About the existence of some kind of god or creator

[John Carson]

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.

[brianwelsch]

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."

BW CP Member Homepages

[JoeSox]

peterchen 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

[J Dunlap]

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]

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/[

[J Dunlap]

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

[J Dunlap]

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

FLUID UI Toolkit | FloodFill in C# & GDI+**

[John Carson]

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

[J Dunlap]

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

[Eric Astor]

One very important thing to point out about your refutation posts... By responding to (and more importantly quoting) only small sections, you often take them out of context, setting up a "straw man" that's easier to attack, as it's often said. I'll assume for the moment that this is unintentional. If so, could you please avoid this for the future? I understand that this is an easier structure for an argument, but it's easier simply because it's impossible to make points with any amount of complexity if your opponent insists on being able to take sections out of any relations they have, regardless of how important those relations are to the point. Also, this tends to make it easier for you to contradict yourself, so changing your style like this would benefit you as well.

[J Dunlap]

Actually, I meant my replies to be to the paragraph as a whole. For example: You said: Ok... The first point anyone should admit about religion (or any other fundamental debate/issue, come to think of it) is that anything based on faith (meaning anything, since every system of belief or operation has axioms, and even that can't make something complete - see Godel) cannot be decided. Deductive reasoning is essentially just as firmly based on faith in the steps of reasoning as religion is on faith in teachings and faith in general. Even so, I just want to question some points of your argument that have been debated many times before. I quoted: Deductive reasoning is essentially just as firmly based on faith in the steps of reasoning as religion is on faith in teachings and faith in general. I replied: Deductive reasoning is based on just that - reasoning. Granted, there is some faith involved, but that faith is rooted on the natural outcomes/consequences of known facts. There is a remote chance that the outcomes/consequences of those facts may differ somewhat from what is naturally expected - therefore, much good reasoning is based on more than one such deductive proof - and in this case, there are hundreds. Also see my response below. and later: 1) When multiple separate examples of fundamental reasoning come together, it is much more valid than if you only had one or two. 2) Fundamental reasoning is the closest we can get to understanding the truth. Beyond that, we might as well just forget the whole idea of debate and reasoning altogether. But if we throw out the idea of reasoning on the basis of some more reasoning - or indeed if we throw out reason at all - we might as well admit ourselves to the madhouse. As you can see, the reply was to the entire paragraph, and the same with #1 and #2 (#3 I answered in two separate sections). ;) I was trying to conserve space that way, as that post is already 6 pages long. If you'd like, I can go through and put the full quotes in, as I can see how other "3rd parties" could misunderstand what you said because of the method of quoting. Now #4 is a bit more fragmented, because you've got some tightly packed points. Maybe I can reply to it as a whole and then reply to each part of it. Plus, I didn't fully cover one of the points. As for your very last point: This is only a small piece of the many arguments that can be put forward... Again, though, I think we should all try to remember that all conclusions are ba

[Joe Woodbury]

jdunlap wrote: 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. Sigh. Plate Tectonics. jdunlap wrote: _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_ The key word is "large population." There was a small population living in the upper delta, but it did not have a fraction of the population described in the Old Testament. The Hyskos were likely of Palestinian origin, but they were not Hebrews. The time lines do not mesh. Moreover, once the Hyskos were overthrown, the attendent population was also ejected from Egypt. The Egyptians build fortifications throughout their northern frontier and into Palestine. They kept very good records, but never recorded a mass migration of people leaving Egypt, let alone non-Egyptians. The articles you pointed to are largely bogus. The authors are simply making stuff up and ignoring actual archaelogical evidence. The article on the tomb of Joseph has been thoroughly debunked by actual archaelogists (which the author most definitely isn't.) The pyramids were not build by the Hebrews. Period. The great pyramids of Giza were built over 500 years before Abraham was claimed to have been born. The archaelogical evidence that the pyramids were built by artisans, not slaves of any kind, is overwhelming. Pithom and Ramses were discovered, but they were not large enough to sustain the populations claimed. Moreover, whoever wrote the Old Testament would have clearly known about these cities. (The cities also date to several hundred years AFTER the alleged exodus.) The lack of evidence IS a valid indicator a large population of Hebrews never lived in Egypt. You simply cannot have populations of several hundred thousand people living in place for hundreds of years without leaving physical evidence. jdunlap wrote: It clearly says: "That He was cut off out of the land of the living". (Isaiah 53:8) I could ramble on about the mistranslation of this and the actual meaning, but you would reject it. Basically the problem lies with tense. Note that Isaiah uses the past tense in these versions, not the future. The best explanation I've heard is when coupled with I

[jan larsen]

Shog9 wrote: proof of God's existance is evident. Ehm, it is?, actually I think that wanting to believe is a prerequisite for that statement, but that must be included in the given set of assumptions. Sorry. Shog9 wrote: A proof cannot make you believe. Yes it could, if (a) God appeared hovering over the major Cities and clearly stated his/her basic plans for the world, AND I was there to watch first hand, then I certainly would believe. Regretably, the Gods of all the major religions seems a bit shy and choose to speak through, surprise, people. Shog9 wrote: Lack of one should not prevent you from it. Why not, that would be a very reasonable thing to do? "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

[jan larsen]

jdunlap wrote: Animal Evolution jdunlap wrote: How then could they figure out what they needed in order to survive, when even humans don't fully understand this themselves? This is a common mistake that many people make, the process of adaption is not performed through foresight, the creatures that is alive now are not the ones that suddenly sprouted feathers or fangs, they are simply the ones that didn't die as fast as the ones that didn't have the prerequisites and thus were able to multiply. It is true that major mutations are nearly entirely of the bad sort, and tends to die off very fast, but that is not the case with very small mutations. You have to consider the very long periods where the changes takes effect, look at how different the human species appears from continent to continent, changing the color of the skin is not any less harder than growing fangs or pointy ears. Actually, I remember to have seen the title for an article here at CP on evolutionary algorithms used for eg. solving the travelling salesman problem. Such algorithms are quite common and usefull, and they provide a very firm proof to the power of evolution. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

[Shog9 0]

jan larsen wrote: then I certainly would believe. To paraphrase someone else's sig, with a hypothetical situation, you can prove anything. Kinda like how if pigs flew, i'd get a date with Joey Lauren Adams. jan larsen wrote: but that must be included in the given set of assumptions. Sorry. Thinking out loud, Jan? Z

no one puts flowers

on a flower's grave

[jan larsen]

Shog9 wrote: you can prove anything. Kinda like how if pigs flew Yes, but I wasn't thinking of a hypothetical situation, the situation described, or a similar one, would be proof enough for me, but nothing else can make me believe. A lot of people follows Sai Baba[^], even one of the most successfull businessmen in denmark and a lot of artists. What can make reasonable human beings believe in such a person you could ask?, well, apparently just some plain and simple magic tricks that even the cheapest magicians are able to copy, flavoured with a simple message of love and understanding. This man is doing everything that Jesus were doing, and he even got his own disciples and a whole lot of followers. What is missing is an evil opponent to make him a martyr, and then he's got potential for being a whole new religion competing with Christianity. Allthough that is not very likely, for real success you have to be the first, number two is the first loser... Shog9 wrote: Thinking out loud, Jan? A bad habit :-O "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus