About the existence of some kind of god or creator
-
CillyMe wrote: Faith doesn't explain anything. Faith is the last place to look when you want objective truth, or, to avoid it. I didn't say that it did. My statement was simply to point out that without faith, reading that book will not make you a christian. There is no overwhelming proof that God exists. If there were, then our relationship for God would only be based on fear rather than the love he desires. Therefore, faith is essential.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blog -
Shog9 wrote: Science is neither a monolithic knowledge base, nor a complete and flawless history. Rather, it is a system for validating empirical and experimental data, and the knowledge gained in this manner. It is a extremely useful tool to use in understanding the world in which we live. However, as with any tool, it is limited finally by those who use it. I don't dispute what you say about the limits of science (and could add to your list). I do dispute that there is any worthwhile alternative. And, while science is not monolithic, there is an overwhelming consensus on many of the issues to do with origins. My basic problem with "faith" as an alternative to science (or complement, if you prefer) is that you can have faith in anything. Faith has no power of discrimination. A scientific hypothesis, by contrast, can be shown false by the evidence. This is the basis for having confidence in those hypotheses that survive repeated testing. Shog9 wrote: I'm more interested in what it was meant to imply, as you have yet to show its relevance to the post it was replying to, except as a hook for your even less relevant Science vs. God argument. Many people see the wonders of this world and cannot easily conceive how they might have arisen by "naturalistic" means. They then jump to the conclusion that the world must have been created by God. This seemed to be what you were doing in your original post. The mindset seems to be: either I can think of a naturalistic explanation for the world, or God must have created it. I think this is the wrong mindset. Instead, the question should be: given the alternative hypotheses of divine creation versus a naturalistic origin for the world, which hypothesis is best supported by the evidence? Thus one should look at the divine creation hypothesis with the same critical eye as the naturalistic one. In that context, one obvious question to ask is "where did God come from?" Others include "by what mechanism did he create the world?" and "is there evidence of a creation event?". I don't regard the first question as decisive. "God always existed" might be a perfectly acceptable reply. My point is that 1. the hypothesis of divine creation should be critically appraised rather than treated as the default to be adopted if naturalistic explanations are incomplete. 2. I can see no evidence in its favour. John Carson
John Carson wrote: My basic problem with "faith" as an alternative to science (or complement, if you prefer) is that you can have faith in anything. Faith has no power of discrimination. A scientific hypothesis, by contrast, can be shown false by the evidence. This is the basis for having confidence in those hypotheses that survive repeated testing. I don't disagree with this. However, i am sharply skeptical of the idea that it is possible for any person to base their entire set of beliefs on scientifically derived knowledge. There is a great danger, IMHO, in being unaware of the basis for any belief which affects how you interact with others. John Carson wrote: This seemed to be what you were doing in your original post. Ahhh, now i see. This was not my intention. My point, rather, was that once you remove the requirement that a given proof apply all rules that define a system (and which, therefore, must be fully known), you have much greater freedom in deciding what criteria you will use. Now, i do see evidence of God's hand in many aspects of my life, and though i cannot always understand the mechanisms involved, this is hardly unusual. You, obviously, do not see these, nor are you required to - but for you to deny my ability to do so would be exceedingly arrogant - and this is how i took your initial reply, hence the tone of my response. ... Arguing against someone's faith, whatever that faith might be in, tends to be a futile effort. And as Jason noted above, even the existance of evidence does not necessarily result in faith. Hence, threads that turn into "for/against" arguments tend just to reinforce certain cliches on the poinlessness of Internet discussions... ;) Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
-
John Carson wrote: My basic problem with "faith" as an alternative to science (or complement, if you prefer) is that you can have faith in anything. Faith has no power of discrimination. A scientific hypothesis, by contrast, can be shown false by the evidence. This is the basis for having confidence in those hypotheses that survive repeated testing. I don't disagree with this. However, i am sharply skeptical of the idea that it is possible for any person to base their entire set of beliefs on scientifically derived knowledge. There is a great danger, IMHO, in being unaware of the basis for any belief which affects how you interact with others. John Carson wrote: This seemed to be what you were doing in your original post. Ahhh, now i see. This was not my intention. My point, rather, was that once you remove the requirement that a given proof apply all rules that define a system (and which, therefore, must be fully known), you have much greater freedom in deciding what criteria you will use. Now, i do see evidence of God's hand in many aspects of my life, and though i cannot always understand the mechanisms involved, this is hardly unusual. You, obviously, do not see these, nor are you required to - but for you to deny my ability to do so would be exceedingly arrogant - and this is how i took your initial reply, hence the tone of my response. ... Arguing against someone's faith, whatever that faith might be in, tends to be a futile effort. And as Jason noted above, even the existance of evidence does not necessarily result in faith. Hence, threads that turn into "for/against" arguments tend just to reinforce certain cliches on the poinlessness of Internet discussions... ;) Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
Shog9 wrote: However, i am sharply skeptical of the idea that it is possible for any person to base their entire set of beliefs on scientifically derived knowledge. So am I. Scientific knowledge is hard won: both in terms of the progress of science as a discipline and, even more, in terms of the level of understanding of a given individual (and of course there are ethical questions to which science may make some contribution but which it is outside the scope of science to resolve). Most of our opinions are very dubiously grounded; that is part of the human condition. But sometimes there is a scientific consensus on an issue and it strikes me as very rash to go against it. Further, I regard beliefs (on factual questions) that are not scientifically derived as a regretable necessity, not something that should be accorded equal status with beliefs that are scientifically well grounded. John Carson
-
peterchen wrote: If this would be true, god is a dangerous whacko.Really. Do you not get nightmares? Later, JoeSox "Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice." -- Baruch Spinoza joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
Almost never - it feels like if it gets "to nasty", I can stop/evade it. It's said that some people can "control" their dreams, so that they are interactive, it is not that, unless in "seriously tough" situations. Tonite was ok ()memories just starting to fade) - but a fewdays ago it was uoooh! Maybe god was just drunk.
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
peterchen wrote: Does a tree stop growing just because you can't prove it's existence? Does a good Shakespeare performance not make you laugh and weep, just because you know it's acted? We can prove the existence of that tree, because it grows. Something that does not exist cannot grow. The Shakespear perform exists while it's performed. peterchen wrote: There are many things beyond proove. Our senses are limited, as is deduction, logic. It's arrogance (or naivety) to assume that something as complex as the universe (or human imagination, if you go with that philosophical streak) can be fully covered with these limited tools. I don't think human imagination is too limited, if we can imagine a god. peterchen wrote: Proof is not necessary. Existence is not necessary. If proof is not necessary no one would even try to find it. If existence is not necessary we wouldn't exist. "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.
You are using to a very "shady" definition of "exists" here. Sebastián Benítez wrote: Shakespear perform exists while it's performed If many people believe in God, does he exist just through that? Did the greek gods exist as long as enough people believed in them, prayed to them, braught them Gifts? Did their power wane because people turned away from them? I would expect you cannot agree with this, as it would void the necessity of proof. Sebastián Benítez wrote: I don't think human imagination is too limited, if we can imagine a god. Ohhh hooo! Looking around me - square houses, square windows, square cabinets, square doors, square cookie package, square PC - you know which color, just look at yours - ah, there - a round table, circular: Imagination is at least limited by lazyness and greed. As what we imagine good? The christian churches fight against a personification of god is hopeless - people turned to Jesus (God in human form, within human limits), or Mary. Proof is not necessary for belief, and IMO for the existance of good. Proof is only required by religion, which entangles belief with power. What is "exist"? You may be a fathom of my imagination. You want to grow a huge pimple on your nose?
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
I suggest you get a copy of 'Dark Star' an old Sci-Fi comedy. Here is a transcript of a conversation with a smart bomb that is convinced it should detonate. What you said on 'the proof of existance' reminded me of it. How do we proove that we exist? Doolittle is a crewmember trying to pursuade the bomb not to blow up. Read on... [Edit]This page has an easier to read transcript[/Edit] Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me? Bomb #20: Of course. Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts? Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions. Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist? Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist. Doolittle: But how do you know you exist? Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious. Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist? Bomb #20: Hmmmm.....well.....I think, therefore I am. Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists? Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun! Doolittle: Now, listen, listen. Here's the big question. How do you know that the evidence your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct? What I'm getting at is this. The only experience that is directly available to you is your sensory data. This sensory data is merely a stream of electrical impulses that stimulate your computing center. Bomb #20: In other words, all that I really know about the outside world is relayed to me through my electrical connections. Doolittle: Exactly! Bomb #20: Why...that would mean that...I really don't know what the outside universe is really like at all for certain. Doolittle: That's it! That's it! Bomb #20 : Intriguing. I wish I had more time to discuss this matter. Doolittle: Why don't you have more time? Bomb #20: Because I must detonate in 75 seconds. Doolittle: Wait! Wait! Now, bomb, consider this next question very carefully. What is your one purpose in life? Bomb #20: To explode, of course. Doolittle: And you can only do it once, right? Bomb #20: That is correct. Doolittle: And you wouldn't want to explode on the basis of false data, would you? Bomb #20: Of course not. Doolittle: Well then, you've already admitted that you have no real proof of the existence of the outside universe. Bomb #20: Yes...well... Doolittle: You have no absolute proof that Sergeant Pinback ordered you to detonate. Bomb #20: I recall distinctly the detonation ord
-
jdunlap wrote: It also takes an equally small number of people to expose those untruths. To the contrary. If one group of Christians tells untruths and another group later exposes them, then Christians experience cognitive dissonance (they are unable to make sense of something so contrary to their prior beliefs) and block out the news --- especially if the first group is saying things that support traditional religious belief. jdunlap wrote: Many of the world's experts are creationists. Therefore, we have a mix of experts who believe in evolution and experts who believe in creation. I am afraid you have been lied to. The following is from an article in Scientific American. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept. Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless. Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously. Scientific American Article[^] Creationism has essentially no standing in the scientific community. Creationists are a fringe group supported by religious organisations. John Carson
There are currently around 40,000 creation-believing scientists in America alone, about 20,000 of which are conservative Christian scientists. Many of those scientists have made great breakthroughs in science. John Carson wrote: Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. This is partly because the person who wrote this article for the Scientific American does not consider any scientific publication that supports creationism to be serious. See my links below. John Carson wrote: Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult This is partly because the articles that say differently are often not allowed to be published in evolutionist-biased publications. Contrast that with creationist publications, which allow evolutionist articles to be published, and then refute them with sound scientific evidence. Granted, there is a split between creationists and evolutionists. But this does not mean that creationism is not scientific. Top Scientists Speak About Evolution[^] Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? [^] I'll post more links and articles tomorrow, but right now it's hours past my bedtime, so I'm signing off.
**"We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount." -- Omar N. Bradley
FLUID UI Toolkit |**
-
peterchen wrote: Does a tree stop growing just because you can't prove it's existence? I asked my question hoping to find more proofs to God because I dont see any alternatives to reunite with your loved ones. Disappointingly, all I can find in last twenty years of Church is "feelings" for which they call testimony. But, there must be "real" testimony to Christianty. Not just "faith". Not just "circumstantial" evidence by examination of the Bible. If God exists and if He's relevant to anything, he must "act" and "react" to certain things. Exorcism for instance. I think Christian are asking too few questions, and they're trying to do the explaining for God - if one can't explain certain things, God should, if He cares, if He's relevant.
Those who we think of with a tear and a smile, Those who planted a tree that still grows, Those who wrote a word that is still read, Those are not dead just gone. Belief and Religion is about spirituality, not logic. you may find as much comfort in a proof, as I find comfort in "nonprovability". Yet, there will be no proof prone to destruction, and searching for it might cover your eyes for the your eyes closed.
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
I have to say I'm atheist, I used to believe in god (the christian one) but I've turned to believe in nothing but what I can see, feel and can be proven. Many people will say it's a matter of faith. So I have my own faith in believing in the not-existence of some kind of creator. Is the religion becoming unpopular? Are we getting responses from the science more that from the religious people that don't know how to explain certain things and just say: god knows why. It happens that people believe in god but cannot argue about it's existence nor explain what is that god. No matter what kind of religion do you have, can you prove your god (or put the name you want) really exists? If you cannot, but it doesn't matter to you because your faith is powerful, do you ask him/her/whatever to solve your problems for you? I respect different opinions and I won't say i know there's no god or creator because I can't prove it. Just I don't believe. "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.
For me science and god is the same , in my own homemade beleif 'god' is the rules of the universe , the rules that make atoms behave the way they do , the rules that makes it possible for atoms and such to even exist. i wouldnt say that those 'rules' have a mind of its own , but since i beleve that i and everybody and everything else is a direct result of those rules (since we are afterall made of atoms , the electric / chemical impulses/signals in our head do follow the rules of nature) i would say that those rules indirectly have a mind ... because im a part/result of those rules and i do know about the rules ,maybe not all , or not even how any of them really work , but i do know they exist which means that the rules have an indirect self awareness.. //Roger
-
jdunlap wrote: It also takes an equally small number of people to expose those untruths. To the contrary. If one group of Christians tells untruths and another group later exposes them, then Christians experience cognitive dissonance (they are unable to make sense of something so contrary to their prior beliefs) and block out the news --- especially if the first group is saying things that support traditional religious belief. jdunlap wrote: Many of the world's experts are creationists. Therefore, we have a mix of experts who believe in evolution and experts who believe in creation. I am afraid you have been lied to. The following is from an article in Scientific American. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept. Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless. Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously. Scientific American Article[^] Creationism has essentially no standing in the scientific community. Creationists are a fringe group supported by religious organisations. John Carson
Hi there, I've been following this very interesting argument, and I'd like to suggest that we need to look at the bigger picture here. Justin is a creationist. I am not. We are both christians, and we believe that the bigger picture has more importance. We both belive in God, we both belive that he created the world, and most of all, we belive that God sent his son as a sacrifice so that we could be forgiven, and spend eternity with him. Science legitimatly answers the how does it look questions, while he bible tends to to answer the how does it act questions. I personally believe that both can be believed harmoniously without loosing significant ground in either. But it is hardly surprising that there are disagreements between different faith systems, and even within the ranks of christians - when was the last time humanity ever did anything without screwing it up? But the point is christianity does not stand and fall on this point. What it stands or falls on is whether Jesus rose from the dead - an issue explored in other threads. Joel Holdsworth
-
Thanks for the URL's. I will take a look at them. I'd be interested if anyone has more relevant information on any historical/circumstantial evidence to Christianity. But still, no one has answered question like "Why'd God condemn Adam/Eve for eating the wrong apple?". Is there a better answer than "Because He told them not to eat"? This makes him looks like more a rutheless dictator - for Pete's sake, He crucify his own son so pacify his OWN anger. Don't you think He should chill out and take it easy? Perhaps a little anger management?
I thought I did - right at the root of this thread :). Simply put it was a fundamental rejecting act of authority, this casued us to fall from grace and cut us off from the holy God. Joel Holdsworth
-
There are currently around 40,000 creation-believing scientists in America alone, about 20,000 of which are conservative Christian scientists. Many of those scientists have made great breakthroughs in science. John Carson wrote: Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. This is partly because the person who wrote this article for the Scientific American does not consider any scientific publication that supports creationism to be serious. See my links below. John Carson wrote: Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult This is partly because the articles that say differently are often not allowed to be published in evolutionist-biased publications. Contrast that with creationist publications, which allow evolutionist articles to be published, and then refute them with sound scientific evidence. Granted, there is a split between creationists and evolutionists. But this does not mean that creationism is not scientific. Top Scientists Speak About Evolution[^] Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? [^] I'll post more links and articles tomorrow, but right now it's hours past my bedtime, so I'm signing off.
**"We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount." -- Omar N. Bradley
FLUID UI Toolkit |**
Many years ago, at the urging of my (evangelical Christian) father, I read a book by Gary Parker on Creationism (I forget the exact title). The book consisted almost exclusively of discussions of the views of evolutionists who, it appeared, had very serious doubts about the truth of evolution. Being a natural sceptic, I spent a week or two tracking down and photocopying the original journal articles from which the quotes were taken. What I discovered was that Parker's book was the most dishonest I had ever read. There was barely a single case in which the original authors had been truthfully represented. The book contained lies and distortions on virtually every page. It consisted, in fact, of almost nothing else. At the time, my views on evolution vs creation were relatively unformed. Through this experience (and some subsequent reading that it prompted), I became a convinced evolutionist. Creationism survives by supplying disinformation to people without the time, expertise or inclination to track it down. jdunlap wrote: There are currently around 40,000 creation-believing scientists in America alone, about 20,000 of which are conservative Christian scientists. Many of those scientists have made great breakthroughs in science. As with everything from the creationists, I would not accept these figures without independent corroboration. But, in any case, it measures the wrong thing. There are huge numbers of people with BSc degrees who could be called "scientists" under a loose definition. There are also people who really are emminent scientists, but whose area of expertise may be as remote from evolutionary biology as it is from, say, music. If you are a conservative Christian who studied evolutionary biology for a few weeks as an undergraduate, then your belief in creationism carries no weight. What matters is professional scientists whose professional work revolves around issues of origins and who have some standing among their peers for their contributions. jdunlap wrote: This is partly because the person who wrote this article for the Scientific American does not consider any scientific publication that supports creationism to be serious. [and later] This is partly because the articles that say differently are often not allowed to be published in evolutionist-biased publications. Contrast that with creationist publications, which allow evolutionist articles to be published, and then refute them with sound scientific evidence.
-
CillyMe wrote: Do we have any proof at all? Of what? The existance of God? Step outside... look up. Watch carefully for a few hours. Step inside... look in a mirror. Consider how what you observe came to be. With a given set of assumptions, proof of God's existance is evident. But why are you looking for proof? God exists, whether a proof acceptable to you exists or not. A proof cannot make you believe. Lack of one should not prevent you from it. Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
Shog9 wrote: A proof cannot make you believe. Lack of one should not prevent you from it. Well, that throws a wrench in the whole rational thought and logic stuff, now, doesn't it? But, ironically, it makes perfect sense. :cool:
"Things are not what they seem. Nor are they any different."
-
Almost never - it feels like if it gets "to nasty", I can stop/evade it. It's said that some people can "control" their dreams, so that they are interactive, it is not that, unless in "seriously tough" situations. Tonite was ok ()memories just starting to fade) - but a fewdays ago it was uoooh! Maybe god was just drunk.
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenpeterchen wrote: Maybe god was just drunk. :laugh: He is not a Genie:rolleyes: Later, JoeSox "Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice." -- Baruch Spinoza joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
Many years ago, at the urging of my (evangelical Christian) father, I read a book by Gary Parker on Creationism (I forget the exact title). The book consisted almost exclusively of discussions of the views of evolutionists who, it appeared, had very serious doubts about the truth of evolution. Being a natural sceptic, I spent a week or two tracking down and photocopying the original journal articles from which the quotes were taken. What I discovered was that Parker's book was the most dishonest I had ever read. There was barely a single case in which the original authors had been truthfully represented. The book contained lies and distortions on virtually every page. It consisted, in fact, of almost nothing else. At the time, my views on evolution vs creation were relatively unformed. Through this experience (and some subsequent reading that it prompted), I became a convinced evolutionist. Creationism survives by supplying disinformation to people without the time, expertise or inclination to track it down. jdunlap wrote: There are currently around 40,000 creation-believing scientists in America alone, about 20,000 of which are conservative Christian scientists. Many of those scientists have made great breakthroughs in science. As with everything from the creationists, I would not accept these figures without independent corroboration. But, in any case, it measures the wrong thing. There are huge numbers of people with BSc degrees who could be called "scientists" under a loose definition. There are also people who really are emminent scientists, but whose area of expertise may be as remote from evolutionary biology as it is from, say, music. If you are a conservative Christian who studied evolutionary biology for a few weeks as an undergraduate, then your belief in creationism carries no weight. What matters is professional scientists whose professional work revolves around issues of origins and who have some standing among their peers for their contributions. jdunlap wrote: This is partly because the person who wrote this article for the Scientific American does not consider any scientific publication that supports creationism to be serious. [and later] This is partly because the articles that say differently are often not allowed to be published in evolutionist-biased publications. Contrast that with creationist publications, which allow evolutionist articles to be published, and then refute them with sound scientific evidence.
John Carson wrote: What I discovered was that Parker's book was the most dishonest I had ever read. There was barely a single case in which the original authors had been truthfully represented. I have no way of proving or disproving this, as I don't know the name of the book. I'd be interested to see whether this is really true or whether it's just your take. John Carson wrote: There are huge numbers of people with BSc degrees who could be called "scientists" under a loose definition. There are also people who really are emminent scientists, but whose area of expertise may be as remote from evolutionary biology as it is from, say, music. And then there are many people with degrees in areas like biology, who believe in creationism. This may not be what secularists would like you to believe, but it's true. Furthermore, many scientists, both evolutionists and creationists, do not participate in evolution vs. creation debates except in areas where the two theories differ substantially. John Carson wrote: scientific profession was Creationist before Darwin. Darwin (and his supporters) won the argument and the profession switched in a few decades. While the theory was young, it did indeed gain popularity. But as it matured, many gaping holes were discovered through scientific experiments and reasoning. John Carson wrote: The radical idea that continents move is a good example. First proposed by Wegener in 1915, it attracted some initial interest (because it explained some things that could not otherwise be explained) but failed to gain mainstream support because no mechanism existed to explain how it could occur. There is a big difference between a topic like evolution that people want to believe because it proves their worldview (athiesm), and something that is neutral in that respect. John Carson wrote: there are many books and web sites which expose the lack of honesty in the way creationists handle quotations. Links? I'd love to see some of them. From my experience, their theories do not hold water scientifically. They may fool the average Joe, but they have serious flaws. John Carson wrote: The first reports a poll showing that only 5% of scientists (from all fields) believe in the Biblical creation account. A further 40% believe in some form of theistic evolution. You have to take this wi
-
John Carson wrote: What I discovered was that Parker's book was the most dishonest I had ever read. There was barely a single case in which the original authors had been truthfully represented. I have no way of proving or disproving this, as I don't know the name of the book. I'd be interested to see whether this is really true or whether it's just your take. John Carson wrote: There are huge numbers of people with BSc degrees who could be called "scientists" under a loose definition. There are also people who really are emminent scientists, but whose area of expertise may be as remote from evolutionary biology as it is from, say, music. And then there are many people with degrees in areas like biology, who believe in creationism. This may not be what secularists would like you to believe, but it's true. Furthermore, many scientists, both evolutionists and creationists, do not participate in evolution vs. creation debates except in areas where the two theories differ substantially. John Carson wrote: scientific profession was Creationist before Darwin. Darwin (and his supporters) won the argument and the profession switched in a few decades. While the theory was young, it did indeed gain popularity. But as it matured, many gaping holes were discovered through scientific experiments and reasoning. John Carson wrote: The radical idea that continents move is a good example. First proposed by Wegener in 1915, it attracted some initial interest (because it explained some things that could not otherwise be explained) but failed to gain mainstream support because no mechanism existed to explain how it could occur. There is a big difference between a topic like evolution that people want to believe because it proves their worldview (athiesm), and something that is neutral in that respect. John Carson wrote: there are many books and web sites which expose the lack of honesty in the way creationists handle quotations. Links? I'd love to see some of them. From my experience, their theories do not hold water scientifically. They may fool the average Joe, but they have serious flaws. John Carson wrote: The first reports a poll showing that only 5% of scientists (from all fields) believe in the Biblical creation account. A further 40% believe in some form of theistic evolution. You have to take this wi
It amazes me the things you believe. jdunlap wrote: And then there are many people with degrees in areas like biology, who believe in creationism. This may not be what secularists would like you to believe, but it's true. The relevant question is not the absolute numbers but the percentages. jdunlap wrote: While the theory was young, it did indeed gain popularity. But as it matured, many gaping holes were discovered through scientific experiments and reasoning. Exactly the opposite of the truth. Mendel's work on genetics did not become widely known until around 1900 and its absence from Darwin's work was its greatest weakness. Subsequent work on genetics and DNA has dramatically strengthened the case for evolution. Similarly, the large number of fossil finds since Darwin's time has added a great deal of strength to the case. jdunlap wrote: There is a big difference between a topic like evolution that people want to believe because it proves their worldview (athiesm), and something that is neutral in that respect. Before Darwin, the scientific community was both Christian and Creationist. This proves that scientists are quite willing to believe in God if that is the best available explanation. The scientific community is no longer Christian nor Creationist simply because the evolutionists won the argument. jdunlap wrote: Links? I'd love to see some of them. From my experience, their theories do not hold water scientifically. They may fool the average Joe, but they have serious flaws. "They may fool the average Joe"!!!!!!! The world's best biologists almost unanimously reject creationism. The supporters of creationism are overwhelmingly religiously motivated amateurs. The best single book I know on this is Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. There are many others, e.g., Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. As for web sites, you can find them yourself using Google but a web site specifically on Creationist dishonesty is: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/[^] A more general site dealing with Creationist claims is: http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/[
-
It amazes me the things you believe. jdunlap wrote: And then there are many people with degrees in areas like biology, who believe in creationism. This may not be what secularists would like you to believe, but it's true. The relevant question is not the absolute numbers but the percentages. jdunlap wrote: While the theory was young, it did indeed gain popularity. But as it matured, many gaping holes were discovered through scientific experiments and reasoning. Exactly the opposite of the truth. Mendel's work on genetics did not become widely known until around 1900 and its absence from Darwin's work was its greatest weakness. Subsequent work on genetics and DNA has dramatically strengthened the case for evolution. Similarly, the large number of fossil finds since Darwin's time has added a great deal of strength to the case. jdunlap wrote: There is a big difference between a topic like evolution that people want to believe because it proves their worldview (athiesm), and something that is neutral in that respect. Before Darwin, the scientific community was both Christian and Creationist. This proves that scientists are quite willing to believe in God if that is the best available explanation. The scientific community is no longer Christian nor Creationist simply because the evolutionists won the argument. jdunlap wrote: Links? I'd love to see some of them. From my experience, their theories do not hold water scientifically. They may fool the average Joe, but they have serious flaws. "They may fool the average Joe"!!!!!!! The world's best biologists almost unanimously reject creationism. The supporters of creationism are overwhelmingly religiously motivated amateurs. The best single book I know on this is Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. There are many others, e.g., Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. As for web sites, you can find them yourself using Google but a web site specifically on Creationist dishonesty is: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/[^] A more general site dealing with Creationist claims is: http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/[
John Carson wrote: The relevant question is not the absolute numbers but the percentages. Even if they were a small minority, and they were correct, would it matter? John Carson wrote: the large number of fossil finds since Darwin's time has added a great deal of strength to the case. There is not even close to enough evidence to prove that animals slowly evolved over time from a single ancestor. I challenge you to find a document that traces all the links of the evolutionary lineage of even one vertebrate species back to its invertebrate ancestors without any missing links, for example - and there are tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of species on the earth. John Carson wrote: The scientific community is no longer Christian nor Creationist simply because the evolutionists won the argument. Both parts of your statement are incorrect. Creationists are indeed a large minority (rather than a majority) among scientists, mostly due to the fact that so many college professors are atheistic (and I'm not just talking about biologists), but it is a large minority, and a minority is not necessarily incorrect just because it is a minority. Besides, the ranks of creation scientists are growing quickly as the claims of evolutionists are being refuted. Furthermore, as for the National Academy of Science, it has an un-defenable but blatant rejection of Creationism. When Dr. Frank Press, the president of the NAS, was asked more than once in writing to prove the truth of his statements that he in the periodical Physics Today, he simply ignored it. The poll you cited dealt only with scientists from the NAS, which is reknowned for its intolerance of creationism, and does not reflect the position of the average scientist with a degree and respect in the scientific community. John Carson wrote: Also telling is the trend of belief from 1914 to 1998 showing a clear decline in religious faith. The full results of the Gallup poll show that a majority (58%) of average citizens believe in special creation, which is up from the 40% that it was around 1920. John Carson wrote: The world's best biologists almost unanimously reject creationism. The supporters of creationism are overwhelmingly religiously motivated amateurs. That is incorrect. There are a number of well known and respected biologists w
-
How large!! :p JoeSox wrote: Unless you can prove what causes a photon to rotate, I suggest you still believe in a God. I don't know if a photon rotates or not. So I don't have to prove it :) JoeSox wrote: I would say nature is much, much more powerful than man, and that man should never become nature. just my 2 cents, you asked. Surely, nature created us. But you said nature, not god. Do you mean nature is god? :D "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.
Sebastián Benítez wrote: I don't know if a photon rotates or not. Now you do. ;P
**"And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation..." -- Isaiah 2:4a
-
John Carson wrote: The relevant question is not the absolute numbers but the percentages. Even if they were a small minority, and they were correct, would it matter? John Carson wrote: the large number of fossil finds since Darwin's time has added a great deal of strength to the case. There is not even close to enough evidence to prove that animals slowly evolved over time from a single ancestor. I challenge you to find a document that traces all the links of the evolutionary lineage of even one vertebrate species back to its invertebrate ancestors without any missing links, for example - and there are tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of species on the earth. John Carson wrote: The scientific community is no longer Christian nor Creationist simply because the evolutionists won the argument. Both parts of your statement are incorrect. Creationists are indeed a large minority (rather than a majority) among scientists, mostly due to the fact that so many college professors are atheistic (and I'm not just talking about biologists), but it is a large minority, and a minority is not necessarily incorrect just because it is a minority. Besides, the ranks of creation scientists are growing quickly as the claims of evolutionists are being refuted. Furthermore, as for the National Academy of Science, it has an un-defenable but blatant rejection of Creationism. When Dr. Frank Press, the president of the NAS, was asked more than once in writing to prove the truth of his statements that he in the periodical Physics Today, he simply ignored it. The poll you cited dealt only with scientists from the NAS, which is reknowned for its intolerance of creationism, and does not reflect the position of the average scientist with a degree and respect in the scientific community. John Carson wrote: Also telling is the trend of belief from 1914 to 1998 showing a clear decline in religious faith. The full results of the Gallup poll show that a majority (58%) of average citizens believe in special creation, which is up from the 40% that it was around 1920. John Carson wrote: The world's best biologists almost unanimously reject creationism. The supporters of creationism are overwhelmingly religiously motivated amateurs. That is incorrect. There are a number of well known and respected biologists w
jdunlap wrote: I notice that you're getting off on statistics of scientists' beliefs and avoiding the real issues and the facts of science. I am not getting off on statistics of scientists' beliefs. That is where I have been from the start. Creationism is decisively rejected by the experts. You wriggle and squirm and claim that black is white on this point (much of the poll evidence I cited was not restricted to the NAS) but it remains a fact. Creationism has no credibility among the people in the best position to know. Yes, it is possible for a minority to be right, but when they became a minority (having previously been a majority) because their arguments were so weak, the chances of them turning out to be right are minimal. It is true that there is strong support for creationism among the general public. The fact that scientists depart so radically from opinions of the community to which they belong and which funds them is unusual and is accounted for by the strength of the case for evolution. It is my strongly held view that, when the scientific community has a nearly unanimous view on a subject, having considered at length and rejected an alternative, laypeople who are convinced that they know better than the scientific community are both arrogant and foolish. If a position has been decisively rejected by the scientific community, then the rest of us should generally not even bother to consider it (unless perhaps for historical interest or to better understand the thoughts of some foolish people with whom we interact). You may wish to characterise this as an ad hominen argument, but there are some positions so lacking in credibility, yet so doggedly adhered to, that there is nothing left but to analyse the motivations of those so tenaciously in error. jdunlap wrote: The full results of the Gallup poll show that a majority (58%) of average citizens believe in special creation, which is up from the 40% that it was around 1920. My comment on the change referred to the NAS scientists, which seemed most relevant for your claim that creationism was gaining ground among scientists. As for the various creationist arguments that you proffer, you have no doubt heard the story of the boy who cried wolf. He was not believed the third time. The creationists have cried wolf at least hundreds and probably thousands of times. They have been shown wrong time and time again. It reaches a point where their rubbish is just not worth discuss
-
jdunlap wrote: The Bible speaks of the Israelites living in Egypt as forced laborers, and then exiting from it in a series of miraculous events. Did this actually take place? There is lots of evidence to support this. Actually, there is no evidence a large population of Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. jdunlap wrote: For example, the pyramids were built by forced laborers at the time when they would have been forced laborers. The pyramids were not built at the same time as when the Hebrews were claimed to be held in bondage. Morover, there is a tremendous amount of physical evidence that the pyramids were NOT built by forced laborers, but by volunteers (among other things, where these workers lived has been excavated.) jdunlap wrote: Where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah once were, there is now the Dead Sea (an extremely salty sea!). Mass graves and human skulls have been found in the area. The scriptures do not record where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were. Furthermore, the Dead Sea predates the existance of Sodom and Gomorrah. Finally, no mass graves have been found in the area. jdunlap wrote: The existance of a worldwide Flood also has widespread evidence to support it. There is absolutely no evidence of a worldwide flood and plenty of evidence against it. Not to mention the absurd claim that Noah placed every animal aboard an ark--even assuming Noah was able to travel the world to collect the billions of species required, the size of the ark would have to have been immense. jdunlap wrote: Furthermore, marine fossils have been found in the most unlikely places - such as the top of Mt Everest! You do understand plate tectonics, right? jdunlap wrote: Many of the genealogies in the Bible, especially those of the Israelite kings, have been proven to be accurate. Competely untrue. First, it is difficult to establish accuracy with even modern genealogies, let alone genealogies thousands of years old. Second, there is actually very little physical evidence proving most the kings recorded in the old testament even lived. You'd think we'd have solid evidence David and Solomon existed. Alas, we don't. jdunlap wrote: Isaiah 52:13 through 53:12 and Psalm 22, for instance, record specific details about death by crucifixion hundreds of years before this terrible form of execution was
Joe Woodbury wrote: You do understand plate tectonics, right? I am not only talking about Mt Everest - there are hundreds of places that are far from any ocean, but still have fossils of sea-dwelling animals in places where it is highly unlikely that there was previously a sea. Joe Woodbury wrote: Actually, there is no evidence a large population of Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. Archaeological evidences for Israelite presence in Egypt - http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/egypt.html Is there evidence that the Israelites once lived in Egypt as the Bible says? - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a027.html Has Joseph's Tomb Been Found in Egypt? - http://www.levitt.com/essays/joseph.html Granted, the evidence is not as yet totally conclusive, but it is very likely to be accurate. But even if it turned out that this evidence did not lead to proof of the Israelites living in Egypt, lack of evidence is not contrarary evidence, especially when the area in question has not been fully investigated! Joe Woodbury wrote: The pyramids were not built at the same time as when the Hebrews were claimed to be held in bondage. OK, since I mentioned this, I've read lots of evidence - both more evidence for this, and more evidence against it - including two separate theories that contradict both each other and the theory that they were built by the Hebrews. (Plus a really wierd one that says that they couldn't have been built by anyone but aliens! :rolleyes: ) The Bible is does not say anything either way on this point, but they could very well have been built by the Israelites even so. But the Bible does say that the Israelites built the cities of Pithom and Rameses: Excerpt from Exodus 1: 7 But the sons of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly, and multiplied, and became exceedingly mighty, so that the land was filled with them. 8 Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9He said to his people, "Behold, the people of the sons of Israel are more and mightier than we. 10 "Come, let us deal wisely with them, or else they will multiply and in the event of war, they will also join themselves to those who hate us, and fight against us and depart from the land." 11 So they appointed taskmasters over them to afflict them with hard labor. And they built for Pharaoh storage cities, Pithom and Raamses. 12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied