict the possibility of evolution. Things like how god created the world in 7 days. All creatures were created before he rested. God created humans in his own image… So the problem here isn’t that evolution is incompatible with religion in general, or the existence of a god, but that Christianity is incompatible with evolution (or science in general for that matter).
“Evolution is not “the best supported scientific hypothesis we have for describing the diversity of life on Earth,””
Demonstrably false. It is supported by all the evidence we have yet uncovered, and EVERY field of science.
“but a natural result from the belief that no entity outside the natural world (i.e., outside the realm of science) was involved in the creation of the natural world”
Until evidence is provided that an entity outside the natural world exists, it makes no sense to assume that such exists. Otherwise, we may as well blame the FSM for everything.
“It is as well supported as it is refuted, mainly because we cannot scientifically test or measure an event and/or process that took place in the past and/or is occurring so slowly today that we are incapable of measuring it”
Incorrect. Please see these lab-repeatable examples of Evolution: Cit+ E. Coli and Nylon Eating Bacteria. Further, please see this quote:
“So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between
amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent
that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to
another particular species”
National Academy of Sciences, 1999
“Which means, any logical and open minded person (as all scientists should be) must be willing to accept the possibility of at least one entity that exists outside of the realm of science.”
We are quite open to the possibility, but there exists no objective, empirical evidence for such, and as such, no reason to even bother considering the possibility.
Jule, did you read the article? First of all, you really need to know the difference between the word theory in daily use and a scientific theory to say anything. You clear not not know the difference. Evolution is a scientific theory in the same way that gravitation is a scientific theory. It is for all purposes used in daily life a FACT simply because you can use the scientific theory to predict something. You know if you drop an apple it will fall to the floor. The theory of evolution works much the same way. Not really something you can disagree with and it certainly do not take faith, it takes knowledge, which is readily and freely available. Use it. You need it.
Not to be a stickler, but its abiogenesis (a=non, bio=life, genesis=beginning). It just helps credibility when you spell it correctly.
I went to Catholic school growing up, and we learned about evolution. I am now in medical school and I obviously believe in evolution, but I believe in God too. I don’t understand what the problem is. I don’t see why one should have to disprove the other. Whatever is out there, it is incomprehensible to you and I. Human anatomy alone proves the theory of evolution time and time again, but so what? Who says evolution couldn’t have been part of the plan? What’s the use in arguing over it?
Fundamentalists who believe the bible is word for word dictated by the almighty himself. Tracing back the ancestors in the bible they have determined that the world is only a few thousand years old and that all plants and animals were created as they are today. They also seem quite certain that a resentful, all powerful spaceman flooded the entire planet, killing everything except one human and his associates, and 2 of every kind of (land?)animal. There are a startling number of these people, and if they believe all this than they must also believe in the immoral values stated in the bible. I find the use in arguing is in spreading open-mindedness so that more people can be rational and society can be more progressive as a whole.
To severely deluded fundamentalists, anything that goes against “the word of God” is inherently from Satan and must be destroyed. It’s funny, because I see “Christians” going against the word all the time when they don’t stone bad children and homosexuals, eat a big slap of pork ribs, mix there fabrics Etc.
Christianity is such a pick and chose religion. At least the Muslims are consistently evil.
Well Christianity has changed a bit since the old testament. The new testament is supposed to have changed the bit where we stone everybody and not eat the split hoofed animals and why we don’t need to slaughter a cow and sprinkle it’s blood around an altar and etc. I don’t know the mix fabrics one.
Of course the less openminded people are going to be anal about lots of stuff and be more literal in interpretation.
“They are equally supported because again, those ideas are about a past event or process that cannot be directly observed and so cannot be measured or tested by science”
So by that logic, if I come home one day to find a tree on my house I’m to equally assume god dropped a tree on my house as that hurricane that passed through probably blew the tree over on my house?
Because we don’t directly observe an event does not mean it can’t be measured or tested to form a theory.
Dr. Suck-Cox.. you are no Dr. anything.
Absolute and utter nonsense, you are spinning in your own words and it makes no sense at all. I really hope you have been sniffing glue, because it is the only sensible explanation I can come up with when I read your post.
First of all, there are many instance where evolution happens fast, and can be observed in a matter of a few years.
Second of all, you can easily measure and observe what has happened in the past. It is called carbon dating, and it is extremely accurate.
It baffles me to see how ignorant you are about the scientific process.
Of course, you will not trust anything you read because it is evil. Only your pastor can tell you what is right and wrong. Too bad for you when you find out some other bogus religions god was the right one.
Jule, please look up the definition of a scientific theory. It does not mean what you think it means. The fact that evolution IS a theory means that it has already been shown to be true. It works; that’s why it is used to explain the diversity of life.
Second, you are jumbling several very different areas of study and simply calling them all “evolution”. All evolution was ever intended to explain is the variety of life. That’s it. This has been explained already in the article, yet you have chosen to ignore that.
The Big Bang theory is not part of evolution theory. They aren’t even related. The study of planets also has nothing to do with evolution, though we have a very good working theory to explain this as well. The food chain is a natural result of evolution, and birth is simple chemistry; far from a miracle. Yes, the process of birth is today very complex, but this is a result of billions of years of evolution, and can be studied and explained. Therefore, by definition it is not a miracle.
Evolution requires no faith. That statement can be read two ways. First, you don’t need faith to accept evolution, because it is one of the most proven theories we have in ANY field of science, especially biology. Second, any scientific theory (including evolution) REQUIRES a lack of faith. Faith has no place in scientific study; they are, in fact, opposites.
Evolution is not a theory… it has been observed in viruses such as AIDS and the Flu… what’s more is that no scientist has ever tried to explain why it happens, just how. For those who believe that only information in the Bible is worth believing there was once a case leveled against a teacher in Tennessee named John T. Scopes because he was teaching the subject to his students. A priest who was called to the stand, through questioning from the defense, concluded that according to scripture Evolution is possible… as it’s written in the bible that for God a day can last millions of years and millions of years can pass in a day. Inevitably no one knows ‘who’ created the universe, and it would be foolish to suggest that any one book has the answers… Denying evolution isn’t going to make you right
“Evolution is not a theory”
Not quite – It’s both a Theory and a Fact.
The fact that it happens is observable.
The Theory explains WHY it happens, and How.
I am a Christian (but not one who needs to necessarily interpret the Bible so literally) as well as one fairly well read on this and other scientific issues. I do not believe in evolution, and that for scientific reasons.
I do believe in God. I can not explain the existence of what I experience any other logical way, nor can I imagine its nonexistence. That tension, as well as other antinomial issues, means something important.
What I *DO* oppose about many evolutionists, is their unquestioned lock-step close-mindedness to this theory. They NEED to believe it, and think it crazy to dispute its facts. This leads to the attitude decried in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. To many evolutionists, it is no longer a theory, it is The Truth. It leads to the interpretation of all evidence within the evolutionary framework, which is going to lead to surprises some day. As when science was dead certain that of the aether and Newtonian physics when a fellow named Einstein published a few papers. In a word, the strident, unquestioned support of the theory of evolution is scientific arrogance.
On the other hand, I oppose the close-minded, self-righteousness of the evangelical-fundamentalists that insist that the Bible must be taken literally, as that is the only way to read the inspired and inerrant word of God. They think that being saved requires one to believe in a certain way.
I don’t think so. Either camp would benefit from approaching truth humbly and be prepared to separate what they want to believe from what the truth is.
Just as you (or your church) had to update your religion in order to be compatible with new enlightenment of things, the theory of evolution is also be amendable in the future. Who said it wasn’t? It’s the same for all scientific theories. But let’s not forget what this article is about. It’s not about saying that “evolution is right, so there, period” (and other arrogant endings to sentences). But that people who are arguing against it are getting their arguments wrong. Also, it’s not just scientists who accept the theory of evolution. People who know barely anything about science accept it too. Just like some people who hardly know their own religion are religious.
Mark, I’d love to hear your scientific reasons for not accepting evolution. I’m not being sarcastic…I really would like to know. I, for one, accept evolution based on the mountains of evidence for it. I don’t “need” it to be true; if a better theory came along that explained all of the evidence evolution does only better I would have no problem accepting that instead. However, YEC “theory” does not explain ANY of the evidence we have. The reason evolution is held in such high esteem among scientists is because it really is one of the best, most thorough scientific theories we have in ANY field of science. It is the keystone of modern biology; without it nothing in biology makes sense. Evolution theory has been used time and again to make predictions, such as where to find Tiktaalik, for one example. It is used in the medical field to diagnose new forms of disease based on its RNA. Evidence such as ERV’s and overlapping phylogenetic trees in all fields of biology are irrefutable, and are not explained at all by Creationism. The fossil record consistently confirms what we already know about evolution, both in newly found transitional forms and in the fact that fossils are never found in the wrong strata (i.e. – a bunny in the Cambrian). Literally all relevant evidence points to a natural progression of life from simple to complex as the Earth gets older.
As I said, this overwhelming evidence is why I accept evolution theory. I have no loyalty to it. It simply is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life, and it just so happens to be an extremely good one.
Riddle me this, if god is so smart, why did he make me an atheist ? And since he’s made me an atheist, and that is god’s will, then shouldn’t you respect that ? WHO ARE YOU TO DARE QUESTION GODS WILL ?
Have a nice day
Dave T – God didn’t make you an athiest. Eve did, when she bitched up and stole the apple from the tree…that apple contained “free will” and “self awareness” and “knowledge”
God’s a terrible gardener. I’d leave out the “poisonous” plants in my Garden of Eden.
Ironic that knowledge is such a great evil in that story
Word up Dirtyq. Too bad they’re removing our posts for swearing.
Bacon makes me think about sinning.
“They” are not removing his posts for swearing. I don’t fucking care about shitheads swearing, but “I fucking love bacon” has nothing to do with the post or any of the other comments.
Fair enough, dude. My bad. Good article, I must say.
God hates bacon lovers
One more and your IP will be blocked, fair warning.
Actually, I think it is in Leviticus that says that christians are not supposed to eat pork, even though many christians eat pork anyway (sinners!). I think that’s where the bacon comments are coming from. So wouldn’t that still be relevant? That is, saying that many christians (who may also be adamantly against evolution), also eat pork and therefore don’t actually follow their religion properly, thus lose all credibility in their argument?
Yeah, Mike…
I don’t think Leviticus makes too many references to Christians, since it’s part of the “Old Testament.”
However, that never seems to stop modern Christians from quoting passages from the OT as “God’s Truth” while they simultaneously ignore its clear and definite proscriptions and commandments (even in light of Jesus’ statement that he was not here to change one bit of the Law, that it would not change until the Second Coming (or the Apocalypse, or some other ridiculous, brain-dead drivel).
Are y’all really interested in a theological discussion?
No, we’re not interested in hearing you just make stuff up.
Matthew 5:17-20
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished…. unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
You say you do not want to discuss theology and yet accuse me that “I will make things up.” Wow!
So stop foaming at the mouth until I give you a reason.
Do you or do you not want to discuss theology?
“I disafree with the theory of evolution–it’s just a theory”
As is cell theory, germ theory, and the kinetic theory of gases, and the theory of evolution. None of these are disputed by rationale individuals as all of these theories are extremely well supported.
A rock will turn into a duck wahaha. Killer. If it was a typo, please let it stand.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the entire account of the creation of the cosmos and all life on Earth… all 797 words:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.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.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.And the evening and the morning were the third day.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:And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.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.And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.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.And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Carl Sagan did it better.
“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:And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth”
Im an atheist but blimey if he did all that stuff on the two days in the dark Im converted, AMAZING!
(Yes I did steal that from Ricky Gervais).
The book they hold sacred, are you referring to the bible, or some additional book?
i invented evolution, twice. Also, im fine with gay people.
Lies
Yeah, Chuck is right. Anytime someone claims to be God, or to speaking for God, it’s generally safe to assume that they are lying and/or seriously fucked in the head.
Most likely “and” not “or”
You are wrong in claiming that, “When pressed for evidence in favor of the young earth model, the creationists do not have supporting data.” In fact, just about everything contradicting a young Earth has been disproven. It is evolution that lies in fault, not the YECs. No, there isn’t evidence of a “God,” but there is more evidence supporting Christianity than evolution, like it or not. A lot of it is found by non-Christian scientists too. The thing is, whenever most find an error in an accepted idea, they don’t openly publicize it. If you found a flaw in evolution right now, would you go against the scientific community and admit it?
No, you wouldn’t.
Who let the retard in?
If I found a flaw in evolutionary theory I’d get published in a heart-beat. A fine way to get tenure, that – thanks for the idea, retard.
“The thing is, whenever most find an error in an accepted idea, they don’t openly publicize it.”
You mean like the creationism hypothesis? Or Christianity as a whole?
Hypocrite!
Is this a joke? Why have you failed to detail such “evidence” of Christianity (as opposed to any other religions which have the same flimsy standard for evidence)? Have you ever heard of carbon dating, or sedimentary layering? Those alone are conclusive, testable evidences for a multi-billion-year-old Earth. Research them. I’ve never heard anything of them being disproven, not to mention the fact that besides the timescale involved, they have nothing to do with the topic at hand which is biologic evolution.
The evidence for evolution is in the thousands of independent studies and tests in the last 150+ years that TRY to disprove evolution and fail systematically in favor of it. Do you even know what you’re arguing against? If anybody proves evolution to be wrong, it will be the scientists themselves and not a creationist that’s ignorant of what logic is. Christianity, or any religion for that matter, is completely untestable and therefore unscientific. Pseudoscience does not compete with science, no matter how much you think it does.
This is NOT a matter of opinion. Evolution is a product of science, which requires a strict abandonment of opinion and faith. Whatever you think, the findings of science are not even up to the scientists themselves.
Christianity is not right by default simply because it “makes sense” to the uneducated. It used to “make sense” that the Earth was flat and that the Earth was the center of the Universe, so that argument is inherently bullshit.
I’m frustrated with people like you who exhibit such a blatant ignorance of how science works. Research what you’re refuting, so that maybe next time you can form an actual, substantial argument against it. Remember, the evidence has to be objective (observable and testable), and not subjective (inside your head).
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. The Bible suggests that the Earth was flat. If you accept the Bible a reliable source of evidence, you should look elsewhere: http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Flat_Earth.htm
All of your “evidence”(more like a half-baked hypothesis) has been ripped to shreds. I’d like you to find one example that isn’t thoroughly destroyed and if you come up with the banana, you’ll be laughed at.
Ooooooh…. Time to break out my copy of The Counter-Creationism Handbook.
@not-jule – I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory. Gravitation is a scientific law. Gravity is proved through testing, such as the apple example you gave. Theories are theories because they cannot be directly tested and proven. As the poster above you pointed out, the theory of evolution claims that life has been evolving for millions of years. You cannot go back in time to either prove or disprove that statement, to find and show people the common ancestors of humans and primates, for example. You also cannot measure evolution in the present day because of how slow of a process it is.
Many supporters of evolution argue that life cannot have been created by a God because you cannot scientifically prove the existence of God. I would argue that it takes just as much faith to believe that all life evolved from single celled organisms (a claim that cannot be proven or measured scientifically) as it does to believe all life was created by God, who also cannot be proven or measured scientifically.
That is not entirely correct, Chris. Take for example, the peppered moth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Evolution of this insect has been directly observed, as has the evolution of HIV, influenza (as mentioned above), as well as drug resistant bacteria, which become drug resistant through natural selection.
Natural selection and evolution are two different things. I remember the peppered moths from my anthropology class. There used to be equal amounts of black and white moths until the Industrial Evolution. With all the filth in the air turning the tree bark darker, the white moths started dying quicker than the black moths, because they stood out more from the tree bark and were thus easier to spot for predators. Since then the air has become cleaner, and the white moths are making a comeback. Thats natural selection, which any intellectual whether theyre a ‘Creationist’ or not, should see as true. Not evolution.
Regarding bacteria, that is a combination of natural selection and Mutation. Mutation is not the same thing as evolution either. Here is a link to a short Cal State Berkely article on mutations:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1Mutations.shtml
Evolution: the process of change in biological organisms over time and how this explains biodiversity on the planet.
Mutation and natural selection are a pretty significant part of evolution.
You’re absolutely correct that these examples are driven by natural selection and mutation. Both of these are the underlying engines that drive evolution. Score one for evolution
Also, just to nitpick, but Berkeley (with three ‘E’s, not two) is the flagship campus of the University of California, while Cal State schools are… well… less prestigious.
Chris, you are selectively “data mining” and you are also a “dumb ass.” You really ought to cut that shit out.
Actually Chris, a scientific theory is the best explanation that we have for a natural phenomena as a result of extensive testing. The notion of a scientific law is generally no longer referred to as even things like the Law of Gravity has not been tested under all conditions. Therefore, technically, even gravity is a theory. Likewise, the “theory” of evolution has been been unsuccessfully proven false very thoroughly and therefore has been raised to theory status (i.e. it is the best explanation that exists for the diversity of life).
God’s existence is irrelevant to the discussion of scientific theories. If in fact “Theories are theories because they cannot be directly tested and proven.” they would also be irrelevant to science because by definition a good scientific hypothesis must be able to be proven false otherwise there is no point.
The point I wanted to make was that laws can be tested and definitively proven, whereas theories cannot. A theory remains a theory because no matter how much evidence and data you gather that you believe supports your theory, you have no way of definitively proving or disproving it.
I agree that God’s existence is irrelevant to scientific theories, I brought it up because that was part of the point of the OP.
You say that evolution has been unsuccessfully disproven – how? Unless we have a time machine where we can go back and visit Earth from the moment life began, then watch it progress up to present day, I dont see how evolution can be either definitevely proven or disproven.
I hate to bust your bubble – but the idea of scientific Law as you use it has long fallen out of favour – the use of the term Law and its inherent immutability is an historic thing dating back to when scientist-philosopher types would declare that their Law was the final word in how things worked.
Also, the word Law has almost never been applied to anything larger than a single axiom – “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” (Newton’s Second Law) – rather than a whole framework like Newtonian Gravity (aka the Theory of Gravity).
The problem comes about because of the vernacular use of the word theory – which is actually closer in intent to the scientific term ‘hypothesis’. A scientific Theory, on the other hand, is a framework of rules which, after having been constructed from observations of the world, have been ratified by a continual bombardment of attempted falsification – this is what science does, it assembles a set of rules that describe (parts of) the universe around us, and then people are expected to try and show that they are wrong.
The Theory of Evolution has had over a hundred years of attempted falsification (longer than before Darwin formalised the mechanism of natural selection), and it has not been broken yet. Some small parts have changed, or have been removed or added, but these changes are mere refinements.
As for evidence of evolution – in that last one hundred years, there have been at least 4-5 generations of humans, for one thing… something like a hundred generations of small mammals and birds… something on the order of thousands or even millions of generations of insects.
And all this with people cataloging, recording, collating changes in populations out in the wild in an ever-changing climate – and from all of the data collected we know that natural selection is the major mechanism for determining if particular traits are passed from one generation to the next and we also know that species diverge into seperate non-interbreeding species over time (both new diverged species are also variant to their parent). All of these are predictions that form out of the Theory of Evolution.
To date, all counter examples to natural selection and evolution (the “impossibly complex” human eye, the “irreducibly complex” flagellum, etc) have been discounted and the Theory of Evolution keeps on getting stronger all the time.
Laws, like theories, cannot be definitely proven. They can only be shown to hold true or fail under particular conditions. This is why Jimbo noted that “Laws” are no longer really referred to in that manner.
Any law/theory that is shown to be untrue in any circumstance is flawed. It may not be considered to be false, per se, but at the very least it is incomplete, or only valid under particular conditions.
I don’t believe (at least I haven’t heard of) any evidence that has been accepted by the scientific community at large showing that evolution has been proven false under any particular conditions. Believe me when I say that scientists would JUMP at the chance to provide such evidence, not hide it.
Actually, evolution is a theory because it CAN be tested and proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Proof itself only exists in mathematics and law.) Gravitation is also a theory; one that we know is wrong but is used anyway. In fact, evolution is far more tested and verified than our current theory of gravitation. In fact, we have two working theories of gravity: Einstein’s General Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravitation. Newton’s, while more tested and more commonly used, was proven WRONG by General Relativity.
We actually CAN go back in time and show how evolution has happened in a sense, through the fossil record. Evolution can make predictions for transitional fossils we have yet to see, and in fact has already. It can also make predictions on what we won’t find; that is, we would never find a fossil of a rabbit in the Cambrian strata (for one example). So far, all the evidence we have has confirmed evolution theory, just as the evidence we have confirms Relativity, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, etc.
A Law in science simply states that under given conditions a certain thing must happen. A Law contains no explanation as to how or why this happens. A Theory, on the other hand, is a collection of facts and observations that explains HOW a particular phenomenon occurs. As such, a Theory is the highest level any idea can have in the scientific community, and by design must already be backed up with facts, tested, and peer-reviewed.
It would be the dream of any scientist to disprove evolution theory and replace it with a better one. This would guarantee them a permanent place in science history, just as Darwin’s theory of evolution did for him. There is no loyalty to the theory in the scientific community; if some scientists seem almost reverent towards it, it is because they are in awe at how simple it is and how well it works. It is, simply, one of the best theories science has.
Dave B nails it (above)
Evolution is a theory because it CAN be tested
Creationism is a fairy-story retold by by the largest corporation on Earth
It seems the main point I wanted to get to got lost. Before I get to that point, let me concede some things:
Mutations happen.
Natural selection happens.
If a mutation in a member of a species gives it greater Fitness, and the mutated gene(s) can be passed on to the next generation, as long as the environmental factors that caused the mutated specimen to have greater Fitness in the first place remain true, more members of the species will begin to resemble the mutated ones.
If those things neccesarily make ‘evolution’ true, I have no problem with that. I have no problem with evolution being a term which describes that phenomonan. Over a long course of time, this phenomonan may cause different groups of what was originally the same species to become different enough that we consider them to be now two totally seperate species.
No problems there. I believe that much to be necessarily true. We can observe that in the animal kingdom.
The problem I have with the theory of evolution lies with it seeking to determine the origins of life.
There is not nearly enough evidence to support the claim that all life as we know it today, in all its vast diversity, evolved from a single common ancestor in single celled organisms. The theory of evolution maintains that in order for it to be true, our planet must be millions of years old. The remains of every organism since the beginning of life must have existed at some point. What little evidence we have found from the fossil record is infantesimal in comparison to how much data there theoritically is to collect. Most of that data is impossible to collect because it no longer exists.
What data man has collected so far in support of the theory of evolution, insofar as it explains the origins of life, is a very, very small sample size. Anyone who has ever taken a Statistics course should be able to tell you that you cannot logically make that claim based off such a tiny sample size.
So, my main point I wanted to make that I mentioned at the beginning of this post is this:
Despite that we do have evidence that supports evolution, it is not nearly enough for us to say that the diversity of life that we know today is a direct result of evolution – we cannot logically take that as indisputable, factual knowledge. A person who accepts that statement as true necessarily does so as an act of faith; of belief.
Just as people who believe God created the universe do so based purely on belief and faith, so do those who hold that all life has a common ancestry if you go back far enough.
The problem of evidence as you have put it is due to the fact that before a certain level of life appeared on this planet (that which can be fossilized) we have no direct record of what lifeforms existed. We actually have a very complete record of the progression of life since the cambrian explosion, and plenty of evidence to show exactly how modern life has evolved and what our common ancestors were. For instance, we can show definitively that all mammals share a common ancestor, as do all reptiles, fish, birds, etc. We know from the fossil record that all fauna began in the water, and have examples of the transitional forms from fish to amphibian.
Nobody is claiming that evolution is indisputable; only that all evidence we have and continue to find does nothing but confirm that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for the vast diversity of life we see today. Once again, evolution is a theory BECAUSE it is disputable. The thing is, the process of evolution and idea of common ancestry in fact has SO MUCH evidence to support it that it is generally taken for granted as fact, just as the knowledge that the Earth orbits the Sun is.
The age of the Earth required by evolution would be a problem if it were the only field of science that made this claim. In other words, if other scientific fields pointed to a much younger age than evolution permits, then it would be a good reason to reevaluate the theory. However, this is not the case. Every natural science confirms that the Earth is in fact over 4 billion years old; they don’t need evolutionary theory to do this.
Admittedly, we do not know much about the first 2 billion years of life on this planet. What we do know, however, is that all life we have seen and have been able to test seems to have a common ancestry. How do we know this when the fossil record only goes so far? DNA. Quite simply, genetics alone has given us enough evidence to be able to confidently claim common ancestry for ALL life today; at least all we have so far discovered. In other words, were we to discover life on another planet, we would fully expect this life to have very different DNA than our own, since there obviously wouldn’t be any common ancestry. There may even be completely different forms of DNA out there (as opposed to our familiar, double helix arrangement). However, on this planet we can trace characteristics back and determine exactly what line of ancestry any given individual has. This is done all the time in the medical field, especially in the development of new vaccines. It is also the basis for DNA analysis that is used in court. This same technique can be used to trace our common ancestry with all other life.
My point is that much more evidence to common ancestry exists than you are willing to give credit for. If you are truly interested I suggest checking out talkorigins.org. Just be sure you have some time…reading through all the evidence listed will take a while
“The problem I have with the theory of evolution lies with it seeking to determine the origins of life.”
This is one of the things that science *should* be doing. I don’t see why you think of this as a “problem.” The fossil record supports the idea of Darwinian evolution (and even gives us a rough idea of when life arose), and belies every Creationist alternative.
Mutation and natural selection have been observed in real time. Don’t be afraid to face a larger theory that encompasses the two, and don’t demand a level of certainty that can never be attained. Seek instead to write a better theory based on all available data–which so far support a common ancestry for life, though I’m not sure what difference it would make to you if it could be demonstrated that the three known kingdoms had separate origins.
*Falsify* something, and don’t waste time splitting hairs.
wow. yeah dont mention how we actually dispute the stuff you call evidence. LUCY is a joke she was found spread out in a mile WHAT A JOKE! how can you take Evolution seriously when they’re so bias. they find a broken vase and claim it to be the missing link. yeah I dont know about you but dinosaurs turning into birds birds is as wacky as saying a dog came from a frog. you know that birds were even around before dinosaurs turned into them. EVEN when those retards find a “prehistoric” bird they claim it to be a dinosaur when bird experts clearly label them as birds. People who actually believe in evolution dont read bias literature instead look at how fossils were found. they dont tell you how “neanderthals” are HUMAN! they make them look as if theyre stupid monkey people. but they had fire were found deep in caves. had tools. and had all the capabilities of our speech. dont worry guys keep up the faith youll find your missing link somewhere. PS i love coca cola and i love movies
You are an idiot. Really.
Spongebob has more brains than this ignorant fool.
That’s…Jurassic Park science, and you’re refuting something you don’t understand with concepts you created out of thin air, which is a familiar strategy.
On a separate note: Why do all the god people thread-shit and leave? Is it assumed that the awe-inspiring logic in their posts will draw the secular masses to the light of god?
If there is a god, and he/she did not use evolution to create mankind, then god is lying to us through fossil records and geologic time (the laws of nature are constant, and do not change over time, thus carbon and radioactive dating).
Actually, DNA testing has shown conclusively that Neanderthal was most definitely NOT human. Yes, we have DNA. And yes, they were quite advanced; they knew how to make fire, buried their dead, and even had tools and possibly musical instruments. They were NOT an ancestor of man but rather were an evolutionary dead end. You’re also wrong in assuming that Lucy is the only “missing link” we have found. Rather, we have literally hundreds of transitional forms that represent the evolution between our last common ancestor with modern chimps and humans today. The reason we know that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs is because we HAVE THE FOSSILS TO SHOW THE TRANSITION. I’m assuming the “prehistoric bird” you’re talking about is Archaeoptrix. The funny thing about that fossil is that the YEC community couldn’t make up its mind as to whether to claim it was fully bird or fully dinosaur. It’s a moot point; it shows a clear transition between the two. Does it have a lot of traits of modern day birds? Of course…these traits were inherited by the birds living today. It also had a lot of traits that modern birds DON’T have, but were shared by ITS ancestors which were what nobody disputes to have been dinosaurs.
The reality is the scientific community hasn’t been looking for a “missing link” for some time now. We now have a very thorough fossil record linking modern man and our common ancestor with modern chimps. To the educated, believing in a 6,000 year old Earth or denying evolution happens is akin to saying the Earth is flat (those people still exist too) or that the Geocentric model of the universe is correct (that is, the Earth is stationary and the center of the moving universe).
I’ve seen how you “dispute” the evidence; it always boils down to ignorance of the facts.
Your sarcastic comment that God is lying reminds me of the old Humpty Dumpty story. As the tale goes, Humpty Dumpty made words mean whatever he wanted them to mean. Except in your version of the story, Humpty then goes on to accuse Alice of lying to him because he re-interprets her truthful statements by his own arbitrary criteria of meaning.
And now to explain my meaning in all of this. You are making a huge assumption that God ever intended for us to believe that the natural world is an eternally constant and closed system. That is not an idea you will find either in the Bible or any form of theism I am aware of. What your idea does come from is naturalism, which continues to hold a strong influence in the scientific community and is the reason why those who promote Intelligent Design are mocked by people like you.
“You are making a huge assumption that God ever intended for us to believe that the natural world is an eternally constant and closed system.” You are making a huge assumption that god even exists.
“…naturalism, which continues to hold a strong influence in the scientific community…” Of course it is. It works. Especially when combined with empiricism. Nothing else has ever added one iota to our knowledge. “… and is the reason why those who promote Intelligent Design are mocked by people like you.” Long live the mocking. ID has not one shred of evidence in its support. Mock, mock, mock!
You clearly have no real interest in a conversation. You are too pre-occupied with childish insults and ad hominem attacks.
As for those assumptions you claim I make — yes, I do believe those things, as you claim to believe your assumptions. But those beliefs of mine are not the point of my comment. My point is that you cannot call the Christian God a liar as if he were intending to communicate to you that the universe is something other than what it is. The Christian God assumes an open system, and has communicate this viewpoint openly in words we can all understand (at least, that is what we believe, and we truly do believe it).
To put it another way: Mr. Smith believes the appearance of a red rose is a signal from God that it is going to rain. Mr. Smith sees a red rose. It does not rain. Mr. Smith calls God a liar. Now, is God really a liar, or is Mr. Smith a fool?
My point is not whether one of us is a fool, but simply that your leap of logic to “God is a liar” is too absurd to be taken seriously by the people you presumably are hoping to persuade. Things in nature often seem different from what they really are. It has nothing to do with lies and everything to do with the limitations of our minds.
Mr. Smith is a fool, of course. In fact, I see a similarity in this hypothetical Mr. Smith and the behavior of extreme stalkers. Such people see signals in things that warrant no such interpretation as well. And how can I possibly call god a liar when it is abundantly clear that NO deities exist to actually lie? You’re not making sense.
I have no interest in converting anyone. I just can’t stand bad arguments.
And I do mock ID. It is a vacuous idea which does not even merit the level of hypothesis because it is devoid of evidence in support. As Linus Pauling would have said (and did), “It isn’t even wrong!”
You’re missing my point entirely. I chose a ridiculous example on purpose, because it makes no difference whether the belief is warranted or not. The point is that you cannot accuse someone (God, a human, or otherwise) of deceit merely because you have chosen to interpret something he has done in a particular way that he himself did not intend.
It also doesn’t matter that you don’t believe in God, because I am addressing your argument which assumes hypothetically that he does (i.e., if God exists, he is a liar). I didn’t bring up the subject. You did, sir.
And there you go again with your ad hominem attacks. Give yourself a golden star.
The problem with your analogy is that there is no logical connection between a red rose and a rainstorm. A closer analogy would be to look at a crime scene, where evidence was planted to frame somebody. Yes, evidence may lead to the wrong conclusion, but that often means deceit was involved. I’m not claiming God is a liar, but I do think it’s possible He never intended the Bible to be read as a history or science book. The problem is when YECs assume scientists are misinterpreting the fact because they don’t jive with their own beliefs. More often than not, these YECs don’t even understand the facts they’re claiming scientists are misinterpreting. I know this because I used to be one of them. What changed my mind? Education. I learned how much real evidence for evolution there is, and I was blown away. I had been raised in a very conservative, YEC-believing environment with an extreme bias against evolution theory. Once I learned the facts for myself, I realized I had been lied to. There was no debate, at least not in the scientific community. The evidence is NOT shallow or inconclusive, but rather akin to taking a ride in the space shuttle and seeing for yourself that the Earth is round. I saw the evidence for myself, and could come to no other conclusion than to accept it.
I concluded there are only three possibilities: either scientists were completely wrong (not just evolutionary biologists, but ALL natural scientists), my interpretation of the Bible was wrong, or the account in Genesis was merely myth. Anybody who studies natural sciences would have to honestly admit that the first possibility really isn’t one. The natural fields of science are so intrinsically connected that either they are all (mostly) correct, or they are all completely wrong. There’s no way ALL of those scientific fields can be dead wrong, which leaves the last two possibilities. As for myself, the jury’s still out on which of the two are right, but I’m leaning toward the “stories in Genesis are myths” one. That is not to say I don’t believe in God, or in the ALLEGORICAL truthfulness in the Bible. It just means that the stories in the Bible (especially the Old Testament) probably never happened, at least not in the way they are told. Really, when you think about it objectively, this makes much more sense then believing them literally.
As I said to the other fellow, my analogy does not depend upon whether or not Mr. Smith’s view is logical. My point is actually that it makes no difference at all, and that the real problem is his assumption that he can blame God for lying simply because his human mind misinterpreted something God had created.
As for the Bible, if it is not intended to be read as history, then Christianity is a lie. Christianity is not a mere collection of abstract ideas grounded in a series of allegorical morality plays. Christianity is intrinsically bound to history – the story of the fall and redemption of the world. The Incarnation of Christ demands that we take him seriously, not just as an idea, but as a person, and as a person who did, who does, and will continue to do powerful things in real space/time. Therefore, your conclusion is a very serious one with grave consequences.
I’m sorry that you have chosen to take your path. I am no sheltered Christian myself: I have experienced all that secular academia has to offer, and while it can feel intimidating to an impressionable young college student, I have ultimately found it wanting. My suggestion to you is that you read some of the books that are being written by scientists and mathematicians who support the Intelligent Design model. If anything, they force you to look at some of the core assumptions that the Darwinists take for granted.
I disagree that the failure of Darwinism would completely destroy the natural sciences; sadly, though, it would destroy a lot of it, simply because the waste SO much energy on their obsession with proving and explaining evolution. As much as science claims to be only interested in what they can study in a laboratory, it is interesting how much time they spend making up theories about things they can never study in a lab, because those things are lost to history. G.K. Chesterton’s “The Everlasting Man” provides a damning critique of the scientific mindset. The book is somewhat dated, but the core issues remain the same in our own time.
Actually, it DOES make a difference whether or not the assumption Mr. Smith made is logical. There is no reason to interpret a blue flower as meaning it will rain, but it certainly does make sense to interpret a fossil record that shows a gradual change of species over time as an evolution of these species. In a sense, if God had “planted” these fossils and evolution were not true, then yes, it would be a deception. Call it a test of our faith if you like, but it is a deception nonetheless.
I assure you I take no “core assumptions” for granted in my acceptance of evolution. I have seen the evidence for myself and could come to no other conclusion. I have also read much of the propaganda being published by ID proponents, and much of it gets science dead wrong; especially when it drifts toward YEC thinking. I have no problem believing that our universe is the product of design, but that design began with the big bang, not with humans being formed from dust. The real genius I see in creation is the inherent ability for organic matter to self-replicate so efficiently as to make evolution possible. Evolution is no accident, but rather a product of natural forces that I believe God put into place at the beginning of time.
Removing evolution from modern science would not work simply because evolution is part of a vast alliance of studies that all confirm one another. If they didn’t, there would be issues. These other fields of study are not “trying to prove evolution”. Rather, they came to their conclusions completely independently. This is one of the key principles of science. No result is dependent on an expectation from another field of study. Rather, studies are done blindly to ensure their accuracy. For instance, geology and plate tectonics confirm the age of the Earth independently, regardless of evolution theory. All fields of modern biology, including genetics, wouldn’t make any sense without the glue of evolution holding them together.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that all scientific ideas must be studied in a lab. All theories must be tested, yes, and evolution is certainly no exception. But that doesn’t mean we need to be able to force evolution to occur (which we actually have done by the way) in order to test the theory. Any REAL theory must be able to make predictions, and the outcome of those predictions are the test of the theory. This is not limited to lab work. For an example, look up human chromosome 2, or look up the discovery of Tiktaalik. I have already explained both of these in other posts, so I will not repeat it here, but a simple google search will give you all the information you need about them. At any rate, rest assured that evolution CAN and HAS been tested, time and again, and has withstood EVERY test thrown at it.
Just for clarification, I went through most of college as a YEC. I never paid attention in my anthropology class because I didn’t believe the theory. I came accept it on my own, after realizing after studying OTHER scientific fields (such as astronomy) that the Earth couldn’t POSSIBLY be less than 10,000 years old. That forced me to take another look at evolution, this time with an open mind. When I did, I was floored.
One other thing before I forget. You really need to take the Bible in the context of which it was written. Realize that NOTHING was written down until at the earliest 1000 BC. The people who wrote it knew NOTHING of science, and it was quite common for them to speak in allegories. Also remember that this was a time of mythology, when different origin stories were everywhere. Assume for a second that God did in fact use evolution to create all life on this planet. How would he have explained this to the people at the time? From reading these posts, it is obvious that many people TODAY can’t grasp the concept. Therefore, it makes much more sense that the creation story in Genesis is merely an allegory that the people at the time could understand. It shares the exact same attributes of any other creation myth at the time (personification of non-humans, etc.) The main points the story teaches are not historical, but rather the fact that we are God’s creation and that mankind turned away from God and therefore lost “paradise”. This does not have to mean that the Garden of Eden was real (at least not with all herbivores, a talking snake, and the trees of life and knowledge of good and evil), nor does it mean that all mankind began with Adam and Eve. The “moral” to the story remains regardless of the details.
The same can be said of any of the legendary stories in the Old Testament. They did not have to actually take place for their meaning to be true. It is entirely possible that some version of SOME of those stories actually happened, but it is doubtful they happened EXACTLY as the Bible says, or anywhere close.
As for the New Testament and the records of Jesus, I am not one who denies Christ existed. I DO believe the stories were somewhat embellished (which explains the inconsistencies in the Gospels), but I also believe that the MESSAGE Christ taught remains intact.
What does this mean? Try not to take the Bible too literally
Don’t assume that you’re interpreting it correctly, just because you have been taught a certain way. In other words, don’t “submit” to the “authority” of the church, just because the church claims to hold it.
Science itself is a presupposition. This becomes clearly evident if you study the works of philosophers such as Kant or Plantinga. Scientists in their laboratories tend not to think on this deeper or more metaphysical level; they simply take these things for granted and seldom realize they are doing it. However, they do a disservice to the many philosophers who have paved the way to what they now take for granted, and they are not even aware that there is more than one way to look at this presuppositions and that philosophers continue to debate how we know what we know.
If you cannot concede that you have presuppositions, you will never truly understand your own science, let alone religion.
Also, I should add warn you that the allegorical interpretation of the Creation story is difficult to defend. Scholars both Christian and non-Christian tend to agree that it was meant to be taken at face value (although it might have a parallel allegorical meaning as well, without negating the literal). You may not believe what it says, but it nevertheless really does mean to say what it says. Science may be your territory, but Biblical interpretation is mine, and I’ve studied this particular question very extensively. And it does matter whether it is allegorical or literal. Without the literal, you would have to abolish the Apostle’s Creed and pretty much all the doctrines of Christianity.
First of all, the fossil record does not show evolution. All it shows are dead bones. But that is neither here nor there. Let’s assume that your belief is sound. Nevertheless, my God … the God of the Bible … never told us to interpret those bones in the way that you are interpreting them. In fact, my God gave us a book that tells us how he created the earth, and it is completely different from the story you gathered from the bones. Therefore, you cannot possibly call the bones a deception.
Since you were a YEC, I’ll use the example of the starts. The general belief today is that the stars are billions of years old, because it takes a long time for light to travel. Ok, fair enough. That makes sense, as far as it goes. But now let’s throw two more ideas into the pot. The first is that the Bible, as the YEC folks interpret it, tells us the universe is very young. The second is that God is outside of the universe and can act upon it however he wishes (hence, Adam and Eve were created full-grown). That being the case, you are totally unjustified in calling God a liar: firstly, because he told you the truth about the age of the stars to begin with; secondly, because you already know that the universe is not a closed system, and that this variable makes any independent assumption about the ancient past tenuous at best.
Or let’s say I eat a cookie every day for a year, and I spill crumbs on the table each time and wipe them off. Then one day I decide not to eat a cookie, but I just happen to be carrying the cookie jar past the table and some crumbs spill. Now Mr. Smith walks in at this moment, sees the crumbs, and assumes that I have eaten another cookie. His assumption is logical, but he is wrong. Does that make me a liar? Absolutely not.
My reference to a “lab” was not meant literally, you silly goose.
As for evolution, I don’t feel like repeating what others have already pointed out, which is that there are different kinds of evolution, and that even the YEC folks recognize that mutations exist, that there is variation within species, and that some kinds of creatures are more likely to survive than others. The real debate is whether we have found an evolutionary mechanism by which the smallest forms of life came out of nothing and eventually became us. That, my friend, is extremely difficult to prove, especially in light of what is now being said by the scientists in the ID crowd, who are far more intelligent and reasonable than what the Darwinists will even give them a chance to demonstrate.
At the same time, I concede that I am not a cosmologist or geologist, and I don’t keep up with all the latest buzz, which is constantly changing and contradicting and then changing again. I am a philosopher who focuses on the more abstract truths behind the debates, and I leave the little evidential details to people in other fields (although I do read them from time to time).
There was a book that came out recently (I can’t remember the author offhand), about how the science community throughout history has always been biased by certain “paradigms” that are very difficult to break out of, and thus even as scientists are constantly re-evaluating their science, there are certain presuppositions that take an extremely long time to change in the face of damning evidence. Today, that paradigm is Darwinism and naturalism.
I didn’t say it showed evolution. I said it shows a transition from simple complex organisms in a very ordered manner. This is not a matter of debate. If God meant for the account in Genesis to be taken literally, then yes this would be a deception since this clearly shows a different story than what Genesis says. I am not saying God wanted to deceive us; what I said is that taking Genesis literally is not how we are intended to read it.
The difference here is that you are beginning with your interpretation of the Bible, assuming it to be absolutely correct, and that any evidence we find to the contrary must be wrong. I’m a bit more pragmatic than that. If I find evidence that is to the contrary to my current view, then I reevaluate my position. And no, the Bible itself is NOT evidence.
There is a difference between believing something despite lack of evidence and believing something despite direct evidence to the contrary. All the evidence we have points to a much older universe and Earth than 10,000 years.
No, there are not different kinds of evolution…that is a misconception that YECs have invented. Evolutionary theory does not discriminate between “macro” and “micro”. It is all evolution; there are no barriers preventing speciation and eventually large physical changes over time. And for the last time, evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life; only the diversity once life exists.
I concede that God COULD have created the universe any way he wanted, including the method listed in the Bible (although it seems ridiculously crude compared to the real story of the universe). However, had he done it this way THAT is what the evidence would have pointed to. We would NOT have evidence of Pangea, would not have the fossil record we do, and chimps and humans would not share literally thousands of ERV insertions. In short, God COULD have created the Earth in 6 days, 6,000 years ago, but He DIDN’T. Either that or he has planted evidence to the contrary.
The mechanism for smaller life forms eventually become us is exactly the process described by evolution, and not only can it be shown to be true, it already has (I won’t say proved because, as I have said in other posts, proof only exists in mathematics).
Science DOES NOT base results on presuppositions, as you are claiming. The scientific method ensures this. This very fact is what made the difference during the scientific revolution between REAL science and pseudoscience. Yes, paradigms exist, but only because they have been so thoroughly tested that to claim otherwise would require extraordinary evidence. At the same time, paradigm shifts do happen, such as when Einstein proposed special, and eventually general, relativity. And yes, this did take a while; once it happened, though the evidence spoke for itself.
Darwin’s theory of evolution caused another paradigm shift in thinking, which has itself led to modern biology. No, I wasn’t exaggerating when I said evolution is the glue that holds modern biology together. Without it, nothing we know today about biology makes any sense. Ever get a vaccine? The science behind it is rooted completely in evolutionary theory. Genetics would make absolutely no sense were it not for evolution. We would never be able to classify new species of bacteria if we could not place them on the evolutionary tree based on their RNA.
I guess my point is that I don’t start with an assumption and try to make the facts fit; I have considered the evidence first and made my decision based on it. However, when you start with the assumption that the story of Creation in the Bible is literally true, you will find it very difficult to make the facts fit. You will not have an explanation for the fossil record (sorry, the flood doesn’t cut it, for numerous reasons). You will be at a loss to explain ERV insertions. The fact that evolution theory predicted we’d find a fused chromosome in our own DNA before actually finding it won’t mean anything to you. You have to make wild assumptions about other evidences, such as “the Earth was created with the appearance of age” in order to make sense of it all. And you start latching on to the weakest evidence that you think supports your belief, which is ironic, since faith isn’t supposed to need evidence to support it. In short, you stop trying to make sense of the evidence nature gives us about its origin because it doesn’t fit your own paradigm.
First, I never said (or at least didn’t mean to say) that presuppositions don’t exist. What I meant (and I think what I said) was that these presuppositions don’t affect the outcome of the experiments. If they did, then the test would not be repeatable, and the theory would be dead. I am not going to debate deep philosophy with you…I have studied it enough to know that too much of it begins to deteriorate its usefulness.
As for the Creation story, I do not care to defend my views on it. I’m not trying to convince anybody that the Creation story is an allegory for anything. That is simply my own opinion, and not one I hold very strongly. The Apostle’s creed came from the Nicene creed, and no, I don’t hold much stock in it. Forgive me if I don’t trust a council that was led by a known pagan using Christianity for political gain to be infallible. Also, my memory may be a bit shaky, but I don’t remember the creed mentioning anything about the Creation story, other than “I believe in God the Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth.” Anyway, that’s beside the point. One thing that should be obvious by now is that I don’t really hold to any doctrines the church has set up. I think the church has it all wrong. Again, that’s just opinion…I won’t try to convince you of it.
Anyway I really need to get back to work, so this will be my last post for the night. I must say it’s been a pleasure debating with somebody who shows intelligence
Peace.
The glue of evolution? That’s going way to far, my friend. Biology and genetics deal with evolution, yes, but how can you call it the glue? Some have studied genetics to figure out how to evolve mankind into the Superman, yes. But others study it because they want to know which genes correspond to which attributes in living things. And yes, I stand by my comment that scientists “try” to prove evolution. They are fallible human beings with presuppositions and agendas. This is simply how people are and always have been and always will be. Or perhaps it is better to say, not that they are trying to prove evolution, but that they assume evolution and therefore cannot (in their mind) logically prove anything else BUT evolution.
I’m not pulling this stuff out of my ass. I’ve had enough conversations with evolutionists, and I’ve read enough of the writings of evolutionists, to know that this is how they think. Everything other than evolution is disregarded by default. When scientists in different fields begin with similar assumptions, it is no surprise if they arrive at similar conclusions.
Speaking of surprises, I probably should have said this already, but I am a young-earth creationist who is open to being an old-earth creationist. I think that the Biblical account leaves a certain amount of room for a large “gap” of time that simply isn’t written. I honestly am not extremely concerned about that particular question either way. I do, however, find biological Darwinian evolution to be contrary to Scripture not only historically but also idealogically.
Evolution is called the Unifying Theory of Biology because it is very much the glue that holds all the other fields together. To put this in perspective, consider the fields of General Relativity and Quantum Physics. The two are totally and completely at odds with each other, yet they both work perfectly well within their own realm. As long as you don’t try to describe planetary motion using particle physics, you will be ok. But as soon as you try to cross the two, everything falls apart. Physics is in desperate need of a Unifying Theory. This is exactly what scientists are hoping to find with first string, and now M theory. Find the correct explanation, and the two fields will suddenly make sense. This is exactly what evolution does for biology. It unifies all of its fields in a way that would not be possible without it, to the point that if evolution were wrong, we would seriously have to reevaluate everything we know in all other fields of biology. This is why even Michael Behe, one of the strongest advocates of ID, has to admit common ancestry. He does not deny evolution happens, but merely that it happens on its own. He believes evolutionary changes in the past were the work of God, not random mutation and natural selection as the theory describes. As far as I am concerned, this may well be, though I have seen enough evidence to show that it doesn’t have to be. At any rate, the cause is not really the issue here. The evidence clearly show that evolution happens, regardless of cause.
As I said before, scientists do NOT begin with presuppositions. They may want an experiment to go one way or the other, but the data is what determines their conclusion, not their bias. There have been a few examples of scientists who falsified data, but these are ALWAYS found out, and their reputation in the scientific community is shattered forever. How am I so certain of this? Because the scientific process demands that results be repeatable, not just once but many times, in double-blind testing. This goes for ALL science, evolution included. If any bias were to alter a given scientist’s published results, it would be found out very quickly. The theory would be at best corrected, and at worst discarded altogether. This is the real way science works.
If scientists are quick to discard opposing ideas to evolution, it is because the theory has already been so thoroughly tested it would require VERY substantial evidence to even put a crack in it. It would be similar to somebody claiming, today, that the Earth indeed was the center of the universe, or that it was flat. Would you really blame a scientist for immediately disregarding such a claim?
Scientists have stopped “trying to prove evolution” a long time ago, because there is no longer any need. Still, any new discovery has the chance of uprooting the theory. All it would take is one fossil that was grossly out of place (a bunny in the Cambrian strata, to use the tired analogy). However, this has not happened yet, and is not likely to anytime soon. Still, evolution could easily be disproved were it wrong, and any scientist would jump at the chance, if the evidence were strong enough.
I’m sorry if you find evolution to be contrary to scripture ideologically, but that doesn’t change the fact that it does happen, has happened, and will continue to happen as long as life exists. Realize that any implications, moral or otherwise, that a scientific theory generates are completely arbitrary. They have absolutely no bearing on the validity of the theory.
I only read a few posts but I think if there is a God who is supposed to be all knowing and all powerful he would create things in a logical way. God isn’t stupid. If evolution is the most sensical way of creating things then I’m sure He would have done it like that.
Then again, trying to understand life and the universe with the small part we have won’t get us very far. Theories like evolution and the big bang make sense from where we are with what we know. Quite frankly, I don’t think we know that much and our point of view is very limited. I guess that’s why people like Jesus tried to teach people to be humble. If we aren’t humble, we won’t be able to learn.
Besides, quantam physics pretty much destroyed all confidence I had in reality, haha.
@Nathanael Shermett Typically flawed logic and unspecified claims of decades of scrutinised science being “disproven”.
I haven’t seen anyone trying to deny Christianity? where are you going with that?? The teachings and dogma of the church however, elude to scientifcally provable falsities. You can pop your head in the sand all you like, a small amount of research will show you that the theory of evolution is supported by shitloads of hard evidence.
Clearly the scientific method eludes you, most scientists would be very excited to have found a significant flaw in evolution (in finding a flaw they would almost certainly have proposed alterations?). This would be debated and could potentially advance the theory to much celebration.
You are not going to win against YEC types with logic and facts. The only way to successfully combat them is with their own belief structure. For instance here’s a little fact the YEC types like to forget. The bible was not written in English. In the original hebrew text the word they use is not day, it is “yom”. While “yom” can mean day it can also mean an undefined period of time. Similar to Eons or Age.
Oh and for what its worth, I am a christian who accepts evolution. In my personal belief structure God used evolution as the tool in much the same way a sculptor uses a chisel. A thousand small changes leading to a distinct form, that could easily take on a new form.
Religion is all too often used as an excuse by far too many people for not doing well in science class. As a matter of fact, many people use it as a way of justifying their lackluster performance in “secular” schools by saying that public schools teach you atheistic concepts and the only education they need is the word of God.
That said, I had a conversation with a fundamentalist Christian a few months ago about oil reserves. His belief was that God put the oil in the ground for us to use and that he didn’t believe that it was what remained from millions of years of decayed bio-mass that had long gone the way of the dinosaur (snicker-pun intended). This conversation was very awkward for me. It was like talking to someone from the year 100 A.D. I was so stuned that I really couldn’t respond. It was as if the guy told me he had gills and could breath under water. I didn’t even try to tell him what I thought because I still had to work with him on a daily basis. I didn’t want the hastle of dealing with that sort of madness at my place of work on a daily basis.
As for my way of thinking, I would have to say in the words of Carl Sagan, “An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. I am agnostic.”
In my mind, to say there is no higher power in this universe is just as arrogant and ignorant as to say the earth is flat and it was made 5000 years ago. There is no evidence that a deity does exist, nor is there evidence that one does not. Therefore, it makes no sence to me from a scientific perspective to argue the point one way or the other until someone comes up with real undeniable evidence for either argument. At this point, none of us will know until our final exit.
That said, the hard scientific facts regarding our Universe that have come about since the time of Galileo through experimentation and observation are only deniable to those who can’t fit ’cause and effect’ into their paradigm of their own personal universe. If they can’t understand something, they do all they can to stamp it out.
To the Fundamentalist,I ask you; if God does exist, isn’t it a great thing that God gave us eyes to see, a mind to think, the desire to understand, and the ability to learn about the mechanical workings of the Universe? Or is YOUR god so weak, so frail, so unable to defend himself that you feel it is up to you (the created) to defend and prop up God(the Creator). I think that THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE should be big and powerful enough to stand up to scientific scrutiny. The mental image of you defending God is as funny as a the idea of you standing with a sword and shield in front of an Army tank to defend the tank. I can tell you right now that the tank can take care of itself; so you should probably get out of its way so it can do its job.
Your lashing out at each scientific discovery that shows us another dimension of the Universe must be an insult God. Your efforts only serve to diminish the true glory of God. Each new discovery in science brings us closer to ultimate understanding of everything. Ask yourself this… What if Charles Darwin was a modern day profit sent by God to give us our next lesson?And here you are crucifying Darwin at every turn without even reading what he had to say.
Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god. There is strong atheism which i consider anti-theism, and weak atheism or agnosticism. I’d consider myself an agnostic atheist. While there still is a minute possibility for a creator, the chances are so small that it isn’t worth considering. Similar to the chance that Santa might actually be real.
I love bacon too!
First, Chris, you are right that evolution is a theory and gravity is a law. This is because a law is a simple, unarguable fact from a huge body of evidence that proves it to be true. A theory is an amalgamation of connected hypotheses that have been tested repeatedly and have not been disproven. A theory is more fluid than a law, but a theory is also bigger than a law. Evolution will always be considered a valid theory, because when a part of it is disproven, the models will be adjusted, and the theory will continue, but the core parts of those models, you know, mutation, natural selection, variable fitness, and a progression of forms in the fossil record, are pretty damn sure to stay. Mutation + natural selection = evolution. You are right, mutation is not evolution, you are right, natural selection is not evolution, but novel traits appearing in a population and changing frequency in a population (frequently powered by natural selection, but sometimes genetic drift) is evolution. You may be referring more specifically to speciation. Evolution is not speciation, speciation is a result of evolution, so if you want to say we have never observed speciation, you are probably right, but the beauty of speciation is we won’t know it happened until way after, like getting out of a recession. It’s a gradual process, but the fact that dinosaurs are in the fossil record, and humans are not in that level of strata implies we did not coexist with dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were there, and we weren’t, now we are here and dinosaurs aren’t. Maybe God was experimenting. You know a great way for God to experiment? Mutation and natural selection. Oh wait, that makes for evolution.
Rafael, Neanderthals were human? Well, you are right, or close to right, but the issue here for you must be that neanderthals were here long before Adam and Eve were. So there were people before Eden, which once again means that God must have been experimenting. He didn’t get it right the first time, so he went back and tried again with Homo sapiens when Homo neandertalis failed. They might have been people, but they weren’t the sons of Adam and daughters of Eve, which is still a problem for a YEC argument. I don’t need Lucy to be true, because there are dozens of ‘missing links’ out there that have already been found (H erectus, H habilis, and the broken links like P boisei). Invalidating one (which you didn’t do) doesn’t invalidate all of them.
Oh, and the dinosaurs were birds thing? Give me a source, don’t just spout that kind of crap. Unfortunately, people listen to things like that even though you have nothing to justify your argument.
What about statistical models of population growth among humanoids at millions of years vs. thousands of years, with models for less than 10,000 years matching our current population growth? The lack of transitional fossils? We find hundreds of fish and dinosaurs that were flash buried together, but have not found hundreds of transitional humanoids that were flash buried together millions of years ago. You might say that humanoids were smarter than animals, but I think birds stand a much better chance than me outrunning a mudslide even today. Evolutionary scientists defending Evolution rely on as much faith as “Christians” do to believe what they believe. They both base their views on things they cannot see with their eyes.
Human population growth is not a simple multiplication problem. There are factors such a disease, famine and wars which severely influence population increase. As far as transitional fossils, there a hundreds if not thousands. Look online before recycling claims someone told you. You should do a little investigation into anthropology while your at it and learn about early man and his environment.
According to evolution, humans did not exist millions of years ago because we evolved from ape-like ancestors which there IS fossil evidence for. Probably the best evidence for common ancestry that we CAN see with our eyes is in DNA. The genetic similarities between today’s chimpanzees and humans are about 94%. Hell, bananas and humans share about 50% similar genes due to common ancestors somewhere in the past. (Obviously we are not part banana. Most of the matching genes are garbage data that has nothing to do with physical traits, but the fact that it is similar is testable and observable, and is not faith or chance based.) Also, fish and dinosaurs were not “flash buried,” given the evidence of the surrounding sedimentary layering, which would require hundreds of thousands of years to achieve given the properties of the materials. Flash mudslides don’t create relatively uniform layers of segregated material.
Science is a strict abandonment of faith. Otherwise, it’s not science.
You are correct about growth models showing humanity has been growing for about 10,000 years. However, we know from fossil records that around that long ago a bottleneck occurred in the human race, severely reducing our population. That is why humans show limited diversity (as opposed to other species such as dogs, etc.). As for transitional fossils, what lack? We have hundreds of examples. What do you mean about fish and dinos being “flash buried” together? What we do find is a very consistent order of fossils, from simple to complex, as the Earth gets older.
I get tired of people saying “evolutionists” rely on faith. Rather, the scientific method requires a LACK of faith. People who accept evolution do so based on EVIDENCE. Faith, on the other hand, requires a lack of evidence; else it would not be faith.
Science encourages heresy? So you’re saying that a science teacher can say whatever he wants to say in a classroom, and he won’t be fired for it?
Let’s be honest, Dave. Science communities, like all other communities, have their doctrines that are used to decide whether or not a person can be accepted as a representative of that community. In Christianity, we encourage debate on all issues, just as you claim to encourage debate. We question everything, including our most sacred doctrines that define who we are. However, if one of us comes out on the side of concluding that those fundamental doctrines are wrong, then they are by default no longer Christians and therefore cannot represent us. It is the same way with science communities. You have your sacred cows, one of which is that there is an inviolable barrier between the natural world and the spiritual world, and a human being can only claim to know anything at all about the physical. When a scientist begins to suggest otherwise, he begins to have a hard time getting published in scientific journals, and he puts his position in peril.
Science encourages heresy? This blog itself is resounding proof against that. The Darwinists heap ridicule and scorn upon anyone who dares challenge their epistemic presuppositions. We are told that our views are not merely false, but worse than false and unworthy of a real scientist’s consideration. We are told that the claims of a group of scientists are more authoritative than the claims of our God, and that it is wrong to teach our children to even question reality of Darwinism … and yet WE are the ones who stifle debate?
If this is your way of encouraging heresy, it is a very strange one.
Yes, science encourages heresy. In science, there is no such thing as “doctrine”. ANY idea is fair game, so long as you have the facts to back up your dissent. The only thing science does NOT tolerate is an abandonment of the scientific method, because then it stops being science, just as straying too far from CERTAIN Christian principles makes an idea stop being Christian. However, assuming the scientific method is used, nothing is sacred in science. There are no “doctrines” that cannot be questioned. Even the most well-established ideas can be challenged if the facts support the new idea. If a scientist concludes that one of these ideas are wrong, he or she is STILL considered a scientist, assuming he or she used the scientific method. A good example of this was when Einstein proposed special relativity. He was doing no less than challenging one of the most revered scientific minds of all time, Sir Isaac Newton. If anything could be considered doctrine in the scientific community, it was his theories on Gravity. This was exactly what Einstein was going after. He was not ridiculed it, but rather PRAISED for his discovery (once the idea caught on with other scientists that could actually understand it).
Science does not claim an “inviolable barrier between the natural world and the spiritual world”. It does not even acknowledge a “spiritual world” exists. Science only can deal with what is observable and testable. This is why matters of faith are not dealt with by science; it has nothing to do with it being a “sacred cow”.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If a scientist were to claim, as you put it, knowledge of things other than the physical, material world, he or she would need extraordinary evidence to back it up. The problem is that by definition this would mean that the phenomenon he or she was studying would in fact be part of the physical, material world. An example of this is M theory and the study of parallel dimensions. Were it not for the data to back these theories up, some of the claims made by these scientists would be completely outlandish and would certainly fall under the category of “metaphysical”. However, these ideas are indeed gaining scientific merit, because the DATA BACKS THEM UP.
What people in this blog versed in science have a problem with is not heretical claims, but rather false ones. Stating that there is a large, ongoing debate about evolution in the scientific community is blatantly false, as is inferring that evolution doesn’t hold much weight because it’s “just a theory”. Also, don’t confuse skepticism with cries of heresy. Any claim that goes against conventional knowledge will of course be met with skepticism. This is actually healthy, and is a key component of how science works. NOTHING is accepted on faith. NO scientific idea is accepted at all until it can be independently shown to work. Once again, the difference between this and religion is that, historically, religion does not change until its leaders say it will. For instance, no amount if evidence that Galileo presented the clergy could convince them that he was right. The church truly is an authority-based knowledge system. That is, the church claims ultimate authority in interpretation of scripture, and nobody but its leaders can change a given belief. Those who try are branded as heretics, REGARDLESS of the evidence they present. Sure, debate is encouraged in Christian circles, so long as you eventually reach the same conclusion the church has.
If you really want to call anything an “authority” in science, it is the scientific method. Empirical evidence and repeatable results are what really matter. Any true scientist will tell you that it isn’t what we know, but rather what we DON’T know that drives them. Science is always changing because there is ALWAYS more to learn.
It is by no means wrong to teach children to question established knowledge, including the theory of evolution. However, teaching them that the theory has large gaps and that there is an ongoing debate about its validity IS wrong because these are flat-out lies. Scientists are the ONLY ones that should decide what goes into a science curriculum, because they are the ONLY ones that are qualified. Politicians or religious leaders may disagree with scientific findings, but they need to back up their assertions with facts; else it is not science. No science lesson has ANYTHING to do with opinion, but rather our current state of scientific knowledge.
“What about statistical models of population growth among humanoids at millions of years vs. thousands of years, with models for less than 10,000 years matching our current population growth?”
None of those models account for ANY death, and certainly not Plagues (which at various times have wiped out large fractions of the human population) or the Carrying Capacity of our environment.
“The lack of transitional fossils?”
There IS no lack. :
“So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species”
National Academy of Sciences, 1999
“We find hundreds of fish and dinosaurs that were flash buried together, but have not found hundreds of transitional humanoids that were flash buried together millions of years ago.”
Fish and Dinosaurs flash-buried? Where? When? Do you have any evidence, any published, peer-reviewed papers on why this happened? Have you done ANY research, or are you just spouting off creationist propaganda? As for humanoids, we didn’t HAVE humanoids hundreds of millions of years ago.
You’re making a lot of arguments from ignorance, and you could easily answer your questions with a quick google search. Educate yourself.
Those statistical models are for bacteria in a growth medium under optimal conditions, too. Hardly applicable to human populations.
For a good look at the huge numbers of transitional fossils, I suggest Donald R. Prothero’s Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. Awesome book and all peer-reviewed research.
“What about statistical models of population growth among humanoids at millions of years vs. thousands of years, with models for less than 10,000 years matching our current population growth?”
Can you list at least one innovation that occurred about 10,000 years ago that would radically alter any sensible statistical modeling?
Can you tell me at least one reason why fewer fossils of humans are found than of fish?
Work on these questions, please, and consider updating your post.
Show me one piece of tangible, solid evidence of god, a messiah, the exodus from Egypt, an Earth that is only a few thousand years old, Noah’s Ark (not just an appropriately dated boat wrecked in some mountains, but evidence of an ark that could fit two of every land animal), or any other miracle or supernatural event depicted in the gospels of Christianity. Can you name even one piece of evidence?
We do, however, have a myriad of tangible evidence supporting evolution theory, from the fossil record, geographic distribution of species, our knowledge of historical climate change, observations of micro-organisms, etc. Can you point to even one piece of evidence that suggests a flaw in evolutionary theory?
Imagine a group of lizards living near a lake. These lizards survive by swimming to the bottom of the lake to eat tadpole eggs that rest there. Obviously the lizards that are the best swimmers are going to have a much higher rate of survival, and therefore will reproduce more.
Now imagine that a lizard is born with an abnormality that resulted in webbed toes. This lizard with webbed toes is likely to benefit greatly through enhanced swimming ability, and will likely reproduce. As offspring are produced who also carry this genetic defect which can result in webbed toes, and as they find the defect to be advantageous to survival, more and more lizards in the population will carry the defect and will be born with webbed toes. Eventually, if this new trait truly provides a competitive advantage, over many many generations, the entire lizard population will slowly be comprised of individuals with webbed toes. Thus, a new species is evolved to reflect its environment.
This is a process than can has been recorded in the fossil record, and has been observed in simple organisms. It requires no leap of faith, and is backed by evidence. It makes no attempt to explain initial creation, our solar system, or anything other than how single-celled organisms slowly became the incredible diversity of life we have on the planet today.
Furthermore, evolution doesn’t denounce or promote the idea of god. It merely explains the process through which the diversity of life came about. The problem that so many religious people have with evolution is that it doesn’t fit in with the description of God’s creation of Earth. Why must the origin of the many species on Earth fit in literally with the Genesis story in scripture when there are other known discrepancies in the story already?
For example, in Genesis it’s claimed that God creates two lights, one for the day and one for the evening. We now know that the moon emits no light, but only reflects that of the sun. Does anybody maintain that the moon DOES in fact emit light in order to remain consistent with the Bible, or do people recognize room for metaphor, and accept the idea of a not quite literal interpretation of text? Why should it be any different with evolution?
The thing that bothers me most about the religion/science debate is that people carry such pride for their willful ignorance. In my experience, many individuals on the science side of the debate can quote scripture and are very familiar with biblical history and christian dogma. I very rarely meet anyone on the religion side of the debate who has even a basic, working knowledge of evolution, physics, or any other branch of science. It’s very difficult to respect anybody who argues vehemently without knowing anything about what they are arguing against.
Okay . . . I read the brief article and went through about half of the comments (maybe less) . . . First, I’d just like to say that ripping on Christians, Catholics, YEC’s, (whatever) for what they believe is a little old at this point. If they believe in an entity that has the ability to create life and planets and REALITY, then I’m pretty sure that same entity has the ability to cover up His/Her/Its tracks, right?
“I made Life and Palnets and Stars . . . I think I’ll throw some gravity in there, along with some old dinosaur bones and shit . . . Ya know, just to throw ‘em off a little. . .”
I don’t believe (nor accept) that explanation, but it’s PLAUSIBLE. Who knows, one days someone may find that God (or Atman, Zeus, whatever) forgot to add something in and all of reality will be torn asunder.
But steering away from that . . . I know the internets are a place where people love to argue. It’s what we done. What I’m saying is that you’re all wrong. The article’s author is simply ranting on about his acceptance of a particular theory and how strongly he opposes the beliefs of a particular group. Big deal. I don’t necessarily agree with his stance against YEC’s, but I do understand his frustration, to a point. It’s easy to get intensely frustrated with an individual (or a group of people) who refuses to accept what you take to be truth, no matter how much evidence you throw in their face.
But we all have to remember that this is someone’s belief! They (supposedly) base every action of their life on this doctrine. So what if they disagree with science. What long term effect will it have? Do you fear the human species will regress into another intellectual dark age (as if we were not already there, in America)? Perhaps it’s possible, but I doubt it. Worst case scenario, the human species splits into two races: that of the uneducated God fearing Bible Belt, and the super intelligent Braniacs. But by then the Braniacs will be traveling the stars or living on the Moon or Mars (searching for tentacled aliens to fornicate with young Japanese women, no doubt), so it hardly matters.
DISCLAIMER: In no way did I mean to imply that ALL Bible thumpers are retarded . . . Just the ones from the Deep South.
P.S. Hi digg!
Why so much anger at God and evolution in this thread? Evolution is true, the Big Bang is true, and I believe God is true as well.
Do the agnostics/atheists in this thread really ponder the why questions? Why is there matter? Why are there elements? What are the odds of life in a universe following a Bang? Why is math so inexplicably rational at explaining the universe? Why is there an earth? Why a universe at all? I suppose we all draw our own conclusions to these answers but it won’t be because of a scientific theory.
I actually do, but I have absolutely no way to test if it was God that created everything, so it makes no sense to make such an assumption. I certainly don’t assume that God DOESN’T exist, but I have no reason to think that if a deity did create the entire Universe that it would resemble any of the anthropomorphic, Earthly gods in any of the world’s past or present religions. That would seem a bit arrogant to claim such a thing, given the size of the Universe.
I also tend to face logical problems when considering God, like, “Who or what created God? Who or what created that which created God?…” into infinity. On the other hand, if God always existed by default, didn’t the Universe, therefore, always exist? How does this explain our observation of the Universe expanding? Did God exist for infinity before he created the Universe? If so, what would be the need? How can each religion have a monopoly on the “truth?” Did God create everything and go away, or does He really deal 24/7 with the concerns of the morality of organisms on a fleck of dust spinning around a mediocre star in the corner of a typical galaxy strewn among countless other galaxies? The god(s) we’ve established make very little sense to me and tend to do nothing but beg the question.
I find religions to be purely cultural and subjective, and I don’t think the supernatural counts as a valid explanation of “why.” Nothing does, but there is a huge amount of objective evidence in nature that suggests nothing of a God as claimed. This, coupled with a total lack of direct evidence for any deity, leads me to think that the possibility of a god is extremely improbable but not impossible. This isn’t a reason to believe that one DOES exist.
There definitely is logic in not jumping to conclusions. I have considered the “why” questions, and my conclusion is “I don’t know.” Like somebody already mentioned about themselves, I am an agnostic atheist. I don’t know “why,” but there is actual evidence that suggests nothing of God and none to suggest God. If God is so fundamental, I don’t see where.
“If God is so fundamental, I don’t see where.”
I realize I can’t see the world through your perspective, but for me the answer is simply: You, me, this thread, consciousness, science. I mean science! Think of it! Human beings are capable of predicting and comprehending this universe we inhabit. Our minds can rationally explain the natural world because the natural world is rational. I mean if random, why rational? Why not unpredictable, unexplainable chaos? Are you and I really nothing more than a collection of swirling atoms?
I guess, to me, the odds of EVERYTHING being one huge cosmic coincidence seems astronomically far-fetched. I’m not going to try to tell you it’s this God or that, but I feel intelligence or *God* is abundantly apparent.
Let me get this straight, Phile:
We’re neat + We can think + Rational universe = obviously, God.
Are you serious about this one?
Besides the part where your “god” has little or no relation to the “God” being promoted by the infinite procession of morons, I ask you this: Why not just call your version of god, the “Universe,” and be done with it?
“Besides the part where your “god” has little or no relation to the “God” being promoted by the infinite procession of morons, I ask you this: Why not just call your version of god, the “Universe,” and be done with it?”
I don’t do that because I feel it undermines the succession of events that had to go right for you and I to sit here and ponder this question.
I remember reading awhile back of some MIT professor considering all of the factors that makes even single celled life possible in the universe and computing the odds of it randomly ending up aligned for life. I want to say the results were fairly staggering: Something like 1 in 10^136. I’ll try to find the article.
Well, Phile, I hardly find large numbers and/or slim possibilities to be meaningful evidence for, nor even a faint suggestion of, God.
Are you, in effect, suggesting something such as: “Gosh, this is all so unlikely that it just MUST have been God.”
Feel free to find that article, though.
Not the exact article I remember reading, but it covers the main points of the anthropic principle
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/anthropic-cr.htm
That’s curious, Phile. You claim it’s an article from MIT, but then provide a link to a sham group of Creationists who fraudulently call themselves “scientists.”
Up to this point, I was at least listening to you. But now you’ve shown yourself as a prevaricator. The piece you point to is not from MIT — not a professor at MIT, nor from someone with their PhD from MIT — instead, it’s from some pathetic loser, Craig Rusbult, who teaches Chemistry part-time (and even that is only three student-sections of one single class) and uses his university web page to fill it with more than TWENTY off-site links to his disgusting Creation “science” website!
Not surprisingly, his analysis of the anthropic principle used some scientific terms, yet failed to be even faintly scientific. He makes numerous baseless assertions, false dichotomies, and much more.
I’m not impressed.
I’m also not surprised.
This is just So. Fucking. Typical.
“For many scientists, multiverses seem far more reasonable than the solipsistic assumption that our own universe with its 10,000,000,000,000,000 planets was created just so a single species of mammal would evolve on one of them fourteen billion years later.”
Jerry Coyne, in criticism of Kenneth Miller.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3574,Jerry-Coynes-Seeing-and-Believing-with-responses,Jerry-Coyne-Lawrence-Krauss-Daniel-Dennett-Sam-Harris-Steven-Pinker
questions* :p
The author’s claim that the Big Bang theory and Darwinism are not inherently intertwined is not exactly true. While neither theory makes use explicitly of the other, because the time period between the Big Bang and today is what is generally used in Darwinian timeframes.
A note: I don’t call myself a YEC. However, I do believe that ever word between Genesis 1:1 and the final word of Revelation is true.
God Bless!
Henry
By that logic, you need to lump Astonomy, Geology, Relativity, Quantum Physics, Optics, Trigonometry, Plate Tectonics, and nearly all fields of Biology in with evolution. (In other words, Science.) Why? Because all of these fields either directly confirm or depend on the same age of the universe and Earth that evolution does. What it boils down to, really, is that YEC’s don’t believe in science as a whole. Sure, they accept it when it benefits them (such as the science that led to the development of the computer you’re using to post this), but anything that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible must be wrong.
You say you don’t call yourself a YEC, yet you point to the timescale of the Big Bang theory and evolution (which by the way are not even close to the same amount of time), and you claim you believe “every word” of the Bible. In that case, you MUST be a YEC, since the 6000 year old age they came up with is a direct result of doing the math on all of the descendants listed in the Bible from Adam to Jesus.
The point is that even without the Big Bang theory (which was first suggested by a Catholic priest, btw) or the theory of evolution, we would have arrived at the same age of the universe we currently have. In fact, the Big Bang theory itself says nothing to the actual age of the universe; this is where the study of light, trigonometry and spectral analysis come in. Trigonometry is used to find the distance to “close” stars using parallax. This technique is used to calibrate a second measurement we have using special stars called “cephid variables”. Basically, these stars have a known, constant brightness due to their nature, and by measuring this brightness we can determine how far away these stars are. This is used for “medium” distances, such as neighboring galaxies. Again, this is confirmed by the parallax technique. The third technique we have for measuring distances to stars is using spectral imaging. Essentially, different kinds of stars have a very specific “fingerprint” that we can measure. Using this “fingerprint”, we can determine what the star is made of. Normally, these fingerprints show up as bands in the color spectrum that are black due to the elements in the star absorbing certain wavelengths. However, if a star is moving away from us a phenomenon known as “red shift” occurs. That is, the entire fingerprint is shifted toward the “red” end of the spectrum. The faster the star is moving away, the more severe this shift. Still with me? Now, one of the most important discoveries in astronomy made in the last century was that the entire universe is actually expanding. What this means is that the further away a star or galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. Because of this, we can use redshift to determine how far away that star or galaxy is. Again, this is calibrated and verified using cephid variables, which are in turn verified by parallax.
Why is all this important? Because the speed of light is constant. That is, if we know a galaxy is 10 billion light years away, then we know that the light we are seeing is 10 billion years old, which means the universe must be at least that old as well. This has absolutely nothing to do with the big bang theory, and in fact the discovery of the expanding universe was made before a big bang theory even existed. Whew…ok, science lecture over
Evolution is not just a theory. It can be witnessed within a few generations of fruit flies in a lab and was observed and recorded by Darwin in his work. The thing I don’t get about creationists is their complete inability to accept that there are laws and forces at work in our reality. One of them is evolution. It is as undeniable as the laws of physics. It simply happens. If you choose to believe in God as I do, you must believe that God works with these forces to establish order. It seems foolish to think that the entire planet could be created in a literal week. Most of the old testament is written in allegory. Does it really seem feasible that this enormous planet, let alone all the amazing things on it could have been created as they are in seven 24 hour periods? Or is it more likely that the seven days refers to seven periods of time that are as yet undefined and probably in the thousands if not millions of years?
1. Evolution is not a theory that explains the origin of the universe, that field of study is referred to as Cosmology and it is a field of study not covered by Charles Darwin’s, The Origin Of Species.
We YECs realize this as Evolution is not the only thing we talk about. Cosmology is one as well.
2. Evolution is not a theory that describes the first origination of life on this planet, that field of study is called Abiogenesis. While Darwin might have remarked his feelings about the theory in a letter to a colleague, it is not part of the scope of evolution, which by definition describes the change in species over time and natural selection.
But Abiogenesis is the beginning of evolution. Without that improbable first cell, there could not be evolution.
3. Evolution is not inherently atheistic, the theory describes nothing regarding the existence of god, it is a scientific theory confining itself to prediction and observation of the natural world.
By confining itself to the prediction and observation of the natural world, evolution discounts any involvement from God. This is like saying baseball isn’t atheistic because it says nothing about God.
4. The theory of evolution does not say, “humans came from monkeys”. The theory shows clear evidence supporting the hypothesis that at some point around 6 million years ago, humans, the great apes and primates diverged from a common ancestor.
Again, YECs do not say that evolution teaches human’s come from monkeys. Bogus Argument.
5. The theory of evolution does not say dogs come from frogs, a rock will turn into a duck or as some former TV personalities like to claim, will produce a half crocodile, half duck (crocoduck).
Huh?
6. Evolutionary theory is the best supported scientific hypothesis we have for describing the diversity of life on Earth. It is not a religion, a belief system, a faith or any other ambiguous religious term sometimes attached to it by YECs.
The problem with evolution is the lack of evidence of the addition of genetic information in these so-called changes. There have been volumes written on this issue. The Evidence just isn’t there.
“The Evidence just isn’t there.”
Likewise.
You can try to refute evolution all you want on the basis of evidence. In doing so, you are a hypocrite.
“The problem with evolution is the lack of evidence of the addition of genetic information in these so-called changes. There have been volumes written on this issue. The Evidence just isn’t there.”.
Therefore you should abandon your belief in evolution for belief in God. Specifically my god. Yes the christian one. What do you mean you can’t believe in God because The Evidence just isn’t there. The evidence is obviously the lack of evidence for evolution! What do you mean I can’t prove the existence of my God by disproving the existence of evolution? You just need to pray on it.
WOW, a YEC commenting on evidence. This is where you come up empty handed, my friend. Why would you bring up a lack of evidence? By the way, the genetic code is loaded with viruses and mutations that conclusive evidence for evolution.
Go to Youtube and search for a user named DonExodus2. He is simple yet quite thorough in explaining evolution and genetic markers.
1. The problem is that many YEC’s DON’T realize this; they lump it all under the category of “evolution”.
2. Abiogenesis is a moot point. Regardless of how life began, it DID begin. Evolution simply describes the process of life once it has begun.
3. That is exactly the point; evolution, just as any scientific theory, says nothing about God. However, but lumping abiogenesis in with evolution, you are implying that evolution in fact DOES make atheistic claims. That is, you are essentially saying that evolution assumes life happened without divine intervention, when in fact it does no such thing.
4. Many, many YEC’s I have talked with do. You seem to be a bit more informed than the majority I have seen.
5. Look up Kirk Cameron’s appearance on the O’Reily Factor. Essentially what the OP was saying was that YEC’s often have no concept of what evolution predicts.
6. The problem with your argument is that you are making an assumption as to what “genetic information” is. Mutations happen every day; the vast majority of them are neutral. However, we have directly observed mutations occurring that do in fact benefit a particular organism in a given environment. Look up Nylonase, for one example. Essentially, this is a bacteria which has evolved in the past century to digest nylon, a totally non-natural material. Another example can be found in our own human race. All you need to do is look at the difference in the color of skin people from different parts of the world have. This is a very definite genetic mutation that has occurred quite recently that has benefited the humans living in any given part of the world (before world-wide travel was common). Also, you’re forgetting that we have all the evidence for these changes we need in the fossil record.
The evidence IS there; the more you study, the more you will find.
“The problem with evolution is the lack of evidence of the addition of genetic information in these so-called changes. There have been volumes written on this issue. The Evidence just isn’t there.”
There is no lack of evidence. We have THOUSANDS of transitional fossils. Evolution is supported by repeatable lab work, genetics, fossils, the geological column, and every form of dating known to man.
Your ignorance of the evidence is not a problem for the Theory of Evolution, it is a problem for YOU, that YOU can rectify by educating yourself.
*After numerous comments of a troll-like nature from this person, which were typed with the caps lock on and ignored the discussion, I have edited his posts and will ban him shortly if the activity continues.*
Thanks,
BGH
Belief means NOTHING without evidence. I believe i’m the coolest mo-fo that ever lived. What does it mean and where does it get me? nowhere.
IF YOU BELIEVE YOULL GET NOWHERE THEN YOULL STAY NOWHERE
I believe that typing in all caps is infantile.
The evidence may lead to a different conclusion, but the fact remains that my belief in my coolness has no effect on my actual coolness. My actions and style would influence my coolness, i guess. Coolness is subjective, just like belief. It really means little and is the same as an opinion.
I can’t believe I’m arguing how rad I am with a YEC. I’m totally uppin’ the cool meter.
I have never believed in any God and, over the years, with our ever-increasing knowledge of science, cosmology and evolution, I am increasingly convinced that any human being who can honestly believe in God is just plain stupid. Just read any book by Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens and you get a sense of just how awe-inspiring the Universe is.
Sweeping generalizations like that allows me to easily categorize your intelligence
. I guess just one example of somebody you may respect believing in God will thoroughly dismantle this statement. So I’ll choose to go with the director of the Human Genome Project: Francis S. Collins.
*After numerous comments of a troll-like nature from this person, which were typed with the caps lock on and ignored the discussion, I have edited his posts and will ban him shortly if the activity continues.*
Thanks,
BGH
How is believing that my life is completely out my hands and in the control of a deity going to help me accomplish more? Wouldn’t the belief that I’m in control of my own life positively effect my outlook as well as empower me? I could use the time that i would spend praying to actually make improvements in my life.
Religion is a crutch for the weak minded.
Scott,
Even though I disagree with virtually everything you believe… and I think it is quite likely that either (1) you are an evil troll, or (2) you have significant brain damage, or (3) you have a diagnosable mental illness, I am nevertheless going to offer you this sincere and heartfelt advice:
When you type in ALLCAPS, most people assume that you are a Total Fucking Idiot before they read even a single word of what you write. But, if you use proper capitalization, grammar, and punctuation, then it will take them a few moments longer to figure it out.
You guys are being trolled like morons.
Yes. On that point, I suspect you are precisely correct.
SO KEEP DOUBT WORRY AND FEAR OUT OF YOUR LIFE. SORRY
How, harsh comments for us “creationists”. Everyone is speaking about the THEORY of evolution as near fact. Well how about discrediting a fact of evolution like the tree of life. From what I heard the “Cambrian Explosion” has discredited the notion of species coming from a common ancestor. Now that I’ve got your attention, let’s tear apart the above article more so than what BB did. I’ll just number off to keep things shorter.
#1 – We understand that cosmology and evolution is different. What leads evolution to the study of cosmology however is the big bang THEORY. Once again, just a theory. Now since everyone seems to be talking about the darned theory, Einstein himself accepted the fact that something couldn’t have come from nothing and thus provided the potential for I.D. or Intelligent Design. Again, we understand that cosmology is different from evolution. So different in fact that Cosmology is a study and evolution is a theory.
#2 – IMHO, BB had it correct and the relationship is actually very close and important to consider. Change in species over time is NOT evidenced by evolution because how can one actually see the change take place. More so consider the Cambrian Explosion once again which discredits Darwin’s Tree Of Life, a notion which many evolutionists hold to.
#3 – BB has it on the spot once again. “Evolution is not inherently atheistic, the theory describes nothing regarding the existence of god, it is a scientific theory confining itself to prediction and observation of the natural world.” Evolution is NOT atheistic but leads to the idea of atheism because see how everything is in the prediction and observation of the natural world, there is no room for any theism whether it be Hindu, Muslim, or even Christian or Judaism. And by THAT notion, evolution is not inherently atheistic, but leads to atheistic belief. It’s a contradiction to say you believe in both evolution and some form of theism because one could even foster that evolution is it’s own religion.
#4 – Again, see the Cambrian Explosion. Besides, if there was such an argument, and I’m not saying that evolution says the humans come from monkeys, but lets face it, we all have considered that idea; then why do monkeys still exist?
#5 – I too am at loss at this so called claim that us “YEC’s” make.
#6 – Skitters, I don’t know if you were being sarcastic, and maybe you weren’t. However the idea of proving something to disprove something is a bold yet idiotic move. It’s the claim that’s being disproved. “Evolutionary theory is the best supported scientific hypothesis we have for describing the diversity of life on Earth. It is not a religion, a belief system, a faith or any other ambiguous religious term sometimes attached to it by YECs.” I would argue the contrary. The theory is lacking and there are definite holes. It is NOT the best supported scientific hypothesis for describing diversity because of such holes. Also, I would argue that it has become a religion and people actually place their faith in it. So much faith in fact that it resembles as much faith as one puts in a chair that it won’t break when one sits in it.
Learn the definition of “theory” when used in a scientific context versus when used in day-to-day context before you criticise it. You clearly DON’T know the difference, or you would not be so dismissive.
Clearly I DO know the difference. And thanks for affirming my notion about faith in evolution. By that I mean, you are so sure that evolution explains the differentiation of species that the theory (otherwise known as distinct observations to explain a phenomena; making ASSERTIONS about underlying reality) backs that up. However, by discrediting one aspect of the theory, the whole thing falls apart. Please read the rest of the reply before you assume I don’t know anything about theory.
How’s the Theory of Gravity doing for you? Too bad it’s only a Theory, I should wear my magnetic boots so I don’t go flying off into outer space. Also, why bother eating food? Metabolism Theory claims that we process food into energy…but it’s only a Theory, right? How about the Theory that our bodies utilize oxygen from the air? Why bother breathing? Heh, stupid scientific Theories.
I’m also curious about your claim that the Cambrian Explosion discredits the Tree of Life. I would like to see your sources on that information so I can promptly point out that they have been discredited.
Evolution is a perfect explanation for the diversity of life. It is backed up by molecular biology, DNA studies, paleontology, geography, phenotypic homology, statistics, mathematics, and a whole slew of other scientific fields. Every single attack against evolution has systematically been discredited, and almost every single attack has been by a Creationist who distorted or misinterpreted the facts.
Our DNA–even the noncoding regions–change in exact proportion to the age that fossils and skeletal remains demonstrate. Silent mutations exist at the predicted rate as well–these are mutations in DNA that produce the EXACT SAME PROTEINS. Evolution is the only theory that offers a reason for changes such as those. In fact, evolution offers an explanation for every phenomena observed that distinguishes species, and it’s perfectly consistent with fossil data, radiometric dating, etc. If you don’t believe in evolution and instead believe in an intelligent creator, then that means that you blatantly ignore physical evidence, in which case it’s impossible to argue with you anyway.
This reads like a bad anti-evolution argument list that you cut and paste from. Let’s take the so-called Cambrian Explosion first. Soft bodied animals (which were all that existed prior to the Cambrian) do not fossilize well, and we have precious few such fossils. Be that as it may, there are examples of fossils that predate the Cambrian by a considerable margin. The Ediacaran Fauna for example. Thus, life didn’t just spring to life fully formed in the Cambrian. Nor was it much of an explosion, unless you consider tens of millions of years an explosion. I hardly think so.
Next – the old “if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” trick. Because life is not a ladder but a bush. We share a common ancestor with chimps, which we both share a common ancestor with gorillas, etc. For some reason, anti-evolutionists can’t get their collective heads around this.
Anti-evolutionists always claim their are ‘holes’ in the theory. Where are these never-named ‘holes’? Or were these two errant ideas the ‘holes’?
I’ve got a question for you – if we did not share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, then how do you explain the NANOGP8 pseudogene (which encodes a transcription factor, but through mutation has been inactivated) that both humans and chimps share that contains Alu retroelements inserted in exactly the same places in both species (especially when such retroelements insert themselves randomly in the DNA strand)? Does it make sense that a ‘designer’ would place such a pseudogene, a gene which does exactly nothing, into the genome of each species just for the heck of it? Unless the designer is utterly incompetent, I don’t think so. Why would a designer create an eye that is sub-optimally designed (it’s wired backwards) in humans and give cephalopods the properly designed one? I could go on and on with bad design. A much better explanation for these structures being sub-optimal (but good enough) is historical contingency due to evolution.
*After numerous comments of a troll-like nature from this person, which were typed with the caps lock on and ignored the discussion, I have edited his posts and will ban him shortly if the activity continues.*
Thanks,
BGH
Please tell us about the flawed theory of gravity. We’re dying to hear it.
Evidently the laws of grammar, spelling, and decorum may also be contravened when the power of the Lord flows through you. Wow. I’m a believer.
Trolled hard.
Wow you are just all kinds of nuts aren’t you? Do you get your own computer in there or do all the patients have to share?
Ok, here we go again! Evolution is not ‘just’ a theory and it can be prooved. You can see evolution as it happens if you look in the right place. That place is more often than not in the gory close up of a scientists belived Fruit Fly (more accuratly the Drosophila). This species has such a short generation that changes in the species can be seen over a relativly short perios of time. Also evidence of previous evolution can be seen by taking core samples from the earth itself. A 200m long core sample taken from antartica has dated back hundreds of millions of years. And the people who worked all this out are probably a lot smarther than everyone talking here!
Incidentally it was a Danish polymath called Nicholaus Steno who frst championed the idea that rocka got older the further down in the earths surface you went. he later became an archbishop and was cannonised by Pope Pius XI in 1988. He hs been described as the only saint to make an important scientific contribution.
If anyone is unsure on the FACTS of evolution I would reccomend a book I am currently reading now to reafirm my own argument. Its helpfully called ‘Why Evolution is True’. (full reference to follow) It gives you the facts on evolution and clearly explains a majority of the important work done by scientists across the world since darwin First threw that bomb into the scientific community. Even I am finding it interesting and I have been covering evolution from various angles for the past 5 years!
Coyne. J, A,. (2009) Why Evolution is True. Oxford. Oxford University Press
Most YECs do not deny mutation or genetic change. What we do deny is the change from one species to another, the addition of genetic information. The fruit fly is still a fruit fly.
I would also recommend another book called Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe. Behe is not a YEC, but does espous I.D. (Yes, they are different).
Behe is an idiot. Sorry, but it’s true. His “irreducible complexity” argument has been debunked time and time again.
In the Dover trial when he was on the stand Behe claimed to have searched everywhere and not found any substantial theories as to how natural selection and random mutation could have produced our immune system. The lawyer questioning him then proceeded to literally pile books and articles that had been written about that very subject on his desk, to the point where he couldn’t even see over them.
That being said, even Behe acknowledges common ancestry. Why? Because he has enough education to know that it is indisputable. He remains stubborn as to WHY things evolve, but at least he admits that they DO.
Great post. Concise, well-written, great points.
I love Jesus. I do support the theory of a young earth. And I think this post is superb. Many “Christians” who spend all their time in fruitless argument would do very well to understand the simple things you’ve laid out here. Well spoken!
*After numerous comments of a troll-like nature from this person, which were typed with the caps lock on and ignored the discussion, I have edited his posts and will ban him shortly if the activity continues.*
Thanks,
BGH
After reading some of the comments, I think the main thing to keep in mind when having an intelligent discussion is to be civil. That being said, ultimately whether you are a proponent of Creationism (young or old), Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution, or Naturalistic Evolution, it all boils down to whether or not there is such a thing as “truth” and whether or not we can know the truth.
I assume everyone who made a comment believes that there is such thing as “objective truth” otherwise you wouldn’t have been so adamant about your positions. (Further, it is a self-refuting statement to say “There is no such thing as truth” since it is a statement that assumes to be true) However, it seems that a lot of people commenting (at least at first glance) assumes that “science” exhausts all that we can know. But notice the statement, “All that we can know is what science tells us” is not a statement known to be true through scientific means. In other words, it is a contradictory claim.
In fact there are many things we know apart from science. For example, the laws of logic and math. To try to prove that logic and math exist using science is arguing in a circle since science presupposes logic and math. Further, science cannot explain the existence of objective moral values (I don’ have a bumper sticker that says “I break for moral values”), it cannot make sense of what the meaning of life is, or why we should treat people with intrinsic value (if you’re just a physical body and there is nothing more to you than that, then it would be reasonable to treat those who are missing limbs, for example, as being 90% human and therefore deserving 90% of human dignity), or explain the contours of human free will (if you’re just a brain and central nervous system, then all your choices are subject to the laws of physics and chemistry).
The above examples is anything but exhaustive. And, I’ve made no claim to what I believe as far as worldview is concerned. My main question really is, how does a naturalistic version of evolutionary theory explain the undeniable longings of human existence?
Actually you’ve made every claim about what you believe and your world views. You have also shown very clearly that your concepts of science and logic are seriously flawed.
I suppose you can infer some things about what I believe, like belief in objective truth and that science has its limitations in giving us a full understanding of reality, but when I said “I made no claim to what I believe” it is “as far as worldview is concerned” (i.e., I haven’t said whether or not I’m a theist, atheist, pantheist, etc.).
I admit I’m not infallible. But, in what way(s) have I misunderstood science and logic?
I really like this phrase: “Rather, the scientific method requires a LACK of faith. People who accept evolution do so based on EVIDENCE. Faith, on the other hand, requires a lack of evidence; else it would not be faith.”
This is why I believe there is no valid scientific reason for not accepting evolution – because people who believe in god and religion (something which has never been seen, written into history by ignorant, evil men throughout history, and curiously different depending on community and country of origin) are not facing the facts. They are using excuses to ignore and twist the facts.
Oh, Mark, there you go again, using logic and rationality to try to explain things. And where has all that ever gotten us?
Now… can we get replies from Luke and John?
I totally agree with mark… well said.
Although this is a subject that will most probably always be based on theory (both evolution and creationism) I will have to side with evolution… it is based on evidence, something that is tangible, that can be seen and proven. Not something that is told/dictated to me by someone who cant prove a thing, who bases their assumptions on fairytales and lies from some book written thousands of years ago by ignorant, control-thirsty men.
josephaumentado: “why we should treat people with intrinsic value (if you’re just a physical body and there is nothing more to you than that, then it would be reasonable to treat those who are missing limbs, for example, as being 90% human and therefore deserving 90% of human dignity”
I find this (along with some other comments) to be an insane comment. Animals in our world do separate the weak/hurting/disabled from their group (in certain cases), but this is what makes (most) humans different from wild animals. We have the reason/logic to treat people as a whole, with respect, regardless of their disabilities. This is how we EVOLVED, different from animals. Most of us have the ability to value each others lives, we value each others bodies and minds, even if we don’t believe our lives were created from some mystic being in the sky, or if we don’t use religion as a bases to give meaning to life.
This is something all humans should be striving for… equality for everyone. Not religion which separates humanity from itself, different beliefs which are always under scrutiny from different groups.
But hey, everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want… as long as they don’t undermine/abuse other people that have different opinions/views, IMHO.
But to all creationists…. just look at a dinosaur fossil
Just my 2 cents
Peace!
Phil, we didn’t evolve, “different from animals.” We were, are, and always will be animals. (To the extent that we continue to exist).
Also, some non-human animals care for the weak/disabled in their groups… and, OTOH, there is no end to the examples of humans committing atrocities upon one another.
Yes, we should strive to recognize the inherent worth and dignity of all people, but we should simultaneously strive to recognize our connection and interdependence with other animals, our regional environment, and the planet as a whole.
Hey Matthew..
First, I meant that animals all evolved differently… as in, some grow wings, others scales, etc… I did not mean we are different from them in that sense, that we are not animals too. I think we evolved reason, understanding, logic, etc… as opposed to other animals which evolved different mechanisms for their survival.
Second, if you read what I wrote in brackets, I wrote (in certain cases). I did not mean to imply that all animals separate the weak/disabled in their groups. And another word in brackets that I used was (most), referring those humans that you mentioned. Of course there are examples of humans that aren’t logical or reasonable, and commit those atrocities (I won’t even bring up the Crusades, Inquisitions, etc…) Sorry for referring to only Christians, but that is the religion I know most about. I do not speak of other religions, because basically, I don’t speak about that which I don’t know much about. (Although Muslims do oppress in other ways, such as the way they treat their women, for example)
Nicely put at the end though.. we do have consider our connections to everything on this world… to nature… and not in beliefs which aren’t true, and meant only to oppress and control.
Why value human life? Why not just expedite the evolutionary process by identifying the weakest races?
Identifying the weakest races? I do hope your being sarcastic.
Why? Is something wrong with that statement?
Obviously wrong with it… for multiple reasons.
First, identifying “races”
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)#Current_views_across_disciplines
In the face of these issues, some evolutionary scientists have simply abandoned the concept of race in favor of “population.” What distinguishes population from previous groupings of humans by race is that it refers to a breeding population (essential to genetic calculations) and not to a biological taxon. Other evolutionary scientists have abandoned the concept of race in favor of cline (meaning, how the frequency of a trait changes along a geographic gradient). (The concepts of population and cline are not, however, mutually exclusive and both are used by many evolutionary scientists.)
According to Jonathan Marks,
By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal – was very small.
A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist.
In the face of this rejection of race by evolutionary scientists, many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word “ethnicity” to refer to self-identifying groups based on beliefs concerning shared culture, ancestry and history. Alongside empirical and conceptual problems with “race,” following the Second World War, evolutionary and social scientists were acutely aware of how beliefs about race had been used to justify discrimination, apartheid, slavery, and genocide. This questioning gained momentum in the 1960s during the U.S. civil rights movement and the emergence of numerous anti-colonial movements worldwide. They thus came to believe that race itself is a social construct, a concept that was believed to correspond to an objective reality but which was believed in because of its social functions.
Races as Social Constructions
Even as the idea of race was becoming a powerful organizing principle in many societies, some observers criticized the concept. In Europe, the gradual transition in appearances from one group to adjacent groups suggested to Blumenbach that “one variety of mankind does so sensibly pass into the other, that you cannot mark out the limits between them” (Marks 1995, p. 54). As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term population to talk about genetic differences, Historians, anthropologists and social scientists have re-conceptualized the term “race” as a cultural category or social construct, in other words, as a particular way that some people have of talking about themselves and others. As Stephan Palmie has recently summarized, race “is not a thing but a social relation”; or, in the words of Katya Gibel Mevorach, “a metonym,” “a human invention whose criteria for differentiation are neither universal nor fixed but have always been used to manage difference.” As such it cannot be a useful analytical concept; rather, the use of the term “race” itself must be analyzed. Moreover, they argue that biology will not explain why or how people use the idea of race: history and social relationships will.
Second, “identifying… weak[ness]”
Simply put, in evolutionary terms, how do you identify and quantify weakness? It would have to be dis-advantageous to the furtherance of the species. While we might like to impose our biased, myopic imaginings of what a truly great and successful example of homo sapiens might look like, the reality is that evolution doesn’t work that way.
You see, in totally misunderstanding evolution, we’d probably think of it as a never-ending progression of “improvement” of humans, which we’d likely categorize in simplistic terms such as: smarter, taller, faster, greater longevity, etc…
However, evolution is not a constant “improvement” in that sense. Instead, it is ongoing change by means of natural selection for success within an ecological niche. As those niches change, species either adapt to them or face terminal extinction.
We need not address in detail the repugnant and unethical nature of such a project, for it is sufficient here to recognize that we wouldn’t even know what we were aiming for. What traits will be most advantageous for homo sapiens in the future? Will the dominant, characteristic traits of modern homo sapiens be beneficial in the future? To what extent are they beneficial right now? In our current state, we face daily the dual possibilities of rapid extinction via large-scale nuclear warfare, and the ever-increasing probability of relatively slower extinction due to human-caused global climactic changes. As such, the argument has been made that, in the long-run, it may turn out that the appearance of a talking ape, with advanced mental capacities, wasn’t really a sustainable proposition.
The scientific method is what really causes problems with evolution. Change from one species to another is not a repeatable, observable process. So by following the scientific method, one cannot prove evolution. That is a scientific reason not to buy into evolution hook line and sinker.
I find it the height of arrogance to say we creationists are hiding from, and twisting the facts when much of the so-called evidence from the evolution camp has done just that. A previous poster mentioned the famous moth from England and how that “proved” evolution. The study has been revisited in recent years and isn’t as clear cut as previously thought. Besides, the moth is still a moth.
If your read the beginning of my post, you would see that I consider both evolution and creationism theories… although I do side more with evolution.
I am no scientist, I am just giving a personal opinion… but I think you can observe the process. You can observe how evolution changes a species. You personally cannot observe evolution’s process, because simply, you cannot live long enough to see it for yourself, infront of your very eyes… But by studying and comparing, fossils for example, people have made a connection (in theory) to older species evolving into newer, or different ones. (I could be talking nonsense, I dont know ehehe but it is what I believe)
I don’t think you hide or twist the facts, I think creationist’s just blame everything on God. How did this happen? God did it. Why did he do it? To test our faith. Or other stuff along those lines (sorry, generalizing a bit, i know) Sorry, but I think all of that is nonsense.
To finish off, can some creationist please tell me where dinosaurs came from? Definately wasn’t God’s doing… he only made the Earth 10,000-12,000 years ago… and fossils are dated to be billions of years old!
Peace ppl!
First of all, you’re limiting evolution theory to “change between species”. This process has been observed, repeatably, and yes, we have been able to test it. But you must realize that evolutionary change makes no distinction between “macro” and “micro” evolution. It’s all evolution…the only difference is the time scale.
Of course that moth is still a moth. Evolution makes no predictions to the contrary. The moth is just a moth in the same way that we are still primates, birds are still dinosaurs, etc. Once again, if you are asking specifically for examples a speciation, a simple google search will provide you hundreds.
Evolution theory also can and has been used to make predictions. For an example, look up Tiktaalik. This was a transitional fossil that had never been seen before, but based on the evolutionary model scientists knew EXACTLY where to look for it. For another example, look up human chromosome 2. Evolution theory predicted that, since we have one less pair of chromosomes than all three of our other closely related primates, we should find one chromosome pair that had been fused. If not, then it would have been impossible for us to share a common ancestor with these primates and evolution would have been wrong. It turns out chromosome 2 is a fused chromosome, exactly as evolution predicted.
Your assertion that evolution cannot be tested is dead wrong. It is testable, falsifiable, and repeatable, and has already withstood 150 years of scientists trying to prove it wrong. YEC, on the other hand, is none of these, and therefore CANNOT be considered a scientific theory.
Religion is responsible for much of the hate, violence, and strife in the world. Notice I say religion, not spirituality. I think belief in a higher power can be very good for people, and can spread peace and understanding. This world – and life in general – is truly miraculous. I believe no one really knows what is going on but it is very important to take the time to stop and capture that incredible sense of wonder just to be alive. However, when people try to codify that wonder into a mythology with a set of rules that is when we start to have problems. It boggles my mind that anyone with an ounce of common sense can take any religious text and believe it to be concrete fact. You know, the Greek and Egyptian Gods were once worshiped with as much fervor as the Abrahamic Gods are worshiped today. What makes your mythology any different from theirs? Once you can tell someone that what they are wrong and you are right based on an arbitrary mythology you can suddenly justify doing all sorts of terrible things to them because ‘God’ is on your side. Think of all the horrible atrocities committed over the years due to just that. I believe this world would be a much better place without organized religion.
Much like communist Russia was a better place? Like the Kmer Rouge was so kind to the people of Cambodia? Like the human rights in Cuba are so stellar? Please do a comparison of the atrocities committed by the Godless versus Religion. In one aspect I do agree, misguided religion does cause some problems; however, chucking out God is never a good idea.
You didn’t read my comment very carefully. I think belief in a higher power (call it God if you like) can be a very good thing. It’s organized religion that I think creates problems for humanity. I certainly didn’t say that there would be no conflict in the absence of religion. I simply observed that religion tends to creates much more conflict than it solves.
In those cases, you’re talking politics, not religion.
Hitler, Stalin, and Mao answered to no one. What’s the death toll for these three: 15,000,000+? I wouldn’t go down this road.
Hitler – “Hitler often praised Christian heritage, German Christian culture, and professed a belief in an Aryan Jesus Christ, a Jesus who fought against the Jews.” Sorta Christian
Stalin – Although many consider him an atheist “One account states that Stalin’s reversal on bans against the church during World War II followed a sign that he believed he received from heaven.” A closet christian maybe? ehehe
Mao Zedong was an atheist… nothing to say about that
Now, how about you mention the deaths during the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc..?
I really wouldn’t go down this road, almost all religions have spilled blood in the name of their beliefs.
You are 100% correct on the worldviews of these strawmen being used as an example to demonize atheism, but there is a bigger picture that is commonly missed, these men were first and foremost dogmatists. Much in the same way non-believers are accused of the victimless crime, ‘blasphemy’ when speaking against religion, people who spoke against the state and its government were arrested, jailed and murdered for refusal to submit.
Nothing to do with atheism (no belief in god), whatsoever.
Do you actually believe what you just typed? You sound more ridiculous than all of the 6,000 year old earth creationists combined hahaha
I’m sure you won’t like this, Phile, but I’ll put it to you anyway…
If you’re not just an evil troll, but instead you’re truly interested in these subjects and have a desire to better understand the key ideas and arguments of atheism, you really ought to read The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins.
Whether it changes your mind, your beliefs, your faith, is quite irrelevant. Crucially, you will encounter some rather well-crafted, detailed answers to these questions that you keep asking.
That way, you won’t continue to behave like a slow-witted 3-year-old, repeatedly asking the same questions over and over and over, never actually listening, never actually learning.
Hey, Creationists and Young Earthers! I have a question for you!
First, let’s establish some facts which are inarguable:
The speed of light is 3×10^8 meters per second.
The distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Earth year is called a “light year”.
We can measure the distance from Earth of some relatively close start by a fairly simple mathematical method which uses pythagoras’ theorum (how to calculate the length of a side of a triangle when you know other distances and angles) and is called “parallax”.
We can measure the distance of more distant stars from Earth using a thing called “red shift”, which is essentially the Doppler effect for light instead of sound (I’ll point out that this point that this is observable and 100% proven beyond a shadow of a doubt).
The fairly straightforward upshot of all of this is simple: If we can prove that a star is 1 light year from us, we know that the light from that star is 1 year old when we see it. If we can prove the star is 2 light years from us, we know that the light is 2 years old – and so on.
Now, the furthest vissible star which has been seen through the Hubble Space Telescope is (go on, guess!) 15 BILLION light years away. That means that the light which the telescope sees when it looks at that star is FIFTEEN BILLION YEARS OLD. 15,000,000,000.
Which means: It has been PROVEN inarguably, beyond any question, that the universe is AT LEAST 15 billion years old.
So, here’s my question: How can you still believe that somebody created all of this 6000 years ago when it’s so easy to prove that you’re wrong?
By the way, you’ll maintain a bit more respect if you avoid using arguments like “Because God made it happen! Praise Jeeeeesus!”
Lets look at Genesis 1. The entire chapter was written from the point of view of someone that is standing on the earth. If starlight from across the universe hit the earth at the same time, it would look to the observer that they all came “online” at the same time – even if some were created billions of years ago. Genesis 1:1 clearly states that In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void. It doesn’t say the heavens were without form and void. Many (not all) YECs, look to the theory of observable time as valid. It goes against the nature of God to lie, therefore the light that took 4 million years to get to us must have taken that long.
There is another theory that is interesting but takes a bit longer to explain. Read the book Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys. Now this theory has been criticized by many including other YECs. It is still a very interesting read.
So the basic answer is this – YEC is about a Young Earth, not a necessarily a young universe
Rrrrrriiiiight… So, what you’re saying is, Christianity is once again twisting words and arguing semantics to make the observable truth fit in with its patent nonsense dogma? Thought so.
If you really want to have some fun, let’s assume a god then try to determine if he/she/it is “Good” or really just out to get us !!!
There cannot be an all-knowing, all-powerful, and “Good” god if there is “Evil” in the world.
I like Ben. Ben is cool. (and so is his “longish” post…
Just don’t confuse me with that other Ben lurking around here… I suspect he’s the bizarro version of me.
Aside from the degrading undercurrent in the opening paragraph towards YECs, good set of points. I hope those who do (meaning some but not all) espouse a zealots version of evolution read what you have posted. Many young evolution champions make many of the logical errors you point out as well, knowing not what they debate or promote, or that they have likewise slipped past theory into religion in their zeal.
Thanks very much for posting this!
It occurs to me as I read the comments here that religion and faith are quite literally causes of mental retardation. They impede a person’s ability to reason and thereby develop intellectually.
Now, now.
That’s hardly a reasonable thing to say, since you very well know that correlation does not prove causation. And if there is causation between the two, it’s not clear which is the causative agent.
However, I think you’ve generally got the right idea. I’m sure with some more careful testing we’ll be able to reach a reasonable conclusion in no time at all.
I think there is causation, religion actively discourages questioning of God and doctrine and forces the brain into all kinds of acrobatics to rationalize the irrational. Add that to the overwhelming evidence of worldwide behaviours and I’d say there is a very strong basis to form the hypothesis. Further testing might be able to provide accurate predictions as the the degree based on factors such as specific doctrines, length of indoctrination, etc.
What of individuals who do not place limits on science or God?
I’m not promoting any rejection of science, but I would suggest taking your own medicine here, recognizing the limits of when we can discern solely through science, and really examining whether or not you have all the answers.
Is stating that all scientists are atheists a true statement. If not, why?
*what
No not all scientists are atheists, it’s just as possible for a scientist to be irrational as anyone else. Scientists aren’t perfect and are frequently wrong. But that is the wonderful thing about science and the scientific method, it works in spite of the failings of humanity. Science doesn’t know everything, barely a fraction of anything really, but it CAN know anything and everything given enough time, it is always asking why, how and if about everything and everyday uncovering more. I place no limits on science because science has none. No, we don’t have all the answers, but we can. Without the scientific method any crackpot could claim anything and mankind would fall back into the Dark Ages (a result of religion BTW). Science is nothing more than a system of checks and balances in the pursuit of knowledge.
Learn what you are talking about before you speak, you’ll embarrass yourself a lot less that way.
haha learn to completely agree with you, you mean?
Agreement is irrelevant, facts are facts whether you like them or not. Making statements about things you don’t understand just makes you look ignorant. Denying facts because they don’t fit your world view is just makes you look nuts.
is light speed finite?
In Genesis, Adam was made as a grown man, not a baby, as was the universe
Yes light speed is finite and fixed.
if light speed holds a hand in hand relationship with gravity, then the expanding universe would alter both…possibly allowing for light to travel faster in the past
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.
me, Hubble and Einstein.
No, you really don’t know what you’re on about….
I guarantee you neither Hubble nor Einstein claimed anything like what you are trying to.
I think he’s talking about specific relativity and utterly failing to grap it…
That’s “special’ relativity, not “specific”…. Just sayin’…
What is it with the ‘youth fixation’? First Star Trek goes all Bugsy Malone and now this.
We have all got to learn to accept planets “of a certain age” just as they are, and not subject them to epistemological botox. It is a poison, after all.
I have formulated an astrophysics based proof of the falsifiability of young Earth creationism. All things aside other than logic, this proof works perfectly well to 1.) show that the speed of light has never changed, and 2.) using #1, no other arguments that a y.e.c could possibly have would apply since #1 has beyond a reasonable doubt proven the earth is at least 10,000 years old.
If enough people are interested (I will judge this based on comments after my own) I will post a link to the pdf.
Regards
p.s.: I have no qualms with any religious folks, but y.e.c needs to die, it is totally absurd, the people backing it should just allow science and religion to live together peacefully…..y.e.c’s are the trolls of this modern debate.
Here’s to you all, creationists:
- Every civilization that has existed on earth has its own story about how the world came into being.
The Aztecs,Mayans,Egyptians,Greeks,Romans,Scandinavians,Australian aborigines, ancient Hindus, and several others- all have wildly different accounts of who created the world and how it came into being.
What makes the Christian creation story any more credible than these? Just because there are more followers of Christianity today therefore it should be taken as valid?
And here’s another question- How can all of them be simultaneously true? And if all of them are false, then the same applies to Christianity as well- I don’t see what’s so special about it against the rest. QED.
If i were to point a comment at YEC’s, the closed-minded ones – i would point out two things. First, genesis 1:1 implies no time, and at 1:2, the earth already exists. Second, in my opinion, the whole creation account of genesis 1 hints that creation was not done per-species.
This statement is of course of no value to one who has no belief in a creator whatsoever.
“This statement is of course of no value to one who has no belief in a creator whatsoever.”
But it’s not a statement intended for non-believers. It’s properly directed at its intended audience. And it is of greater value coming from you, rather than from non-believers, because YECs will have a harder time ignoring and demonizing you.
great article. Good points. I have a different theory on the relationship between evolution & the Young Earth viewpoint. I call it Modified Theistic Evolution. Check it out at http://timdreyer.com/blog/2009/03/06/modified-theistic-evolution/
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necesitate.
There’s no need to modify evolution to shoe-horn God into it, because evolution as it stands is already well proven.
I hope I can quote you:
“I believe that God created everything in 6 consecutive days and he created it “in the middle of the story.” When he was done, the universe appeared to be ~13billion years old”
So, your theory is that God did create everything in six days, but made everything look billions of years old? Planting fossils all over the earth and extinguishing species before they even existed?
Sorry, but that just sounds weird… what logical explanation can you provide to support your theory? What would be the point of God going thru all that trouble? ehehe Most likely, just to give reason to both sides of the argument ehehe
Sorry, but very unlikely.
First of all I am going to point out that I am a creation believing, red blooded, God fearing American. Second of all, I am going to point out that I also believe in some form of evolution. (Seeing that evolution by definition means gradual change). I don’t believe we came from animals since that is just offensive and makes me feel like I am not that important. I believe that we adapt to our surroundings and change that way. I know we all change. That is a gross understatement. Of course humans have changed throughout the years. Early men were hunters and were reliant on animals for food. We are also reliant on animals for food today yet we do it differently. We also hunt but not for the sole purpose of feeding our family anymore. We have come up with different ways to do that because we have developed(or changed) and became stronger and smarter than the early humans. Also i believe that religion can be a cause of many fights as well. Look at most of the wars fought. It was because someone dissed someone else’s religion and they had to retaliate in the only way humans know to retaliate. War. Ignorance is also a cause of many fights as well. I am also noticing that a lot of these posts are aiming to just cut down Christianity and our (flawed) beliefs without even bringing up the whole creation vs. evolution thing. That is what this post is about. You can’t cut someone down and be justified until you have actually experienced what they have. That is why I can disagree with some of your views and not be disrespectful about it. I know that humans are never going to figure out the vastness of this universe. It is just too big. I believe that the existence of the earth, and life itself is less than ten thousand years old. I have read studies where the bible (the infallible word of God) has been traced back through all the lineages of man. The result was that the Earth is young. Here is an interesting argument for young earth creationists. Read it if you dare. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm. I know you are not talking about the big bang theory (good show by the way) but I just want to say something about it. If the big bang was what started everything, why did it happen? What is the purpose of us being here? If there is no purpose then life has no meaning. I choose to believe in God first of all because he is real in my life and I have felt and seen him move through me and others. Jesus died on the cross for every man, woman, and child. He sacrificed himself because he loves you and me. How can someone reject that love? That is the ultimate reason why I am a Christian. I give my life for Christ because he gave his for me first. The second reason i choose to believe in God is because he gives my life reason. If there was no God, to me there would be nothing to live for. I would just go through life an empty and meaningless shell of a man. So for the people who disrespect creationism and Christianity, please do not offend what you do not know. Everyone on Earth is different and should be treated with respect no matter what they believe. Please just think about what I have said. This has been fun and I look forward to hearing what others think about this subject and more.
Science doesn’t pretend to know why the big bang happened. That’s the joy of science. Current evidence and research says that it probably did happen, but as for what happened before that we don’t know – but we’re trying to find out. That in itself is surely better than blind faith in something we have no evidence for.
Hey Ben,
Nice point of view from the religious side. It’s great that you have your point of views and beliefs as a Christian.(Used to be Christian when I was younger, but since then, I believe I have opened my eyes to what I believe is the truth.) But I do have a few questions/concerns:
“God fearing American” – If God loves everyone and is all good and such, why would people fear him? Fear, in my opinion, when used by an individual on another individual, is a means to control. “You do this… or else!!” In most cases, it is very wrong, in my opinion.
“I don’t believe we came from animals since that is just offensive” – offensive? why would that be? You eat, breathe, procreate and sleep just like any other animal on this world. If not for animals, you would not be alive, so a little more respect for the lil critters
“I am also noticing that a lot of these posts are aiming to just cut down Christianity” – I have noticed that too. I can’t speak for others, but I used Christianity in my posts because it is the religion I know most about, and possibly the religion that preaches most about creationism. Sorry if I have offended, I do respect other religions and cultures, and every one of them have their virtues and flaws.
“I have read studies where the bible (the infallible word of God)” – Ok… this for me is a big issue. I could write something on a post-it and say its the infallible word of God. Does that mean you’re going to believe me? The Bible was written by humans, not God… and we all know humans lie. Won’t go into more discussion about that, too complicated. Just giving my point of view.
Wont go into the Big Bang argument… I believe we will never find out exactly how the universe started. Its just too big and complicated, all we do is make educated guesses.
“believe in God is because he gives my life reason. If there was no God, to me there would be nothing to live for. I would just go through life an empty and meaningless shell of a man.” – Your whole reason for living is God? I dont know if you have kids, family, etc… But for me, these are the most important aspects of my life, being with and taking care of who I love… this gives my life a purpose, that is my meaning of life. Again, just my opinion… if that is how you view your life, serving God… well, I guess i can respect that
I just wont agree with it.
Nice post either way, great to view your opinion on this matter.
“Everyone on Earth is different and should be treated with respect no matter what they believe.” – I agree 100%
Peace!
Deciding what is true based on what makes you feel better is ridiculous and the reasoning of a child. Grow up.
You sure do hate that god you don’t believe in Free Thought
No I hate head in the sand thinking, irrationality, circular arguments, and the substitution of opinion or wishful thinking for fact. I also can’t stand people spewing on about subjects they’ve clearly not taken the time to actually learn and understand.
Where can i get my hands on a crocoduck? that would make an awesome pet!!
Not all all young earth creationists are ignorant. Thinking about it, you’re ignorant by believing that every “YEC” says what you believe they say. So because of ignorance of such things your post today is just a bullet in your foot. I can see what you’ve done, read some article on the internet that rants about it and you’ve done the same – have you really looked into it first hand? Have you got primary sources from the opposing view?
Take a look at answersingenesis.org, there are a lot of smarter people in this world who don’t agree with you.
No, all YECs ARE ignorant. Really.
Haha, that’s an ignorant reply that proves my post.
ehh i looked at answersingenesis.org. I tried to read the article ‘Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?’… They generally try to give representations of scientific sides and where some uncertainties may lie… but there are way too many misunderstandings and misrepresentations of scientific thoughts… haha I’m by no means an expert in the field and can pick up 3 or 4 problems (lies?) within their arguments.
Oh and also there are no sources listed.
Oh and also they seem to say that ‘Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea.’ a few times, but never tell us who they are.
Oh an also this site was a waste of time =[, bad newfroot
There’s a whole page dedicated to who the creation scientists are. The big question is, can so many people in areas such as biochemistry, chemistry, immunology, botany, molecular biology, anatomy, geography, cosmology, zoology, genetics etc. all be misunderstanding and deranged?
You said it right when you said “I’m by no means an expert in the field” – so therefore how can you pass any accurate judgment?
sorry the page is http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
I don’t mean to sound like a jerk but… show me an outstanding young earth christian scientist, and I believe I will see a scientist who is not scientific in all that he/she does, which to me is a bad scientist.
It is by no means that I believe them incapable of contributing to science; I actually welcome it. It seems to me that people are able to blind themselves to certain truths. You would say the same, and that I must blind myself to the true faith, but I try to remain open-minded about everything, despite my misgivings. I have looked at the list of names you provided, and it is by no means trivial, but it is but a drop in a bucket beside scientists who think otherwise.
It seems unlikely that anyone here will change anyone else’s mind about their faith based on what they have to say directly, and all of these arguments are for naught. It is kind of depressing, but this is human nature (why did your ‘God’ make us so stubborn =[ ) I suggest you do as I did when I was finding my ‘faith’ and read all sides of each argument with an open mind and an open heart, and above all reason. Do not let others tell you what to think. If one uses *educated* logic, I find it hard to arrive at conclusions that point in the direction of a YEC outlook. To quote something that I recall hearing, “Calling these beliefs Medieval would be a compliment, they are from the bronze age” It is like saying you believe the earth is flat, a crude example I know but this is how I see it: an insult to reasoned thought. I know I sound like I am attacking your faith, and your righteous fire will burn all the brighter for it, but I tell you I am only speaking the truth of my mind.
Christians I can understand, no one can currently disprove it, or may ever be able to disprove the bible’s *interpretations*. But to take it literally borders on the, how shall I say it, edge of insanity. I would invite you to look at some excellent articles I know, but since the suggestion would be originating from me, I know you would be biased towards them. I encourage you to cast off your inhibitions and look for source material from the other side of the spectrum. Don’t forget to bring your brain, your misgivings, and even your faith on this voyage, you may be surprised what waits at the other end.
Ladies and gentlemen, the biggest problem with the creationists is that they are … trolls. Not to put too fine a point on things, it, it speaks volumes about their sniffing for a fight with others.
Aye, but maybe we likes a good fight.
I see that you use the word probably for backing up evidence as fact. As for what happened before that, I don’t know either. I don’t know when God decided to create Earth. He could have been waiting a while to do that. But I do know for a fact that my faith is not blind. It is educated and experienced faith. I know faith is belief. And I know you believe in the big bang. So you have faith in the big bang right? “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” HEB 11:1. And you have all the evidence you need for God’s creation around you. How about the air you breathe and the water you drink? How about photosynthesis and the Earths rotation? I for one choose to believe in intelligent design because I think it takes more intelligence and faith to believe in that then to believe that it just came about for no reason whatsoever. There is always a reason for creating something and someone who puts it into action (whether is was preconceived or just a happy mistake, by the way we were preconceived by the almighty himself. You have to feel good about that). I think it is also close minded to say that the only evidence we have is on blind faith. Things that people believe in aren’t just random. There has to be something that draws them to that belief. I have felt the hand of God on my life and I have seen people healed of disease and people’s lives restored. That is the reason to my faith. I not only believe but have also experienced. That is why I believe the Bible is true and that Creation is also the way we got here. There is a reason behind it too. The reason God created us is because he loved us and wanted to be with us. How can you call that blind faith? There is actually meaning to life then. We were all created for a purpose. Why people don’t find that comforting and meaningful is beyond me. Thanks again.
Re: thenakedlistener. I don’t like to go sniffing for fights either. I am just voicing my opinion as are you. I like to have conversations and see what people believe so I can voice what I believe and see if I can learn more about the opposing view. I am not attacking anyone so i suggest you do the same. Thanks.
Ran out of time to read all comments, but must recommend the “garage door” man post above for any/all creationists reading this. I myself spent 33 wasted years of my life believing fervently in religion because (SHOCKER) it was what my parents believed. Folks, there’s 10,000 years of history and culture, all of which have their own “garage door” version of religion to explain the workings of the universe. And they’re all 100% complete bullshit made up by that particular culture to stop being afraid of the unknown so they can move ahead in life and not lose their damn minds in the process.
Meanwhile, the history of science is only about 400 years old, and the good stuff is only a century old. The BEST stuff is what’s being discovered day by day. Only a few religions on the planet believe in modern revelation and prophecy, and most of what they spout as new revelation is (insert plea for money in exchange for blessings). So please do yourself a favor if you’re a creationist: ask yourself what’s more likely? Is it more likely that the feelings and thoughts entering you regarding eternity and heaven are driven by your all-consuming fear of the unknown and are self-fulfilling? Or do they emanate from the farthest reaches of the universe from a man clad all in white with a beard who listens to all of it and wants you to give money to your local synagogue?
As a former devout follower of Christianity, I assure you that it is a much more fulfilling life knowing that we are here by happenstance and not by divine destiny. You can relax at night, stop worrying about whether or not God will smite you for forgetting to pray to Him and know that if you don’t get (promoted, laid, rich), it wasn’t God’s will, you’re just lazier than the next guy and he deserved it more than you did.
I too thought the “garage door” thing was quite clever. One thing about religion that should be mentioned. It is a good way to control the masses, as they govern themselves.
Thank you kindly sir. And yes, unfortunately the hordes are not under our control *yet* Bwahahahaha.
Seriously though, it sucks.
Thank you for the input Phil. I enjoy when someone can disagree but be respectful about it. I would like to clarify on some points though. I know some things i said were kind of clear cut. To clarify the God fearing American. I am saying that yes I do fear God. To fear in my term is respect and awe. I know God is watching out for me and I Fear him in that context. We all have free will but we answer to a higher being. As for the offensive thing. I know we are mammals. Just like animals. I meant that I would take offense to come out of that because I believe we were created in God’s image and to say we evolved from animals means that it is not that special to be human. Humans were created in God’s image. Not animals. They are here to be food, as well as companions to us but were not created in God’s image so that is why I took “offense”. It might have been too strong of a word. Thanks for agreeing about the cutting down on Christianity. I know for a fact as well that Christians cut down on others just as much as others do to us. I think its just stupid for anyone to do that because we are all different and will never understand fully where each person or group is coming from. I hate when people don’t respect each other. There is no need for that. As for the infallible word of God, I know that is my opinion and not yours but I hold firm to that. Thank you for being respectful and not telling me to go shove the word of God in a deep dark place. Again, I am glad that someone can respectfully disagree. The last point is God giving my life reason. That is correct for me. I didn’t mean that is the only thing that gives my life reason though it is the biggest. I meant that if there was no God and no afterlife to live for then existence would be kind of empty. God gave us women so we could get married and be fruitful. He noticed that Adam was lonely and out of his kindness and love gave us woman. I know when I have a wife and kids that they will give me reason to live in this world, along with my family, but I realize that without God none of it would be possible and to say it again, life would be meaningless. Thanks again for the input.
Well put Ben…
While I do disagree with some things, we have both made our views clear. Now I think its up to people reading to form their own opinions on what has been said during all these huge strings of posts ehehe
The beauty of free will is that people can chose to believe in whatever they want.. Evolution, Atheism, Christianity, Islamism, etc… The worst part is when people try to take away an individuals free will by threats, pressure, fear, etc… to convince the individual that what they think or believe is “right”.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree
Peace
Unfortunately one of the major problems with religion is that they don’t leave people the right to disagree or think for themselves.
I agree that in some, if not most, countries that is the case. People dont have a choice.
It is either believe and conform, or be punished… Very sad indeed.
But for instance, I’m an atheist in Portugal, which has a huge christian population. No one here has ever pressured me to believe in christianity or God or anything of the sort. They might disapprove and have their opinions, but tough luck
No one tells me what to believe.
Unfortunately, that is not the case for some individuals
My God, what’s all the fuss about “evolution”. Some people believe in it, some don’t. I believe in evolution, but not to say that Darwing was right. I believe in the bible, there is the mystery of creation. The bible is the SUPREMACY of all things, like it or not. We evolve in lots of things that is true. But the earth, humans and all in it, are GOD’S creation. This is not a fairy tale, it’s not fiction, it is a fact. Otherwise tell me then how can you exist? If you have an answer, a good one for that, share it.
“The bible is the SUPREMACY of all things, like it or not.” – Say that to Muslims/Islamics and the Qur’an. I hate affirmations like that… “this is how it is… like it or not”… Who are you to say what is and what isnt? Where is your proof? Or you dont need proof because, let me guess “God did it” or “God said so”??
This is a total disrespect to everyone expressing their views. It is like we have no other choice in the matter. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW WARS START!
“This is not a fairy tale, it’s not fiction, it is a fact. Otherwise tell me then how can you exist?” – In my view, it is very much a fairy tale… a very carefully crafted fairy tale intended to control and oppress those that disagree or question those beliefs. Just the existence of dinosaur fossils throws 1/3 of the bible away.
And by the way, people in here are telling you that you can exist due to evolution… that is how we can exist… those are the points of some of the people in here questioning creationism.
(I am not trying to change anyone’s opinions or religious beliefs.)
Answer shared
Peace!
Apparently, like most Christians, you know nothing about the book you claim to follow.
Certain Christians seem to believe in ‘cripple Christ’ and a ‘cripple God’. Christ is powerful, but not powerful enough to save all mankind and not powerful enough to destroy hell. Meanwhile God is not powerful enough to create an Adam that can resist temptation, not powerful enough to create a Bible that cannot be corrupted through endless translations and politics. Their God cannot create scripture that matches reality. Their God cannot create a young Earth that is not chock full of evidence to the contrary.
Well, they have to cripple their deities in some way or another, because a truly Supreme Being — omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent — when you consider the logical ramifications of it, leaves no room for free will or mistakes. Everything was, is, and will be perfect, as planned. How could it be otherwise?
If “you” create Everything, and you know the smallest details of the slightest changes of Everything that will ever be and ever occur, and you control all of it utterly and always (since you actually transcend time), then how can anything go wrong? How can anything happen contrary to you? How can anything be “not” you?
More on this subject, but limited solely to omniscience (an artificial limitation, imho):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will
NOTE: For the religious folks reading this… please do not reply to this. I’ve heard all of it before. I’ve searched and read and found the arguments of numerous theologians and philosophers on this subject. The best they’ve ever come up with are some entertaining brain teasers, but nothing remotely convincing.
Actually I don’t have to cripple my God. He is not cripple and never will be. He is a truly supreme being. How does it not leave room for free will or mistakes? He is all powerful and all knowing. That does not mean that he does not let us find out life for ourselves. Don’t people make mistakes all the time? (YES) God could stop it but he lets us live freely. It’s because he loves us that he gives us free will. He wants us to love him back but that is all on us. He won’t make someone love him. Do you make someone love you by force? We should love him back because he gave us immense responsibility for this planet and gave his son Jesus to die for us but some of us are too blinded by the free will he gave us that they don’t know who gave it to us in the first place. And don’t say that we all don’t have free will. You teach your kid lessons and try to lead him in the right direction but ultimately in the end he has his own free will to roam. He can disobey and scorn your lessons if he wants to. There is punishment but that is because you love him right? You teach him again and then set him on his way. Sound familiar? (God’s word teaching us how to live). You can poke some jabs at God all you want to because thats what you do but there is no argument against having free will. We all do and you know it.
Where can i get my hands on a crocoduck? that would make an awesome pet!!!
http://freethoughtpedia.com/images/Crocoduck.jpg
There you go… kinda cute actually lol
*After numerous comments of a troll-like nature from this person, which were typed with the caps lock on and ignored the discussion, I have edited his posts and will ban him shortly if the activity continues.*
Thanks,
BGH
Wow you really are going for the whack-job of the year award aren’t you? Well don’t worry you’ve got my vote.
There will always be debate and uncertainty. Its really impossible to have a conversation about this since there are so many unknowns imo
Actually most of what is being debated is well known and proven. The problem isn’t lack of proof, it’s irrational people blatantly denying the proof because it doesn’t agree with their personal fantasy of how the wish the world worked. No amount of reason, logic or evidence can pull someone’s head out of their ass.
*After numerous comments of a troll-like nature from this person, which were typed with the caps lock on and ignored the discussion, I have edited his posts and will ban him shortly if the activity continues.*
Thanks,
BGH
You drool when you speak don’t you?
What exactly is proven Free Thought? I accept the Big Band and Evolution and scientific fact; but what does that prove regarding life’s questions?
I assume by life’s questions you are referring to “What is the meaning of life?”, the answer is simple; there is no answer to find. Life exists simply to exist, that’s it. There is no meaning to a rock, why should there be any reason for a bird, a fish or a man? Your need to believe there is some higher purpose to your life so that you can feel special doesn’t make one exist. You exist because you were born, you continue to exist because you haven’t died yet and you will cease to exist when you die. Your body, of course, will continue to exist for a while after your death until it completely decomposes if you want to get really technical. There is no evidence of any divine purpose for life nor is there any need for one to make sense of it.
A modern Christian who says the Bible disproves evolution is the same type of person who told Galileo the Bible disproves the heliocentric theory.
Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Science explains the HOW, the Bible explains the WHY. I accept the theories of the Big Bang and evolution, and believe they explain how God created the universe.
look for thunderfoots Why do people laugh at creationists series on youtube.
for those of you who believe in the superdaddy in the sky look at it as a test of faith and a good belt of education.
i love it, watching god punters get intellectually gutted
SORRY HERE IS THE LINK. pure comedy for scientists…
Yes. Three thumbs up for Thunderf00t.
You might also enjoy:
GIIVideo: http://www.youtube.com/user/GIIVideo
Includes the brilliant and hilarious, “10 Questions Which Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer.”
Or try “How to be a good Creationist – in 5 Easy Steps” from ZOMGitsCriss (who happens to be a feisty, acerbic, and rather attractive Romanian woman who edits her videos quite well… even when drinking heavily.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Viw7MpXU4GU
Her other videos are equally worth watching.
Everything from NonStampCollector is dangerously funny. Do not attempt to eat food or drink liquids while watching any of his blasphemous cartoons unless you like to shoot beer out of your nose.
Here’s a representative example of his consistent output.
“Intelligent Design wins! (now stand by for details)”
*After numerous comments of a troll-like nature from this person, which were typed with the caps lock on and ignored the discussion, I have edited his posts and will ban him shortly if the activity continues.*
Thanks,
BGH
P.S. Bye Scott
I’ll choose to believe what God says(present tense) about how He started things and how it will end for us. I believe God created our world in 6 solar days from nothing(ex nihilo), while evolutionists reproduce life from already existing matter in a variable-controlled environment.
I can’t change your beliefs anymore than you can change mine. That is God’s wish for all to believe and trust their lives in Him. All I can do is share the information and you’re free to accept/deny it.
Best wishes.
If we were all honest people and were open with each other (whether you are a Evolutionist or a Creationist) in frank conversation, we would have to admit that both creation and evolution are based on faith!
Whether you believe in God, or not, you are trusting in something or someone greater than you… unless you are a humanist, than you believe that YOU are god. Anyway, that is another topic.
Both sides have the same fossils, science and evidences, it just depends on your worldview or frame of reference how you interept the facts and how you choose to live out the life you have been given to live.
I believe in a personal God – Jesus Christ, one who I believe died for my sins, because I know I have sinned and fall short continually of His perfect standard. That is a step of faith, to believe in God… it takes great consideration of all the facts.
signed,
imprimis
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Humanists certainly do not believe they are god, or that anyone else is for that matter. 30 seconds on a Google search wouldn’t prevent you from having irrational beliefs but it will at least help keep you from looking like an idiot.
Also the fact you think acceptance of an established and tested scientific theory is the same as blind faith in an unprovable religion clearly shows your ignorance of both terms.
You don’t need faith to see evolution at work, you can see evolution occur in your own lifetime if you study creatures whose reproduction timeline is at a scale that lets you see enough generations.
E. coli has been observed (in lab conditions) to mutate over thousands of generations to process molecules that it did not previously use. The fact that the molecules were present, and that a mutation within some of the E. coli allowed that mutation to benefit from it meant that in that environment it was a viable strain.
You can see the divergence of species in mainland and insular varieties of animals as well. Once two populations are separated geographically genetic drift, however small, will eventually result in enough changes to their genetic makeup that the two varieties can not interbreed.
You can also see evolution at work in disease. There are many illnesses caused by transcription and replication errors in DNA. When you see that DNA transcription may be amazingly accurate, but by no means perfect, then you must take into account the amount of data transferred across generations and how even the smallest errors over time result in change.
If you printed the works of Shakespeare a million times, changing only one letter in each edition, you would eventually find a book with very little resemblance to the work of the bard, and more like that of the room full of monkeys and typewriters.
Well imprimis. I think that sums it up perfectly. Its all our world view. We can all talk till we have no voice left but its always down to personal belief. This whole going back and forth and backstabbing is really unnecessary.
i happen to be a YEC. i don’t hold any bitterness or resentment toward evolutionists, we are all entitled to our own beliefs. but i’m a bit confused about evolution. can you answer these questions?
first, the ocean should have much more salt in it, with all the streams running into it. it has no way to get rid of the salt, and statistics show that it should have a much higher concentration than it does currently.
and you know how whales are becoming extinct? shouldn’t they be evolving instead of getting extinct? and wouldn’t they have evolved a long time ago to adapt to land, so they wouldn’t die from being beached?
The water running into the oceans is fresh water it doesn’t add salt.
Evolution happens very slowly, over thousands of years in most cases, sudden environmental changes frequently wipe out species that are not well adapted to those changes.
The ancestor to whales actually evolved in several directions, including some land based creatures like elephants.
Evolution doesn’t just go in one direction and not all branches succeed.
Hello
Excellent rebuttal sir.
Y.E.C.s definitely believe this is science – otherwise why would they build a Museum? Take a look at Creation Museum Madness – http://paralleldivergence.com/2007/04/28/creation-museum-madness/
The Christian understands by faith and the screaming declaration of a creator by creation itself, that the earth was made out of what is not seen (Hebrews 11:1). The “theory” of evolution is not support by Holy Scripture. It makes the creation an object of ultimate value not the creator. Evolution is a religion in that it takes faith (more so) to believe it. Creation like all that God has made has a cause and effect. The causality being God caused all things (through Christ) to come into being, the effect should be the worship of His image bearers. What evolutionists do is what Romans 1 describes as exchanging what they know to be true about God for a lie and worship the creation rather than the creator. All know that God is real. Your own conscience tells you that. You have to try to prove that He isn’t. We know He is and that He is the one who created all things.
In Christ alone
Matt
calledout.wordpress.com
A lunatic KNOWS the bunny that told him to kill his family is real too, just ask him. Looks like you’re in great company.
Nice article. I haven’t read all of the comments, but from the few I skimmed over, I have to wonder: am I the only Christian here who believes the earth is billions of years old? The beautiful intricacies of evolution are, in my mind, a wonderful demonstration of God’s creative genius. But hey, I could be wrong.
Oh, and as for the bacon comments, I overheard a 3 year old girl praying with her mommy and after thanking God for friends and family, she thanked Him for bacon. I’m not entirely sure what caused her to single out bacon, but she was definitely on to something.
Forget Evolution…
The big bang theory leaves unanswered questions. I am not a religious man, however I would like to know how this “big bang” was fuelled out of nothing.
Any scientist will tell you that any action has a reaction…. what action caused a big bang to come out of NOTHING?
anyway, all I’m saying is, science can’t explain explain it, you can’t blame people for seeking answers.
Way to get off topic. And as usual you completely miss the point, science actually seeks answers, religion just pukes up the same response for everything. That is the death of knowledge and learning.
“Religion just pukes up the same response for everything”. Is it just me or are most of the statements in these comments “ignorant”?! “Death to knowledge and learning”, well to be honest with you religion has been around for quite some time and we seem to have been learning quite well.
“Could have been faster” I hear you say. Go back through nations that stamped down on Christian values and you get a lovely pattern of deprivation. I’ve traveled, and I’ve seen it first-hand.
Much of the freedom we have in the West is thanks predominantly to Christian roots. So that statement you so flippantly made needs to hard evidence please.
Having read all of the comments on this post, I decided to take a look at some information available on the internet in an attempt to wrap my head around where YEC’s and Creationists are coming from.
Neither of these schools of thought are based in any science whatsoever and for them to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but science is science and trying to bastardize it to fit a faith makes a mockery of the faith.
I will tell you all that after a short search, the information available for evolution from a Creationist point of view is designed to be easy to swallow, offers little by way of actual facts to refute evolution and relies on arguments from incredulity to establish some kind of validity for Creationism. This will not come as much of a surprise for the ardent supporters of evolution but I would caution Creationists to look carefully at the information they have been given for facts and research them thoroughly. More often than not, anecdotes are used to make evolution appear preposterous. Anecdotes are not facts. Ask for facts.
YEC’s are so far in denial and so grossly undereducated in science that I fear they will all kill themselves before they have a chance to evolve away from their way of thinking. Science is that thing that keeps us all alive, the thing that enables you, Mr/Ms YEC, to read a book, use a computer, drive to church/work/school, etc. Science is real and can be trusted enough to at least spend a few moments satisfying some curiosity you have regarding the world around you. You may still choose to keep your faith, but this nonsense of YEC must cease. You are going to hurt yourselves.
Five Points:
1) Great points in the actual post.
2) Thanks to many commenting proving that both ignorance and stupidity are alive and well.
3) How can one be against something when they don’t know what it is?
4) Let’s see .. The Roman Catholics, most Lutherans, Presbyterians, United Methodists, Epicopalians, United Church of Christs, and many other Christian demoninations do NOT have issues with evolution.
5) Suggested Reading: Saving Darwin (Giberson)
I don’t understand how anyone can believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old after what we know of geologic time and how slowly the earth changes. I would also like to know where (if anywhere) in the bible that it clearly states that the earth is that young. From what little I’ve read of the scriptures, I have yet to come across any information given about the age of Earth (perhaps someone can direct my attention to a specific verse? I’d appreciate it
. The book of Genesis is cryptic to say the least, and if I’m not mistaken, the scriptures do say that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years… so six days could be six thousand years, or six million years… Who knows? Anyway, I liked the article. It wasn’t preachy, just laid out the facts.
They made it up. Basically, someone (probably the same person who picks through books like Harry Potter looking for inconsistencies) added up all of the years – begets and such – and any references to time lapses to arrive at a cumulative total. Considering that the bible is a collection of stories written at different times and some of the “books” were left out of the final version, this seems like a pretty poor way to calculate anything.
While I haven’t reviewed all of the comments posted here, I wanted to comment quickly on this post.
I partially agree with the post, but thats just me. YECs do have a way of attacking the theory of Evolution instead of taking time to explain where we come from. I myself believe from a YEC standpoint, but for different reasons.
I can’t tell you all the scientific data that disproves my theory, nor can I convince you otherwise that Evolution as a Theory exist. This is the joy of living today, that we are able to have our own opinions on issues like these.
I don’t have to have any data to back up my faith, because I believe that it is true. I believe that God created the earth, not a “Big Bang”. Thats the beauty of faith, while those who believe in the Theory of Evolution have to continue to prove their theory, I rest in the fact that my God created the world.
If you take into account all the details of where our earth is placed in the universe, its hard to say that it just happened. We can re-create what is said to happen under the Theory of Evolution, but you can’t create what YEC’s say happen, because one is man made, and one is God made.
Just some thoughts. Its nice to see things like this out there because it causes those of us to really know why we believe what we believe.
Dive Deep,
KC
Oh goodie, so basically your way you can be utterly wrong and never have to admit it, wonderful. You can believe as hard as you want that gravity doesn’t exist, I guarantee you that step off the top of a building will be a real shock. Belief is irrelevant, facts are facts, sticking your head in the sand won’t make them go away.
Thats exactly what I’m saying…. because in the end neither of us know for sure if we are right…
Every night I go to sleep…I have next to me, a box. This box contains over……….at least 100 magasines devoted to Creationist science. If you would like a big “Science-off” feel free.
Also, evoloution does sort of rule ou a God. Unless you’re a palstic worshipper, who chooses what bits they like. By denying the creation of the Earth by a God, most religions are ripped apart.
You do make good points however on how under-educated most Young EARth creationists are, but let me assure you, some of us know EXACTLY waht we are on about when it comes down to it.
I understand that even though I am only a young boy, still studying towards his GCSE’s, I do know what’s going on.
I’m the sort of guy who sits at the back of his Biology class converting through science and logic.
VEry well written post however, but if you so wish, I shall present you with some top arguments against Evoloution and the secular Big Bang theory.
I musta dmit, I’m not a genius however, and I’m going to have to do a lot of reading to match someone of your obvious intelligence, nice to know we have some atheists who know what the hell they’re on about!
So if you don’t believe you should be able to pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow, that it’s an all or nothing thing, how many of your neighbours have you stoned to death? None? Guess you better throw the whole book out then.
So now that we’ve established you pick and choose just as much as the rest, how do you decide which parts should apply? If everyone can just pick and choose then you have anarchy, what’s the point of having it in the first place? So again throw the book out.
Either start stoning your neighbours or toss the badly written piece of trash out.
I would love to have a ‘science-off’, tell me where you’d like to begin.
As a Christian I find the age of the earth to be totally irrelevant. We’re not all YECs, not that that was the blog’s point. Just saying…….
I can honestly say that I haven’t looked into this subject for YEARS, though I am ALWAYS fascinated by articles like this one, and most definitely come with my own biases. (Who doesn’t?)
I’m not entirely convinced that evolution can or will be disproven. Ever. I don’t really care, frankly. I am a SAHM, labor doula, and childbirth educator, so this is not my area of expertise, and I won’t pretend to understand the depths of evolutionary theory.
I can confidently say that I do believe in the Biblical account of creation, and have seen compelling evidence for a “young earth” as well as compelling evidence for an earth billions of years old. I also do not discount the idea that evolution just “might” be compatible with the Biblical account in some ways. Frankly, I don’t think how old the earth is matters quite as much as “why” the earth exists at all. Which, as was already pointed out, isn’t really answered by evolutionary theory.
I think that if evolution is true, as we currently understand it, it will always fall short of that ever-present question “why?” And that’s fine. So will cosmology and the other disciplines mentioned. Science doesn’t seem to answer that question. Science answers the question “how?” (What, where, & when as well…)
I also think that this is why it’s so hard for creationists (or intelligent design folks) and evolutionists to come together and have a friendly conversation – we don’t seem to understand that we bring two very different things to the table.
In short…”Can’t we all just get along!?”
Excellent post. Thank you.
Finally, a polite person in the bunch.
I hate to disappoint you, however, if saying that unfortunately we truly cannot “just get along.” If this were merely a question of whether a particular natural process went from point A to point B via method “X” or method “Y”, then it would be possible to be civil. Sadly, this is about far more than that. The underlying conflict is not about the age of the earth of the mutation of genes, but about the ultimate nature of the universe and how we know truth and whether we can know truth at all.
The rage of the old-earth evolutionist is the rage of someone who takes offense at the notion that a human being can claim as truth anything beyond the pale of constant natural processes. To look beyond the closed system that they assume is all that exists or can be known is tantamount to heresy, and this is why, for them, evolution MUST be true, because there is no other naturalistic explanation (or at least none that have been given serious scientific investigation).
The rage of the young-earth creationist is the rage of someone who takes offense that their science textbooks are trying to trap the world in a box. They believe that nature points to God, and God gives nature meaning, and therefore when the scientists demand a closed system, they are destroying meaning and killing God.
Can a theist believe in evolution? Theoretically yes. Can an atheist disbelieve in evolution. Again, theoretically yes. But for a number of reasons, the popular debate as it stands is a debate between two ways of knowing truth: naturalism (I see, therefore I believe) and Augustinian theism (I believe, therefore I understand).
Very true. Very true…sadly.
I guess I just really wish that the discussion could be more civil than it seems to be.
*shrugs*
At the very least, it’s incredibly interesting and stimulating to try and hash this stuff out, but when both sides are coming from such extreme bias (assuming that one rules out the other intrinsically), it’s hard to enjoy it.
The best example of evolution in action is nonsensical reemergence of medieval creationism. I may suggest that the next time the advocates need medication the doctor may help then understand – by prescribing the drug that used to work… before the bug evolved into more virulent strain.
Why couldn’t a god create this universe, then let it evolve… everyting evolves…from viruses to humans..each generations changes just a bit…we’re getting larger, stronger, ironically so are the little viruses and bacteria that may someday unseat us…
The point is….why not just respect each other’s opinion and move on to something else??? Does anyone hear really think you’re going to change anyone else mind here? Not a chance… so what’s the point?
I’m going for a bike ride…something fun, productive, and useful for me!
Peace guys and gals…and good luck with your age-old argument…
The important fact here is in the notion that both are “theories” meaning of course that there is nothing in granite that will, possibly ever, stipulate who is right and who is wrong. Albeit, these ‘competing’ theories may be related somehow.
If possible wording such as “Ignorance” “Nonesense” and others are only condescending and really are rather arrogant that could indeed stop the flow of communication; therefore, if possible try not to use them.
Not very long ago (2 or so years) the group of German scientist’s ran ruck shod over current theories vis-a-vie earth dating. The evidence they presented was quite conclusive; however, they stood by the mere notion of “Theory” inasmuch as it may or may not ever be possible to accurately date the earth. Cheers!
jps
*sigh*
Yet another comment by someone who has no idea what they are talking about. Don’t make statements about theories when you don’t know what the term means. Evolution is a theory, as is gravity, creationism is not a theory it’s a religious dogma. Comments like yours only illustrate your ignorance and ability to repeat bullshit spewed by other ignorant people.
Funny, I remember when I was in school, being told that matter has always existed in one form or another. That matter cannot ever not exist and then appear. That it always was and that was the basis of evolution. That matter was, is and will always be…recycled.
Now, everyone believes that at some point there was nothing (at least in terms of the physical dimensional universe as we know it, not getting into cosmology here.) and then there was something! Matter. It appeared. It banged or was banged upon and somehow came into existence ex nihilo! Amazing!
Somehow, most all evolutionists now agree that the universe itself (the building blocks or whatever) were at some point created, they just push the date far far back. so what? Due to WMAP and CMB we now all can see to almost the beginning of the universe! Now anyone can arrange, but first it has to come into existence and then has to either self-arrange or be formed into something. It can even be semi-intelligent in it’s own formation if you apply that purpose to your creation.
Let’s be clear here though, there are theories and then there are theories. They are not all ranked the same. Evolution in it’s various forms and usages is currently considered a strong theory. It explains more than other ideas and it has various ‘proof’s that follow. The earth sitting on the back of an elephant which is standing on the back of a turtle is considered a pretty poor theory. That still doesn’t mean that tomorrow a better theory will prevail and it probably will. I think with intelligent strings and memory, etc. being discussed nowadays it is only a matter of time till intelligence is a given too. just like everything coming into existence from nothing, people will consider it a given that intelligence was required in the formation of the world and intelligible creatures,. Some will then say strings are intelligent or nano particles seeking each other or some other form of social behavior that would combine to reflect intelligence. But they still would not confess “God made…”
Quick question…who told you that all creationists believe the earth to be only 10K years old? Some of the ASSUMPTIONS you are making here are based upon just that – ASSUMPTIONS of what YOU think others believe.
The post was about YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS, it’s right in the title. Learn to read.
concur!
you get just so frustrated at how stubbon these ppl are!
A good post but oh so much intellectual snobbery going on here.
Naturally an ultimate power is present in our universe, call him God if it pleases. We are all so concerned about what we are, where we come from, and where we are going that we forget the one thing that binds all of us. Spirit. You can call that your soul if it pleases.
Take some time to read the ‘Holographic Universe’ it might open some eyes. So concerned are with with the ‘macro’ view we fail to look at the micro landscape. Qantum Mechanics has opened up a whole new universe if we care to study it. The answers are all there.
Mans christianity has a flaw, and that is to think, or rather not to. The church just wants its flock to follow, not think.
Religion, whichever you care to follow, throughout antiquity has done some of the most evil of deeds, its base has, and continues, to preach ‘my way or the highway. I doubt the true God wants us to live in that manner!
To recap:
“A good post but oh so much intellectual snobbery going on here…”
“…Take some time to read the…”
“…it might open some eyes…”
“…So concerned are [we] with…”
“…we fail to look at…”
“…if we care to study it…”
“…The answers are all there…”
Didn’t the bible say something about the splinter in your brother’s eye vs. the log in your own?
We don’t call science a religion.
So PLEASE stop calling “Young Earth Creationism” a science.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured
The bigger issue for those who preach against the God of the bible is this: Why are you so obsessed with something you purport to not even believe in? It should be the furthest thing from your mind, yet you can’t stop thinking about it. Interesting…
Is it rational to invest your time and energies into arguing that which you allege is ultimately inconsequential?
Thou “doth protest too much, methinks”
Apparently you’ve never heard of history. Religion and gods have been the cause of more evil and human suffering than all other causes combined. God may not exist but religion certainly does and has real detrimental effects on the world around us. Sitting back and allowing that to continue without at least trying to do something about it would be an equal evil.
Freethought,
Come on now, don’t just parrot what other people are saying. Atheism under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. has killed more than the crusades, the inquisition, etc. combined just by shear numbers of people now living on the planet versus fewer back in the day. You can discover this very easily online.
It’s a shame that people use religion as a form of control just like they use knowledge, wealth, resources, social cliques, family name, racism, inside language, etc.
But this is nothing new.
Using whatever control one has to force people to your will is the nature of man. Using love to appeal and then suffer when they reject your ideas is something else entirely. To change people through changing their minds so they change their behavior. Jesus shows us this way of revolution or should I say ‘evolution?’ because it is never violent. It refuses to strike back or threaten. But as always people will hijack those whom others follow in order to enhance their own reputation. Again, this is not unusual and I don’t see why you should be either surprised by it or upset. After all, if evolution is true, there is no God and darwinism is correct, then this is the most legitimate form of expression, seeking your own advantage. Right? The most natural thing in the universe. To use religion or ? to control others.
Your sense of justice and moral compass encourage me that we are more than social learned animals after all.
Yes, but Hitler and his ilk didn’t do what they did in the name of Atheism. I think that was the point to be made.
At the end of the day, I really just wish the religious believers would keep to themselves. To choose to be the way they are, is a right, but when they impose on my beliefs (through changing school curriculum, etc) then it’s time to fight them back. Their ability to extend their arms ends at MY NOSE. …and religious types who touch my nose will get an unpleasant response.
You want to tell people that the Earth is 10k years old, fine, your have a right to speak your mind. I’ll go right about telling people that I think you are wrong, and don’t you DARE call me intolerant for speaking MY mind on it.
Keep your myths, talk about them in your churches, but stop interfering with the lives of the rest of us… I don’t want your kind near my family.
YECs are irrational and have mixed up priorities. They do not speak for all Christians – thank God!
Excellent post, well done. I’m giving a talk on the Big Bang tomorrow and am always struck by the likeness between the two theories. Extremely strong evidence for both, both restrict themselves to the evoltion of things – not the origin!
The moment a y.e.c decides to step into a scientific arena, where logic rules, to prove what they believe in is scientifically true, is when they fail.
Stay in the faith arena and continue to believe, there is nothing you can do.
I’ve been studying this question extensively. What I read here in this blog post and comments are the SORE arguments (Standard Obsification and REdirection). Just looking at the most recent comments, Free Thought’s comments are of the type that come from the uneducated and those who know nothing about history.
Val has some well thought-out comments, but please learn a little more about Christianity. It is the only religion (although it is not fair to call Christianity a religion) that is based on rational thought (not blind faith), and it is the basis of our scientific thought and system.
The problem with “evolution” and old earth theories is that they tend to be very slippery. The definition of evolution changing as needed. Cosmology sometimes in and sometimes excluded. Abiogenesis is sometimes in or sometimes out. Social Darwinsim is sometimes in and sometimes out. However, if you are going to claim biological evolution is true, then you must extend that claim to biogenesis and cosmology… or create your own, new religion (or claim atheism). For example, the Bible totally excludes the possibility of God creating and there being an old earth. Not only in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament Jesus’s statements about creation exclude this possibility. Christianity only allows for a young earth and creation in six 24 hours days. You can not have both the Bible and evolution (macro evolution / evolutionary biogenesis / evolutionary cosmolgy) be true. They are completely and totally mutually exclusive. It is the same in Islam and Judaism.
In researching this for the past eight years, every evidence I’ve found to support biological evolution turns out to be evidence that supports natural selection… not macro evolution (one kind of life evolving into another kind of life). On the other hand the scientific evidence supporting a young earth, including the recent studies of radiometric dating methods are showing that it is highly likely the earth is very young. (www.missiontoamerica.org)
“It is the only religion (although it is not fair to call Christianity a religion) that is based on rational thought (not blind faith), and it is the basis of our scientific thought and system”
- Only religion based on rational thought? Not on ‘blind’ faith? Surely on faith though…..What do you mean exactly? Its a monotheistic religion, which by definition means your faith in the one true God determines your allegiance.
How does it differ from these other theistic religions? Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Taoism (Hsüan Chiao)
- It is the basis of our scientific thought and system? Absolutely incorrect, please read some literature on the history of science. You can begin anywhere really, try this link before buying a book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science
“…please learn a little more about Christianity. It is the only religion (although it is not fair to call Christianity a religion) that is based on rational thought (not blind faith), and it is the basis of our scientific thought and system…”
WOW! You did a better job of destroying all your credibility than anything I could say would ever do so I guess I should thank you for saving me the trouble.
There is no such thing as a religion based on rational thought. There are philosophies which are, and are mistakenly labeled as religions, but religion itself is faith based. I don’t really care if you believe in god or not, but you are not believing in god because of any rational system, or scientific process.
Cosmology, abiogenesis, and social darwinism are not included in the theory of evolution, although they are purported to be in arguments used by people who are ignorant of the concept. “Social Darwinism” has nothing to do with the theory of evolution either. It is a term used to simplify social structures which borrows in part from the concept, but not wholly.
The bible is a book of contradictions. One can not define it in it’s entirety as “truth”. Rather, it is a collection of parables suitable to the social and political environment of its time. If you’re looking for a perfect example of “Religion by Committee”, look up the Nicene Creed.
Science does not explain everything, and it doesn’t claim to. But science is mutable, and even the most rigid minded holdouts within a given field will eventually be replaced by experimentation, observation, collected evidence, and theory.
Science brings change to society.
But society brings change to religion.
By the way, could you please post a credible source for your “recent studies of radiometric dating”?
The website like you provided is for some silly DVD shill claiming to have evidence of men and dinosaurs romping around together.
Sure, they may have artwork of a man and a dinosaur side by side. But I could have a color print of a green skinned woman with three breasts and a ray gun, and I still don’t expect her to come knocking on my door asking for a “DNA sample”.
i find laughing at them is the best medicine – after all, treating their fairytales as scientific theories that need disproving just gives them credence, when they have none.
these are the same people who think that (from one misunderstood line in the bible) that there will be a rapture and they’ll all get sucked up to heaven. they’re the ones who don’t care about pollution, because who cares what kind of a world the sinners get left with? In fact, the worse the better, because that means the End of Days is here.
I’m surprised they don’t insist the earth is flat too.
This was very hard for me to Read. I myself am i Christian born and raised, even though im only 15 I saw so many errors in what you said. This worlds so corrupted it’s sad. Also the world hasn’t been around for millions of years not even double digit thousands. I suggest you watch the John Claton DVD series. He was an atheist who set out to prove God Wrong and through that he discovered the truth and is now a strong Christian. Or you can just get your head examined because whoever can believe in evolution is obviously loony in the head. I wish you lucky in life. you’ll definitely need it.
“If you have nothing, where do you get something(this destroys Evolution)”
Did you even read the original article? Re-read points 1 & 2.
I need to clarify here, I am a Christian. However, it is pointless to compare the book of Genesis with a modern day ‘history’ book. Modern day, or even 1000 yr old history books were written AS History books. Genesis was written as a story with a particular purpose in mind, to communicate to the Israelites who their God is.
Also, much of Genesis 1 & 2 is written in poetical form, not as ‘historical writing’.
Also, how do we keep track of ‘days’? We look at the sun rising and setting and the moon. Do you notice on what ‘day’ these were created in Genesis? Not until DAY 4.
nteresting.
I should also clarify, I’m not necessarily an ‘advocate’ for evolution, but it frustrates me to see Christians, I believe, missing the point of the evolution argument and also trying to turn God’s greatest love story (the bible) into a scientific text book.
It is true that there are many very devout believers in Jesus and the Bible who do not believe in a young earth. In fact, just to say all evangelicals believe that or must believe that is flat wrong. Check out http://www.reasons.org/
To go back to another age and another culture and start applying western Greek thought about these ‘days’ when they were meant to be a form of poetry that described how God made the world, his creation, is just wrong. It wasn;t meant to be read as a sscience textbook or other polemical work as we have made it out to be.
Lots of these arguments would go out the window with a bit of humility and a going back to the text (instead of taking it out of it’s context and making it withstand a 21st century western scientific examination. This is not to diminish the Bible at all. In fact, it is to establish it back where it belongs so it does not suffer more ridiculous violence by those who would ‘misapply’ it by making it fit their own cultural presuppositions.
Hope this helps someone out there!
The best argument that can be raised for the Biblical story it seems to me is that the earth has perfection reflected in it’s design and frailty/chaos/brokenness and randomness. Now I’m not saying that chaos or randomness doesn’t fit God’s perfect creation because he created us free, i.e. random. But what I’m saying is that creation points us in the right direction but also confuses/misleads if we only look for order, purpose etc. since that was thrown awry by man’s choice to live independently and out of control vs. within any boundaries that would protect him, society, and the creation at large.
We see these same two opposing issues coming up every day.
What is your metric for perfection? What does ‘perfect’ even actually mean? A perfect square cannot be a perfect circle, yet both are perfect. You use the word like it holds meaning, but it is a qualifier, not a descriptor. How is it perfect? I can come up with quite a few examples of how it is NOT perfect in various aspects, particularly in regards to our own bodies. This points to blind processes, not creation. That does not mean I don’t find the universe a wonderful and amazing place, but I have no need of religion to do so. Indeed, I think religion greatly diminishes any sense of wonder.
I just want to say quickly (from the perspective of a biology PhD student) that science will never solve all of science’s mysteries because the scientific method has one huge flaw. For those of you who don’t know what I’m referring to, this is basic flow chart the s.m.:
1.) Make an observation
2.) Make a hypothesis based on said observation
3.) Formulate an experiment to test hypothesis
4.) Cycle through refining hypothesis and repeating experiment
5.) Draw conclusion based on evidence
6.) Eventually dub the hypothesis a theory (actually quite a feat, “just a theory” is not a good rebuttal for anything.)
The flaw in this is that the scientific method is based completely on our own intellect, and I’m not so foolhardy as to suggest that we humans have it figured out. Good grief, look at scientific journals from ten years ago, and we’re already light years away! Since our knowledge is constantly changing, and the universe is, for lack of a more impressive word, unfathomably huge, I think we need to be ver careful whenever we claims to have any/all the answers. Unless we want to look as smart as the ancient Egyptians who claimed with assertion that the human brain served no function.
Perhaps, but there is more than enough known about the universe to know with certainty that all YEC claims are bogus.
You people would love this post: http://www.truthtalklive.com/2009/01/08/evolution-vs-creationism-the-debate-rages-on/#comments
Ooops, ignore the grammatical typos.
Thanks Lucid, excellent. My father-in-law is a medical researcher and says this kind of thing all the time. It’s not the scientists that are usually making the great claims…Unless their egos get in their way!
You think you find them frustrating, I believe the book is sacred, but young earth creationists often miss the whole point of the book and become legalists. They are almost impossible to minister to, they know it all. If all you get out of reading the bible is the age of the earth, you wasted a lot of time reading.
great post! scientists like to be proved wrong, while those with “faith” can not accept alternative views. faith does not allow for critical thinking. this is a major problem. an even bigger problem is the institutions which promote creationism. if you have time: http://deskjock.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/know-your-enemy-the-creation-museum/
You can belive that God created the universe and that evolution is what we learn (the science)about our universe.
There doesn’t have to be either/or; merely both.
And yes, I agree that the Earth being only 6,000 yrs. old is a bit, well, nuts.
BUSH SUCKS. LOL. Oh, and man walked with dinosaurs. I think George Bush has a pet dinosaur.
BGH
I’ve noticed, more often than not, that there is much ignorance from bible believers regarding the subject of evolution – hence the title of this post. However, I’m curious if evolutionists are not often guilty of the same. Is there an unwillingness to consider and look more deeply into the rational arguments for intelligent design because of previously drawn conclusions and convictions? Refusal to look at the “evidence” from the other side with an open mind places you into the same camp of being ignorant of what you dispute.
Thanks for the post.
Wow. I wish I had enough time to read all of the posts on this thread. Obviously a hot topic. Something to think about.
a) Rather than just choosing not to believe the Bible, try studying it. Most creation scientists base their opinions not just on the bible but on scientific fact.
b) Even if you don’t believe in God, you can’t believe in Evolution either. Evolution by nature requires that matter comes from somewhere. It is equally as impossible for Evolution to have occurred as it is believe in a God that had no beginning.
Either option requires that SOMETHING came from NOTHING. Which is harder to believe?
The universe had to have a beginning. What was there at the beginning? Matter? Energy? Where did that come from? It sure as hell didn’t materialize out of nothing.
c) Study the founding father’s of science and you’ll find hundreds of quotes from Einstein and the like stating that the universe is so vast and complex that it is mathematically impossible that the universe has simply come into being. It is mathematically impossible that even 1 life form “evolved”. Compile that impossibility by infinity and that’s how complex the universe really is.
Life is too short to argue the point further. I hope these points have at least piqued your curiosity.
http://tonybradshaw.wordpress.com
dude it says in the beginning of the post that evolution does not try to find the origins of whatever. Please don’t make Christians look like ignorant idiots by not reading. The post itself is not all that long.
Thanks. I read enough of the posts to realize most of the thread is based on opinions and learned responses rather than facts and science like the basic laws of thermodynamics.
The simple reason that evolution does not try to find the origins of whatever is because it can’t…hence the denial of answering it.
The natural state of the universe and life is a perpetual state of breaking down. Evolution contradicts this basic universal observation by saying that live evolves into something better. It simply doesn’t. Take for example the animal life that “science” said was extinct.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/185239.stm
http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_6961.shtml
65 million year old “extinct” fish turned up alive? 410 million year old extinct fish? Get real. I guess it hasn’t evolved in 65-410 million years?
Have we gotten so arrogant in modern society that we think we can actually look back 65,000,000 million years? Ridiculous. The concept of that is…well…stupid. We can’t event get more than 20 mpg out of an 8 cylinder gas engine after 100 years.
hola aoy alejo
Holitassss me gusta este blog!
Evolution is the best scientific explanation for the origins of life but it in no way means that God cannot exist.
Creationists have much more evidence in their favor then evolution ever can, from simple reasoning alone. If I hand you a watch, and ask you where it came from, what are you going to tell me? The obvious answer is, someone made it. If I tried to tell you “There is no designer for this watch, over billions of years matter has evolved and it has become this watch,” you would call me crazy. Our universe, the earth, we human beings are so much more complex than a watch, yet people can assume that it happened my chance – a combination of time and coincidence.
The more complex reasoning only supports Creation further – science shows much evidence of a young earth, a worldwide flood, and a Creator – all of which is also supported by the Bible.
You are correct that Creation requires faith – but so does evolution. Evolution requires more faith – which is harder, to believe that a watch evolved on it’s own, or that it had an intelligent creator?
I do not understand how evolution can not be atheistic. If you believe in God, then you would believe what He says is true. God said that He created everything in 6 days – read the book of Genesis. If you believe that there is a God, then you will have to believe in God as the Creator, since that is who He claims to be. If God is not the Creator, then He is a liar. If you don’t believe God is the Creator, then you are not accepting the truth God teaches about Himself – you are choosing what you want to believe about Him. The reason I believe the Bible is because it has been proven true – the Bible is the only book that has had every one of it’s prophecies come true.
If evolution is true, why has no one ever seen it? There are no eye-witnesses, there is nothing in the process of being evolved.
The Bible has the answers – it has been proven correct 100% of the time. No one has ever been able to disprove it.
Psalm 19:1 – The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.
Romans 1:18-19 – For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
Genesis 1:1 – In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:21 – And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:27 – So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
If you are interested in scientific evidence for the Bible’s claims, read the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. Visit http://www.answersingenesis.org. Search for the answers yourself! Search for the truth!
I will certainly check it out, as I am the curious sort. However, not all Christians believe that the Bible is to be taken literally.
I checked it out, Megan.
I couldn’t disagree more; but I checked it out.
Have a great day, all!
“Creationists have much more evidence in their favor then evolution ever can, from simple reasoning alone.” In other words, you have just opinion without the evidence to back it up. Hardly impressive. Let’s get to the design argument, shall we?
“If I hand you a watch, and ask you where it came from, what are you going to tell me? The obvious answer is, someone made it. If I tried to tell you “There is no designer for this watch, over billions of years matter has evolved and it has become this watch,” you would call me crazy.” No, I’d call you wrong.
“Our universe, the earth, we human beings are so much more complex than a watch, yet people can assume that it happened my chance – a combination of time and coincidence.” Who said chance? What is it with you people? Blind naturalistic processes is not the same as chance!
But the big problem with this argument is that it is a false analogy. You know that the watch was made by a human because you know how watches are made. But organisms are not made in the same way at all, or you should know that if your parents talked to you about the birds and the bees. Since the mechanisms by which each comes into being is different, the analogy falls flat on its face. I don’t even need to know about natural selection, one of the mechanisms through which the FACT of evolution occurs, to have shown this argument to be dead wrong. David Hume didn’t and he demolished this design analogy argument 300 years ago, long before Darwin or others who postulated that organisms evolved.
“The Bible has the answers – it has been proven correct 100% of the time. No one has ever been able to disprove it.” I’d almost think you were a Poe, but I don’t think so. You are using your conclusion to prove what you want, rather than starting dispassionately from no assumptions like you should be doing. The bible has been shown to be wrong in many instances. For example, there is absolutely no evidence for the Israelites being slaves in Egypt. None. There are no Egyptian records which record this, nor is there one shred of archeological evidence in the Sinai for hundreds of thousands wandering the desert for forty years, for which there should be mounds. I can go on and on. And on. The Flood myth is from the Epic of Gilgamesh without any evidence for a global flood geology, eg. And on.
And why would I ever go a website which proclaims that if science and scripture are at odds it is science that must be wrong? Why should anyone, especially when the authors of that disingenuous website benefit from the same science which they want to discredit in dishonest fashions?
As I continue to read though all these comments from both sides, I began to wonder something.
Does it really matter?
I mean honestly, tomorrow we are going to wake up, go to work or school or whatever, and the earth will still be however old it actually is. I’m not saying that its old or young, but if this many people want to speak out about something, lets do it about something that matters.
So far there have been 379 comments on this post. Lets take a moment to image if we became this passionate about things that really mattered. Like sex trafficking and other hot button subjects.
No matter what amount of scientific data that people bring to the table, this debate will always be the same. One side will think one thing, the other will think differently. While this is a nice topic of conversation and debate (or heated discussion as I have seen in some of the comments), lets talk about something that really matters and that it actually does something if we talk about it. Talk all you want, but the earth is still getting older and we can’t change that. Lets try to focus on things that we can change.
Dive Deep,
KC
Good point.
Which is why I raised heck today by calling the head of USAID and the President’s comment line about our Government buying Chinese Condoms to send to Africa; instead of buying American.
Now, this American factory will probably go out of business. I just want an answer WHY!
Good point.
It does matter and here’s why.
Let’s say you have a 50 / 50 chance on being right or wrong about evolution vs creation.
If you choose evolution over christianity and you’re right, no big. You live. You die. It’s over.
If you choose evolution over christianity and you’re wrong, it’s big deal. You end up in the hot seat.
An interesting thing about Christianity, it’s unlike any religion in the world. It mandates the exclusion of all other religions. I recently heard it put this way.
Everyone validates that Jesus is an actual historical figure. If you study Jesus’ life, you can only come to 3 conclusions about him.
1) He was an evil man and deceived many people knowing he wasn’t who he claimed to be. He claimed to be God in human form.
2) He was an insane man. He claimed to be God but wasn’t in control of his mind.
3) He was who he said he was and by such, the entire Bible is validated.
What you cannot do with Jesus is claim that he was “just a good man”.
By that, it does matter.
Interesting Post. It’s amazing how we can all have our own opinion. What’s also amazing is how anyone can manipulate ANY information; be it theology or scientific based, to validate their opinion and crush someone else’s. I’m not here to argue. Just stating a fact. Don’t make me argue, you wouldn’t like me when I argue….
This is seriously the “Hawt Post”? Christians who have a huge problem with anything other than YEC should read some John Polkinghorne. It’s good stuff.He’s got a beautiful perspective on how religion and science are two avenues to point to the same truth.
Grace and Peace.
If GOD knew that I was going to write this message then GOD does NOT exist. If you don’t get that, then you will not be smart enough to understand anything else that I was about to say so there is no point.
Your comment is made on the premise that you can explain an entity that is known as God. If you were able to explain God fully, and understand his ways that are supposedly above your own, then you would be undoubtedly… God.
You assume God wouldn’t allow you to write that post, but God, as the Bible teaches, made man… You and I, after their own image (if you don’t understand that, there isn’t much point in you reading further)
Now accept for a brief moment that God exists. One of his attributes is of course, as we understand, free will. Thus, if we are made in his image, don’t we have the attributes of free will, and freedom to chose whether or not we believe in his existence, without interference from God himself? Of course we have that freedom, if after all, the Bible is right.
Now, get back to your unbelief in God… For you to fully speculate that there is no God, means you would have to know pretty much everything there is to know within and about the universe. Are you saying that you know everything about all that is in existence?
No, of course you don’t, no one does. Now let’s assume you’re a very intelligent atheist… Let’s also assume that you know half of everything there is to know about the existence of our reality… Is it possible that God exists in the other half of reality that you don’t know? Hmmmmmmm
Your response, no doubt, would be “How then, do you know God exists”? Well, I don’t, but I do chose to trust in something through faith without evidence (much like biological, chemical and stellar evolution), after all… Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Nothing has been seen of God, nor of evolution that is arguably physical conclusive evidence of the existence of either.
You see, we believe in a God, not because we have to, but because we look around, we feel, and we understand that all we know must have had a designer. There has to be some type of higher order that pieced the universe together, and its proponents. Secondly, the only alternative to believe is evolution, which has more inconsistencies from one explanation to the next as it pertains to the basic forms of scientific hypothesis, which deduct the evolution of all the different forms of reality (stellar, chemical, biological evolution) and so on…
Now I ask you, ‘theangryatheist’… Let’s put science/creation/intelligent design/evolution all aside for a moment. Lets venture into the human emotion…
If there is no God, and we simply are a product of a primitive process that has no value for life, other than its survival… Where did our morals and emotions come from? Two things that can’t be explained through a process of chance and lottery.
We see in the animal kingdom, the emotion of caring and nurture, and even a form of love or desire, but all of these are interrupted when the animal instinct of survival is under attack, but in the realm of human emotion we see where not only emotional processes but moral value of life overcomes the instinct of survival. This is contrary to the evolutionary theory, and thus is not explained and rarely discussed in even the elite circles of evolutionary minds.
This is simply one of many unexplained phenomenons surrounding the theory of anything other than intelligent design.
We can debate and discuss the inconsistencies of each others beliefs. The bottom line is we all have the free will attribute regardless where it came from to believe what and how we want to.
My only major complaint is the fact that evolutionists say they use science to prove their hypothesis. They use science to support their hypothesis, however, more times than not, science has proven hypothetical theories wrong in the field of evolution and has never supported it in fact. The explanation of this is simple… The initial assessment and theory was flawed from the ‘get go’. It was man’s idea of what may have occurred and changed over long periods of time. The model for ages long evolution was not derived from any fact or find, but man’s flawed idea stemming from modern day observations.
The problem continues that modern day models are used to explain a very ancient past. One can’t use modern day models to explain ages past when there is no absolute guarantee that the data and experiments used in said current models are consistent with said uncertain past. Take in consideration that the very idea of evolution is that things change over ages long, how could we ever know today, what was, what it became, and what it is today ever really happened the way it was modeled? Without the numbers 1 and 2, we can never explain how we get to 3, even though we know that the number 3 exists. After all, what if the 2 never really existed, we just assumed it did because it, with the number 1 got us to 3. What if 1 1 1 is how we got to 3 instead of 1 2 3? Primitive illustration, but it should support my explanation.
Another good illustration I’ve heard is the candle. Imagine a candle in a room, lit. We may be able to go in to the room, calculate the rate at which the candle is burning from measuring how much mass the candle looses per inch per second, we may also be able to calculate and predict the exact moment the candle will burn out, but we can never predict how long it took for the entire candle to burn from the time it was lit to the time it waxed old. Why? Because no one knows the exact height of the candle, when it was lit, if the size of the flint inside the candle was the same from start to finish, if the mass of the wax was more or less dense at the top than it is at the bottom, if the density of oxygen in the atmosphere was more or less, the possibilities are endless, as such is the explanation of evolution.
Like most scientific hypothesis, once it was evident that the hypothesis could never really be scientifically proven fact or sound, it is common and intelligent practice to throw out the idea, not the results. If it can’t be scientifically proven with conclusive evidence, then the likelihood of the theory to be relevant and possible is undoubtedly impossible. Yet, millions of dollars and resources are spent every year trying to prove the unprovable, and taught to our children and abroad in schools and colleges as if it were as scientifically sound as the process of photosynthesis.
I understand the need of scientific discovery, and do not fear the results. However, I do believe if there are two hypothesis to explain the existence of something, and neither can be conclusively proven with absolute evidence, then both should be equally treated, taught, educated, stimulated, researched and respected.
I quote from Ecclesiastes 7:14 ‘In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should never find nothing after him.’
In closing I say… “Consider God”
God bless all those seeking and in Christ Jesus
-It is impossible to explain something that does not exist, so I guess that would make me GOD since I fully understand myself.
-And I am not assuming anything with what I said, I am simply uttering what I have been told: That GOD knows all. If this is the case then I would NOT have “free will” as you have stated because how can one have “free will” if my decisions have already been made for me?
-You, or anyone else who believes in a GOD, doesn’t need to explain why they believe what they believe (hence the word “faith”). Don’t ask me why, but it seems like they get some sort of “free pass” when it comes to explaining. But if you are an atheist, all of a sudden it’s “Explain this or explain that”. I shouldn’t have to explain anything. This should all just be common sense.
-Evolution is a theory. The whole purpose for using the word “theory” is to say that “yes, we really don’t know but this is the most plausible explanation so far”. It is also “theory” because it in order to call it “fact” we must be able to reproduce it and, well, that’s not happening anytime soon.
-As for your “animal kingdom” section – we have laws. I would kill the guy next door for playing his music too loud if I couldn’t get arrested for it. And I’m sure that there are people here who have a list of their own stashed away for a rainy day. But can we do it? No. So when you are brought up believing that killing is bad, then yeah, you’re going to hold life in much brighter light then if you had been brought up believing otherwise. *Seriously, have we lost our memories, too?*
-The truth is that GOD and the existence there of does not make any sense. We, as a human race, tend to only see what is in front of us and not outside of that circle. We forget, when it is convenient for us to do so, that other planets exist and so far ours is the only one that has life on it. That when you look at our planet from space, WE DO NOT MATTER. We, as a human race, as a species on this planet, DO NOT MATTER in the big picture. It logically does not make any sense for us, the fish, the cows, etc., etc. to matter at all. But yet our EGO tells us that we do matter and that things thus must have a reason for being. So in that case, if GOD does exist he’s an idiot – because why else would someone/something make a species that believes it has a purpose (see “what is the meaning of life”) when in reality it does not?
-And I am not assuming anything with what I said, I am simply uttering what I have been told: That GOD knows all. If this is the case then I would NOT have “free will” as you have stated because how can one have “free will” if my decisions have already been made for me?
To know and to influence or make are two different things. Just because God knows what you’re going to do doesn’t mean he made the choice for you. If you looked into the future and knew what choices your kids were going to make as adults but never tried to influence them for or against those decisions then you didn’t make the decision for them. You let them make it on their own, you just happened to know what they were going to do too.
-You, or anyone else who believes in a GOD, doesn’t need to explain why they believe what they believe (hence the word “faith”). Don’t ask me why, but it seems like they get some sort of “free pass” when it comes to explaining. But if you are an atheist, all of a sudden it’s “Explain this or explain that”. I shouldn’t have to explain anything. This should all just be common sense.
And I think that Atheists who try to explain things with science are expected to present facts because science is based on tangible facts. If a group claims evolution is true based on scientific facts then of course you have to present those facts or people aren’t going to it seriously. God on the other hand is outside of science and it has already been stated in this thread by Christians and atheists alike that he cannot be proved or disproved by science. Religion and God are based on faith.
Two quick thoughts, before I go to work
First, if you really think about the question of free will you will find that it is impossible for omniscience and free will to coexist. Think about it; if God already knows every decision you make before you make it, that means the future is already history and is not changeable. This also means that you are predisposed to make every decision you make, based on a combination of your genes and your environment. This is the ONLY way your decisions can be 100% predictable. If you follow this logic further, you will find that even though God is not actively making your decisions, He is ultimately responsible for them. Why? Because He designed you, along with the rest of the world. If He is truly omniscient, then at the moment of creation He knew exactly what choices EVERY PERSON would end up making, based on His ultimate design. Therefore free will would merely be an illusion to those not possessing omniscience. In other words, we may not know what choices we will make before we make them, but nothing we can do will change the choices we will make. There is no alternative if an omniscient being exists.
Second, keep in mind one key difference between science and faith. Faith claims to have absolute truth. Faith does not have any use for probability. To a non-believer, this makes it extremely difficult to accept the claims a Christian (or person of any faith for that matter) makes without some kind of evidence. Science, on the other hand, makes no such claims. EVERYTHING in science is probability. Is it possible evolution does not happen and that we are simply interpreting the facts wrong? Yes, thought it is EXTREMELY unlikely. Remember, it is also possible that the Earth is not truly round, and does not in fact orbit the sun, though these things are also extremely unlikely. This is why no positive proof exists in science. Because of this, one cannot take unanswered questions as evidence that a scientific claim is wrong. Only evidence that DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS a theory can be used against it. As for evolution, we have more than enough evidence for it, and so far NO evidence against it (and no, the Cambrian explosion is NOT evidence against evolution happening).
You are correct that religion and God are based on faith. However, many Christians cannot make the distinction between having faith that something is real and that thing actually being real. Faith, when all is said and done, is simply a very strongly-held opinion; one that is based on no evidence. For somebody without that faith, it is very difficult to take claims of truth seriously. Really the most effective way to make somebody believe is to indoctrinate them from birth. This is because children are wired to take what adults teach them at face value, until they develop critical thinking skills of their own. In my mind, it would be extremely difficult to convert somebody who is already well-versed in critical thinking, simply because faith itself goes against reason. I do not mean that in a derogatory way; it is simply the nature of faith.
Anyway, off to work now. That was just my two cents
Lol, well thank you for your “two cents”. I’m glad to get other opinions.
I was only trying to address theangryatheist’s comments about “why does he/she have to explain anything when Christians apparently don’t have to”. I wasn’t trying to say whether one is more believable than the other or which idea is better. Was just explaining why people might feel that an atheist’s scientific theory should be backed up with scientific facts.
I agree that ANY scientific theory (not just an atheist’s
) should be backed up with facts. I believe, however, that the point theangryatheist was trying to get to was that some people have a hard time accepting things on probability, and rather are looking for a “truth” statement. In other words, they point to things scientists have gotten wrong in the past and say, “See? Scientists don’t have all the answers. They keep changing their minds!” These people are not interested in a process of learning, but rather assume that we can simply jump to the “truth”. This is why they think arguments against evolution such as looking for a “missing link” or saying the Cambrian explosion is a problem for evolution are valid points. They look at something the theory doesn’t explain, either because of lack of information or because it is out of the scope of the theory itself, and mistake that for falsifying evidence.
The truth is we have tons of evidence for evolution. We know it happens. The only thing that is currently in debate is the process of how and why, and even that we have a pretty good idea on. The Cambrian explosion poses no problem for evolution itself, even if current models have a hard time explaining it. The thing is, in order to even consider that the Cambrian explosion happened, one must first accept all of the evidence we have that shows evolution is real! Claiming it is a problem for the EXISTENCE of evolution is like claiming that failures in Newton’s calculations on gravity is a problem for the existence of gravity.
Anyway, I’m kind of going on a tangent here, but I guess the point I am trying to get to is that yes, all scientific claims should be and are backed up with facts. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be scientific. The flaw in gwmurray’s arguments is that he is expecting the wrong things from science. Science makes no claims of truth, and nothing is ever “proven”. Rather, science is a process of eliminating what doesn’t work in favor of what does. The longer a theory stands and the more it is tested, the more probable it is that the theory is in fact correct, or at least very close to it. However, we are constantly discovering new facts and new evidence, and as a result our theories are constantly being tested. As a result, some if not all will eventually be modified or even replaced with a new theory that fits ALL the data. Gwmurray was also confusing the Theory of Evolution with the fact of evolution. That is, he is failing to see that the theory simply describes a process of HOW and WHY evolution happens, and has no bearing on IF. We know it happens. We are still working out the details as to how, and THAT’s where new data may bring our current theories into question.
Also, no scientist tries to “prove” a theory is correct. That would be inconsistent with the scientific method. Rather, they try to prove it WRONG. In this way, bad theories are quickly weeded out, while good ones continue to be used, until new data necessitates they be modified or replaced with a better one. In fact, science itself tends to “evolve” in much the same way life does. The difference is the “mutations” are not as random
Anyway, sorry to rant…I know you did not say a lot of the things I addressed here. I was simply trying (miserably) to explain theangryatheist’s meaning behind what he said; at least, what I think the meaning was.
Okay, I’ve read as much as I can stand; tha’s not meant as an insult to anyone, it’s just that if I read much more computer text I’ll end up with a headache, and I ave a lot I want to say already. I want to answer a few of the arguments I did read. I won’t be mentioning anyone by name (mainly because I don’t remember them) so anyone who wants to reply to my own replies will have to remember what they said in the first place. This by the way, is not necessarilly in answer to the article itself, only to what has been said in the comments.
First off, I was astounded by the claim one guy made that Jesus probably never lived. Most of the disagreements here can be attributed to differing worldviews, and differing interpetations of scientific data based on the viewers preconceptions (and we ALL have preconceptions, it’s part of being human). None of them however as far as I could tell, stem so much from ignorance of the availible data. To begin with, Jesus was reffered to very briefly by Josephus.
Quote:
“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”
Josephus (born A.D. 37), in case you are wondering, is the best known historian from the period and geographical area in question. He would have been about 25 at the time of this incident (usually dated A.D. 62) and can therefore be assumed to have had fairly reliable information availible to him concerning it. Notice his reference to “the so-called Christ,” he was not a Christian, no Christian I know would say such a thing concerning Jesus. He was in fact a Jew, both in nationality and religion. He therefore, would have found it very distasteful to even mention a person he considered a heretic and blasphemer or even someone connected with him, and not surprisingly, moves along quickly to other subjects. But the reference both to Jesus AND James, both of whom were sons of Mary and (ostesnibly) Joseph (who you whose existence I assume you also question)is unmistakably there, and Josephus’ historical records are generally considered to be reliable. Expecting anyone else (outside of Christians) to include Jesus in their histories is honestly a little unreasonable. The Romans who controlled most of the known world at the time reffered to Christianity as a sect of Judaism (which any good Jew will tell you, it most assuredly is not) and did not even recognize it as a seperate religion until many years later when they started feeding Christians to lions for entertainment purposes.
Also, you have the New Testament as a record. It, as can be proven despite popular belief in many circles, is one of the best preserved texts we have from ancient times. For one thing the dates of the oldest extant copies fall within 100 years of Jesus’ death. That means the originals were written EVEN EARLIER. The generally accepted rule among historians is that it takes at least 2 generations (approximately 100 years) for enough myth to distort the record as to make it unreliable historically speaking. Here though, we have COPIES dating before that threshhold, and can therefore safely assume that te originals were at least written by people old enough to have been there. So now we have only to question the fastidiousness with which the copies were produced, and the accuracy of the originals. I don’t completely understand it myself, and am not going to attempt to go in depth about anything that I can’t get my own hands around; but people who know a lot more about old writings and manuscripts have a method for figuring that out. It has something to do with counting the number of discrepencies between existing copies of a known (but unlocated) original work. I can’t remember the number for sure, but if memory serves true, they determined that the -hundreds to thousands of, depending on book- copies we have availible to us were produced from orginal works dating to within 3 years of Jesus’ death, and can be trusted to have remained 97% true to the originals. For comparison, I believe we have 4 copies of Homer’s Iliad, all written no less than 1,000 years after the original, but it is generally accepted that we have a fairly accurate version of the original work. As far as the truthfulness of the originals, there were literally hundreds of hostile witnesses from the period who had the chance to have their say on the matter; and what they said can pretty easily be summed up in two statements. He was a blasphemer who did miracles by the power of Satan, and the Apostles stole his body. They never denied his miracles, and even asked for demonstrations of them, and you can believe that if they could have produced his body they would have. All but one of the Apostles (and at least one of his own brothers) died as a result of refusing to recant their beliefs. If they had stolen his body, they would have known they were dying for a lie. I personally have never met anyone willing to do such a thing.
I have not heard of a single historian who denies the existence of Jesus. To do so requires either a massive suspension of disbelief, or complete ignorance of the subject.
Next up we have speciation through natural selection. This is something else that no one who is knowledgable of the subject would ever deny. This is something also known as macro-evolution. We have many examples of this in our world today; camel/llama/alpaca, lion/tiger, and horse/donkey/zebra come immediately to mind. These are also, all examples that can also interbreed and can therefore reliably be traced to common ancestors. However, they were not for the most part examples given by the guy who was talking about speciation. He talked about fruit flies that were bred in a lab. That is NOT natural selction, it is selective breeding; we do the same thing with cats and dogs, and just like those flies, given the choice, many of these will mate with their own breed over another (ie. chihuahuas and mastiffs). Whether you call it a species or a breed though the result is the same: there is always, always, always, (I can’t say it enough) ALWAYS, a loss of genetic information in the transition. Let’s go back to the horse/donkey/zebra group for a moment. The guy who was talking about them to begin with pointed out the disparity in the number of chromosones. Now, the horse group as a whole, is regarded as being older than the seperate zebra species; that means that the zebras lost no less than a quarter of their total genome in that split. This trend goes right along with the Second Law of Therodynamics (look it up if you don’t know it).
Now though, I get to the supposedly well-documented amphibian to reptile and land mammal to whale transitions. I want to say one thing before I go into my argument against that (it’s a quote but I can’t remember who said it first): “Artists have done more to support this theory than the fossil record ever has.” If you want the truth about the whale transitions, demand that the drawings be shown to scale. There is so much disparity in the sizes as to make it (and not in one direction, we’re talking, medium, then small, then huge, then medium, then gargatuan here) as to make the so alleged geneology laughable. Many so called transtional fossils are no more than tiny fragments of the total animals. And even with those there are glaring gaps that according to Darwin himself should have been filled years ago. “If, in the course of the next 100 years, numerous transitional fossils are not discovered, the Theory will need serious revision.” ~Charles Darwin (though possibly not the exact quote, feel free to check me on it). And that theory has been seriously revised, though most laymen do not know it.
Everyone raise your hands who have heard of Punctuated Equilibrium. I’m guessing less than a tenth of you did. Stephen J. Gould, one of the preeminent minds in the world when it comes to the Theory of Evolution put forward this revision. In a nutshell it says that over the generations many mutations accrue in the genome of a species until finally, when a new AND viable genetic code is achieved, then and only then does the species change form and/or function to reflect the changes in its genetic code. Sounds like a load of crap to most of us, right? Well, it is the best anyone has done to explain the extraordinary rate at which new species are formed in what is known as the Cambrian Explosion. You can look up his arguments on the subject, but basically they say that so many mutaions had accrued in the micro-organisms and soft-tissued invertebrates of the Precambrian period that one species was giving birth to another in rapid succession. This is one of if not THE leading theory among paleantologists to explain what happened there. And if that’s how it worked then, then surely it could have worked later, for instance, in the amphibian to reptile transition, right? Well, not really, it doesn’t seem possible for this or any other mega-evolution (the development of one kind to another, approximately on the genus level) to work at all. This all goes back to the Natural Selection I was talking about a few moments ago. Natural Selection weeds out unneeded and/or harmful genetic material from a species. This means that over time more and more genetic information can and will be lost, but does not account for any way for new genetic information to come in. So what does that mean? Well, let’s take a step back. Take a look at the fish to amphibian transition. Fish are scaly and rely on gills (as a rule, tough there are exceptions) to diffuse oxygen out of the water and into their bloodstreams. Natural Selection gives them a way to get rid of unneeded scales, and gills to become an amphibian, but provides absolutely no way to add the very much needed mucous covering and lungs. To add the lungs alone would require an addition of as much information as is found in several publications of the Encyclopedia Brttainica in its entirety. Where could that in formation possibly come from?
Well, one theory is that organisms adopt genetic coding from viruses and bacteria that find ways into their bodies. This is all well and good in that it provides not only a source for new genetic material, but also a transport for it. But there are major flaws. First, it is required that the organism’s immune system not destroy the microbes. Next the microbes’ RNA or DNA has to find a way into living cells without destroying them. And then, said RNA or DNA has to code for something the organism can actually use (ie. this is similar to how we supposedly got mitochondria, though in the case of mitochodria it is supposedly the entire bacteria that made its way in) or by nothing short of a miracle, rearrange itself randomly into a new an useful string of code. Ask a computer programmer how likely it is that a string of random code could just happen to reproduce Java and then duck when he tries to slap you for insulting his intelligence. Such a thing happening is so unlikely as to cross the threshhold to impossibilty. And we’re talking about this happening MILLIONS of times to get the genetic variation we see today. Not onl that, but where are these microbes getting the information from to bring it to said organism??
Which brings me to another point. Someone asked something like “Why not call the Universe infinite and call it our god?” Why not indeed? In an infinite universe, not only can anything happen, but eventually EVERYTHING MUST HAPPEN, even impossibilities. This would gives us the chance for all those little microbes to bring us all the information we could ever need to build a a hagfish into a human, or even beyond (which begs the question, Why aren’t we already more advanced than we are?) and to have all the other critters we see running around everywhere. In fact, this was the view most scientists held of te universe at the time Darwin wrote Origen of the Species. One problem though, that theory was debunked last century and the current one (Big Bang) only provides for a finite universe; one that does not even approach being old enough for an occurence that passes the Threshhold of Impossibility to happen millions of times. Even if I as a Creationist grant the time asked for by those who support both the Big Bang, the Theory of Evolution, and materialism (the belief that nothing exists except matter and no energy and excludes a beilief in the supernatural) as the origen of the universe and of life in it (and that is what the debate is about, despite many people’s attempts including the author of the article at obfuscating the issue) it is not enough. It is not enough time for everything that is necessary to their arguments to happen. So until someone comes up with a new theory that vastly shortens the time needed for evolution to give us the diversity we see (let alone for Spontaneous Generation to occur) we a releft with no viable alternative other than Creationism. Whether the Creator is Brahma, Chaos, Jehova, or Aliens from the 4th Dimension, and whether you subscribe to millions of years or thousands, Creationism is all that’s left. I am personally a Young Earth Creationist, a YEC as the article’s author called me, and am a Christian. If anyone wishes to debate me on those grounds I will be more than happy to meet the challenge, and have always said, if any person can satisfactorily convince me Christ’s body has been found, I will recant my Christianity forthwith. But know before hand, than my Christian beliefs are as much based in logic as the arguments which convinced me to abandon Darwinism (to which I used to subscribe), and you’d better have sound arguments ready.
Thank you very much,
Adam Cranford
P.S. I’m also willing to go more in depth on Evolution for anyone who is not convinced.
matter and energy*
not
matter and no energy
Just a note on Josephus. That account is the one most in question. So if you’re looking for sources, I’d use another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Actually, from the sources I’ve seen, that particular account is highly regarded as original to the text; the one in which Josephus purportably wrote:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
is highly suspect, and was already suspect as early as A.D. 20o. My point though, which is even reflected in that wiki article though, is that Josephus, a historian who very nearly contemporary to Jesus and was contemporary to his earliest followers, mentioned him, nothing more and nothing less. Thanks for the thought though, and definately thank you for being so polite about it.
‘Now, the horse group as a whole, is regarded as being older than the seperate zebra species; that means that the zebras lost no less than a quarter of their total genome in that split. This trend goes right along with the Second Law of Therodynamics (look it up if you don’t know it).’
I knew I should have stopped reading after I saw that statement… Made me laugh though.
It obviously wasn’t thermodynamics.
They fell off because they were ripe, and gravity pulled them down
Hehe at least your version makes sense
According to current evolutionary thought the genus equus (to which all extant horse type species belong) emerged somewhere between 4-12 million years ago. Zebras specifically are regarded as having speciated from the main group less than or around 4 million years ago.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states:
The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
In other words all things tend toward lesser energy and lesser order.
Zebras lost approximately 1/4 of the total chromosones that are seen in other Old World horses.
Please explain what is so laughable.
As I see it, entropy is not a *major* driving force for the number of chromosomes. The only correlation that I can see is that since the universe favors towards chaos and disorder, you perhaps feel it should begin within your own posts?
Sorry that was rude, but I never claimed to be very nice.
I do understand the laws of thermodynamics as far as half a dozen college courses can get you, and have a very good background in genetics and molecular biology, could you elaborate on this idea please? Explain it to me as if I am an idiot, as you may have already guessed isn’t far off the mark =]
Oh and as a side note, as species evolve and diverge, some may lose chromosomes, and some may gain chromosomes. It is the genes therein that really supply the selective pressures. It is true the the number of chromosomes is important to a point, as it can affect the ability of sexual reproduction. I’m sure there could be less of a likelihood for a viable fetus to arise, and fertile offspring to result, when one of the parents has abnormal chromosomes.
Also I wonder to myself where this ‘isolated thermodynamic system’ in which old world horses apparently evolved into zebras existed. As long as the biochemical reactions taking place within these species are the same energy-coupling reactions within everything else, the 2nd law is satisfied.
And also I found out the hard way that zebras are meanies =[ (must have lost that ‘niceness’ gene that horsies have in one of those chromosome mergings, I blame that on the first law though)
I’m not making a claim for an isolated system or that the 2nd law is a major force in chromosone number. I’m just saying that it is a Law that cannot be disregarded and this is simply an instance in which the 2nd law can be seen to have an effect on a specific living organism.
As far as gaining chromosones, could you give me any examples? My only requirement for an example I will accept is that the species that gained any chromosones be capable of interbreeding with the parent species, and therefore provable as being related, and that the daughter species be viable (eg. no Downs Syndrome type mutations). Just to be clear, I’m not calling your bluff on this, it’s just that I have never heard of an instance of this happening and may have to revise my own hypothesis if there is a valid exaple.
As far as the zebras’ dispositions go, I know you’re being facetious, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out they have some kind of genetic deficiency there; from everything I’ve heard about them they are almost universally bad-tempered. BTW, what’s your story with them? lol
Meh wait to be mature and ignore my idiotic mocking of you =[ (don’t you know this is the internet!). Ok I’ll not go back to that again (sorry, by the way).
I think I kinda know what you were saying now, maybe, but I still don’t see a connection to the 2nd law. This could most definitely be a lack of my knowledge, as I tend to forget anything I learned that involves too much mathematics. I do understand that the 2nd law has an effect on all biochemical processes… just thought that was mostly taken care of by the coupling of ATP and other higher-entropy reactions.
So for an example of gaining chromosomes…
I know this is kind of cheating, but off hand the only fertile offspring with an extra chromosome that comes to mind are 47,XYY male humans, which can interbreed with us norms quite well… Meh let me see if I can find something better.
Hmm the only other thing I can think to mention here that modern wheat is hexaploid, with 6 copies of ancestral chromosomes from a diploid ancestor. But this isn’t a ‘wild’ species so probably doesn’t count.
I think the main problem with finding you an answer is the thought that “the horse group as a whole, is regarded as being older than the seperate zebra species”… my understanding would be that they branched off at some point, with each species being able to evolve for the same period. You might say that morphologically they are very similar to ancient horses, but genetically, you don’t know what happened. And I guess you could argue that horses lost selective pressures when they became domesticated, but that is a too short a time span in terms of evolution. Without me understanding your point of view completely, I don’t know what you would think would an acceptable response.
This guy does a decent job of describing chromosome breaks/mergings toward the end of what he says here… and briefly mentions how they can spread through a population:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php
And you don’t want to hear the zebra story… trust me.
I just went back to look over your original post again and found this:
“Natural Selection weeds out unneeded and/or harmful genetic material from a species. This means that over time more and more genetic information can and will be lost, but does not account for any way for new genetic information to come in.”
I think that reading this helps me to understand your point of view on the number of chromosomes/ and your ideas on their decrease over time. I just want to mention briefly that unneeded information is not lost during natural selection. The evidence for this is within your genome, do you know how much ‘junk’ DNA left over from old retroviral infections of our ancestors is in our chromosomes?
Unnecessary DNA is generally not a bad thing, nor harmful. In fact this pool of DNA is a place that can lead to new genetic material emerging, since random mutations here are not generally not harmful either. Viruses copy and paste parts of our genome all over the place, and its within these pasted sections (which are *extra*) that the mutations can arise, and on an off chance may produce something new.
Anyway, I thought this fit in nicely with what we were talking about, so I thought I would add my 2 cents on this as well.
And yes, I read what you wrote about viruses, but I thought it better to start over from my point of view, since I feel you missed the main idea of how this acts as a resovoir for new genetic material.
“In an infinite universe, not only can anything happen, but eventually EVERYTHING MUST HAPPEN, even impossibilities.” Including the same thing over and over again for eternity? Kind of a glaring hole in your argument, don’t you think?
“But know before hand, than my Christian beliefs are as much based in logic as the arguments which convinced me to abandon Darwinism (to which I used to subscribe), and you’d better have sound arguments ready.” Hit me with your best shot. I’ve heard every argument.
Yes ven that. But there is no infinite universe (although there seems to be a distinct possibility of a multiverse that includes and is much bigger than our single universe), that’s just my point. No one in the scientific community that I know of believes in such a thing. The Theory of Evolution however, as it was first postulated, was formed in a time period in which that was the leading theory concerning the nature of our universe. I only brought that up in order to introduce the current Theory of Evolution which includes Punctuated Equilibrium.
And I’m sorry, but I don’t intend to hit you with any shot, my best or otherwise until I know the subject matter you wish to discuss. Nothing against you, but I need to know what we’re talking about before I start talking.
If fail to see how punctuated equilibrium is necessary for the Cambrian explosion, which I assume is what you are referring to. This event happened over tens of millions of years, and was likely the first time life began thriving on oxygen, which had built up as a bi-product from previous life-forms that excreted it as a waste product (as plants do today). Because of the abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere, this new adaptation allowed for a GREAT advantage for species that carried it, which in turn led to this explosion of life. Also, this was the first time the Earth saw vertebra organisms, which fossilize much better than their soft-bodied predecessors. I am by no means an expert on the subject, but many books and articles have been written about it. The Cambrian explosion is a wonder certainly, but presents no problem for the credibility of evolution as a whole.
First off, I jst want to say, that as I have already stated, I am a YEC. However, for the sake of the debate I am, for the most part, willing to set that aside in order to give us common ground on which to meet. Therefore, I would like to ask in advance that anyone reading this not try to turn anything I say into a personal attack on me accussing me of holding contradictory beliefs. For the record, I believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old; I believe that there were approximately 8,000 different higher land animals (as in, not including the invertebrates) originally created, and through micro- and macro-evolution (adaptation and speciation) we see the diversity around us today; also I believe the land was originally 1 super-continent but the original face of the world was drastically changed in a massive catastrophic event (specifically, the Flood). That in a nutshell is what I’m setting aside for the debate; and as a side-note is much of what I would be picking back up if someone were willing to meet me on my ground (shamelesslyathiest, this is what I meant in the specific comment to which you replied, though if you had something else in mind, assuming it’s something I can debate at least half-way comfortably, I would most likely still be willing to discuss it). That being said…
Basically, yes that’s what I’m implying; because we aren’t talking about just a massive increase in the number of fossils, but also a massive increase in the types of fossils. The abundance of oxygen, in theory, could explain the former but not the latter. As far as vertebrate organisms have not been observed any earlier than the Ordovician period; though if they have been found earlier, then that just lends even more credence to my point that new species were arising entirely too fast for the traditionally slow process of evolution. As far as the idea that soft bodied multicellular organisms arose during the Cambrian, yet failed to fossilize due to their fragile natures- that sounds like a pretty thin excuse to me. We have records of soft tissued molluscs and the like fossilizing,so it can be done. Besides that, we have no shortage of fossilized cyno-bacteria and various kinds of algea, if those can fossilize than surely a few mollusck type animals could have, especially given the fact that many animals of that type have shells. The fact remains, that too many new species arose in the (relatively) short period of 70 million ears in the Cambrian for a strictly Darwinist view of evolution to satisfactorily explain. The Cambrian explosion does not necessarily discredit evolution, but current evolutionary theory without punctuated equilibium is very hard pressed to explain it. If you have a hard time swallowing puctuated equilibrium, then you aren’t the only one (I for one completely reject it as absolute foolishness), but until someone comes up with a better hypothesis, nothing else fits.
As far as I know, vertebrate organisms have not…*
What you say is that you have a problem with the Cambrian explosion and punctuated equilibrium, but these are just statements which I can not distinguish from mere opinion. Why do you have a problem with the 70-80 mya time frame for the Cambrian? What would constitute being ‘long enough’? And why? Read up on why it is easily long enough in Donald Prothero’s Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. The answers are far to long and detailed to go into here.
A related question is why don’t you accept punctuated equilibrium? Seems to me that it is far more about dogmatically rejecting any part of evolution rather than having actual fact-based reasons to do so. Punctuated equilibrium is a perfectly sensible hypothesis backed up by quite a bit of evidence. The reason it is sensible is that during times of stability, evolutionary forces are relaxed and little in the way of evolution occurs. This is why humans (and their relatives) have gene for synthesizing our own vitamin C that has been inactivated. When our ancestors were primarily fruit eaters we had no need to synthesize our own vitamin C – we were getting it through our diet. Thus the mutation had no affect because the evolutionary pressures to conserve that gene were relaxed.
During unstable times (minor/major extinction events due to asteroid collisions, changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, long-term atmospheric disturbances/climactic changes due to solar flares, volcanic activity to mention a few), evolutionary pressures can be extreme. This can cause a massive increase in change, including speciation. New adaptations, such as the development of oxidative metabolic pathways, lead to whole new possibilities and the drive to fill new niches also creates strong evolutionary pressures. Biologists as a rule consider the so-called ‘explosion’ in the Cambrian to be a fizz. 70-80 mya is lots of time on an evolutionary time scale when evolutionary pressures are great. Be thankful that we are not living in one of those interesting times.
Most (if not all) creationists concentrate on the fossils so much that they don’t see the real threat to their postion: molecular genetics. Why would a deity create an organism in which there are even one gene that is broken? Why have a gene that encodes the enzyme synthesizing vitamin C that’s broken? And that’s just one of many. The existence of the Alu retroelements within the NANOGP8 pseudogene (another dead gene – there are a huge number of them) in the exact same places in both chimps and humans is irrefutable evidence that we shared a common ancestor. There is simply no defense to this.
Well, for the moment, I’m going to have to skip most of the first paragraph until I can at least see some of the book you mentioned, is there a place online I can read it or do I need to hit up my library? Honestly I’ve never really considered exactly how much time I would consider “enough.” But if evolution happens at the slow rate that it seems to today, and there is no way to speed it up, then probably longer than the 6 billion years Earth has supposedly existed, let alone the supposed 3 billion its had life; but I promise that if I can find time, I will come up with a number for you. As to my rejection of punctuated equilibrium, it’s ever even once been observed, and with climate changes happening all over the world all the time, it should have. Besides that, it requires introduction of new genetic material through mutation, another instance which has never been observed.
As for the rest, I have to ask what you consider to be sufficient pressure to influence evolution. As far as I can see there is no truly “stable” time or area anywhere on this planet.
Besides that, I’d have to say that we are indeed living in a very interesting time. I’m looking around right now and seeing climate change on a massive scale do to global warming, and yet, not seeing any of the changes you say should be happening as a result. Many of our arctic and antarctic species are expected to be extinct within the next century or so, and those aren’t the nly mass extinctions projected. Yet for all that, this seems like a prime time to observe some kind of evolution in progress, especially if punctuated equilibrium were truly the rule. And an argument can’t be made that the climate change is happening too fast, because I can think of at least one changed argued for by evolutionists would have caused nearly instantaneous change.
As far as whether the Cabrian event was an explosion or a fizz, that point is moot; it doesn’t matter what we call it. The fact remains that new species emerged at a much greater rate during the Cambrian than any other period of Earth’s history; such a great rate that in fact, it was one of the primary reasons Gould set out the hypothesis. Simply because there was no other way he could see to explain the massive rate of change.
As to the vitamin C issue, I only heard about it recently. But I’m confused as to how it helps your postion more than mine. It seems to me that it should have been activated in response to our ancestors abandoning fruit as their primary food source, scurvy seems like a strong enough reason to select for such a gene. And as to a deity creating things with broken genes, obviously I have to abandon the common ground in order to answer. I would have to say that, no, no deity who took any pride in his work would do any such thing. Therefore, God must have created us with an originally perfect genome, and over the generations since the fall more and more genetic mutations have cropped up to damage said genome (as you already know, but for anyones benefit who doesn’t, mutations that occur in used genes are almost always harmful to the organism).
As far as Alu retroelements occurring in both us and chimps, I have my own theory, (be aware that this nothing more than an educated guess at the moment) that satisfies me for now. Many viruses have been shown to damage DNA, especially in embryos; also many viruses which are capable of infecting us are able to infect chimps as well and vice versa (though the effect is not always the same). It doesn’t seem so far fetched to me that when both our ancestors were in roughly the same part of the world, shared viruses could have been affecting our genomes in roughly the same way. In addition to this (this is a recent addition) a recent study has shown that long periods of consuming prodigious amounts of sugar damages genetic material, fruit (which both our ancestors and chimps relied on as their primary food source) is a prime source of sugar. It seems to me that the damage caused by the sugar would be fairly similar in both species as well.
And by the way, I love molecular genetics. Did you know that 14 of the protein enzymes vital to the reproduction of DNA can only be synthesized in nature by using DNA? I leave you to try to figure that one out.
Gotta go for now, my son is desperately wanting me to play with him. I’m sorry for anyone that I didn’t get to today, I’ll have to try again tomorrow. In the future, I’m also going to ave to limit the time I’m spending here, it’s robbing me of sleep, family, and practice times, lol. I ask anyone who wants to talk to me to not flood me with too many messages, and to please understand if I can’t get to them all in a day. By the way, I’m really having fun talking to ya’ll, it’s not often I get to debate anyone who isn’t outright nasty about it.
P.S. shamelesslyatheist, how do you get italics in your posts? It never even occured to me that it was possible…lol
I assure you, there are periods in the Earth’s history that make what is happening today look like a climate-controlled planet. This is nothing compared to the global climate change following the asteroid strike in the Yucatan 65 mya. In comparison, evolutionary pressures are very slight and thus we don’t see much in the way of variation, but it’s happening anyway. There are numerous speciation events which are being watched by biologists right now. Check out this list. (By the way – to get special characters, etc., just use HTML code.) So it is far from true that we don’t see speciation.
If you can’t get to a copy of Prothero’s book (which is astounding, but the way), there’s another discussion at TalkOrigins on the badly-named Cambrian ‘Explosion’ discussing the transitional fossils within the Cambrian itself. But Prothero’s book is far more informative. (I don’t expect you to buy it any more than I would buy a book by William Lame Craig. Bleah.) The library is your best bet.
How does a broken gene help my case? Well, it provides a testable hypothesis, for one. Claiming that god created a perfect genome then it degraded means the mutation should be totally a random one (mutations are to all intents and purposes random events) not seen in other primates that we consider our relatives. Yet the mutation that inactivated our vitamin C-synthesizing gene is in the same place as in all the other primates that also have a non-working gene. The reason it hasn’t been repaired is that that is statistically nearly impossible. The reverse mutation would have to take place in that one spot. We just have to keep fruit in our diet, something that was still available on the savannah where we first roamed outside the forest. Of course, claiming that god created us with a perfect genome is untestable and has never been observed either. Bear in mind that that kind of argument will always come back to bite a creationist.
” It doesn’t seem so far fetched to me that when both our ancestors were in roughly the same part of the world, shared viruses could have been affecting our genomes in roughly the same way.” Ah, but the Alu retroelements did not insert themselves in roughly the same way. They inserted themselves in exactly the same way, even though such insertions are totally random events and their code could have been inserted anywhere within the genome. Thus, if chimps and humans separately obtained this pseudogene, the odds are astronomical that the Alu retroelements would insert themselves into the exact same positions. This is far better explained by a common ancestor to both species. A gene copying event occurred (these are very common, having been observed even before the structure of DNA was known) with subsequent deactivation by mutation (there was already a working copy of NANOG elsewhere). The positions of all the pseudogene versions of NANOG are in exactly the same places on the chromosomes as well.
Ah, the old which came first, DNA or protein trick. Not much of a problem when we consider that prior to DNA was the RNA world. RNA can code for protein and for DNA through reverse transcription. RNA is also peculiar in that it can be self-replicating and have enzymatic function. Not all the steps have been worked out, but a workable framework is already in place. Suggesting that you can’t have DNA without protein and vice versa is like looking at a building and not seeing how it could have been built because the scaffolding has been removed. The modern situation where DNA and protein are mutually necessary is a modern development. No one that knows much about biology thinks that this arrangement just sprang up. You would be correct in saying that we don’t know that much about that period of biological history, but I don’t think that when we do figure it out (I have no doubt that it will – call it faith, but with a lot of success behind it already) that there will be anything special about it. Interesting, yes, but not special.
Hey you have a great response there, I always admire someone who knows how to bring up relevant examples in such nice context =] glad to see you know what you are talking about, and can make it sound so perty.
Thanks! I read a lot on the subject. Not my specialty (I’m an MRI guy), but I buy so many books I get a lot of ribbing by my wife. At least I hope it’s not ribbing and not exasperation. I bought five new ones last week. Better than a heroin habit I suppose.
I didn’t mean it as a compliment… I meant I’m jealous. Give me your powers!
Seriously though, <3
First off, I’m not going to argue about the existence of Jesus. I personally believe he did exist, though the Biblical accounts are somewhat embellished to say the least. Now, on to evolution.
If natural selection were the only force at work in evolution, then you would be absolutely correct in saying that all genetic information would gradually deteriorate over time, since there would be no means for any further complexity to enter the system. However, you are forgetting one very important detail: mutation. Mutations happen on a regular basis; this is undeniable fact. Any mutation that occurs, in essence, adds “new information” to whatever gene that mutation occurs in. Usually these mutations are benign, and often they result in oddities that are considered harmful. However, sometimes they result in giving their host organism an advantage when compared to other individuals of the same species. By “advantage” I mean that it will increase this individual’s chances of survival, and therefore reproducing. This advantage has a good chance of being passed down to further generations. Eventually, because of the increase in “fitness” this advantage offers, a given population will begin to show more and more individuals with this particular advantage. If this process continues long enough, the entire population will have gained this attribute.
With me so far? Now, consider that there are two different groups of said species, separated by a mountain range or river and not allowed to interbreed. Let’s call them populations A and B. Let’s say population A produces an individual with a slightly longer neck, which allows that individual to reach food higher on a tree and therefore have an uncontested source of food. By the same token, let’s say population B produces an individual that, by mutation, is darker in color than his or her fellow animals. This particular color happens to make this animal harder to see in the surrounding environment, giving him or her and advantage in hiding from predators. Through the process I have just described, imagine both of these populations eventually gain these said attributes. Many generations later, you have two very different looking groups of animals; one with very long necks and one that are all a completely different color.
Now, consider that mutations do not generally happen one at a time, but rather work in tandem. That is to say that various genes become advantageous only when in the presence of other gene sets. For instance, a gene for making flat teeth is very useful for a herbivore but would be utterly useless for a carnivore. The point is, many mutations will be happening to any given population at the same time. Let’s go back to our sample groups. Let’s say that group A begins developing longer legs to go along with their necks, giving them a further height advantage. Meanwhile, group B begins getting smaller because it makes them even harder to see. Do you see what is happening? Eventually, these two groups have changed so radically that their DNA is utterly incompatible, and you have two completely new species. They are no longer able to interbreed, or if they can they do not produce viable offspring (such as in your examples of camel/llama, lion/tiger, etc.
This is exactly how evolution works, albeit a very simple and incomplete explanation. “New” information is obtained through random mutations that give a specific advantage, while those that give a disadvantage are weeded out. In this way the process is not at all random but rather is shaped through natural selection. (Genetic drift is another form of evolution that is NOT influenced by natural selection, but that is another study altogether.)
As to your point on an infinite universe, you are wrong in saying that EVERYTHING must eventually happen. The correct statement would read “anything that CAN happen MUST eventually happen in an infinite universe, given an infinite amount of time”. That does NOT mean that everything is possible. In our particular universe, certain laws of physics exist that only permit certain actions while prohibiting others. Even if our universe is infinite, there is no reason to believe these laws of physics will ever change. It is entirely possible (and currently being proposed by m-theorists) that multiple, parallel universes exist, in which the laws of physics are completely different than in our own. However, even if our own universe is infinite we must assume that the laws of physics that govern our own universe always hold (even if we do not quite understand them yet).
Evolution IS NOT about the origin of life or matter, and yes, the age of the Earth (over 4 billion years) IS enough time for the diversity we see today. As I said, evolution is NOT a random process. Life only needs to begin for it to take affect. I will not argue with you about the cause of abiogenesis, but let’s be clear on one thing: abiogenesis happened. Whether you believe it happened on its own or that God spoke life into existence, at some point life began from non-living matter. Notice I said non-living, not non-organic. Organic matter exists in our solar system on its own, which is why there may be some credulity to current scientific models on abiogenesis. However, not nearly enough is known about that process for me to make a valid argument for or against it. What I can say is that it does not matter in regards to the validity of evolution. Regardless of how life began, evolution still happens. This is why it is pointless to claim evolution to be false because it does not explain the origin of life.
I’d also like to point out that I am not arguing against a supernatural influence. I have no problem with belief in God. My problem is when people make erroneous claims about science to try to prove their point of view. Believe what you want, just get the facts right
“If natural selection were the only force at work in evolution, then you would be absolutely correct in saying that all genetic information would gradually deteriorate over time, since there would be no means for any further complexity to enter the system.” I have to disagree with this statement. Natural selection provides a mechanism whereby DNA sequences essential to the organism’s survival are conserved. A mutation in critical genes in a critical location in the sequence will generally lead to its removal from the gene pool. In other words, mutations in critical genes = dead. The ‘deteriorated’ gene is is unable to propagate and its frequency in the population goes to 0. This is why Hox genes are so highly conserved even after the species whose gene sequences being compared are separated by hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Any organisms with a mutated Hox gene doesn’t live long enough to pass it on. Hence, no deterioration. There are some differences between, say, human Hox gene sequences and those in a fly, but surprisingly few and not in critical locations. There’s a good discussion of this in one of Sean B. Carroll’s books.
I will add this to the mutation discussion – each and every one of us has around 200 genes that we share with neither our mother nor our father. They are DNA copying errors arising from cell divisions when eggs and sperm are formed. In other words, the genome each and every one of us contain around 200 mutations. As Dave said, the vast majority are benign, either occurring in junk DNA or in non-critical regions like the encoding of protein tales that tend not to be conserved. People that have red hair can take pride in being mutants – they have a mutation in the melanin M1CR receptor. If I had red hair I would think that to be quite cool.
The only way that the the statement that the “genetic information would gradually deteriorate over time” would be true is for DNA that is just sitting there being oxidized with no corrections mechanisms. In other words, dead DNA. This seems to be a rehash of the 2nd law argument that is bunk. If the 2nd law could be applied to evolution, it could also be applied to development. I think everyone would agree that an adult is more complex than an embryo, n’est-ce pas? Doesn’t this also violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Of course not. The Earth is not a closed system and is powered by the sun, with far more than enough enthalpy being added to counteract the entropy overcome by evolution (this has actually been calculated and the energy from the sun is many orders of magnitude greater than necessary). Nor does the 2nd law preclude the spontaneous generation of local order so long as the total entropy is increased.
Of course, that should be ‘tails’, not ‘tales’. I need a coffee.
I see what you’re saying. I was basically just pointing out that Adam was forgetting about mutation, which is where “new” information enters the system. But yes, if NO mutations ever happened, that would mean that genetic information was always perfectly copied, and no information would be lost, either.
This website: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
is hilarious, I can disprove all of these points except the first without rigorous math……
anyways, heres my new theory……..
God just created everything 5 minutes ago, how could you disprove it? He created everything instantaneously, you, me, my memories, my house, all just moments ago. It feels good to be freshly created. And none of you can tell me I’m wrong. I think the universe is actually only 7 minutes old now…..God put everything in place, matured, ready to go.
inex, you poor deluded soul.
You didn’t even write that comment. God created you with the memory of writing it. In fact, you’re not even reading this comment. You haven’t been created yet, but will appear with the memory of having written yours and read my reply.
Luckily God has an IT staff doing the same thing with webservers.
Actually I can tell you are wrong, I can tell you that you are wrong. I could say it all day every day till I died. But that wouldn’t help anything. I could dredge up all the evidence I could ever find to the contrary, but once again, that wouldn’t help. Any logician can tell you that a negative cannot be proven. I can’t prove you are wrong any more than I can prove that I will never be struck by lightning or that I won’t die in a train accident (despite the fact that I have never set foot on one). All that anyone can do is to offer evidence that supports their hypothesis. In the scientific method, no hypothesis is ever truly disproven, it is abandoned in favor of a hypothesis that seems more accurate.
So I ask you, what evidence do you have that the universe is less than a day old?
Lol, sorry about the redundancy there; it was unintentional. I didn’t catch it before I hit submit.
Ah, the doctrine of Justnowism
The problem is that science can only answer ‘how’ questions and not ‘why’ questions. Creationists are trying to present a ‘how’ question as science which it isn’t. Saying God created the universe is simply outside of science, but it isn’t anti-scientific. However, saying God created the universe a few thousand years ago is anti-scientific. If you want to believe that, then that is your choice but your opinion is entirely irrelevant to a scientific debate and has no place in a scientific education. That is what Bible study class is for.
Anyways, it would be impossible to take everything in the Bible literally. For instance, there are two creation stories which both can’t be literally true. What many modern Christians don’t realize is that many early Christians preferred allegorical interpretations for certain passages. Following in the tradition of the Jewish philosopher Philo, Augustine understood Genesis as allegory. As such, it’s spiritually true rather than scientifically true. Augustine is as orthodox as you can get and this allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament was common practice in the first centuries of Christianity.
I’d like to hear more about what you are trying to say about the spiritual rather than scientific truth of the bible. What you are saying seems to be a logical paradox, something can’t be true in one instance and untrue in another; but I think I may be misreading you.
I think what Ben was trying to say is that the lessons contained in the Bible contain truth even if the stories are not historically accurate. In this sense the Bible is allegorically true if not factually true. In other words, the story of Genesis is akin to a parable.
Isn’t that a bit of a slippery slope? If that’s allegory, then what isn’t? The only way I can see out of that is to start cherry picking on an ad hoc basis.
I agree, to an extent. As far as I’m concerned, nothing in the Old Testament can be taken at face value. This is because hardly any of it was written down even close to the time the supposed authors actually lived. I fully expect embellishments and flat out myths. This is especially true of the first 5 books, or the Pentateuch. As far as I’m concerned, this section of the Bible has about as much historical significance as the Odyssey. In fact, there are lot of similarities.
The New Testament, however, I find at least a bit more probable. That is, I have no problem believing that Jesus existed, and that he was in fact the central figure of the gospels. However, I also believe some embellishment was added in these stories, just as stories of our own nation’s founders are embellished.
As far as a slippery slope is concerned, this doesn’t concern me because I don’t see the Bible as infallible truth. It is my opinion that the early church…specifically, the Nicene counsil…did quite a bit of their own ad hoc cherry-picking to promote their own ideas.
At any rate, my thoughts on this are just opinion, and I’m not trying to convince anybody of it. I was just trying to explain what Ben meant
The universe is a single living conscious organism with complete awareness of itself, call it God if you wish. We are simply bodies making up this organism along for the ride of ever evolving consciousness.
Disclaimer – I didn’t read all the posts (413 is a lot!) so I apologize if I’m double posting but I’d like to add my two cents.
Origin of the life, the universe and everything aside, if all life evolved from a common ancestor, how did sexual reproduction come about? Wouldn’t that require a compatible male and female of the same species to evolve from asexual to sexual at the same time, meet, and successfully procreate both male and female offspring?
This, along with “irreducible complexity” (some things are too complex to have evolved in steps, and yet their “spontaneous” evolution is highly unlikely) are two of the holes I find in the theory of evolution, i.e. common ancestor to all life.
If my understanding of evolution is incorrect, please forgive me – I’m not a scientist but I like to pretend sometimes.
Just my two cents.
Look up a YouTube user named DonExodus2. He lays out in much detail exactly how sexual reproduction came about. As for “irreducible complexity”, that idea has been debunked many times. Here is why: a structure is said to be irreducibly complex if and only if NONE of its base components have functionality on their own. However, every single instance of claimed irreducible complexity has been shown to not be so. That is, the parts of all these systems make perfectly functional systems on their own when not in combination with the others.
“Spontaneous” evolution would be incredibly unlikely, but is not at all what evolution theory proposes. The process is not spontaneous or random, but rather slow and very definitely directed by natural selection. There is nothing accidental about it.
So I would say, yes your understanding of evolution is incorrect
It’s okay though, you’re in good company. I have found that very few people, Creationist or otherwise, have a good grasp as to what evolution ACTUALLY says, and I have yet to meet ANYONE who argues against the theory who fully understands it. I myself only have a rudimentary understanding of it; if you want to get a better idea I suggest (once again) looking up DonExodus2′s videos. He himself is a Christian, btw, so don’t worry about him making anti-religious remarks (although he is adamantly against YEC).
Irreducible Complexity is just a way of obfuscating the most fundamental problem of Darwinism, which is that none of the parts of the new machine work until the machine is complete. What does a bird do with half of a wing? A flying or gliding animal must have hollow bones, a higher metabolism, see further, have new capacities for balance, etc., and, of course, he/she has to “know” how to fly. Why would any of those single modifications to a crawling animal have survived, when they all provide no advantage separately (and most likely an extreme disadvantage.) An organism cannot wait 30 million years for the random mutations to build the whole. A bird with half of a wing, or one with wings but not with the ability to see distances, etc. would be the jungle equivalent of fast food. And in the matter of flying or gliding there are no graduated degrees, either you do or you don’t.
If you want to know how much quicksand Darwinism is at the moment read “Scientists Confront Creationism” by Laurie R. Godfrey. Look for an answer to the question/objection what are the possible intermediates when the intermediate parts/combinations couldn’t possibly work. You will find it on page 306 of a 315 page book in a chapter entitled, “Is It Really Fair to Give Creationism Equal Time?” It is written by an administrator, not a scientist, and it is in a section called “Fairness to Other Religions”. It turns out, you see, that the Hari Krishnas raise this same objection, so therefore…. Actually it doesn’t even go into the therefore. So there you have it, the Harri Krishna rebuttal – just say that a group of eccentrics raise the same objection that your opponent does, and, case closed. No need for substantive argument. Not exactly scientific, and it is interesting that none of the other 14 articles by scientists addressed this point, which should have blown Darwinism out of the water from the getgo, and should have been more and more obvious as no half-winged birds ever showed up in the fossil record.
Still, it has been a good exercise, since it broke the domination of the subject by the Church, and opened up the field to real inquiry. When Darwinists get over their struggle to survive against the Creationists, there might be the possibility of something really interesting emerging.
In response to your bird example, just look at the hundreds of gliding species found in the Amazon rainforest alone. A flying or gliding animal does NOT need hollow bones; just look at bats or flying squirrels for an example. As for “learning how to fly”, nobody is claiming birds went from land animals to flying masters overnight. The point is that we see today various stages of the evolution of flight, so is it really hard to believe a species could have evolved through them? As for birds having hollow bones, I am no expert but I have a hypothesis. As we know today, modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs. It seems more than likely that, due to their massive size and weight, hollow bones would have evolved to make these creatures lighter, and therefore quicker. However, this may have presented a problem with bone strength, particularly when jumping from moderate heights. This may be where the first “wings” began developing. Large surface areas may have slowed their descent and allowed for even more agility, and so on. Again, this is just conjecture, as I have no working knowledge on the actual evolution of birds.
The problem is that you are making an assumption that a modern animal with specific traits is useless until those traits develop. What you don’t understand is that all forms are constantly changing, and are perfectly capable of living in their time, regardless of attributes. That is, a bird did not need wings before it developed them; it simply developed them due to selective pressure that slightly favored having them. Animals do not need to “wait” for 30 million years for these traits to develop. Also, wings do not always have to function as wings. Look at penguins; their wings have evolved into fully functional flippers. Speaking of flippers, look at whale flippers. A simple analysis of their bone structure shows clearly that the evolved from appendages very similar to our own hands. I assume you know how to swim? Then you must know that it is possible to do without flippers
I’ll turn the question around. What good is a wing on a bird that can’t fly? To me that absolutely screams common descent.
“When Darwinists get over their struggle to survive against the Creationists….” In scientific circles, this was over long, long ago.
Feathers didn’t start out with the intent of evolving into aerodynamic surfaces. They came from projections on the skin and those individuals with larger projections stayed warmer. Feathers evolved long before birds. T. rex had feathers. But they were neither pennaceous nor asymmetric, both of which are needed for true flight. I’m a ground-up wing evolution proponent. Watch a pheasant beat its ‘useless’ wings to keep its feet in contact with the ground (quite the opposite of flying!). Some species can even run up slight overhangs in this way. It’s pretty easy to see how this would help to evade predators. From this, the development of a gliding ability to cover more ground could develop. Stronger muscles and their attachments would allow short flights. And so on. The assertion that “And in the matter of flying or gliding there are no graduated degrees, either you do or you don’t.” is just so much baloney, particularly when living examples of these graduated degrees exist.
Superficially, Archaeopteryx looks like a bird. It has wings. But if you look at the wing closely, it has only a superficial resemblance to a modern bird wing. It has claws, the forearm is not fused, no keel for strong muscle attachment. There are other differences, too. Archaeopteryx had teeth, a bony tail (it’s fused in modern birds). It’s simply a flying dinosaur. Archaeopteryx is one of many transitional forms demonstrating the evolution of the wing. It was a confluence of other evolutionary adaptations which acted in concert, shaped by natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift.
It’s like that ‘half and eye’ argument. What odd is ‘half an eye’? Ask a scallop. It has far less than half an eye. It does quite well, thank you. We have living examples of every step in the development of the eye, from light-sensitive spots to full camera eyes. But it doesn’t seem to stop this ignorant question from coming up over and over again and are too lazy to actually look to see if anyone has answered it. Then, failing to do this, bring it up as if it is a factual informed objection. And people wonder why I get frustrated and snarky.
Somebody’s laced my coffee with a controlled substance. Must be the Coffee Mate. That should read “What good is ‘half an eye’?”
“Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Maybe Shakespere had the YEC movement in mind when he wrote this.
BETTER WATCH OUT IF OYUR CAT OR DOG IS IN THE BED ROOM WATHCHING YOU MAKE LOVE… THEY MAY BE YOUR DEAD RELATIVES
YOUR DEAD RELATIVES ARE WATCHING YOU HAVE SEX IF YOUR CAT DOG OR FISH BELIEVE IJN REINCARNATION
The evolution theory encompasses 6 terms.
) Cosmic evolution –> big bang
b) organic evolution –> ORIGIN OF LIFE
c) stellar and planetary evolution –> how stars and planets evolved
d) Makro evolution –> evolution from one species to another.
e) Micro evolution –> variations within a species.
The only one >>>>observed<<<(Disproven, as the term “evolution” also involves “cosmic evolution” which basically encompasses the big bang theory; i.e origin of the universe)
- “Evolution is not a theory that describes the first origination of life” —->(Disproven, as “evolution” aslo involves organic evolution, which again is the theory of the evolution of life)
- “Evolution is not inherently atheistic, the theory describes nothing regarding the existence of god.”
—->(this is true, as the theologians did not exclude the possibility of an existing God, yet the theory itself ridicules the potenicial existence of a Divine creator as it is based on everything evolving by itself, i.e not divine creation.
- “The theory of evolution does not say, “humans came from monkeys”. The theory of evolution does not say dogs come from frogs.”
—->(true; like you say: the theory states that all life originated from a common ancestor i.e organic soup (or material if you prefer), would that mean to say that I and the banana that I am eating have a common ancestor? or perhaps an ant and a human share a common ancestor?)
- Evolutionary theory is the best supported scientific hypothesis we have for describing the diversity of life on Earth.
—-> evolutionary theory is not hypthetically presented; somebody didn’t ask a question and find proof for it. Somebody said: evolution must be correct and started a SEARCH for evidence. So far all attempts to save this crazy theory has failed… here are a few examples…
1. You said that “Evolutionary theory is the best supported scientific hypothesis we have for describing the diversity of life on Earth”. Well a Biology book from Wadsworth called “The Unity and diversity of life” states on page 300 the following: “The first living cells emerged between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago. There is no record of the event”. were talking about max a few thousand years folks.
The next statement you made was:
- It is not a religion, a belief system, a faith or any other ambiguous religious term.
—-> if this is so, then present some credible evidence for it. Evolution theory is not science, nor is it supported by any credible evidence —> if you beleive it is then you are welcome to present some and we can debate it. If not you can go to drdino.com or watch “100 reasons why evolution is stupid” on google videos… I heard kent hovind has a standing offer of 250’000 dollars to anyone who can present credible evidence for evolution…
But I assure you, aswell as my creationist views of the universe and the earth, they are as much a faith and religion as your evolution theory. I won’t claim there is any evidence for my beleifs, mainly because I havn’t made the effort to find any, yet I’m sure if you watch the video, your ears will catch up at least 2 or three logical reasons in support of a creationists viewpoint; atleast a biblical viewpoint. Before quoting this reply, I would recommend the video (watch it all the way through) or read up on drdino.com. ENJOY — god bless!
oh no… is this a serious post?
I got to the part in this video where he says “The evolutionist believes a dog came from a rock, if you go back far enough in time, 4.6 billion years.” at 5:04 into this 2 hour video. From listening to a quite a bit of this guy, he appears to not be knowledgeable about what he refutes. Dr. Kent Hovind only is interest in mocking science and tries to make everything into little joke (unsuccessfully, unfortunately). Oh and also he is trying to sell his DVD.
This is a big no-no. Watch at the risk of having your brain asploding.
For further amusement about the man behind drdino.com and this video,
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
“Kent Hovind had been charged with falsely declaring bankruptcy, making threats against federal officials, filing false complaints, failing to get necessary building permits, felony assault and battery (charges later dropped),[116] and various tax-related charges. He was convicted of federal tax offenses and related charges, for which he is currently serving a 10-year sentence.”
Thanks for the post danieldahlegray I never heard of this guy before. He sounds like a reputable character.
I’m sorry, but you are DEAD WRONG. Evolution theory ONLY describes the process through which self-replicating matter (i.e. life) changes through time through the process of random mutation, guided by natural selection. It says NOTHING about cosmology and it says NOTHING about abiogenesis. Stars and planets do not self-replicate, and therefore cannot be described by evolution theory.
Evolution has failed NO test brought up against it. It is, in fact, one of the most rigorously tested theories we have. Any scientist would LOVE to prove it wrong, but they can’t because it works so well.
Evolution requires absolutely no faith, any more than it requires faith to believe the Earth is round or that it orbits the sun. The evidence for it is overwhelming, from the fossil record to mitochondrial DNA. Every major field of biology CONFIRMS evolution, and every new discovery we make (we have made quite a few in the last decade alone) solidifies the theory’s place in our scientific knowledge.
If you are really looking for examples of credible evidence for it, I suggest browsing talkorigins.org. Far more exists than I could possible list here. In fact, I am only aware of maybe 1% of all the evidence we have on the subject, and that alone is so convincing I would be a fool to ignore it. But to point you in the right direction, I suggest you research ERVs, Chromosome 2, Tiktaalik, Archaeopterix, and overlapping philogenetic trees.
” evolutionary theory is not hypthetically presented; somebody didn’t ask a question and find proof for it. Somebody said: evolution must be correct and started a SEARCH for evidence.” No. That life evolved was suggested on the basis of evidence. Darwin ‘simply’ explained it in a brilliant fashion that has withstood far greater onslaughts than yours.
“if this is so, then present some credible evidence for it. Evolution theory is not science, nor is it supported by any credible evidence” You mean, like the evidence contained in the following books written for lay people on a voluminous subject?
Why Evolution is True – Jerry A. Coyne (overview of the evidence for evolution from various scientific disciplines)
Endless Forms Most Beautiful – Sean B. Carroll (evo/devo, a huge nail in the coffin of the anti-evolutionist arguments)
The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Evidence for Evolution – Sean B. Carroll (evo/devo again and molecular genetics)
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters – Donald R. Prothero (paleontology, including the supposedly non-existent transitional fossils for a large number of evolutionary lineages)
Your Inner Fish – Neil Shubin (a variety of evidence including transitional fossils, embryology)
Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA – Daniel Fairbanks (more genetics)
“I heard kent hovind has a standing offer of 250′000 dollars to anyone who can present credible evidence for evolution…” And he will never give it away (from his prison cell) because no evidence is good enough for a creationist. That’s the difference between us. If evidence could be presented for another better explanation of the diversity of life that has gone through the amount of hypothesis testing that natural selection has, I would accept it. The likelihood of such a new theory coming along is, however, ridiculously remote.
” “The first living cells emerged between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago. There is no record of the event” Actually, there is. Isotopic ratio studies of gneiss samples have confirmed the existence of life 3.6 bya.
“But I assure you, aswell as my creationist views of the universe and the earth, they are as much a faith and religion as your evolution theory.” Right. The incredible amount of evidence from paleontology, geology, comparative morphology, embryology, molecular genetics, evo/devo, cladistics – all amounts to faith. I. Don’t. Think. So.
” Before quoting this reply, I would recommend the video (watch it all the way through) or read up on drdino.com.” I think not. “Dr.” Dino is one of the stupidest people on the planet. Imagine claiming T. rex is a HERBIVORE!!!!!! I guess those six inch teeth were for those really nasty plants that must have been around back then!
Naturalist atheists believe that life is a series of chemical events and that there is no supernatural life force, god, etc.. The logical conclusion from this is that it doesn’t matter what anyone believes because no belief system will alter those chemical events.
Why then do naturalist atheists attack those who hold beliefs different to their own? In doing so they are showing that they do not trust in the logical conclusions arising from their own beliefs.
Also, why do naturalist atheists try to prove that there is no supernatural life force, god, etc. when it is impossible to prove a negative?
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/
I think I am not alone when I say the world could function much more smoothly without fundamentalists of any breed. It is these people to which the blinding light of reason needs to be shown. I don’t much like anyone who is *absolutely sure* of any belief system, and when these people are in positions of power, bad things tend to happen. It is ironic, I know, that these people are the ones that are least likely to be able to get through too, yet it must be attempted, lest they have children, or be in a position to influence future generations, and continue the cycle of mindless certainty in the unknowable, hate, fear, and bigotry. Religious fundamentalists just happen to do the most damage, and this is what should be ‘attacked’ as you put it (not literally, hopefully).
This I will agree with you on. Extreme opinions on any side can yield terrible results when they have influence over others. I think everyone needs to learn a little live and let live and just take a chill pill.
Your article is perfect!
Just to add a thought: Where we came from and from what we began really does not matter. However, we are here. We are Life! And we have been here for a very long time.
Carbon Dating and Scientific Studies does not destroy religions. Out-of-contol groups of religious beings destroy themselves.
Thanks!
Phil Edwards
(pmespeak.com)
You know, I’m surprised that so many Christians nowadays just throw away the importance of having faith. Faith is believing in something when there’s no proof. (Consult your favourite dictionary if you don’t believe this.)
Nowadays it’s in vogue to try to claim you have scientific proof of god, or even claim that scientific proof itself is some kind of unconvincing argument– in short, to assert that the smart, savvy thing to do is to believe in Christianity.
But when I was little, I was always taught that god wanted people to believe in him not because it was obvious, but because he touched them in their lives and their hearts, gave them the grace and serenity to accept him, etc. That the reason he didn’t just appear before us in a big magical cloud and show himself was that he wanted people to have faith.
That’s not cool these days, though, because someone up and had the idea that Christianity would be more commonly accepted if they made it sound like science. So now everyone runs around trying to claim that there’s proof, that science somehow has anything to do with god, and that science can back god up. Nobody has faith anymore; everyone is trying to get to Christianity by coming up with proof.
I wonder which case god would actually prefer: people believing in him because their hearts and minds were touched and filled with his spirit and that gave them faith, or people believing in scientific evidence? I was always taught that it’s better to have both, but you can’t have faith in something that’s proven by evidence.
Very good point, and Jesus had something to say about it too.
“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)
By going out and searching for evidence most people are saying in essence, “This whole God thing might be a lie.” But at the same time God does not necessarily disapprove of belief through evidence. But there is the crux, belief and faith are not the same thing.
“You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder.” (James 2:19)
Even if a person believes that Jesus was the Son of God and that he intentionally gave up his life to save ours, they still have to conciously put faith into his ability to actually save them.
You’re right in one sense…no one has ever been argued into Christianity. Arguments are fruitless. Period.
I really appreciate this article. Apparently 90% of the Christians on here did not actually READ it, and simply responded based on the word “evolution.” To this I say: If you want to represent your religion in a thoughtful and convincing way, don’t go on angry rants that only show your absolute disregard for other people’s informed opinions. The only thing you can achieve by trying to demean a “non-believer” is another person who is even more convinced that all Christians are arrogant, dim witted jerks.
Also, Creationsists oftentimes overlook the fact that there is no way to measure what God’s passage of time was during creation. 7 “days” could’ve meant anything before he gave man a linear time frame. Therefore, if you believe the Bible, it is entirely possible that everything the Evolution Theory presents could have been a part of God’s creation, and is exactly how he wanted the world we live in to develop. We have no way of knowing.
I’m a Christian, and I’ve never found anything in the Bible that ISN’T open to interpretation from at least one person’s viewpoint. Pull your heads out people.
Not sure where you’re going with this particular point, but I just want to make a couple quick observations. While it doesn’t say “The first 24 hours are the first day” it does seem to be heavily implied that it was at least approximately a 24 hour period; “The evening and the morning were the first day.” Also for evolution from simple organisms to complex organisms to be the process in which God created life, you have to completely rearrange the entire first chapter of Genesis to fit with the order Evoltionists claim life emerged. By the way, I’m very glad to hear another Christian willing to put their own beliefs to the test.
Thank you for your post. I wish more of the Christians posting on here were like you
While I would agree that Darwinism (I refuse to call it “Evolutionism” as there are other accounts of evolution that are not Darwinist) is not a theory about the origin of the Universe, it is still dependent on some conception of the origin, structure and nature of the subject matter of physics and cosmology. It is important to remember that Darwin operated in the context of 19th Century physics and cosmology, and we have gone through several major upheavals since then. It would appear from the debate that there have been no revisions of Darwinist theory since then, which seems odd.
What for me is most missing in this discussion is appreciation and respect for what opposing viewpoints provide, and, most notably for people as people, rather than just advocates of a point of view, or threats to the status quo. Rather than ridicule Y.E.C., why not use it as an opportunity for interesting and valuable conversations? There are physicists that dispute the Big Bang theory, and while their numbers are few, and their arguments (to me) seem weak, yet the people and the positions are treated with respect, and their arguments are met with friendly, respectful and intelligent rebuttals, not contempt and ridicule. Why should this subject be any different?
I find it quite entertaining to look at all of the possible ways of guessing at the age of the Universe (between 12 and 20 billion years, a rather large gap to explore). One could write a whole book refuting the Young Earth hypothesis, and it would be a valuable and fascinating book as long as it is dispassionate and reasonably friendly. Often we don’t really dig into a subject unless it is to win an argument, so why get upset with the person who prompted us to get into the argument? Who knows, something new might emerge, even from the negation of a position which is contrary to what is generally accepted. Life is to short for such unfriendly kill-or-be-killed exchanges, and we miss important opportunities in getting upset simply because someone sees the world differently.
If people wish to remain fools, they do so even when we present them with scientific fact after fact.
“Evolution is not inherently atheistic, the theory describes nothing regarding the existence of god, it is a scientific theory confining itself to prediction and observation of the natural world.”
Is this some sort of claim that there is no disharmony with religion and evolution, only you have your working space and we have ours, sort of thing? Ask Richard Dawkins, who wrote the book, “The God Delusion” and ask him if evolution disproves the existence of God…Evolution wouldn’t be able to disprove or prove the supernatural, that is why it doesn’t say anything about it directly.
“Evolution is not a theory that explains the origin of the universe, that field of study is referred to as Cosmology and it is a field of study not covered by Charles Darwin’s, The Origin Of Species.”
This is an old and it looses focus on purpose, but comes up now and again, did the author read, “Quantum Darwin.” written by Physicist Wojciech?”
Hubert Zurek makes the connection with natural selection and equations from mathematical physics…
“Selection of the set of outcomes by the proliferation of information essential for quantum Darwinism parallels Bohr’s insistence that a ‘classical apparatus’ should determine the outcomes.”
So this is an example, that not only creationists make the connection using the term, “evolution” in general to all areas which explain naturalistic causes for the formation of the Universe or the Earth but also proponents of evolution make a similar connection. The question now is, will he be sicken at times, frustrated and mad always at these people who are not creationists?
Interestingly enough, I saw an interview with Dr. Dawkins – a brilliant man with amazing eloquence. He himself said that he does not believe that life came from nothing, but was perhaps “seeded” here by a higher intelligence, more highly evolved than we.
(not really on topic, his name just triggered the thought)
in regards to the theory of evolution, (1) what is the current number of species/ variations on earth? (2) what number of change steps would one expect to see to account for the current amount of species variation? (3) does the fossil record demonstrate enough changes to account for current variation? (4) wouldn’t one expect to see in the fossil record whole groups in a given change step and several change steps in sequence? (5) is it possible that much of the evidence for evolution could fall under the same category as that of piltdown man?
1) We can’t answer that, do you know how many species we discover each day? At the same time do you know the number of species we destroy each day? Also, there’s more species of ants out there than humans, and more insects on Earth than the total human population combined.
2) Evolution doesn’t work via a set number of stages or sets; it happens gradually. Random changes, mutations, and successful sexual breeding mean some genes are passed on, other’s not. Now, tell me how varied human life is. How many types of monkeys are there? Go look at the diversity of life, all life, that’s proof enough.
3) The fossil record tells us lots of information, we can see the changes in the structure of early man (the homo genus). Look at fossils for ancestors of cows; lots of animals and fossils show a dramatic amount of change over time.
4) Remember, evolution doesn’t happen dramatically fast, it can take thousands or millions of years. Earth is about 4+ billion years old, that’s a lot of time to develop life. Not even dinosaurs stayed the same, and their bone structures changed all the time. We can’t tell what they looked like to an extent, but there’s evidence of change occurring between the periods.
5) Right, you’re using one example to basically be the end-all for evolution. Right. How many valid fossils do we have in museums, or on record for finding? Compare that to the number of hoaxes, and you’re vastly outnumbered. That’s like trying to prove Bigfoot exists when no one’s found any viable evidence, or even captured one. Somehow people still believe don’t they?
hi thanks for the reply. didn’t even know i had one. I’m going to try to match your tone and not waste time in attempts at diplomacy. the real question is #3. restated, does the evidence support the conclusion “evolution”? i think the answer is no. there is nowhere near enough evidence. there is not even enough evidence to account for the variation and change attributed even one species (cows for example), much less every species we know and see. your argument about the change taking millions of years supports my point: given millions of years and countless variations, there should be MORE evidence, not LESS. sorry, I don’t follow your bigfoot comparison who’s who?.
Without having read all of the other comments…
I believe God is real and the Bible is true. However, I refuse to say that scientists/evolutionists/etc. are wrong.
We Christians believe God created the world. But it is arrogant of us to suppose we know HOW He created it. It doesn’t tell us in the Bible. Who’s to say He didn’t set evolution in motion? Couldn’t He have used a “big bang” to begin everything? I think the real reason Christians criticize science is in order to maintain an “us (God’s people) vs. them (‘the world’)” mentality. We dismiss any theory that isn’t inherently spiritual as false. As a result, by separating God theories from scientific theories, we HELP make God seem increasingly impossible.
It’s time for Christians to be more open to possibilities and stop thinking we understand the world better than anyone else.
Agreed.
Well said. “A” I have a similar view I think for a human to claim that they are intouch with a creator’s powers enough that they understand creation is blasphemy. Claming to understand the all subtle nuances of evolution in the science community is just as absurd. If one steps back and take a look at both sides I think the will find the same origin.
As for the KJV bible worshipers out there dig this passage from Genesis,
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
Evolution at work…
Question:
Even if we accept creationism as how we came to be, which version of creationism is the correct one? Judism, Islam, Christianity?
If we take the Christian version, which branch of Christianity, for even within Christianity there are arguments on this point….
so who is right?
Yea, I agree with the College Graduate
The Bible can make remarks as to what happened, but just because someone wrote it down a long time ago does not make it true. Neither does it make it incorrect. However, I find that the author of this blog makes a correct evaluation. A lot of young earth creationists like to make the argument against the evolutionary process, ignorant of what they are actually saying. I’m a Christian, and I like this article a lot. 
I think the easiest way is to ask scientifically to prove God. Because by nature God (or any deity) is supernatural, they’re above natural law; meaning that in a scientific viewpoint they can’t be proven false. I could say that the lights out because an invisible spirit who we can’t see is floating in front of it. Or I can see if the lights off, the bulb’s burnt out, or if the electricity is out. In other words, there’s better explanations. Although skeptical of the whole God thing (I’m an atheist), we can’t really deny the existence of God, nor can we disprove it for that matter, but there’s always the chance that God does exist. Still, Creationists never take the Bible literally anyway, they pick and choose – which to me makes no sense and means you’re being hypocritical of yourself. If you say you follow every word, how come you’re not out stoning people and wearing clothes of mixed fabrics?
Thanks for articles like these, its always nice to know that people are fighting ignorance and saying that evolution doesn’t dispel God (or anyone else), but it accurately portrays the path life has taken.
Part of the problem in this debate is the way “science” is defined. Those who subscribe to evolution tend to narrow its meaning to the purposeful study of physical phenomena under certain conditions and with the employment of certain methods. Those who subscribe to faith in the scriptures of Christianity (and perhaps others who believe God exists but with the use of different scriptures) understand science to mean a broader range of thought and human experience.
I count myself among the latter.
The advantage of scripture belief is the recorded witness and wisdom of those who lived in a different time and place under different conditions. The disadvantage is the accuracy or literality of those scriptures.
The advantage of the study of the physical sciences is it deals with what is in front of us (although not always) and with repeatable experiments and data collection. Among its disadvantages is the scope of the phenomena it studies. If the universe is as old and as big as we think it is, what do we really know at this point in our human experience?
And I am not sure it is healthy to alienate “abiogenesis” and “cosmology” from evolution. How things got started had an effect on how things developed.
Cooler heads should prevail. Christians should not ignore the discoveries of the physical sciences. Physical scientists should not ignore the wisdom and witness of human experience. And they should realize that one limitation their work will always face is that they cannot put God, if he exists, under a microscope. They may be able to see bits and pieces or to find effects, but that is it.
So in the end, it will come down to faith: faith that God is or isn’t; faith in the relative accuracy or inaccuracy of the scriptures; faith in the literality or metaphoriety of the scripture narrative; faith in the world we cannot see but which we infer from what we can.
I tend to accept the biblical account of creation, though I am not sure whether it is literal or figurative. I do not know how much difference it makes whether the world is 6 billion years old or 6,000 years, since in either case I will continue to believe in God (yes, that is a bias I have – a world without God does not make sense to me). I am bothered by efforts of those who tend to place their trust in the physical sciences to see their observations of the worlds turned into proofs against God’s existence. Similarly, Christians should be hesitant in seeing scientific discoveries as threats to their faith or anything inherently evil.
I think the main area of concern will be morals. Generally, it seems, for better or worse, that the hypotheses of science are used to lower the bar on morality. Christians are going to see the ideals of scripture as elevating man. Thus, the results of moral thinking may be at odds, and this results in quite a clash.
“Those who subscribe to evolution tend to narrow its meaning to the purposeful study of physical phenomena under certain conditions and with the employment of certain methods”
This is because we can only OBJECTIVELY study things for which we have objective, empirical evidence. Going beyond this becomes non-science. It is the same for any other field of science.
“And I am not sure it is healthy to alienate “abiogenesis” and “cosmology” from evolution. How things got started had an effect on how things developed.”
It is completely healthy. We have mountains of evidence for Evolution – transitional species, genetic evidence (too broad a topic to go into right now), and many MANY other lines of inquiry that all point to Evolution being true. Early life may have come about by ANY means, and Big Bang theory may be completely wrong, but Evolution still stands upon its own evidence and is therefore still correct.
“I do not know how much difference it makes whether the world is 6 billion years old or 6,000 years,”
It makes a huge difference in terms of our understanding of the universe. We can see light from stars billions of light-years away, and we can see these stars wobbling as the planets that orbit them move them with their own gravitational fields. Some creationists argue that God created the light already in motion from those stars, but this means God must be lying to us, as we’re seeing objective, empirical evidence of something that never actually happened.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
This is a cool site that addresses some of this stuff. Just a few words- the Bible is not a scientific book. It’s a beautiful book of story and mystery. And even though it doesn’t scientifically explain or record the origin of life, it’s okay to have faith in its message of love. It’s about faith.
I want to apologize to all reading for the way some of my brothers and sisters have responded to this post. This truth is not ours to defend- and I encourage you to wrestle with why we’re here. Ultimately, for me- that seeking is what led me to Jesus in the first place. Sometimes, people become affraid that if they can’t convince you that what you believe is wrong because they are right, they feel it invalidates their beliefs. Christians are not exempt from this. People have been burned in the past by headstrong Christians who bulldoze whoever disagree with their worldview- this should not be. Above all- our call is to love- even if that means loving through a faceless computer screen.
It’s interesting how discussing a topic ends with people making character and belief attacks on one another- it’s not right, and I’m sorry.
I totally agree! way to go, rerendered!!
I’ve read some posts from the YEC/Christians out there, and I’m saddened by the way they’re responding in anger and antagonistic replies. As christians, we can’t just pretend we know everything, because we don’t. we’re just normal people who believe in a God that some others choose not to believe in.
I second the apology. and just so all of you evolutionists/athiests understand, i don’t hold any resentment toward you guys, and I’m not going to try to MAKE you believe what I believe. if you have questions, feel free to ask and I will answer them, but you are free to believe whatever you choose.
I just want to say I really appreciate the attitude you two have. Personally, I like debating not to try to prove my opponent wrong, but to see if they can prove ME wrong. I find I often will face questions I had not thought of myself, and in the end I will either have an altered opinion or a strengthened one, assuming this has happened. I don’t mean to attack anybody’s beliefs, and if I have done so I also apologize. Challenge, yes, but not attack. I do get frustrated some times when I see the same points regurgitated over and over, points that had already been debunked a long time ago. The problem I have, personally, with answersingenesis.org is that a lot of the arguments made on this site (yes, I have visited it) are easily debunked with very little scientific knowledge. I also get frustrated when Creationists repeat the exact arguments this post was made to correct in the first place; for instance, saying that evolution is “just a theory”. Anyway, apologize if my frustration has come out at times as derogatory, because it was not intended as such.
Some of the creationists here seem to be making an awful lot of arguments from ignorance.
It’s idiotic – creationists with NO special education in biology are saying they don’t accept the findings of people who DO have this education in biology. This is akin to someone, we’ll call him Bob, with no training in physics saying he doesn’t accept the findings of physicists, when it is demonstrable that Bob doesn’t even understand what physics is all about.
Among trained biologists there is no debate about Evolution – it is accepted as fact because of the ABUNDANCE of evidence to support it. Sure, the Theory of Evolution may not be exactly right, but it is a very close explanation of the How’s and Why’s of Evolution (which is what a Scientific Theory is all about – it is an explanation of a FACT).
Meanwhile, the majority detractors of Evolution don’t even understand it. How can you categorically deny something when you don’t even understand it? Of those detractors who DO understand it, and yet deny it, most of them are proponents of Intelligent Design, an un-falsifiable, non-scientific excuse for a theory that has been deemed both by the US Legal system and the greater scientific community to be utterly useless as it does nothing to explain any of the questions that Evolution DOES explain, and makes no predictions that can be tested (Evolution, on the other hand, DOES make predictions which are testable, and so far these tests have all been passed).
I ask you, creationists – PLEASE learn what evolution actually says, from a NON-CREATIONIST source, before you attempt to tear it down. Evolution does not explain the origins of life. Evolution does not explain the origins of the universe. It merely explains why we have such a diversity of life now, and how that diversity of life came to be.
You wrote: “Among trained biologist there is no debate about Evolution.”
This is simply not true and is verifiable by checking the credentials of the front runners within the YEC and ID camps (e.g., Michael Behe)not its lay adherents. Thus, there are plenty on all sides who understand the issue that have reached differing conclusions about macro evolution. Futhermore, many within the debate don’t have training specifically in biology but hold degrees in other scientific fields of study.
I would say more than likey it is us in this blogasphere that don’t understand the issue and we are talking at each other in defense of our worldviews as adherents and not experts in the debated field of study.
ID is not science (it is non-falsifiable), and Michael Behe’s arguments about irreducible complexity have been shown to be fallacious and religious in nature. Non-scientific arguments against evolution are not VALID arguments against evolution, and are only indicators of Behe’s on incredulity and personal bias.
I invite you to list other front-runners in the YEC/ID camp, that we may examine them closely to determine their credentials and determine if they are even qualified to question Evolution – someone with a degree in physics, for example, is NOT qualified (by default, though special exceptions can be made) to comment on Evolution with any credibility.
From my anecdotal experiences working within a few different (biochemistry) laboratory environments, there isn’t any debate about evolution; it is accepted. Although I realize this is akin to you saying that from your experiences at church, god is accepted.
YEC claims only hinder scientific progress, that is why they are not accepted. Oh that and because of all the spurious logic.
Michael Behe is the only example I can think of of a genuine scientist that challenges the standard evolution theory, and even he acknowledges common ancestry. He simply thinks evolution had a hand from God as opposed to it happening on its own. Aside from him (and a few employees of the Discovery Institute in Seattle claiming to be scientists) there really is no debate in the scientific community. In fact, I read somewhere that proportionately there are 4 times as many historians that deny the holocaust as scientists – especially those in fields of biology – who deny evolution. We are talking about less than 1% of the entire scientific community. I wouldn’t exactly call that a “debate”.
Evolution is a theory as well as creation but the true could very well lie between the two. God created the spark that started life so we do have creation. The path that his creation followed can be explained by using evolution. Man has a very finite mind and can grasp ideas such as nothing and yet everything is true. If we can think it then it is possible. science what is seen but religion is faith because we can not see it.
I quiet agree with this blog post. But evolution is surely a sign that God, in whatever form, exists or existed? I’m agnostic and that’s my argument for evolution. Evolution is like a computer program, it takes millions of years for the program to take effect, with the end result being intelligent, self-aware life. I don’t know why Christians dismiss the theory out of hand. The Jesus argument is a no go, I’m afraid. I believe Jesus was a man with Buddhist training, and not the son of God. A man that tried to teach people to love and respect one another. The message has got warped and twisted over the centuries by radicals. And saying the Bible is proof positive is like saying Dragons, Pixies, Elves, and Unicorns once existed. They never. The Bible was written by men and not God, plain and simple. And when Christians realise this fact then their religious views can evolve. Everything evolves and now it’s the turn of Christianity.
I assure you that Jesus Christ did not have Buddhist training, as you call it. He taught bodily resurrection, not escape from filthy bodies into the nirvana of non-being. If you read the scriptures, and if you study the ancient history of the Jews, you will find that Jesus was very much a Jew, not a Buddhist. He taught an “evolutionary”, if you will, progression of God’s interaction with his people through history, but a progression rooted in faithfulness to a very ancient covenant between God and man. That which evolved was that which was expendable for the greater purpose. That which remained was that which cannot evolve, because it is simply truth.
So can you explain why the Tibetan Buddhists believe in a man they call Saint Issa. Issa translates into “Jesus” from their language, a man they believe who came from the west to learn their teachings before returning back to west to spread the word? Can explain why a rosary has the same number of beads as a Buddhist prayer bracelet?
You should be trying to argue your view point on evolution rather than trying to find holes in my post.
You brought it up, my friend, so you opened yourself to a rebuttal from those who actually believe in Christ and honor the traditions of the church.
Prayer beads are a later invention of the church that Jesus would have known nothing about. Even the pope would probably admit to this.
As for Saint Issa, the book sounds to me like a fictional account written at a much later period in history. It is well known that Christian missionaries went to India at a very early period in church history (hence the existence of the “Thomas Christians”), yet the church has never had any memory of a supposed visit by Christ to India, save for this supposed 19th century discovery of a rather unconvincing text.
Heck, even the Jesus Seminary, which is as secular and unbelieving as biblical scholarship can get, regards the Issa document as a hoax.
Sorry, that’s “Jesus Seminar.”
My typing skills aren’t what they used to be….
Not to worry, my typing skills can be diabolical at times.
You do raise a fair point, but, like yourself, I’m entitled to my beliefs. Rebuttal is rather a harsh word. Sounds like God will fire thunderbolts at me! Anyway, moving on, the church may claim it to be a hoax, but the Bible mentions Jesus travelling before he started teaching. Where doesn’t it say he never visited Tibet or India? Remember, he didn’t start teaching until he was in his early 30s. What did he do with his time before that? Sit idle? I believe Jesus existed – heck, Roman records proves that he does – but like the Muslims, I believe he was a teacher and not the son of God. But we are getting off the beaten track here a little.
I believe that there is/was a God or universal force out there, whatever you like to call it. I’m agnostic, so we will call it God for arguments sake. My argument is evolution is proof of his/her/its exisitence. I don’t believe that its random. Like a computer program, it takes time to run, and starts off with basic commands ans builds up from there. There has even been signs of parallel evolution, seen in aquatic based dinosaurs and whales. Science can unlock the secrets of the universe for us and bring us closer to God. How can you deny evolution? Has God appeared to you and told you that it never took place? Do we accept the Bible word for word? Where there is scientific proof that evolution did take place, and still goes on around us even to this day.
In that case, I ask you, Has God appeared to you and told you that evolution did take place? As Christians, we have very good theological and historical reasons to disbelieve in evolution; and yet either way, none of us were there to watch it happen. It seems to me that it is often the evolutionists who are making the more outlandish claims about factual knowledge of a past they cannot honestly claim to know much of anything about. Seriously, how many times are we going to dig up a jawbone and build a fictional story about that jawbone’s evolutionary progress, culture, family life, eating habits, and place in chronology? I used to spend a lot of time trying to present scientific evidence that evolution is false. I seldom ever worry about doing that nowadays, because I have yet to be presented with any convincing evidence that it is true.
carbon dating is grossly inaccurate and inconsistent. That aside, the remainder of the discussion is for another thread.
Carbon dating is only 1 form of radiometric dating, and it is VERY accurate when used accurately. It is EXTREMELY accurate when used on artifacts of known age, which acts as a proof of concept.
Arguments against carbon dating usually consist of the following:
“Live snails are dated as being several thousand years old!”
“recently dead penguins are dated as being tens of thousands of years old!”
and the like. The problem with these arguments is that they’re arguing against a KNOWN LIMITATION of carbon dating, namely the Reservoir Effect.
Other arguments include the inability to use carbon dating to date fossilized dinosaur bones and the like. The problem with these is that you can’t carbon date something IN WHICH THERE IS NO CARBON. Some creationists have tried to get dino-bones carbon dated, but they ended up getting the dating of the organic preservative that was painted on the bones, instead of the bones themselves.
Your arguments against carbon dating are infantile.
Here are some other forms of radiometric dating, many of which overlap:
Uranium-lead dating method
Samarium-neodymium dating method
Potassium-argon dating method
Rubidium-strontium dating method
Uranium-thorium dating method
Radiocarbon dating method
Fission track dating method
Chlorine-36 dating method
Optically stimulated luminescence dating method
There are more, and they all use different elements, which decay differently. They have all been tested on artifacts of known age, and have all been shown to be accurate.
In summary – educate yourself on what you’re actually talking about before attempting to speak to it – you’ll look less like an idiot that way.
Many Christan Clergy believe in evolution and do not hold to a 10,000 year old earth. Witness more signatures than that to the Clergy Letter at:
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
None with a PhD has ever made the claim that Earth is 10,000 year old. So what does that tell you? The bible doesn’t talk about dinosaurs? We have prove that these creatures lived millions of years ago. The Earth is as old of 4 billions of years, that is a fact! I believe in Jesus too, I can easily reconcile any potential conflict of interest by citing the bible, and the fact that there are mysteries the mind can not comprehend.
Science is the only tool available to truly understand the workings of the universe. So that we can witness the amount of wonder and truth surrounding us. Of course God wants ignorant people to challenge the truth of his creation, by the way, nothing is created nor destroyed but transformed. I strongly believe in god, and I strongly believe in evolution. God doesn’t cheat nature, but allows it to flow freely. God wants to see the various shapes it takes, and god wants to allow us to enjoy that. Ignorant people believe the Earth was flat once, the church forgive Galileo in 1993 to the fact that the Earth was not the center of the universe. The church and religion does more harm than good, when it comes to acknowledging how the universe works!
Only science allows one to rationally, and calculative understand the mechanical universe, and admire how it all came into place.
Cheers!
LAF
Apparently your broad brush comment is proven incorrect.
You have not heard of this site http://www.icr.org
Dr. Henry Morris (a PhD) strongly believes in a young Earth.
Dr. Henry Morris was also discredited by the scientific community for his inherently non-scientific publications. I wouldn’t exactly hold him up as a model for your cause.
Wow, I only got about 15 comments down. There’s sure a lot of anger on this. It seems jackbauer searches for any blog in support of evolution and spouts of nonsense. I am a Christian. I believe God created the world and all of us. I also believe that God can’t just throw stuff around willy nilly because even God has to obey the laws of Science. This was a very well written article. Good job! Evolution is obviously a fact. Obviously! Like you said, it in no way says God didn’t create us. You can look back at fossils of humans over the last several hundreds of years and we got taller. We gained experience and learned how to avoid being eaten by animals because the dumb people got scarfed. Isn’t that exactly what evolution claims? Species will change over time and humans have done that in recorded history and so have other animals. Why is that offensive?
Who can say that God didn’t create the “origin” primate of man on the 5th day (or whenever he made mammals), let it cook for a few thousand years, and then come back and place Adam and Eve?
And who can say that the 7 days in the Bible mean 24 hours? God is omnipotent and omnipresent. He’s been around forever, right? Do you think 24 hours is ANYTHING to him? Really, that’s a flash for him. Maybe God’s day is 1 billion years or something. There’s no way to know right now.
The fact is this was a very interesting article (like I already said) and it’s certainly not worth arguing about or getting angry about. In fact, I got the feeling it was more of a peace making attempt between YEC’s and evolution. And doesn’t God want us all to be peacemakers?
For those of you that want VERY good “scientific” or rather the lack of scientific evidence for an Old Earth, I highly suggest you read this FREE PDF of a book found at
http://www.genesisveracity.com
http://www.genesisveracity.com/ebooks/OldEarthWhyNot.pdf
It questions and exposes many of the “scientific” held beliefs discussed here. For instance, the whole carbon dating problem. Which Mnementh2230 clearly contadicts himself,
“Carbon dating is only 1 form of radiometric dating, and it is VERY accurate when used accurately. It is EXTREMELY accurate when used on artifacts of known age, which acts as a proof of concept.”
After all, what is the purpose of carbon dating something of a KNOWN age?? More often than not, things of a known age that are carbon dated are found to be magnitudes of order off their real age.
“After all, what is the purpose of carbon dating something of a KNOWN age?? More often than not, things of a known age that are carbon dated are found to be magnitudes of order off their real age.”
Carbon dating something of a known age is a proof of concept, and can be used to test the accuracy of the dating method. Scientists have to do this, because we can’t just make shit up like you can in religion – you test something of a known age, and see how accurate your measurement is. You can then further refine the measurement to gain more accuracy. That you are ignorant of how this works speaks to how scientifically illiterate you are.
PLEASE show me even one example of something of a known age, NOT SUBJECT TO THE RESERVOIR EFFECT, that has been off by an order of magnitude. If you don’t know what the reservoir effect is, look it up and educate yourself.
And carbon dating can’t be used to date an old earth – it’s only accurate out to about 60,000 years old. It works by measuring the amount of Carbon-14 in an object, Carbon-14 being a radioactive isotope of carbon with a half-life of 5,730 years. Beyond 60,000 years old, the amounts of Carbon-14 in an object are too small to measure.
2 hours later, still waiting…
oops, 1 hour, my bad – the time stamps on the blog are an hour off from my clock.
thank you for pointing out the reservoir effect… carbon dating is not something I ever bothered looking much into… appreciate the suggestion, very informative =]
I’m looking at your Old Earth, Why not! book… so far, I’m not impressed. The first chapter has a lot of conjecture, and a lot of blind acceptance of historical records with NO physical evidence to support them.
I’ll keep going, but I suspect it’s more of the same.
all of you who dont believe there is a God who controls things from the supernatural and that everything must be explained logically, how do you explain medical miracles go ask any doctor about how many cases they see about(well known) diseases which they diagnose using medical science and make their predictions based on well known established and tested theories and suddenly the growth dissapears the person becomes totally healed!A miracle you would say, but how does science and facts prove that?
hehe go as any doctor whether he knows everything possible about the human body, and you will realize that it is possible these ‘miracles’ could be anything, from a chance beneficial genetic abnormality in the patient to an infection of a benign micro-organism that is able to out-compete the pathogen to, yes, the hand of almighty god. It literally could be anything. Until we have a device that can scan, analyze, and explain every molecule in your body, I’d be a little wary of miracles.
Absolute knowledge of every possible natural explanation is not necessary to believe in a miracle. That is like saying that I cannot believe that the mailman delivered my mail unless I have absolute knowledge of every other possible explanation of anything that could have caused my mail to arrive in my box.
Thus, just as it is possible that a number of cosmic forces may have come together to put my mail in my mailbox without the help of the mailman, it is possible that some bizarre cosmic forces just happened to come into play to protect Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace and also produce an apparition of an angel. Nevertheless, it is acceptable to believe these things.
I agree it is not necessary to know anything at all to believe in a miracle, but it may be necessary to refute a ‘miracle’. It all comes down to your opinion of whether or not everything has a natural explanation. And yes, it can only be an opinion.
A man was recently bitten by a spider and was able to walk again after years as a paraplegic. Why would you assume it was God and not a not yet known scientific phenomena?
This is how science progresses. We see something happen that’s unexplained and instead of stupidly saying “God done did it! praise Jesus!” we actually find out what happened and help people in the end.
The truth is that I’m not the least bit interested in your opinion, so long as you continue in your disrespectful and arrogant attitude. But I’d like to set you straight on what you think you know about Christians.
“God” is not merely a way to explain away things we don’t understand. In fact, I would argue that what we typically call “understanding” is merely observing patterns in nature (gravity, the freezing of water, etc.) and then pretending that this gives us some deep understanding of how and why it works the way it does, but I digress….
In Christianity, EVERYTHING is in a sense a miracle. It isn’t just the unusual occurrences that point to God. Rather, everything that exists is here because of God. It used to be popular to speak of “Providence,” which is how God works out his design through the mundane every-day activities of our lives.
The difference between a Miracle with a capital M and the miracles of our everyday lives is that we are so accustomed to the latter that we forget how amazing those things really are. The error is not in attributing the unexplainable to God, but in assuming that the “explainable” needs no explanation beyond a closed system of natural processes.
For the atheist, the universe is what it is because, for reasons unknown, it could not have been otherwise. For the Christian, the universe could have been entirely different, and the magic of our lives is found in the discovery that God gave us life and placed us on this earth with trees and forests and oceans when he could very well have chosen not to.
From a Christian point of view, a miracle is as natural as the high tide and low tide. Both were created by and are sustained by God. The difference is that the tides have been here from the beginning, while the Miracle of the healed cancer patient or the resurrected corpse is a case of God stepping in from outside the system and tweaking what he has already created.
To say “there must be a natural explanation” is no more rational than to say “there can only be a supernatural explanation.” But are assumptions based on radically different and fundamental views of reality. But of course, from our perspective, all phenomenon are both natural and miraculous, and the only question is what kind of mixture of the two.
lol you think I’m an atheist? who’s arrogant again?
Ask a doctor if he’s seen something truly unexplainable, like a limb growing back. People get cancer all the time and don’t even know it. There body just fights it and its over. No miracle to be had just an effective immune system doing its job thanks to millions of years of evolutionary fine tuning.
If we could expend less effort on ad hominem attacks that amount to nothing more than “you’re a stupid face, so I win,” maybe we could have a real debate and actually learn something.
But alas, these threads always disappoint. No one is going to convince anyone of anything when you’re only here to insult your enemies and puff up your friends.
Too true, there’s too much anger and irritation on both sides. It’s a pity really because it is quite possible for people of different ideas to get along and have intelligent conversations. For example my best friend is an atheist and I am an independent baptist.
Threads like this leave me feeling sad. People’s inability to apply their own logic and judgment on themselves makes me wonder how blind we really are.
Hello, girl with cute user pic.
You want to know how blind we are? Paul answers that question in the book of Romans. Depraved minds, hard hearts and whatnot.
We should finish this conversation at the Steak ‘n Shake.
Yes, I am shamelessly flirting with a complete stranger.
Haha.
You’re funny. I’m flattered but I gotta say I’m happily engaged to the love of my life.
I admire how level-headed you’ve been in your posts though. I especially liked your back and forth about whether Christ had Buddhist training.
And you probably don’t live in South Florida, either. Nevertheless, somebody needed to lighten up the conversation.
Lol, nope nope. You’d have been screwed if I said sure and was though, eh? I’m a Georgia girl personally, woot! Yay for the south! ^.^
This conversation does need to be lightened up, you’re right.
People take everything and themselves WAAAAY too seriously. Cause you know…we’re gonna accomplish so much here today with “you’re wrong” “no you’re wrong”.
you’re both wrong.
No, you’re wrong!! :: points finger ::
#4 – Most laypeople who defend evolution don’t even know this. In fact, in my experience, evolutionists are the least likely to know that one.
And those of us who believe in God find it maddening as well to have to talk to people who will spit on our faces and raise their voices and call down ‘reason’ and yet don’t know what in the world they’re talking about.
Bravo to you for actually knowing and understanding what you believe.
Oh, God forbid anyone should say we “came from monkeys.”
What is the big freaking deal? Whether or not humans evolved from any other animal is not an important point, except to species bigots.
I know. Sure, you think humans are way better, way more important, than other species. I’ll bet most monkeys think monkeys are more important.
My dog has a better attitude. She likes some people, and dislikes others. She feels the same way about various dogs. She’s not a bigot.
It’s funny how you can be talking to someone, or reading something, and thinking this is a rational, level-headed individual.
Then suddenly they start to say something like, “And that’s what sets humans apart from the animals.”
Sorry, but it’s crap. You are more complicated than a flatworm. Your superiority to dolphins is in question.
You are not at the apex of an evolutionary pyramid. You are mixed up in the middle of the web of life.
There’s no telling what species might eventually evolve from the current human species, or the current cuttlefish.
Get over yourselves.
I am curious to know what is the problem if someone thinks the earth is young. How does that affect your day to day life? If one man thinks the earth is approx. 10,000 y/o and another man thinks it is billions, how does that seriously affect there relationship as co-workers and friends. They may have a disagreement, but is that a problem? What if there was another man who thought that in order for evolution to pan out the way it’s purported he believed based upon what he has read that 8-10 billion years it WAY too young and after reading has determined it has to be trillions of years not billions. 10,000 years is .0000001 of 10 billion and 10 billion is .001 of 10 trillion. Both are much younger that the trillion year projection. Does not affect how I live day to day. SO…get over it.
I am sorry but you are clearly ignorant of what the post states. If you are going to dispute evolution please inform yourself as to what the theory entails and what it does not. The post said nothing of persons who erroneously (in my opinion) believe the earth is ten days or ten thousand years old and do not attempt to dispute the theory of evolution.
The problem is much deeper than a simple misunderstanding of the age of the Earth. It may not affect your day-to-day life, but “this song ain’t about you”. It’s about ensuring that science remains scientific. It becomes personal in situations like in Dover, PA, when they tried to get Creationism (thinly veiled as ID) into the classrooms as an “opposing theory”. ID is neither a theory nor a valid opposition to evolution. Yet its proponents would have the children going to this school believing that a legitimate, scientific debate is going on about this “new, powerful theory”. This is the kind of thing that makes these debates matter.
Everyone IS entitled to their belief. But the YEC seems to think that their belief is the absolute truth and no one should think any different That’s the problem!
I have to say that I both love and hate discussions like this. I love the fact that Christians attempt to engage those who hold different positions or different worldviews. However, I hate the fact that Christians often come across as belligerent, super dogmatic, and at times, unloving. It’s almost like Christians are afraid (or at least we come across as fearful or ignorant) when we engage the world or those with different world views.
I have already tipped my hand that I am a Christian. I believe and know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Having said that, it should be understood that my basis for authority is the Holy Bible. I make no apologies for that. However, those that are not Christians define their own authority. I say this because a lot of friction in the conversations we have with those that differ can be eliminated if we just say up front what our basis of authority is.
It really comes down to two things: 1) Is your authority based in objective absolute truth or is it 2) based in subjective self-defined thoughts, observations, and opinions? Evolution does base its understanding on observation, deductive reasoning, and hypothesis. Let’s not forget that Evolution is a theory, and not proven fact.
In rebuttal, the evolutionist could say that I as a Christian do the same thing. The evolutionist can say to the Christian that there is no evidence to base our faith on. That is simply not true. However, it comes down to perception and acceptance of truth. Human beings are born with the natural tendency to be self-reliant, self-absorbed, self-promoting, self-preserving, self-defining, etc. That is human nature. Human nature is to reject anything that usurps our own self-determined authority to do whatever we want to do. It takes something supernatural to change that. It takes the work of the Spirit of God to change that nature and give a new nature.
So, my challenge to Christians is this (and I ask this of myself as well): are we more interested in proving that we are right, or are we more interested in supernaturally demonstrating the love of Christ as a means of showing the greatness of God? For a human being to abandon the pursuit of natural tendencies for the sake of laying down his or her life to love and serve others is the greatest testimony of the existence and power of our great God. Only the gospel of Christ makes this possible, and only those united to Christ by faith can demonstrate the goodness and greatness of God this way.
Now, before the evolutionist accuses me of copping out of the essence of the discussion, I will say there are scientific, historical, and Biblical reasons for my faith in our Sovereign Creator revealed in Christ Jesus. However, it seems to me that before we can even get that far, we must first establish the fact that we as Christians are not perfect, we are in much need of our gracious Lord’s forgiveness, and we frankly don’t have all of the answers. Yet, we can intelligently, lovingly, and responsibly engage those who differ with us.
Mr. or Ms. Evolutionist, I’m praying for you and I pray that we as a Christian community might have honest, open, and loving dialogue with you. I pray that Christians would indeed reflect the love of Christ in our conversations with you and I pray that above all things God would get the glory for the great things he has done. I write this in much love and with the desire for Christ to be known for the awesome King that he is. Blessings to you.
You are an incredibly well spoken man and I applaud you for this post. You are correct in every way and you make a wonderful testament for yourself and your life here.
> Let’s not forget that Evolution is a theory, and not proven fact.
OK, but let’s concede these facts:
Organisms with traits that make them better at surviving and producing viable offspring will.
Those traits that make them better at surviving and producing viable offspring will be passed to the offspring.
Traits not in the parents will sometimes show up in the offspring.
What was your point again?
Oh, yeah, open dialogue. I would like to openly say I don’t see any problem with teaching evolutionary theory in public, secular schools.
It is based on scientific observation and common sense.
I would like to openly say that teaching creationism, or intelligent design, and “young earth” theories in such schools would be wrong, because it’s religion, not science.
Believing in it requires either ignoring or taking a twisted view at all scientific evidence.
Love your God.
Pray for me.
Send your kids to private parochial schools where they can learn about talking snakes and such if you want.
Forget about trying to get pseudo-science into public schools.
I come from a Christian background, so I understand and can appreciate your point of view. However, let me give you some advice: please stop saying evolution is a “theory, not a fact”. It only illustrates your misconception of what a theory is.
A scientific theory is a COLLECTION of facts. That life evolves and changes over time is a FACT. The process by which this happens is the THEORY. In science, there is no higher level of understanding than a theory. That goes for atomic theory, gravitation theory, cell theory, germ theory, etc. In order for a hypothesis to have the elevated title of “theory” means that is has been tested and peer reviewed, and that it is falsifiable. Not only is evolution falsifiable, it has withstood 150 years of testing and peer review. Any scientist who could disprove evolution would do so in a heartbeat. It is FAR more proven than, say, General Relativity, which is used by GPS receivers every day. Evolution theory is the keystone of modern biology, and is INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMED by every field of it.
I am only bringing this up because it has been my experience that most Creationists simply have no clue just how solid a theory evolution is. The idea proposed by the likes of the Discovery Institute that there is doubt about evolution in the scientific community is simply not true. The ONLY arena in which debate over evolution exists is in the uneducated masses. I do not mean that in a derogatory way; I consider myself as one of the uneducated, simply because I am not a scientist.
The problem with authority, as you put it, is that in order to consider the Bible to be a source of authority you must first believe that the Bible is a source of authority. In other words, it is absolute truth only to one who believes that it is the inerrant Word of God. This is where faith comes in. Science, on the other hand, never makes a claim of authority. Rather, science is an ongoing attempt to make sense of the world around us based on observational evidence and deductive reasoning. For this reason, one does not need any faith (and in fact science does not allow for it) in order to accept what science has told us. Any scientific idea is open for discussion, modification, and falsification. Those who accept what science teaches us do not do so on the premise of authority, but rather because it cannot be shown to be wrong. If new evidence DOES show a scientific theory to be wrong, then the theory is modified to account for this new data. Because of this, it is useless to argue against science based on merit of authority. If you want to debunk a scientific idea, the ONLY way to do it is to set up your own experiment and PROVE that it is false. In the specific case of evolution, this would be quite easy. Find just one fossil that exists in the completely wrong strata. For instance, a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian strata. If evolution theory is correct, this should NEVER happen. However, if evolution is wrong and, say, fossils exist due to the Flood (as many YECs claim), we should find this all over the place. There wouldn’t be ANY order of fossils according to their strata. Once again this is not a question of authority; it is a simple falsification test.
Anyway, I in no way intended for my post to offend. I simply wanted to point out the differences between science and religion; they are not at all the same. Acceptance of evolution requires NO faith, and in fact encourages doubtful, critical thinking.
^^ what he said
You seem a good sort, and I do not want to seem disrespectful. But your comment really didn’t say much. Your assertion that
“It really comes down to two things: 1) Is your authority based in objective absolute truth or is it 2) based in subjective self-defined thoughts, observations, and opinions?” There is no verifiable ‘objective absolute truth’. David Hume destroyed the concept several hundred years ago. It does not exist. Thus, observation and hypothesis testing is the only way in which we can have confidence in what we think we know.
“Let’s not forget that Evolution is a theory, and not proven fact.” Actually, evolution IS a proven fact. Rather, it is a whole set of facts from quite disparate disciplines, such as paleontology, geology, embryology, comparative morphology, cladistics, genetics, molecular biology, selective breeding – all point to one fact: a progression of speciation through time. There is no biologist that doubts this, not even Christian ones. So much is dependent on our knowledge of evolution, including treatment of bacterial and viral diseases. Christian geologists dismiss the Flood story because fossils are so useful in finding oil. In fact, without knowing the time frame of rocks from a knowledge of fossils there would be no oil industry.
Evolution is also a theory. This is where the confusion comes in. It is both fact and theory. Natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift – the theory of evolution – all explain the fact of evolution.
“For a human being to abandon the pursuit of natural tendencies for the sake of laying down his or her life to love and serve others is the greatest testimony of the existence and power of our great God. Only the gospel of Christ makes this possible, and only those united to Christ by faith can demonstrate the goodness and greatness of God this way.” It is only a testament to their belief and nothing as to the truth of their belief. Christians have also killed those that maintained their belief in science. Galileo lived a good portion of the end of his life under house arrest. Bruno was burned alive at the stake because what he found through observation and experiment didn’t coincide with what the Church taught. Both were very religious men. Hypatia, the last head librarian at the Library of Alexandria and undoubtedly a remarkable woman, was flayed alive with abalone shells by a Christian mob because she represented something the early Church despised: knowledge. I have no doubt that a belief in god has inspired great good. I also have no doubt it has also inspired great evil. All dogmatic ideologies have this ability.
“The evolutionist can say to the Christian that there is no evidence to base our faith on. That is simply not true.” I respectfully disagree. There is not one shred of evidence to support the veracity of any religion. If there were, I would be the first amongst believers. But bad philosophy leading to, an utter paucity of evidence in favor of, and a completely untestable (and therefor valueless) hypothesis for any god’s existence tells me to maintain the null hypothesis (i.e., no gods exist).
My friend, shamelesslyatheist, I wish I had the time and energy to discuss this here in depth. I want to have a meaningful conversation regarding science and how it relates to faith; I want to avoid a “tit for tat” back and forth that’s indicative of the very types of conversations I condemned in my earlier comment. At this point in my life, I’m one that is better suited preparing those that might engage you (plural) on a regular basis concerning these very things.
My motivation for commenting before was not to enter friendly or prolonged debate. Rather, it was to state a clear position, generally define the differences, and encourage Christians to be loving and responsible in dialogue with those that differ.
You said, “Christians have also killed those that maintained their belief in science. Galileo lived a good portion of the end of his life under house arrest. Bruno was burned alive at the stake because what he found through observation and experiment didn’t coincide with what the Church taught. Both were very religious men.”
Unfortunately, this is true. However, allow me to briefly share with you a distinct difference between those acting in the name of Christianity compared to those that are truly Christians. People acting in the name of Christianity have given the church (in general) a bad name. From perversions in basic Christian doctrine, to violent reactions to those that had global effects, people acting in the name of Christianity have given people a “bad taste” of religion. My friend, mankind is already born with the predisposition to hate God and absolute authority; those acting wrongly in the name of Christianity just further that natural enmity towards God.
In direct contrast, those that are truly Christians don’t advocate in good conscience things that directly oppose the teachings of scripture. Church leaders and government officials have for centuries manipulated, condemned, and oppressed people in the “name of God.” I directly condemn that, and I do so with the authority of Scripture. May those that falsely speak in the name of Christ without knowing Christ be put to silence.
I can’t begin to tell you how many people I’ve talked with over the past many years that reject Christ, the Bible, and the church because of 1) Historical failure of the church (Crusades, oppression in the Middle Ages, etc) or 2) Viewing the modern church as a bunch of hypocrites because of a bad experience from attending church.
I would just ask you (and everyone) to realize that those acting in the name of Christianity are not necessarily those that are true Christians. Jesus said you would know true believers by the fruit they bear (good works they do) as a result of being changed by Christ. Watch, even within the church, and you will see the true believers verses those that are not truly saved. Judge the church on the converted, not the unconverted.
Blessings to you!
To the believers:
If you want to believe in and revolve every action in your life around heaven and hell, by all means go ahead. I am in no position to dictate your beliefs and neither is anybody else on here. After all, God has given you the power to believe in whatever YOU want to believe in… right?
To the open-minded:
You may be above religion, but you are by no means above belief. If that were really true, you could walk off a cliff and not believe you’ll fall down in trying to prove how ’100% open-minded’ you are. At the end of the day, evidence is how we interpret it in our brains… and that interpretation is what we call ‘proof’.
It does not matter how many times we prove each other right or wrong, it does not matter how many steps we climb, it does not matter how infinite our creativity is… we will not reach the end of the universe.
But if we STOP attacking each other for being HUMANS… if we stop telling each other’s brains to betray ourselves and go against what we purposefully, not logically, believe in, then we will be more than ready to thrive at many new levels of happiness. You cannot turn personalities on themselves – they will break even the rules of logical reasoning to keep it intact.
So…
Believers in God: do your God a favour and stop smiting those who do not believe. Start making peace and start learning to trust the right teachers.
Learners of evidence: do humanity a favour and experiment with respecting illogical reasoning. Clearly, nobody is going to make you believe in anything – you have no fear to base your war of truth upon.
I disagree with your dichotomy between “believers” and the “learners of evidence”. Until modernity and romanticism perverted the seminaries into bastions of unbelief, it was always assumed that faith and reason were inter-related. As Christians, we understand that God himself is the source of all wisdom and knowledge. We even call Jesus Christ the “Logos”, which is an ancient word for “reason” or “logic”. St. Augustine once said, “I believe, in order that I may understand.” This means that until we put our trust in God, our feeble minds will have a distorted view of the nature and meaning of the universe, since God himself is the source. God may not be physical, but that does not make him a thing entirely separate from reason. Much of what we call “reason” relates to things we do not directly experience with the senses, such as mathematical equations and our belief in our own memories. We can put a human brain in a laboratory and poke it, but we cannot touch, taste, or smell a single human thought. We cannot study love or hate or pain or consciousness itself as we would study a physical object. They are related, yes, and yet they are incredibly different.
Actually, Martin Luther himself understood the fact that faith and reason were mortal enemies. He stated many times that reason must be suppressed in order for faith to flourish. That being said, there is a difference between “reason” and “understanding”, and even “knowledge”. Knowledge may be correct or incorrect. You may know all there is to know about the Shinto gods, but that doesn’t mean they actually exist. Understanding, likewise, is merely a subjective experience that may or may not reflect reality. The ancient Greeks “understood” that the world was comprised of 4 basic elements. It is only when you add reason to the equation that knowledge and understanding have any real meaning.
The dichotomy that was made here was in reference to those who hold a belief because their interpretation of the Bible warrants it, regardless of what the evidence tells scientists. In other words, YECs. The evidence is clearly in favor of an old Earth and old universe; to claim otherwise is simple ignorance. I’m sorry, but it is. In this manner, those who believe in a young Earth are not following reason; rather, they are stubbornly holding to a belief because they “know” that their “understanding” of the Bible is correct.
Luther did call reason a whore, yes. But he did not really believe that reason and faith were mortal enemies; rather, that human reason apart from Divine Revelation is a whore. There is a big difference.
For the Christian, the Bible IS evidence, and it is valid evidence, based on the idea of reliable authority. Everyone submits to authority, whether they admit it or not, especially in the fields of history and natural history. The question is simply whose.
History is indeed an interesting subject in that you must submit to what others have written, but it is not science. Science submits to NO authority because it is falsifiable. Anybody can prove any scientific theory wrong, provided they have the evidence to do so. This is actually encouraged. No scientist simple believes what he or she is told based on the authority of other scientists. In fact, the concept of authority, or any political archetype for that matter, has no place in the realm of science. It is purely objective.
So you’re telling me that every scientists is required to conduct every single experiment on his own that was ever done by everyone else? You’re telling me that each scientist must re-invent the wheel? Rather, I’ll bet my money that few if any of the people commenting on this blog have conducted a major science experiment in their lives. Yet, they claim to know the “facts” of science. This, my friend, is submission to human authority.
But there is another kind of authority as well. The authority of the logical principles and fundamental beliefs that we assume to be true. For instance, there is the scientific method itself. How can you prove the scientific method without being circular? There is our belief in memory, and our belief that something will always happen a particular way simply because it happened that way in the experiments. Now, I believe very much in memory, and I believe in the value of science, but when you claim objective, unbiased fact divorced from all authority, you are simply mistaken, sir.
ouch you made me think. Actually thanks, I just had a major reality check if you know what I mean. Always a refreshing experience.
Just doing my job, sir. Just doing my job….
the memory thing gets me every time… no way to wrap my teeny head around the fact that my memories aren’t what I think they are
No, they are not required to. However, they have the ability to, should they chose. It is not authority they are accepting from other scientists; rather, they are choosing to use the findings of others to build their own work on. Remember, scientists work in a community. That means that every time hypothesis is published in hopes of becoming a theory, several other groups of scientists will review it first, and if they find no flaws will then proceed to attempt to duplicate the result. This is done in a double-blind method, as to ensure each test is completely independent of the others. If the test is repeatable and the results can be duplicated, then the hypothesis becomes a working theory. Because of this, every theory science currently has is already well-tested before it is even considered to be used. This is not the only check against a given theory, however. Scientists will then continue to try to disprove said theory, especially the popular ones. Why? Because that means notoriety and prestige.
As for assuming logical principles and all the rest, now you’re just getting philosophical
Really, when it boils down to it, all you can truly prove is your own existence, and not even the nature thereof. Practically, all we have to go on is logic and our own senses. We know our senses are flawed, and we know even the best logic can lead to wrong conclusions without all the details. This is exactly why we developed the scientific method, to counter against these weaknesses. It may not be perfect, but it has been successful enough to give us all the technology we currently enjoy, including the computer you are currently staring at. I still wouldn’t call this a submission to authority, as it has been tested and shown to work. However, just as any scientific theory, it the scientific method were to fail us, we would need to reevaluate it. Our own methodology would have to adapt. Herein lies the difference between religious belief and scientific acceptance. If new evidence proves an old way of thinking wrong, in science the theory changes. In religion, however, it is immediately assumed that the evidence is wrong, or misinterpreted. This is why religion DOES submit to authority, whether that be the Bible, a particular church’s doctrine, or a self-held notion.
Sorry, my friend, but authority by any other name is still authority. You can call it “community”, but it is still a matter of one person believing a thing because he trusts the word of another. Authority is important for scientists as it is for all of us. It is why we believe in the value of colleges and universities. All of this is based on authority. Not authority alone, of course, because nothing exists in a vacuum. But without the idea of authority, there would be no education. Nearly everything you claim to know about science is really only what you’ve been told by other scientists or people reporting what was told to them by those scientists.
In Christianity, we have both authority and reason, and we know that it is reasonable to accept authority while also being discerning. Without reason, we would have a hard time differentiation heresy from heterodoxy. But without authority, we would never arrive at a meaningful knowledge of our most sacred doctrines, because we could not have discovered them on our own.
Well then our definition of “authority” is different. Mine is accepting a belief because you are told to, not because you trust the opinions of others. The difference between a scientific community and a religious one is that in science, “heresy” is encouraged. Of course every scientist can’t test every single theory for themselves. They don’t have to because the very act of using these theories is a test of its own. But rest assured that SOMEBODY is testing these theories, and will prove them wrong if they can. This is the opposite environment as religion. In religion, you believe what you are taught, and dissent is strongly discouraged. I’m not saying it’s not tolerated (except in some Muslim communities), but it is certainly discouraged. The further away from the established opinion one gets, the closer he or she is to being branded a heretic. There are no real paradigm shifts in religion, unless a culture has changed so radically that the religion has no choice but to adapt. However, this never happens as the result of one person (though I will make an exception for Martin Luther, even though he was technically getting the church back to its roots, not away from them).
Science builds upon the previous discoveries of others, no question. But it is not knowledge based on authority. We accept the conclusions of others provisionally. If something is wrong with previous conclusions that new hypotheses are drawn from, it isn’t long before it is plainly obvious that something is very wrong. We then go back to determine the fault and correct it. That’s the beauty of it. This is how science is self-correcting. Blind alleys and (the surprisingly few) outright frauds are always found out eventually. No such thing has happened in developing the theory of natural selection. There has simply not been any ugly fact that refutes evolution – no rabbits in the Cambrian, so to speak. However, there are many ugly facts which refute creation. For instance, why do we have a gene encoding the enzyme which synthesizes vitamin C that is broken?
Or was that an ad hominem too?
Thank you so much for this post
I am a Christian and I don’t think the earth is billions of years old, but I do agree with you that YEC as you call them are going about it all wrong. I don’t think that Christians need to go on the offensive or defensive on anything at all. It just makes us look like we only reacting to culture which makes us look weak. Come on Christians. God gave us brains, so we need to use them. If evolution is wrong, go out there and prove it. Our argument must be more than just crocoduck.
@ Reena # 8
>>”I bow down to you.”
what she said!
Salam Alaykum (may peace be upon you),
I’m Muslim, and even i can agree with you that the apparent Young Earth Creationists has highly illogical views, and is unable to back up what they say. To say that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old is as ignorant as things can possible get.
With so many comments, mine may never even read. But anyway…
Science, as a discipline, attempts to answer questions. The scientific method is an organized approach to gathering and collecting data. As an evangelical Christian, I understand that the theory of evolution does just that; it looks at a fact, biodiversity, and offers a theory – the best guess with the data we have – as to how or why this fact might be. I have no problem with that; it’s good science.
What science cannot do, and I have trouble getting both sides of the argument to understand, is either prove or disprove that there is a God. God exists (or does not exist could be your viewpoint) outside of the realm of science. God cannot be scientifically proven to exist by Christians. Nor can atheists prove – not with good science – that God does not exist. I wish the reigious and non-reigious alike could come to terms on this.
LET ME SAY THIS TO CHRISTIANS: yelling and screaming at each other some more is not God’s will. We needed a savior, and he sent one. If he thought we needed a science book, he would have given us that instead of the Bible. You can’t PROVE you’re right. Deal.
Thank you for leaving this well reasoned comment. I assure you I read it and I hope others do as well.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Well said.
I challenge you to do some introspection and consider what you really mean, what any of us mean, by the word “prove.” What does it mean to “prove” that something is true? And is it invalid to believe in something if we do not have “proof” that it is true? Is it even humanly possible to have an honest belief in an idea while simultaneously knowing that we cannot prove our belief? And what of faith? Is faith the opposite of proof, or merely a synonym for belief?
These may sound like commonsense questions, but they are not. Vast volumes of philosophy have been written as a result of different answers to these questions.
For my part, I would say that if “proof” is defined as absolute certainty of a particular piece of truth, then proof is something only God himself can enjoy, because a finite mind can only have finite knowledge. More likely, what we want to mean by “proof” is a “demonstration of a thing’s truthfulness” or a “strongly convincing demonstration of a thing’s truthfulness.” In that case, a Christian must confess that Christ’s revelation of Himself, and the Holy Spirit’s testimony to that revelation, is the greatest proof of all.
For me, the greatest argument in favor of theism is the lack of a coherent argument for an alternative; just as the greatest argument in favor of the law of non-contradiction is the lack of a coherent argument for the alternative (because a coherent argument itself is a product of the law of non-contradiction). Humans were designed to live in a certain kind of world — a reasonable, moral, and God-created world. Outside of those parameters, human thought falls to pieces.
“Proof” exists only in the realms of mathematics and law, at least in the case of positive proof. However, in science negative proof does in fact exist, and happens all the time. This is how we discredit old theories and formulate new ones. When we say a theory is falsifiable, what we mean is that it can in fact be proved wrong.
It is not invalid to believe in something of which there is no proof…that is how I define belief. Faith is when that belief is defended as knowledge. However, an important thing to realize is that, even though one may believe he or she holds absolute truth (i.e. faith), that does not mean he or she actually possesses knowledge, but merely a belief. The difference between a belief in an unknown and acceptance of a scientific theory is that a theory inherently DOES contain factual knowledge. While it is impossible to positively prove any given theory by means of the scientific method, it IS possible to prove it wrong. This is why an idea is only elevated to the status of “theory” AFTER it has withstood double blind testing and peer review. This assures that the theory in question, while not necessarily absolute truth, is at least on the right track. The negative proof, in this case, speaks positively about the theory that has held up. To illustrate this, think about the famous Thomas Edison quote when asked if he felt like a failure after 1000 futile attempts to create a light bulb: “Not at all…I have found 1000 ways in which it doesn’t work!”.
This is why one must be wary of ANY claims at TRUTH, as, like you said, positive proof is something only God can enjoy (with the exception of mathematics, of course!) Unfortunately, personal experiences do not count as proof, because we KNOW that our psyche and our senses are completely fallible. By the same reasoning that does not permit us to claim positive proof for any scientific theory, we must also say that nothing can give us positive proof of God’s existence (as defined in the Bible). Even if God himself were to appear physically in front of every person on the planet, there would be no definitive way of knowing whether or not this being was in fact the Yahweh mentioned in the Bible. This is of course an absurd example but I am using it to illustrate a point. If such an event cannot be seen as absolute proof, why should a single, subjective experience be? It may certainly be enough to convince you, but that does not make it proof, nor does it make your “knowledge” truth.
By saying the best argument for theism is a lack of a coherent argument for the alternative, you are setting up a false dichotomy. That’s like saying that the best argument for the existence of UFO’s is a lack of a coherent argument for an alternative. The problem with proving the existence of God is that the question itself is not falsifiable. This is why it remains a matter of faith. But please realize that having faith in something does not mean you possess TRUTH.
I see where you’re going with the UFO comment, and you’re right as far as that goes, but I should have explained myself more thoroughly. I said the most convincing argument for me is the lack of an alternative, but I did not say it is the only one. My unspoken assumption in that statement was that there is in fact a coherent and convincing argument FOR the existence of God, which is what makes the lack of a coherent alternative so stunning to me. Also, it is important to note that we basically know what all the possible alternatives ARE, because there aren’t very many. To again use the UFO story, it would be this: “There is a compelling reason to belief that that thing in the sky is an alien spacecraft. There is also a compelling lack of any coherence in any of the possible alternatives.”
I noticed that you haven’t really explained what proof is, though you apparently limit it to math and law for an unexplained reason.
Your assumption that God is not falsifiable is a big one, which goes back to the false dichotomy between faith and reason — i.e., that we can only “know” what is in the material world. I say that God is indeed falsifiable. If God did not create the universe, then the universe should reflect the sort of things we would expect to find in a universe that has no God. Conversely, the Apostle Paul teaches that the truth of God is clearly evident in nature even to the heathens.
“If God did not create the universe, then the universe should reflect the sort of things we would expect to find in a universe that has no God.”
If by alternatives you mean “Intelligent Design” or “No Intelligent design”, then yes, there are only two options. However, ID doesn’t exactly narrow it down. Even were we to eliminate the “No ID” option, Yahweh wouldn’t be even close to the only other possibility. Therefore, if you are arguing for the existence of the God of the Bible, you have to consider that your logic stops there. Suddenly you have a near-infinite number of options competing for the Creator position.
To clarify, proof is the absence of any reason for doubt, however small. For instance, this exists in mathematics because you can easily “prove” that 2+2=4. This works because the equation is defined by the rules that govern mathematics. That is, it 2+2 cannot possible be anything other than 4. Proof in a courtroom is a legal term and does not mean the same thing, so please discard that. In science, negative proof exists because certain evidence can definitively show that a theory is wrong. However, because omniscience is not something humanity can ever attain, positive proof in science simply does not exist. There is always room for doubt, even if entertaining it is ridiculously silly. This goes for laws, theories, and even facts.
Let’s assume that your claim about God’s falsifiability is correct. How do we know what to expect to find in a universe with no God? How do we know what to expect to find in a universe WITH God? Answering these questions presumes knowledge of the very nature of God, and by that I mean extensive knowledge. What we CAN test, however, is whether or not the stories laid out in Genesis are true. For instance, if the Flood really happened, we would expect to find evidence of that. By evidence, I mean clear sedimentation that happens during every flooding event. We know exactly what to look for, and yet have found no such evidence world-wide. Another example is the fossil record. Were the stories in Genesis true, we would expect a couple things. First, we shouldn’t really see anything unfamiliar, since mankind should have been on the planet as long as the rest of its inhabitants. Second, there should be absolutely no order to the fossils we do find. Human fossils should be mixed up with all other kinds. If, for instance, you were to take the notion that humans and dinosaurs lived together, we should find human fossils in the same strata as dino fossils. There should be absolutely NO ordering to how various types of animals are buried. However, this is most certainly not the case. Not only is there an order, it is 100% consistent. We NEVER find human and dino fossils together, we NEVER find bunnies in the Cambrian, etc. A third thing we would expect to find is evidence of the mass exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. I am not talking about Egyptian writings; I am well aware the Egyptians were not accustomed to recording their failures. Rather, I am talking about the sort of thing you’d expect to find when over a million people roam a very small portion of desert for 40 years. You’d find archaeological evidence all over the area. Yet, none has ever been found.
These stories are indeed falsifiable, and by your logic have already been debunked.
(BTW Paul also taught that women should never be in leadership positions…not sure I wanna take much advice from him
)
I like this comment.
People seem to want to turn this into a debate about proof over whether there’s a God, and forget that the debate is actually about evolution, which is a different question. Atheists snark at Christians, Christians snark at atheists, pro-evolution Christians get frustrated, and the question of the earth’s actual age is pushed to the background.
All this happens because most people don’t really have an emotional investment in carbon dating– they have one in their beliefs (or lack thereof) regarding the epistemological state of God. Evolution is the battleground where people want to argue about all that.
However, some people just want to go on doing science, not because it provokes this debate but because they want to do good science. Those people are in it for the best possible reasons. And they’re the ones I want in charge of teaching our children science– people who are doing it not because of what it means for their ideology, but because it’s good science. Funnily enough, those people always turn out to support evolution.
The only reason I can believe in a young Earth is this: according to the Bible, God created Adam and Eve with age. He didn’t make a sperm and egg, he made adult human beings. He could do the same with the planet He put us on then, too. Also, the first miracle of Jesus was the same thing. He turned water into wine. Wine is fermented, which takes time. This whole aging process was skipped, just like Earth’s aging process could have been skipped. This would therefore make the Earth look a lot older to us than it is.
Good article about this, focusing on a creation museum in Kentucky:
http://canopycanopycanopy.com/4/specters_of_a_young_earth
“Specters of a Young Earth,” by Joseph Clarke, in Triple Canopy
The tacit message is that the archetypal godly environment is a Christian arcadia, free of the violence of natural selection. This idyll’s most memorable occupants are the dinosaurs. According to wall-mounted placards, they were created on the sixth day along with the other animals and lived alongside humans until recently. A staple of the traditional natural history museum, the dinosaur has long loomed large in the American psyche, often expressing fears related to capitalism’s corporate monsters, unchecked scientific meddling, and imminent global calamity. Yet the Creation Museum’s animatronic models evoke Barney and Friends as much as Jurassic Park as they frolic with biblical characters and munch on plants. (In the museum’s account, the consumption of meat was not part of God’s design for the world and began only after the Fall.)
As you say, God and evolution aren’t mutually exclusive. Indeed, God does exist and evolution fits into the plan, although Darwin got it wrong.
Darwin posits that forms somehow manage to evolve all by themselves, which isn’t possible. If you take an infinite number of goats and drop them in the ocean over the course of a few million years, they won’t spontaneously mutate and grow flippers and gills. They’ll drown.
Consciousness, or the souk, if you will, is a manifestation of God. Consciousness evolves, not the physical body. When consciousness needs to express itself in a higher form (why this happens is beyond the scope of this blog reply), it creates the higher physical form that it needs.
Put aside whether wheat I just said is crap or not. Why do you waste your time attacking someone’s religious beliefs, be they wrong or right. If you are going to waste your time in this way, why stop at Christianity? There’s Judaism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam, as well as religious cults such as Scientology. Why not spend the rest of your life trying to prove they are all wrong?
Here’s a tip for you: You don’t need to impress your audience with your scholarly writing voice. Come down to Earth and write at the level of your audience.
You have raised some interesting points with your comment and may I commend you for saving valuable time in your day by refusing to read either the post or the ensuing comments.
Evolution says nothing about god and whether or not you choose to cram it into the picture is up to you. Darwin got it right. Your goat analogy is ridiculous in the extreme and I would encourage you to re-examine information on evolution prior to posting made up arguments you adapted from a creationist website.
Your comments regarding a “souk” are bizarre. You probably meant to type ‘soul’ but that does not improve your statement and you sound like you are talking out of your ass.
‘Why do you waste time attacking someone’s religious beliefs…’ – Why do religious believers insist on shoving their faith into science? It would be perfectly fine if they held these beliefs but the constant push to actually force the rest of us to ignore scientific data is repulsive and oppressive and needs to be spoken out against. When they can formulate a valid argument, the rest of us will stop ‘attacking’ them.
As for the author’s writing – well, isn’t that a nice sentiment from you? First you cry about the author being mean and attacking people and then you do the same. By the way, when exactly did ‘scholarly writing voice’ become something to use as an insult?
Congratulations. I posted the “main points” over here:
http://philgeland.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/evolution-is-not/
What is it with atheists insisting what arguments a YEC is limited to?
Mechanicist science is about logical thinking, humanistic sciences are about analysis (with statistics thrown in for good measure). Faith is not logical, it is about believing what you cannot prove. I recommend that to understand the theory of evolution and why people who think their faith is in the same realm as science “What makes Biology unique” by Ernst Mayr and “The Dialecticval Biologist” by Daniel Levine should be mandatory at high school level. Particularly Mayr, first a biologist then a philosopher of Biology. Ultimately if you have some time left read Theodosius Dobshansky. I have lived in third world countries where the theory evolution has no antagonism with religion, but then if those who think the Bible is the magic book and cannot account for the greatness of human curiosity then they are understanding nada
Hello,all! It’s funny, because I’m giving a presentation about Cosmology tomorrow. I’m a Christian physics major, which is an interesting combo.
Honestly, here’s my opinion on the matter.
For the Christians:
Does it actually matter? What good does it do to fight with others about science? If they are in science, they’ll probably just recognize that you aren’t in science yourself, so you have no credentials. If they’re not, you’ll probably come off as a “trouble-making radical” who hates anyone with a different view. Now, definitely stand up for what you believe in, but don’t pick a fight. It just builds a gap between you and them, and between them and God. Arguing and “Bible bashing” will solve nothing. Treat everyone with love, even if you disagree with them. Your duty is to glorify God, which is frequently manifested in loving others. Don’t keep someone from being interested in God because you’re dissing their own beliefs.
For those who don’t believe in God:
I can see why you believe that there is no God. There is an awful amount of pain and sorrow in this world. I recognize that there isn’t “substantial evidence” for or against God. But y’all, play nice. Be kind to those who don’t share your view. Calling them “potentially intelligent” or “just plain dumb” doesn’t help your case at all.
So what about people stuck in between Faith and Science? Those of us who are Christians, but still love the intrigue of science? Well that’s your own choice. Contrary to popular belief, there is a middle ground. As for me, I believe in God. I will serve Him with all that I am, and with love. I will be a scientist, with a doctorate, who will graciously accept the challenge of “living on the line.” I accept the risks that come with open arms.
Actually, the way I see it, Charles Darwin made the single greatest individual contribution to the Divinely Mandated task of naming all the animals than anyone else who has ever lived.
There’s something need to be said: it’s not either you are an athiest who believes in evolution theory or you’re a christain who believes in everything the man written bible said. I’m a buddhist I believe in god but I don’t belive the stories in the christain bible. Also this needs to be repeated: Evolution is not a theory to disprove anything. leave it alone. read the blog owner entry again and again if you need to.
Well said. The false dichotomy of “atheistic evolutionist” and “YEC believer” is a gross misconception. As an example, the last two popes have both acknowledged their acceptance of evolution. I would hardly call them atheists
As a Christian, I have no idea exactly how long the earth/universe has been around for. To me, it doesn’t really matter that much. But there are so many Atheists that are stuck on this point; it’s sad to see that Atheists can’t see past this.
The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter. The earth _appearing_ to be millions of years old doesn’t disprove God. Whether God exists has _nothing_ to do with the timeline of the Universe.
Personally, I think it’s rather vain for Atheists to think that we got here by a random series of events, all of which theoretically have an almost _zero_ probability of occuring individually, not to mention _all_ of them occuring (in the proper sequence) to create the universe, the world, and life as we know it.
So, here are a few questions for the Atheists out there. These are questions that keep coming up for me as I read these types of articles, and hear people talking.
But first, let’s not turn this into a flame war, please. These are actual, honest questions that I have about the science-centric view on the creation of the universe. So again, please don’t flame, and let’s try to keep this discussion civil.
1) Why are humans the only species that are _truly_ intelligent? By “truly intelligent,” I’m referring to the “human” type of intelligence. Another way to say this may be “intelligent, compared to humans.” After millions of years of “evolution,” with many species having been here before us (according to the theory), why are we the only species that seem to have evolved significantly in terms of intellegence?
2) How come we are the only ones that have a proper spoken language (multiple languages, even), and that have a written component to their language? If other species have been around even longer than we have, why haven’t they come up with some way to communicate effectively?
3) Why are we the only ones that invent new things, that build and create things _not_ just out of neccessity?
What are the odds that we’re the only species who have an inherent desire *and* ability to be creative and *invent* new things? Birds create their nests pretty much the same way each time, and they’ve been doing it the same way for millions of years. Bee’s have the same hives, groundhog’s have the same holes. It’s the same thing, over and over for millions of years. Why?
4) How come there are no “sub-humans?” What happened to the line that we “came from?” We’re supposed to be direct decendants of something, but I don’t see them anywhere. If they are the “evolved” version of another primate, wouldn’t they be evolved enough to still exist (considering that “less evolved” primates like monkeys and apes still exist)?
Our “ancestral species” should be alive because they’re more evolved than monkeys, even 24,000 years ago they were more advanced than the monkeys, apes, and dogs of today. According to the theory, the more evolved species should survive, correct? I’m not saying that they should have replaced monkeys, but if they surpassed them, why wouldn’t they be alive?
5) Of the primates, humans are far superior to every other primate. Why? If the monkeys (or apes or whatever) were evolving at the same time our predecessors did, why didn’t they keep evolving? Shouldn’t the gap be smaller?
6) Along the same lines, why is there such a big gap between us and _every_ other living thing on the planet? (Biblical answer: See Genesis 1:26-28. Link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:26-28;&version=31
7) Look at the different types of birds, or monkeys or dogs: Each sub-species/sub-genus of bird looks like a bird; a monkey looks like a monkey and a dog looks like a dog. (Ask a child who knows what a monkey is, or what a bird or a dog is, and show them a baboon, a spider monkey, an ostrich, an eagle, a greyhound and a bloodhound. They’ll be able tell, in general terms, what it is ["monkey, bird, dog"].) Humans are different though. We are each one of a kind. The other primates don’t really look like us (leathery face, hairy all over, elongated nose/snout, etc). Why?
Look at 10,000 monkey faces and you’re bound to see thousands of almost identical replicas, in terms of facial structure and traits. They all look so alike. Even if you look at something specific like a monkey’s nose: a monkey of the same species will have almost the exact same nose as another monkey of the same group.
It’s the same with birds, and dogs and cats (believe it or not). They may have different spots and colourings, but they’re basically the same.
That’s not true with humans. Humans, on the other hand, are each unique. There’s over 6 Billion of us and none of use looks indistinguishably like the other, apart from identical twins of course. why? Why are we the only species that vary so much from one to another in terms of facial features?
As an example, what if I were to let you spend 1 hour with a cat, and then put that cat in a room with a thousand cats of the _same_ breed (colour, age, etc). Without marking it, or remembering their hair colour patterns and hoping that no other cats have a similar pattern, you probably wouldn’t be able to find it. (This assumes that the pet doesn’t recognise you to give you a hint.) I don’t doubt that someone would be able to recognize their long-time pet amongst many, but the differences between one cat/dog/mouse/monkey of the same breed are super small, you have to admit.
(A thousand “shaved” cats would be even more difficult.)
On the other hand, if you spent one hour with a human, who was then put in a room with a thousand other people, you’d find them, right? This is because we vary so much. Even if you were only exposed to the person’s face as you talked to them, you could find them. You can’t say that for the same breed of any other species, they’re too similar. Why is that? Why are we the only species like this?
9) Why is everything in nature so beautiful? If the earth was created by randomness, wouldn’t it make sense that the world appear more random? Why aren’t all tree’s black, or purple, or striped with various unattractive colours? Why aren’t flowers shaped like squares? Why don’t flowers smell bad? Why don’t fruits, vegetables and other foods found in nature taste awful?
By contrast, why do we have so many beautiful and appealing colours in nature? Why do flowers look and smell so nice? Why do naturally occuring foods taste so good? Why do the sounds that animals and insects make sound so nice, almost like music? Why does even the ocean, and the wind blowing through trees, sound so calming?
(…I know that randomness exists in nature, like the angle of tree branches and so on, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about how randomness could possibly manage to create our beautiful world.)
10) Why does every season make the world look beautiful? In the winter, autumn, spring and summer, the trees still look nice, mountain tops are still beautiful, the ocean is still pretty, and even the desert and it’s sand dunes are calming to look at. Sure, there are some parts of the world that don’t look all that nice, but 99% of is it absolutely amazing. Why? This doesn’t seem random.
Take a look at some trees, flowers, and mountains. Look at some animals, at some insects. These things look like a painter could have painted them — or, like a Designer could have created them.
Scientifically, there’s not much of a reason why things are so nice here, why nature isn’t disgusting, why there aren’t birds or monkeys building towns or cities, or conquering parts of the animal kingdom.
Biblically, the reason why things are so nice is because God created them for us. Because God loves us. As far as why humans have dominion over the world:
Genesis 1:27-28: “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’ ”
God gave humans reign and dominion over the earth, and the things that are contained within.
To the sticking point: The fact that certain Christians believe that the earth was created in approximately 4000 B.C. shouldn’t cause you to throw away Christianity; and it shouldn’t close your mind to the existance of God. To allow one point to completely throw you off isn’t very wise, in my opinion.
Try to think about this for yourself. Remember that all of these theories (evolution, the big bang, etc.) are predicated on the notion that “there is no God.” Their _goal_ was come up with a way to explain us being here without the existence of God, and none of their explanations could point to God. With that in mind, it’s not unbelievable that scientists managed to come up with “explainations” that seem to fit into how we got here. These theories make “sense,” in terms of “Yeah, I can see that happening,” but that doesn’t make it the _truth_.
Scientists can even come up with other different theories and they’ll still fit. Their theories will always seem possible; but again, that doesn’t mean that that’s what actually happened.
Probability doesn’t equal truth; possibility, even less so.
I believe in the Lord, God Almighty. Believe it or not, He has the power and ability to create the world in “seven days,” and even to accelerate or slow down time (see Joshua 10:12-14: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%2010:12-14;&version=31 ). I also believe it’s possible that God created the world and the universe in such a way that the evidence we’re seeing of the earth having been around for millions of years still lines up with God existing, and God creating the universe.
I still don’t know what the exact timeline of the universe/earth is, and even though I don’t know it, it doesn’t dissuade me from _knowing_ that God exists. And the beauty is, I don’t _have_ to know exactly how/when we got here, or the exact timeline — just as long as I know Jesus. Read the Bible and make up your own mind about it.
First of all thank you for the well thought out post.
Let me start with ‘I think it’s rather vain for Atheists to think that we got here by a random series of events,’.
Is it less vain to believe human beings are the pinnacle of all creation, or to believe that we are but a small and random occurrence in a vast universe that would exist with or without us?
In response to your questions, I offer my opinions and insights:
1.) I agree that human intelligence is a tricky problem. The main reason would be that evolution is not conducive to a larger brain, as it has such a large energy requirement. In order for us to evolve a large (and useful) brain, it was necessary for many things to happen concurrently. It first became necessary to gain the use of our forelimbs (Arms) by walking upright. This change opened the door to tool manipulation, and this is the catalyst which would drive all the further, and extraordinary, developments. Such as speech, culture, and logic. Even so, it would not be likely to happen again in the same way. Intelligence is not a necessary outcome of evolution. If you are truly interested, I would refer you to Jared Diamond’s “The Third Chimpanzee” for an excellent and easy to understand book on how humans may have evolved.
2.) This goes along with number 1 and the theme of intelligence. Complex languages require complex thoughts. This also requires a species that evolved to work within a social structure. Once our ancestors began to walk upright and use tools, it became ever more useful to be able to coordinate with each other, and language was the answer evolution had to this problem.
3.) Once again this comes down to intelligence. I realize intelligence doesn’t translate to the need to create things, but once our ancestors learned to use tools, learning to build other items in their free time was also a positive thing. Learning to build things that may not appear necessary is in fact quite a useful way to practice building things in general. The skills learned from building unnecessary things can oft be put to use building necessary things at a later date.
4.) Look in the mirror. We are our ancestors descendants. There may have been several ‘sub-human’, as you put it, offshoots of humanity at times in the past, but they have become extinct for one reason or another. I say we are our ancestors descendants because they didn’t go anywhere, they became isolated from others in the same species, gained beneficial mutations/differences, and passed these traits on to their offspring. This happened many times, and viola, here is the current ring in the ladder, us.
5.) What do you mean by superior? Apes are able to pass their genes on just as we are. If you are referring to a dominance our ability to decimate apes on a whim, I would hesitate to call this superiority. I think it is safe to say that where current apes evolution took them, happened to be apt to survive in their environment, that is all. That is why they are still around. Humans are unique in that the way in that they themselves are adaptable to almost any environment, this is true, but I wouldn’t say we are superior. Now apes didnt keep evolving because they lived in a *different* environment. The trees and plains are vastly different… human ancestors were forced to walk upright to avoid predators, apes need only climb.
6.) Different environments, different selective pressures, different starting points on the tree of life, different random mutations, basically the factors that determine evolution are complex, and minor differences in any of these factors yield amazingly different results. It is like throwing a handful of darts at a board, scoring one bullseye, and then asking why oh why did this dart happen to hit the bullseye when all others missed so greatly. It all boils down to chance that humans are just so swell. Aren’t you lucky?
7.) Within the human brain evolved a special region for dealing with human faces. You can imagine how beneficial it would be for an ancestor to be able to tell his tribe apart from a competitive tribe. This region makes each human very distinct from other things within the brain. If you asked a dog, if he could, he might answer all dogs look and smell remarkably different, yet may classify humans and apes within the same category easily. This is just the context in which your brain works.
8.) Oops I think you missed 8, meh I do that all the time =]
9.)Trees are not all the same color, its all what was the most beneficial to that tree. If something works well, evolution might not mess with it too much, as may happen with tree bark. Why is everything so beautiful? That’s subjective, but my answer would be that since we evolved in the world, it was beneficial for us to like how it looks (or else we would have buried our heads in the ground and died). Why does fruit taste good? We evolved to enjoy the taste of eating things that are healthy. Every animal enjoys what it eats, but my dog may tell you that fruit is not so good. Why? because he evolved (as a wolf) to eat meat. Now tastes vary, because the signals each persons brain receives from the taste buds is different. This is also useful… think what would happen to a species if they all liked to eat the exact same things, and suddenly a sweet-tasting poisonous fruit came into the region?
10.) Again if our brains hadn’t been programmed to find the world around us pleasing, how were we to survive in it? You wouldn’t want to go foraging for food in a field if it looked scary or grotesque. I’m sure every species enjoys the environment that they are in, as that’s what is most conducive to survival. And if you think all animals are beautiful, I encourage you to look further into the marine and insect world, there are some freaky critters out there!
You gave me a lot to think about and hopefully you can see some logic behind some of my points. I admit I wasn’t sure how to answer a few points you made! But that is because I am not looking anything up, I am just giving you plausible explanations. Evolution actually can explain all of what you said if you really are looking for answers of those variety, but I respect your opinions as well. The book I mentioned earlier by Jared Diamond is, in my opinion, an excellent resource for the believer and skeptic alike and really does an honest job of attempting to explain difficult aspects of human evolution.
Well good luck with your thoughts! I hope that
you find the answers you were looking for.
Oh and when I said ‘Now apes didnt keep evolving because they lived in a *different* environment.’ I didn’t mean to imply that modern apes did not evolve as well, I just meant that they didn’t evolve in the same fashion humans did. And sorry for all the typos, I’m sleepy
People can prove that Jesus isn’t real simply by uttering the words “Hey, this story sounds a tad bit familiar”. GOD, on the other hand, isn’t so easily dismissed simply because GOD isn’t a thing at all. GOD is the answer too that one question that everyone asks when they are confronted with something that they themselves do not truly understand… “Why?”
Good things are blamed on GOD, bad things are blamed on Demons. Or, if you lived a few centuries ago, good things were blamed on GOD as well as the bad things, depending on which GOD you decided to piss off that day.
I find it interesting that Christianity is a lot like the major holiday that they celebrate – Christmas. If you’re good, you get a reward (Gifts/Heaven). If you are bad, then you will get punished (coal/Hell – also see how they use “coal”? One of the things used when making a fire? Catch my drift?). Oh, and who decides this fate of yours? Some dude you can’t see.
Remember how devastated you were when you found out Santa Clause wasn’t real? Do you remember all of the excuses you told your friends when they told you that he wasn’t because you could have sworn that he was? “Oh, yeah, well that bike cost $200. My parents couldn’t afford that. So how did they get it?”
You were SO sure that Santa Clause was real… and now you know that he isn’t and you’re okay with that, right? It’s the same thing with being an Atheist. We know that GOD isn’t real and we’ve come to terms with that fact. Everyone else, in our view, is still trying to make excuses because they are so convinced that GOD exists.
Logically I can tell you that there are so many religions in this world that ONE can’t be 100% correct. And not all of them include a GOD. I can also logically tell you that if you are only being nice because you want to get into Heaven then you are not going to get in because just doing it because you want to get in is being selfish and greedy and last time I checked “greed” was one of those really big sins.
Personally I think the Muslims have it right… the only way you’re getting in is by killing yourself. I mean, Jesus bled to death on a cross for you. THAT is a selfless act. What have you sacrificed? 30 hours of fasting? Oooooo.
And it’s not like killing yourself is going to effect us in any way. Really, it won’t. In the end, in the BIG PICTURE, we don’t matter at all. Sure, we might matter too ourselves or our loved ones. But other then that we are pretty much pointless. The human race could go extinct tomorrow and believe me when I tell you that no one is going to notice.
So why a GOD? If our existence means absolutely nothing – and it does mean noting – why must there be a GOD? What is the point?
If kangaroos were on Noah’s Ark, in a young-Earth situation, how did kangaroos get so Australia so fast?
http://afrankangle.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/on-supersonic-kangaroos/http://afrankangle.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/on-supersonic-kangaroos/
“…if you don’t know where we came from…”
Typical scurvy tactic. That’s not what he said, and that’s not even the topic being discussed. Try staying on topic.
I’ve had enough of this Creationism vs. Evolution nonsense. Some people just aren’t evolved enough to understand even common sense. So long, I’m unsubscribing from the comment threads. It’s “seventy-three’s” and “eighty-eights” to y’all now.
ALL HAIL THE MIGHT FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!!!
I really enjoyed reading all of the opinions. Especially in regard to the existence of God. (most of this is in regards to theangryatheist’s opinions)
Honestly, I commend you. It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. I know that’s not something that you would hear everyday. But its a different kind of faith. You believe in something, even if its your own opinions/values/etc rather than God.
As for the “only 30 hours of fasting” deal. Quite a few good points. Unfortunately, a considerable number of people declare themselves to be Christians, yet back out when times get rough. It’s true that many are not willing to make extreme sacrifices for their faith. But, at the same time, many in the U.S. have not been required to do so.
I’d encourage you to read “Jesus Freak” by D.C. Talk. It’s a collection of the stories of the martyrs from around the world: those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for God. I should warn you that it can get rather “intense” at times. But ask yourself this question as you read it: “Why go through all of this trouble and pain and torture, unless it was for someone whom you truly love?”
I wish I could tell you definitively that I would give up my life for God. But, I have never been tested in that way. I’ve had to stand up to friends and to teachers and to my family at times, but that’s hardly comparable. I’ve never been asked to risk my life. I would hope that, should the time come, I would be willing to give it all to God. Because that’s true love, isn’t it? The ultimate sacrifice.
One more quick note. About the good behavior= Heaven and bad behavior = Hell. That’s something that is commonly believed about Christianity. But the thing is…
it’s not about what you do.
“Getting into Heaven” is only possible when you tell God/pray (it’s just talking to God, not all that voodoo that you hear about)that
1) you believe that Jesus was the Son of God
2) You recognize that you can’t do anything to get into Heaven without Jesus.
You don’t have to do any crazy rituals, or be an extra good person. But it’s not just a “Get out of Jail Free” card. It’s a commitment. That’s all what being a Christian really is.
As for Hell.
Hell is complete separation from God.(Heaven is complete intimacy with God.) I don’t really know what Hell must be like. But if God is Love and Goodness and Faithfulness, Hell is something I never want to experience. Complete absence of Love? No, thank you.
Feel free to ask me any questions. I’m particularly fond of the ones difficult to answer.
P.S. “Good works” is a result of living a life in God. Because God is love, Christians strive to love others in all things. Though we sometimes fail (we’re not perfect), we try to love others, just like God loves.
P.P.S. Being Christian also requires,as mentioned above, dedicating your life to Christ.
Also, I know some people who are Christians and believe in Evolution. Not everything is “either-or.”
Just out of curiosity, what do y’all believe happens after you die?
Wow, this forum’s still going on?
It never ceases to amaze me how a debate over evolution inevitably turns into a debate over the existence of God, even though evolution itself says nothing on the subject. Even assuming we are talking about the Christian God, evolution merely implies problems with a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation; it says nothing about the validity of the rest of the Bible. In my opinion, other fields of study are far more of a threat to those who would take the Old Testament literally than evolution are. Fields such as geology, archaeology, and anthropology directly contradict the stories laid out in the Old Testament, right up until the time of Solomon. We know from geology that there was no Earth-wide flood, and that the Earth is far older than 6000 years. Archaeology tells us a VERY different story than the Biblical accounts of the Hebrew people, and yet I have yet to see one of these boards debate archaeological findings. We know, for instance, that there was no 40-year wandering in the desert of millions of Hebrews after an exodus from Egypt. There was no Hebrew nation that went around conquering other established lands, such as in the story of Jericho. In fact, there wasn’t even a real Hebrew people until far later than most of the stories in the Bible are supposed to have taken place.
I’m simply giving examples of how other fields of study pose a far greater threat to a literal interpretation of the Old Testament than evolution. Why is it that evolution is still seen as such a problem? Even the Catholic Church has officially accepted evolution as fact. This is due to the overwhelming evidence that supports it. Anyone who really understands the evidence has no choice but to accept that it happens, and I’m not just talking about so-called “micro” evolution. Common ancestry is a fact. What gets me upset is the propaganda spread by people like Kent Hovind which tries to paint a picture of evolution as a “flawed” theory, or that there is somehow a great debate among scientists over the validity of evolution. These are flat out lies. There is NO debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution happens. There ARE debates as to exactly HOW it happens, but in no way do these debates negate the FACT that it does happen. Evolution is no more flawed than quantum theory or relativity. In fact, it has been far more tested and critiqued than either of these.
In my opinion those that feel threatened by evolution really need to re-examine their position, and re-evaluate what they should attack. They are not going to get anywhere attacking evolution, and evolution is really not the biggest threat to them anyway. However, if you insist on debating evolution, make sure you know what you’re talking about first, which is really the whole point of this post.
Any argument that is based on reason needs to have all the facts straight. If you want to debate the validity of a theory like evolution, make sure you are well-studied first. Read books like “The Selfish Gene” or “The Blind Watchmaker” to get a good understanding of what evolution REALLY says. Yes, these are written by an atheist, but they really do an amazing job of explaining some of the more complicated concepts of the theory to those who are not experts in the field. You don’t have to agree with people like Dawkins to be able to get some value from their expertise. Evolution itself is not a matter of opinion; it is a science that is well backed in facts. If you read these books and still feel evolution is wrong, first make sure you honestly understand the arguments presented. If you do, fine. At that point I would love to debate why you feel the way you do. Until then, it’s kind of pointless to argue about it.
David B,
Well said … and there are so many crazy thoughts that people are mentioned – many showing ignorance, and many showing stupidity.
There certainly are many good reading materials available. I suggest Saving Darwin (Giberson) & Finding Darwin’s God (Miller) because (and unlike Dawkins) they promote a coexistence b/w science and religion. Storms over Genesis (Jennings) also added to my view from a theological perspective.
Kathleen Parket (Wash Post) had a great column recently.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050802383.html
In terms of a bit of self promotion, I’m preparing a post on this, but it wouldn’t be up until next week. Hope you stop by.
Yeah, Ken Miller is good too
I only listed those two books because I’ve actually read them, or at least most of them (still working my way through Watchmaker). I have Miller’s book though and was planning on starting that one next 
David,
Think about Giberson in the future. Good historical perspective of creationism.
The Bible should not be taken seriously* nor should any ancient works. Seriously, use some critical thinking. Sure there are SOME good ideas that have come out of the Bible, but there is a lot of evil shit in their, too.
Come on now, let’s all stone our disobedient children!