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.
“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.