Belief in Evolution Around the World. [Archive]

HibsMax

01-07-2009, 10:31 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jul/01/evolution

Argentina - 44%
China - 55%
Egypt - 8%
Great Britain - 51%
India - 38%
Mexico - 52%
Russia - 39%
South Africa - 8%
Spain - 39%
USA - 33%

Erm, that's a worry...

being so close to 50% I would imagine it's worrying for both sides of the argument. On one hand, there will be people like me (and I assume you) that are like, "What the F! C'mon people, the evidence of evolution is there to be seen.". Then there will be other people who say, "Pash, fossils were placed in the ground by the Devil.".

I don't think science has all the answers but I do believe it has a lot of answers.

One thing that works for and against science is that theories are revised based on new findings. I don't think this is a sign of failure, I think it's a sign of advancement. We can't possibly expect to get everything right at the first time of asking. We learn from those that went before us.

For what it's worth, I believe in Evolution (I think there is enough evidence to drop the "Theory of" now). And I don't believe in organised religion. But that doesn't mean that I don't believe in "other things" out there in the Universe. I just don't know that I would call them Gods. More like more advanced beings IMO. We've been around for, I dunno, 20,000 years or so (I could google and get the right answer but it doesn't matter for this point). The Universe has been around for about 14,000,000,000 years. Yeah, I think there are more advanced lifeforms out there. As far as I'm concerned, there simply has to be.

barcahibs

01-07-2009, 11:22 PM

being so close to 50% I would imagine it's worrying for both sides of the argument. On one hand, there will be people like me (and I assume you) that are like, "What the F! C'mon people, the evidence of evolution is there to be seen.". Then there will be other people who say, "Pash, fossils were placed in the ground by the Devil.".

I don't think science has all the answers but I do believe it has a lot of answers.

One thing that works for and against science is that theories are revised based on new findings. I don't think this is a sign of failure, I think it's a sign of advancement. We can't possibly expect to get everything right at the first time of asking. We learn from those that went before us.

For what it's worth, I believe in Evolution (I think there is enough evidence to drop the "Theory of" now). And I don't believe in organised religion. But that doesn't mean that I don't believe in "other things" out there in the Universe. I just don't know that I would call them Gods. More like more advanced beings IMO. We've been around for, I dunno, 20,000 years or so (I could google and get the right answer but it doesn't matter for this point). The Universe has been around for about 14,000,000,000 years. Yeah, I think there are more advanced lifeforms out there. As far as I'm concerned, there simply has to be.

To be honest HM thats one of the problems To a scientist the word 'theory' doesn't mean the same thing that it does to the rest of us. you can't drop the 'theory of' bit in favour of something 'higher' or more definite because there is nothing higher.

When you or I are faced with a problem (like how life came to be as we see it today) we might come up with an idea (probably half baked in my case) and describe that idea as our 'theory' of how things work.
A scientist wouldn't say that, they would describe their idea as a 'hypothesis' and they would then subject that hypothesis to rigorous testing.
Only once it has been shown that no available test can disprove that hypothesis is it labelled a theory.

The theory of evolution as we understand it today has been through this; it has been tested again and again by scientists (and non scientists) for the past 150 odd years on a pretty much daily basis and it has NEVER failed a test. Parts of it have had to be amended of course (no-one knew about genetics or DNA 150 years ago) but it has always been possible to amend the theory to take this into account without destroying it. As you say this amending is one of the scientific method's strengths rather than a weakness.

Unfortunately the ambiguity in language is lost on most of the general public and it allows people to say that evolution is 'only' a theory as if this somehow damages it. Not really the publics fault of course, in this case I'd suggest science should change its definitions.

Is anyone else's ex a scientist? she used to get very het up about things like this! :greengrin

As for God or evolution I don't see the contradiction, you can quite easily have both. The theory of evolution has nothing to say on the subject of deities. It gives biblical literalists a bit of a problem but thats about it.

As a personal opinion I don't believe in a god. I would say that the fact that my (and yours and everyone elses') eyeballs have been put in back to front, plus the fact that we seem to have been made out of recycled ape parts argues against a deity being involved in our design. But then again who hasn't bodged a job and rushed out substandard work at five to five on a Friday?? Maybe we were designed just before a long weekend :greengrin.

Or maybe God has some deep and meaningful reason behind it all. Who's to say?

(((Fergus)))

02-07-2009, 04:09 AM

The theory of evolution as we understand it today has been through this; it has been tested again and again by scientists (and non scientists) for the past 150 odd years on a pretty much daily basis and it has NEVER failed a test. Parts of it have had to be amended of course (no-one knew about genetics or DNA 150 years ago) but it has always been possible to amend the theory to take this into account without destroying it. As you say this amending is one of the scientific method's strengths rather than a weakness.

Have they managed to test the bit where minerals turn into a living creature?

As a personal opinion I don't believe in a god. I would say that the fact that my (and yours and everyone elses') eyeballs have been put in back to front, plus the fact that we seem to have been made out of recycled ape parts argues against a deity being involved in our design.

Speak for yourself (no wonder a scientist took an interest in you :wink: :greengrin)

hibee_boy

02-07-2009, 07:50 AM

Ive got no time for the Guardian newspaper.

J-C

02-07-2009, 08:24 AM

Now I don't have a problem with religion and the creation idea as such, the only problem being that fact tell another story. Remember the creation theory( because this is also a theory ) was born only a few thousand years ago, were the one true god created the universe and all things in it.
Tell me, why did the Romans, egyptians and the ancient Greeks never have this concept of a single being, they chose to worship many gods. Even to this day there are tribes in the deepest jungles of the Earth who still believe in different gods( wind,rain,trees, etc )

The Bible gives us the creation story in Genesis and also give the time at around 5,000 years ago approx, this has now been proved to be untrue due to science being able to carbon date rocks, bones etc.

The bible also seems to omit large details of facts, such as dinosaurs, mammoths, sabre tooths, giant sloths and many more creatures that have now been proven to have been on this planet at some time in the past.

Now I can understand why people who have strong religious views would be against the theory of evolution as it goes against everything they believe but surely the evidence of science is overwhelming.

I suppose this is what makes the world a more interesting place, all the diversity in nature and also in concepts.:greengrin

khib70

02-07-2009, 08:26 AM

"God or Darwin". Oh dear. Did BAnderson write this shoddy excuse for journalism?
It's the Guardian, what do you expect?

Sergio sledge

02-07-2009, 08:30 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jul/01/evolution

Argentina - 44%
China - 55%
Egypt - 8%
Great Britain - 51%
India - 38%
Mexico - 52%
Russia - 39%
South Africa - 8%
Spain - 39%
USA - 33%

Erm, that's a worry...

In your opinion....:wink:

Just one thing, you have stated that this 51% is people who believe in Evolution, but thats not what the table says, the actual heading is:

Agree the scientific evidence for evolution exists

For all we know the question could have been, "do you agree that there is sufficient scientific evidence to prove that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct?" For this question I would have to say that I would answer no. Thats not to say that I don't believe evolution can happen, but that I'm not sure there is enough evidence to prove that entirely different species can evolve from other species.

There are many people whole believe in evolution who do not know of any evidence, and take the theory on trust from the scientists etc, so they may have answered "no" to that question.

Betty Boop

02-07-2009, 08:43 AM

Ive got no time for the Guardian newspaper.
Why?

GlesgaeHibby

02-07-2009, 08:50 AM

I think that headline is quite misleading.

It's suggesting that you either believe in God or Darwin's theory of evolution and that the two are not compatible, which is just not true as far as I'm concerned.

How is belief in the Christian God and evolution compatible?

The Bible states that God made man in his image on the 6th day of creation approx 6000 years ago.

How is that compatible with evolution over the Earth's 4.5 Billion year age? Man has only existed for a tiny fraction of that age, which doesn't fit in at all with scripture.

GlesgaeHibby

02-07-2009, 09:03 AM

Remember the creation theory( because this is also a theory )

Creation is not a theory in the sense that evolution is a theory, so to compare the two in this way is wrong.

As someone mentioned above the word theory seems to cause confusion among many people.

In mathematics proofs exist. That is because mathematical theories can be shown to be true for all cases, and can never be wrong. They then become proofs.

In Science a theory is as close as we can get to a proof. Gravity is a theory. Why? Because nothing in science can become a proof. Every case we have seen so far suggest gravity exists, but just one counter example would have to be found to cause major problems for the theory, which is why it cannot be dubbed a proof.

Nobody would deny that gravity exists, but it will always remain a theory.

In the same way, people that try to rubbish evolution because it is 'only a theory' are pretty good at weakening their own case with lack of knowledge of what a theory is in the scientific sense.

J-C

02-07-2009, 09:12 AM

Creation is not a theory in the sense that evolution is a theory, so to compare the two in this way is wrong.

As someone mentioned above the word theory seems to cause confusion among many people.

In mathematics proofs exist. That is because mathematical theories can be shown to be true for all cases, and can never be wrong. They then become proofs.

In Science a theory is as close as we can get to a proof. Gravity is a theory. Why? Because nothing in science can become a proof. Every case we have seen so far suggest gravity exists, but just one counter example would have to be found to cause major problems for the theory, which is why it cannot be dubbed a proof.

Nobody would deny that gravity exists, but it will always remain a theory.

In the same way, people that try to rubbish evolution because it is 'only a theory' are pretty good at weakening their own case with lack of knowledge of what a theory is in the scientific sense.

If there is no proof of Creation then surely it's a theory

The term theory has two broad sets of meanings, one used in the empirical sciences (both natural and social) and the other used in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and across other fields in the humanities. There is considerable difference and even dispute across academic disciplines as to the proper usages of the term. What follows is an attempt to describe how the term is used, not to try to say how it ought to be used.
Although the scientific meaning is by far the more commonly used in academic discourse, it is hardly the only one used, and it would be a mistake to assume from the outset that a given use of the term "theory" in academic literature or discourse is a reference to a scientific or empirically-based theory.

Philosophical theories
Main article: Philosophical theory (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Philosophical_theory)
Theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Idea) are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested.

GlesgaeHibby

02-07-2009, 09:45 AM

If there is no proof of Creation then surely it's a theory

The term theory has two broad sets of meanings, one used in the empirical sciences (both natural and social) and the other used in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and across other fields in the humanities. There is considerable difference and even dispute across academic disciplines as to the proper usages of the term. What follows is an attempt to describe how the term is used, not to try to say how it ought to be used.
Although the scientific meaning is by far the more commonly used in academic discourse, it is hardly the only one used, and it would be a mistake to assume from the outset that a given use of the term "theory" in academic literature or discourse is a reference to a scientific or empirically-based theory.

Philosophical theories
Main article: Philosophical theory (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Philosophical_theory)
Theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Idea) are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested.

Evolution is a Scientific Theory, Creation is not a scientific theory.

So to compare the two as such isn't compatible.

PeeJay

02-07-2009, 10:06 AM

Tell me, why did the Romans, egyptians and the ancient Greeks never have this concept of a single being, they chose to worship many gods. Even to this day there are tribes in the deepest jungles of the Earth who still believe in different gods( wind,rain,trees, etc )

If you ask me it's because with one god you can control people better - i.e. gain more power, set up a power base and exercise your power over the 'true believers' and then direct it towards sorting out any pesky 'non-believers'.

Let's face it, if there's a god on every corner and they're all spouting different creation tales or whatever, it's difficult to form any sense of community and 'make lots of people do what you want them to do'. By 'you', of course, I mean those who speak 'directly' to the one god or those who have established themselves as the keeper of the flame/light/faith - with the one god's permission of course ... for our eternal enlightenment.:devil:

Sir David Gray

02-07-2009, 10:27 AM

How is belief in the Christian God and evolution compatible?

The Bible states that God made man in his image on the 6th day of creation approx 6000 years ago.

How is that compatible with evolution over the Earth's 4.5 Billion year age? Man has only existed for a tiny fraction of that age, which doesn't fit in at all with scripture.

Have a read at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) article, it helps to explain what I'm talking about.

Many Christians accept that evolution exists but that it's God who has a hand in it all. Obviously that would mean that, to a lot of people, belief in God and belief in evolution are not incompatible.

Darth Hibbie

02-07-2009, 10:45 AM

Calvin

02-07-2009, 11:28 AM

(((Fergus)))

02-07-2009, 01:02 PM

Creationism and the belief in evolution are most certainly compatible. However, this relies strongly on a metaphorical interpretation of the bible and can actually correlate quite successfully. Each 'day' of genesis can be construed as a period of the development of the earth. However, I believe that the bible was intended to be taken literally so have a problem with those who don't do so.

It's not possible to understand "day" literally in this context since the sun, moon and stars - our means of measuring time - weren't created until the fourth "day".

The seven "days" of creation must, therefore, be understood analogously.

ancienthibby

02-07-2009, 01:53 PM

Creationism and the belief in evolution are most certainly compatible. However, this relies strongly on a metaphorical interpretation of the bible and can actually correlate quite successfully. Each 'day' of genesis can be construed as a period of the development of the earth. However, I believe that the bible was intended to be taken literally so have a problem with those who don't do so.

Scripture also says that 'with God, one day is like a thousand' so folks should not get hung up about literally six days. The Bible certainly suggests that Creation could have taken place over 6,000 years at least - but no one knows what a 'day' actually meant in God's terms!

PeeJay

02-07-2009, 02:06 PM

Scripture also says that 'with God, one day is like a thousand' so folks should not get hung up about literally six days. The Bible certainly suggests that Creation could have taken place over 6,000 years at least - but no one knows what a 'day' actually meant in God's terms!

Genesis - Chapter 1 - verse 6
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Without getting "hung up" on anything maybe you could explain how you think maybe we can't really know what God meant by a day -seems plain enough to me?

J-C

02-07-2009, 03:00 PM

Evolution is a Scientific Theory, Creation is not a scientific theory.

So to compare the two as such isn't compatible.

But if both are theories then surely they both need proof to give them crediblity A theory is an idea, a thought which attempts to explain something in particular. I could turn round and give my theory as to how JFK was assasinated but until I have fact and proof it's just a theory.
Evolution is just a theory and to be honest there isn't a great deal of proof, just supposition as to how life evolves to suit it's surroundings. There are many examples of diversity in animals and how they have seemingly adapted over the thousands of years but I suppose until we see those changes with our own eyes, it will remain a theory.

barcahibs

02-07-2009, 03:16 PM

Have they managed to test the bit where minerals turn into a living creature?

Nope but then they haven't used it to work out when Hibs will next win the Scottish cup either :confused:

The theory of evolution has nothing to say on the actual origin of life. it could have been chemicals in a pool of pirmordial goo spontaneously self organising, it could have been god, or it could have been an alien tossing his rubbish out of a spaceship window for all we know. Evolution doesn't care, all it cares about is how life got from where it was then to where it is today.

Personally I go for the chemicals bit. the aliens one is good too but it just pushes the problem farther back. I certainly wouldn't rule out a god - though I personally would rule out the god of the bible. but thats just my personal opinion, I certainly can't prove it one way or the other and likely no-one ever will.

Speak for yourself (no wonder a scientist took an interest in you :wink: :greengrin)

:greengrin its the hairy back and the love of bananas that does it, it drives the girls wild - especially when you can hang from the light fitting by your toes :greengrin

Seriously though it is a point isn't it? If there was a perfect omnipotent designer involved then why are my eyeballs the wrong way round? The optic nerve endings in all (I think) mammals eyeballs have been installed on the outside of the retina. this creates a wee blind spot in your vision - you can see this for yourself here with a wee blindspot test which is pretty cool even if you ignore the evolution argument bit :greengrin blind spot test (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html)

It seems a fairly basic design flaw when you think about it - especially seeing as its a flaw that squid, for example, don't share. Their eyes work the same way as ours, except their optic nerve connects to the inside of their retina and so no blind spot.

Why do I breathe and eat through the same tube? There are loads of similiar flaws throughout the animal kingdom. Fine when viewed as the result of a blind process of evolution happy to just accept any solution that works, a bit of a problem (to me) when viewed as the result of a perfect creator.

And if we're designed in God's image then why do we look so much like apes? I think I'm right in saying that there is NO organ, process or structure in the human body that doesn't exist in a chimpanzee's body. Nothing. I can't reconcile that in my head with God. Others obviously can, and fair play to them, I'm not saying I'm right - I just think they're wrong. :greengrin

(((Fergus)))

02-07-2009, 03:19 PM

Genesis - Chapter 1 - verse 6
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Without getting "hung up" on anything maybe you could explain how you think maybe we can't really know what God meant by a day -seems plain enough to me?

That passage defines light and dark in general rather than the sun, moon and stars in particular, which are the "mechanism" we use to measure our terrestrial 24-hour day. A "day" is simply one revolution of a cycle. Not all cycles are the same length, e.g., a day on Mars is approximately 40 minutes longer than one on earth.

Genesis 1:14-19 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/gen1.html#14) "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/firmament.html) of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth'; and it was so. Then 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. …So the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

ancienthibby

02-07-2009, 03:22 PM

Genesis - Chapter 1 - verse 6
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Without getting "hung up" on anything maybe you could explain how you think maybe we can't really know what God meant by a day -seems plain enough to me?

Here's the Bible quote which makes it clear that the human understanding of time and God's understanding of time are quite different:

2 Peter 3:8-10 (New International Version)

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=31&search=2%20Peter%203:8-10#fen-NIV-30517a)]

Calvin

02-07-2009, 03:22 PM

The seven "days" of creation must, therefore, be understood analogously.

Not necessarily - it's an issue of translation that is impossible to be resolved. But I know what you mean!

LiverpoolHibs

02-07-2009, 03:24 PM

J-C

02-07-2009, 03:32 PM

There's not a great deal of proof of evolution via natural selection?

I said that, 4th line down.:confused::greengrin

LiverpoolHibs

02-07-2009, 03:34 PM

I said that, 4th line down.:confused::greengrin

Care to back it up?

barcahibs

02-07-2009, 03:34 PM

But if both are theories then surely they both need proof to give them crediblity A theory is an idea, a thought which attempts to explain something in particular. I could turn round and give my theory as to how JFK was assasinated but until I have fact and proof it's just a theory.
Evolution is just a theory and to be honest there isn't a great deal of proof, just supposition as to how life evolves to suit it's surroundings. There are many examples of diversity in animals and how they have seemingly adapted over the thousands of years but I suppose until we see those changes with our own eyes, it will remain a theory.

The word theory means something different to a scientist than it does to you and me. Your definition of theory is correct as far as the word is used in the real world but its scientific definition is different. A theory is an idea that has been tested as far as is possible and has been proven to be correct as far as our current understanding can allow. Theres no where else for the theory of evolution to go its at the top of its evolutionary tree :greengrin

There's not a great deal of proof of evolution via natural selection?

A woman at my current girlfriends work was sent home the other day because she'd been in contact with someone with swine flu.

Swine flu is evolution in action, a form of life existing now which didn't exist in its current form a few months ago. Evolution is proven in the laboratory and in the natural world every day. It DOESN'T mean there can't be a god as well or that god didn't start the whole thing off but it does mean that we could get where we are today without one.

PeeJay

02-07-2009, 03:36 PM

That passage defines light and dark in general rather than the sun, moon and stars in particular, which are the "mechanism" we use to measure our terrestrial 24-hour day. A "day" is simply one revolution of a cycle. Not all cycles are the same length, e.g., a day on Mars is approximately 40 minutes longer than one on earth.

With respect: what is general about the statement - is this not the way it is for you and me, and all of us, i.e. something we can all actually relate to? :confused:

And how come you squeeze Mars in here - what's that got to do with anything? But then again, if you are so well informed about God - what was that first light and what happened to it - did he switch it off again? Seems it wasn't the sun or the moon which he claims to have created a couple of days later on? Could you give me a specific answer perhaps - was it a sort of torch or gas lamp and - come to think of it - why would God need light to see what he was doing?

The first page of the book and nothing seems to tie up properly - poorly edited if you ask me! :blah:

:greengrin

J-C

02-07-2009, 03:37 PM

Care to back it up?

Originally Posted by JC50 http://www.hibs.net/message/images_greenish/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?p=2086590#post2086590)
But if both are theories then surely they both need proof to give them crediblity A theory is an idea, a thought which attempts to explain something in particular. I could turn round and give my theory as to how JFK was assasinated but until I have fact and proof it's just a theory.
Evolution is just a theory and to be honest there isn't a great deal of proof, just supposition as to how life evolves to suit it's surroundings. There are many examples of diversity in animals and how they have seemingly adapted over the thousands of years but I suppose until we see those changes with our own eyes, it will remain a theory.

da-robster

02-07-2009, 03:39 PM

Intresting article about creationism in the guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/17/evolution-versus-creationism-science

Very suprising that 16% of science teachers in the US are creationists makes you wonder. :hmmm:

LiverpoolHibs

02-07-2009, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by JC50 http://www.hibs.net/message/images_greenish/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?p=2086590#post2086590)
But if both are theories then surely they both need proof to give them crediblity A theory is an idea, a thought which attempts to explain something in particular. I could turn round and give my theory as to how JFK was assasinated but until I have fact and proof it's just a theory.
Evolution is just a theory and to be honest there isn't a great deal of proof, just supposition as to how life evolves to suit it's surroundings. There are many examples of diversity in animals and how they have seemingly adapted over the thousands of years but I suppose until we see those changes with our own eyes, it will remain a theory.

:greengrin

But seriously, care to back up your claim that there isn't a great deal of proof for evolution via natural selection?

(((Fergus)))

02-07-2009, 03:44 PM

The theory of evolution has nothing to say on the actual origin of life. it could have been chemicals in a pool of pirmordial goo spontaneously self organising, it could have been god, or it could have been an alien tossing his rubbish out of a spaceship window for all we know. Evolution doesn't care, all it cares about is how life got from where it was then to where it is today.

I suppose we cannot compare evolution it with creationism then as they are radically different in scope. We'd have to compare theory of evolution + theory of origin of life.

It seems as if science looks at life as a kind of unfinished jigsaw - "this bit we understand, but we don't know what it connects to and we don't know what the finished picture is going to be". Trouble is that "peach" so lovingly constructed could easily turn out to be someone's erse :wink:

Seriously though it is a point isn't it? If there was a perfect omnipotent designer involved then why are my eyeballs the wrong way round? The optic nerve endings in all (I think) mammals eyeballs have been installed on the outside of the retina. this creates a wee blind spot in your vision - you can see this for yourself here with a wee blindspot test which is pretty cool even if you ignore the evolution argument bit :greengrin blind spot test (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html)

And if we're designed in God's image then why do we look so much like apes? I think I'm right in saying that there is NO organ, process or structure in the human body that doesn't exist in a chimpanzee's body. Nothing. I can't reconcile that in my head with God. Others obviously can, and fair play to them, I'm not saying I'm right - I just think they're wrong. :greengrin

Maybe there's a reason for the blind spot? Maybe it's in our blind spot? :greengrin

As for the chimpanzees, the main difference between them and human beings is that human beings have free will (a reason-gifted mind with the consciousness of right and wrong), whereas animals operate solely in an automatic, instinctive way. Also human beings concern themselves with both the spiritual and the material, whereas animals are focussed on material concerns only (apart from anything else they do not have our spiritual deficiency).

PeeJay

02-07-2009, 03:47 PM

Here's the Bible quote which makes it clear that the human understanding of time and God's understanding of time are quite different:

2 Peter 3:8-10 (New International Version)

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=31&search=2%20Peter%203:8-10#fen-NIV-30517a)]

I don't get it: why is your quotation more viable than mine - they're both from the same book, talking about the same God? Is Peter saying Genesis got it wrong and Peter knows better? They can't all be right/wrong can they? I mean, on a purely simple level: such discrepencies do little to foster communication, don't you think?:confused:

(((Fergus)))

02-07-2009, 03:48 PM

With respect: what is general about the statement - is this not the way it is for you and me, and all of us, i.e. something we can all actually relate to? :confused:

And how come you squeeze Mars in here - what's that got to do with anything? But then again, if you are so well informed about God - what was that first light and what happened to it - did he switch it off again? Seems it wasn't the sun or the moon which he claims to have created a couple of days later on? Could you give me a specific answer perhaps - was it a sort of torch or gas lamp and - come to think of it - why would God need light to see what he was doing?

The first page of the book and nothing seems to tie up properly - poorly edited if you ask me! :blah:

:greengrin

I mentioned Mars as an example of how there is no such thing as a fixed 24-hour "day", the term can be applied to any cycle.

J-C

02-07-2009, 03:49 PM

:greengrin

But seriously, care to back up your claim that there isn't a great deal of proof for evolution via natural selection?

Because as yet we haven't actually witnessed evolution in progress.

Have you actually seen an animal changing from say a meat eater to a vegetarian due to it's change in surrounding or environment etc. I haven't but I do believe that over thousands of years animals and plants have evolved to do just that,to survive in varying environments. These don't happen overnight and take centuries to achieve, so by asking that question is rather foolish of you.

Yor first post was not a question directed at me, more like a statement, hence the reason I had no idea where you were coming from.

Certain animals that come from different continents have similar attributes but evolved completely differently. Other animals that look almost identical have evolved to life in their environment because each environment is different, hence fruit bats and bats that mainly eat insects.

(((Fergus)))

02-07-2009, 03:54 PM

Because as yet we haven't actually witnessed evolution in progress.

Have you actually seen an animal changing from say a meat eater to a vegetarian due to it's change in surrounding or environment etc. I haven't but I do believe that over thousands of years animals and plants have evolved to do just that,to survive in varying environments. These don't happen overnight and take centuries to achieve, so by asking that question is rather foolish of you.

Yor first post was not a question directed at me, more like a statement, hence the reason I had no idea where you were com ing from.

Also we have to distinguish between evolution and adaptation. There's plenty of evidence of adaptation but no evidence of one species becoming another.

LiverpoolHibs

02-07-2009, 03:58 PM

Because as yet we haven't actually witnessed evolution in progress.

Yes we have. Genes building an immunity to antibiotics is demonstrable evidence for evolution by natural selection.

Have you actually seen an animal changing from say a meat eater to a vegetarian due to it's change in surrounding or environment etc. I haven't but I do believe that over thousands of years animals and plants have evolved to do just that,to survive in varying environments. These don't happen overnight and take centuries to achieve, so by asking that question is rather foolish of you.

Erm, no it isn't. You've admitted we haven't had the time to witness that but it is (as I've said above) demonstrably evident in species with a far, far shorter 'generation times'.

Yor first post was not a question directed at me, more like a statement, hence the reason I had no idea where you were com ing from.

Fair do's sorry about that.

(((Fergus)))

02-07-2009, 04:05 PM

Yes we have. Genes building an immunity to antibiotics is demonstrable evidence for evolution by natural selection.

Isn't that adaptation rather than evolution into a new species that cannot reproduce with its "source"?

barcahibs

02-07-2009, 04:35 PM

I suppose we cannot compare evolution it with creationism then as they are radically different in scope. We'd have to compare theory of evolution + theory of origin of life.

It seems as if science looks at life as a kind of unfinished jigsaw - "this bit we understand, but we don't know what it connects to and we don't know what the finished picture is going to be". Trouble is that "peach" so lovingly constructed could easily turn out to be someone's erse :wink:

Evolution conflicts with creationism only where creationists postulate a designer who caused everything on earth to spring to life fully formed as we see it today.
Actually that could still have happened (evolution actually doesn't have anything to say on that either really), but the 'creator' for some reason chose to leave a mechanism that could have done his job for him, AND created evidence that shows that mechanism had in fact done his job for him.

Maybe he was trying to cover his tracks? Maybe he liked to be anonymous? But in that case why leave behind a big book saying "I did it!"

You're absolutely right maybe that peach could turn out to be someones arse - but no-ones managed to show that it has yet. Who knows what evolution could achieve given a few billion more years though? In the meantime I had a lovely Fuji apple today (I don't like peaches) :greengrin

Maybe there's a reason for the blind spot? Maybe it's in our blind spot? :greengrin

You're right maybe there is a reason for that blind spot - maybe it was so that Jesus could pull the old switcheroo with the water and the wine at Cana! :greengrin (apologies if anyone is offended I'm really not trying to)

Its hard to think why god would put a hole in our vision though.

Why do Giraffes have a nerve controlling their larynx that travels all the way from their brain, right down their big long neck, down into their chest, loops round and then travels all the way back up that big long neck almost to the top again, to the larynx, without doing anything on the way? Did the creator just have extra materials to spare? Or could it be because all mammals share this feature and it evolved before the giraffes long neck did? Maybe the giraffes long neck was a late revision by a design committee? :grr:

As for the chimpanzees, the main difference between them and human beings is that human beings have free will (a reason-gifted mind with the consciousness of right and wrong), whereas animals operate solely in an automatic, instinctive way. Also human beings concern themselves with both the spiritual and the material, whereas animals are focussed on material concerns only (apart from anything else they do not have our spiritual deficiency).

Sorry but define free will. Once you've done that prove that animals don't have it and that I do. How do you know I'm not just responding to stimuli?

Apart from anything else its been pretty clearly shown that apes DO have a sense of right and wrong and frequently act in ways that would seem contrary for an animal just responding to stimuli. Apes lie, cheat and steal. They give gifts, form non-sexual friendships and alliances and care for young who they don't share any genes with. Sound pretty much like people to me.

Heck even my old cat and my current (borrowed) dog knew when they'd done something that I (their society) considered wrong. The dog hides under the bed if it makes a mess on the carpet . The cat used to get very upset if you lifted her up on to the kitchen counters or the dining table - she KNEW she wasn't allowed there and was doing wrong.

fergal7

02-07-2009, 04:36 PM

Yes we have. Genes building an immunity to antibiotics is demonstrable evidence for evolution by natural selection.

Erm, no it isn't. You've admitted we haven't had the time to witness that but it is (as I've said above) demonstrably evident in species with a far, far shorter 'generation times'.

Fair do's sorry about that.

I find myself strangely agreeing with you 100%.

Thats it...... i'm going back on the ale.

(((Fergus)))

02-07-2009, 05:48 PM

Maybe he was trying to cover his tracks? Maybe he liked to be anonymous? But in that case why leave behind a big book saying "I did it!"

Mmm, the Old Testament in itself isn't compelling proof. As you believe in God, so it makes any sense. If you don't verbalise a belief in God, you can use it to justify that position too.

Its hard to think why god would put a hole in our vision though.

One possible reason is as a reminder that, even though we think we see (understand) everything, in reality we don't.

No idea about the giraffes, but it's worth bearing in mind that this "design flaw" view of physiology - which, considering we have no idea how to design and build a living creature ourselves, is just a little bit arrogant - has led to the surgical removal of "unnecessary" organs which subsequently prove to be essential. That blind spot again. :wink:

Sorry but define free will. Once you've done that prove that animals don't have it and that I do. How do you know I'm not just responding to stimuli?

Tell that to the judge :wink:

HibsMax

02-07-2009, 05:55 PM

Also we have to distinguish between evolution and adaptation. There's plenty of evidence of adaptation but no evidence of one species becoming another.

What is the difference between adaptation and evolution? If one species adapts enough, it eventually evolves into something quite different from what it once was. This takes a looooooooooooooooong time. I don't think humans can live long enough to witness evolution at work since the changes are so gradual.

I don't believe there is evidence that shows one species evolving into another, that would be impossible. Fossils are snapshots of time. There are fossils that show animals that appear to be in transition though. Reptiles with feathers, that sort of thing.

There's a wealth of information on this topic, and religion, and proponents of either could spend all day long shooting down the other's arguments.

To be continued...

EDIT: one thing that irks me is that some people complain about the lack of solid evidence to back up certain scientific theories, etc. Um, where's the compelling evidence that God created men in his own image, etc.? Where are the facts? We've got fossils that prove that we are not the first inhabitants on this planet.

joe breezy

02-07-2009, 06:32 PM

Most people don't get taught evolution as something that is definitely proven do they?

I didn't but I go along with the theory. I think the evidence is there but is it definite that we all evolved from amoebas, I'm not 100% sure.
I'm a sceptic on anything till proven and there's not much that can be fully proven, not as much as people like to think anyway

I'm an athiest by the way

hibsbollah

02-07-2009, 06:46 PM

Most people don't get taught evolution as something that is definitely proven do they?

I certainly hope so.

Betty Boop

02-07-2009, 07:03 PM

I certainly hope so.

Everybody's talking about Revolution, Evolution, Mastication, Flagelolation, Regulations, Integrations, Meditations, United Nations, Congratulations.
All we are saying...............:singing:

LiverpoolHibs

02-07-2009, 07:15 PM

Isn't that adaptation rather than evolution into a new species that cannot reproduce with its "source"?

That's still evolution. Evolution isn't one animal changing into another over night.

I find myself strangely agreeing with you 100%.

Thats it...... i'm going back on the ale.

:tee hee:

(((Fergus)))

02-07-2009, 08:26 PM

What is the difference between adaptation and evolution? If one species adapts enough, it eventually evolves into something quite different from what it once was. This takes a looooooooooooooooong time. I don't think humans can live long enough to witness evolution at work since the changes are so gradual.

With adaptation, something can change back and forth to suit conditions, e.g., skin in sunlight or hands if doing manual work or clerical work. The different "races" of human beings are all adaptations of the same "design", i.e., they can intermarry and have children.

EDIT: one thing that irks me is that some people complain about the lack of solid evidence to back up certain scientific theories, etc. Um, where's the compelling evidence that God created men in his own image, etc.? Where are the facts? We've got fossils that prove that we are not the first inhabitants on this planet.

There is no compelling (only circumstantial) evidence of God otherwise faith would not be required. Many religions state that it is not possible for a creature to conceive of its Creator therefore faith is a prerequisite of the understanding that is available to us. Science on the other hand purports not to be faith-based and is therefore required to demonstrate its claims.

(((Fergus)))

02-07-2009, 08:29 PM

That's still evolution. Evolution isn't one animal changing into another over night.

:tee hee:

AFAIK evolution is the (theoretical) process of one species changing into another species. Two different species cannot reproduce.

Adaptations of the same species (e.g., different breeds of dog) can however reproduce together.

GlesgaeHibby

03-07-2009, 06:39 AM

GlesgaeHibby

03-07-2009, 06:47 AM

Have a read at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) article, it helps to explain what I'm talking about.

Many Christians accept that evolution exists but that it's God who has a hand in it all. Obviously that would mean that, to a lot of people, belief in God and belief in evolution are not incompatible.

To my mind, that's clutching at straws. The Bible says God created the Earth and every living species in their current forms.

The way I see it is that there are christians who believe the Earth is 6000 years old. These people willingly choose to ignore massive amounts of evidence for an old earth/universe and evolution, but remain true to their scripture.

The other camp believes in an old earth/universe/evolution, but somehow try and find even tiny hints of scripture that may support this view, because religion and the thought of a God is a comfort to them and a good way of living.

Both IMO are dangerous stances. One camp who are prepared to ignore masses of evidence, and the other when presented with evidence that contradicts the Bible still go along with the Bible.

All IMO of course. I was raised a Christian, and believed for many years until I started realising all the scientific evidence supports evolution/old earth and not creation/young earth.

J-C

03-07-2009, 07:12 AM

The Creation 'Theory' does need proof to give it credibility. It doesn't have any though, and it is not a scientific theory as I mentioned above.

Evolution IS a Scientific Theory, and as such it has a massive amount of evidence supporting it.

Don't get me wrong I believe in Evolution, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence which shows it and the theories are very interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

LiverpoolHibs

03-07-2009, 08:16 AM

AFAIK evolution is the (theoretical) process of one species changing into another species. Two different species cannot reproduce.

Adaptations of the same species (e.g., different breeds of dog) can however reproduce together.

No it isn't. It's the process by which organisms evolve via natural selection, this might involve new species coming about or it may not. It's nothing to do with whether two species can reproduce or not.

richard_pitts

03-07-2009, 08:32 AM

Don't get me wrong I believe in Evolution, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence which shows it and the theories are very interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

At last my philosophy degree comes in useful!! :faf:

We're arguably into a wider debate about the philosophy of science (versus religion) here:

The problem with science is that it doesn't explain everything - take the bee for instance: Physics says its too fat to fly. It does :greengrin Does this mean that it's just an "exception" or does it mean that we just haven't discovered the proper laws of physics yet? A good example would be the medical diagnosis arguments on House: If a patient's condition is explained by a diagnosis covering 95% of the symptoms, is the other 5% just an oddity related to the patient, or does it indicate something else rather than what we think it is?

In much the same way, is it the fact we haven't seen anything evolve just that it does, but it's a very slow process, or that we haven't discovered the proper principles behind species development? Or indeed, that it's being directed by some higher power? :confused:

As you may have gathered, my views on religion change with the wind as befits a former Liberal Democrat :faf::dizzy:

LiverpoolHibs

03-07-2009, 08:40 AM

At last my philosophy degree comes in useful!! :faf:

We're arguably into a wider debate about the philosophy of science (versus religion) here:

The problem with science is that it doesn't explain everything - take the bee for instance: Physics says its too fat to fly. It does :greengrin Does this mean that it's just an "exception" or does it mean that we just haven't discovered the proper laws of physics yet? A good example would be the medical diagnosis arguments on House: If a patient's condition is explained by a diagnosis covering 95% of the symptoms, is the other 5% just an oddity related to the patient, or does it indicate something else rather than what we think it is?

In much the same way, is it the fact we haven't seen anything evolve just that it does, but it's a very slow process, or that we haven't discovered the proper principles behind species development? Or indeed, that it's being directed by some higher power? :confused:

As you may have gathered, my views on religion change with the wind as befits a former Liberal Democrat :faf::dizzy:

But, as I've said, we have seen species evolve. JC50 seems to have ignored that post while saying that there is circumstantial (rather than demonstrable) evidence for evolution - I'm not sure why.

(((Fergus)))

03-07-2009, 11:19 AM

But, as I've said, we have seen species evolve. JC50 seems to have ignored that post while saying that there is circumstantial (rather than demonstrable) evidence for evolution - I'm not sure why.

We've seen one species evolve into another? And members of the two different species then cannot mate?

(((Fergus)))

03-07-2009, 11:22 AM

The Creation 'Theory' does need proof to give it credibility. It doesn't have any though, and it is not a scientific theory as I mentioned above.

Evolution IS a Scientific Theory, and as such it has a massive amount of evidence supporting it.

The Creation story doesn't need proof to give it credibility, it needs faith. That is the whole point of religion.

LiverpoolHibs

03-07-2009, 01:37 PM

We've seen one species evolve into another? And members of the two different species then cannot mate?

Yes, but even then as I've said...

No it isn't. It's the process by which organisms evolve via natural selection, this might involve new species coming about or it may not. It's nothing to do with whether two species can reproduce or not.

Speciation has been brought about artificially in house-flies and fruit-flies and has been observed in numerous plants. It's going to be difficult to observe in, for example, mammals since it will occur (if it's going to occur that is) over the course of thousands of scientists lifetimes.

khib70

03-07-2009, 01:53 PM

Yes, but even then as I've said...

Speciation has been brought about artificially in house-flies and fruit-flies and has been observed in numerous plants. It's going to be difficult to observe in, for example, mammals since it will occur (if it's going to occur that is) over the course of thousands of scientists lifetimes.
:agree:Absolutely true. However, mammals such as mice and rats are widely used in genetic research for the reasons you mention. Short gestation periods, ability to monitor trends across generations. Obviously, however, evolutionary mutations are going to take a very long time, even in these species.

The main point is that while there may be problems with issues like speciation, there is an overwhelming body of evidence that the Earth is no more 6000 years old than it is flat. Creationism and "intelligent design", (or Creationism Lite) are superstitions based on faith rather than evidence, and cannot be put up as the equivalent of an empirically valid scientific theory.

If people want to believe in the entirety of life on earth springing into existence over a week(well, six days actually), no problem. It's some people's insistence that this notion be given equal weight to evolution, or that ID should be taught in science classes, that is patently nonsense.

(((Fergus)))

03-07-2009, 03:40 PM

(((Fergus)))

03-07-2009, 03:44 PM

:agree:Absolutely true. However, mammals such as mice and rats are widely used in genetic research for the reasons you mention. Short gestation periods, ability to monitor trends across generations. Obviously, however, evolutionary mutations are going to take a very long time, even in these species.

The main point is that while there may be problems with issues like speciation, there is an overwhelming body of evidence that the Earth is no more 6000 years old than it is flat. Creationism and "intelligent design", (or Creationism Lite) are superstitions based on faith rather than evidence, and cannot be put up as the equivalent of an empirically valid scientific theory.

If people want to believe in the entirety of life on earth springing into existence over a week(well, six days actually), no problem. It's some people's insistence that this notion be given equal weight to evolution, or that ID should be taught in science classes, that is patently nonsense.

The concept that the universe was created in six days is just as demonstrable as any alternative theory.

Regarding terminology, can you define "superstition" and explain how it applies to creationism or intelligent design?

LiverpoolHibs

03-07-2009, 03:50 PM

So they have developed new species of fly that are unable to breed with the old species?

Yes, and the same has occured naturally in numerous plants.

And 'developed' is a dodgy word, nothing was done to them genetically. They merely responded to artificial external stimulus.

(((Fergus)))

03-07-2009, 04:01 PM

LiverpoolHibs

03-07-2009, 05:17 PM

Do you have any reference for this so I can read further?

A quick google tells me the experiment was by William Rice and G.W. Salt.

I'm not sure how you'd get hold of their journal article on it but here's the reference anyway...

Am Nat 1988. Vol. 131, pp. 911 DOI: 10.1086/284831

Speciation Via Disruptive Selection on Habitat Preference: Experimental Evidence

William R. Rice and George W. Salt

Woody1985

03-07-2009, 06:07 PM

If only scientists could somehow prove there is no god I would love to see the faces of all 5 billion (or whatever number) of religous peoples faces. It would be like finding out Santa isn't real when you're 5. :faf:

I think science has currently shown as much as it can to disprove that a big man in the sky created everything. You can lead a horse to water and all that....

--------

03-07-2009, 06:29 PM

The Creation story doesn't need proof to give it credibility, it needs faith. That is the whole point of religion.

:agree: And so, to a degree, does belief in the Theory of Evolution, in whichever form you happen to accept it.

Job 38 seems to me to be relevant here: "Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 'Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?'"

What these verses are asking is: “How can anyone know enough to speak with any authority about the beginnings of things? How can anyone claim to have any knowledge of cosmic origins beyond an act of faith, that act of faith being a choice to believe or disbelieve the account that makes sense to oneself?”

The fact is that nobody actually knows - we weren't there, and everything that's written about theories of the origin of the cosmos is to a greater or lesser degree speculation.

I believe that the universe and all the life that it contains is the creation of God. That's my belief. I can't prove it, any more than Richard Dawkins can prove his position either. (Dawkins believes there is no God. Quite simply, he'll never prove that beyond all reasonable doubt - it's a basic principle of philosophical argument that you can't ever prove a negative.)

Belief in a creation demands belief in a massive quantum leap from nothing to everything at the moment of creation. Genesis 1 states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...."

That isn't saying that God took what was already there and organised it into trees and plants and seas and rivers and animals and birds and fish and stars and planets and people and so on. That verse says that out of nothing, God created the building-blocks of the cosmos - period. Creatio ex nihilo, to quote the old theologians. I agree that that's a huge concept to accept, but no more enormous that the concept of evolution, IMO.

Genesis goes on to say that once created, the earth "was without form and void" - a disorganised mess of unrelated chaotic matter. It needed organising, and that's what the rest of Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 describes - God organising the matter He Himself created at the very beginning and putting it into shape and form - creating the stars and planets, creating the terrestrial environment, creating animals and birds and fish and insects and trees and plants and seas and clouds and human beings and so on.

We can argue about whether this passage is factual, poetic, mythological or whatever, but its main point remains the same – it says that God made all matter in a gigantic quantum leap of creativity, and then proceeded to shape that matter into the universe we live in today.

The theory of evolution would appear to get rid of the problem of that quantum gap between “before the beginning” and afterwards. It also allows us to form a practical theory of being without taking account of the possibility of the existence of a Creator God. However, there is a problem with evolutionary theory.

Species are discrete – they don’t mate or reproduce across species boundaries. Dogs mate with dogs and produce puppies; cats mate with cats and produce cats. Fish mate and produce eggs that hatch into little fish. Amphibians produce little amphibians. Lizards little lizards Reptiles, little reptiles.

BUT – for evolution to work there has to be a point in time when a mating pair from ONE species mate and produce offspring of ANOTHER species. This transition MUST have taken place at the appearance of every single species that ever existed except the very first, most primitive life-form – the species that began the process. Which means that it took place thousands on billions of times down the aeons of the cosmos' existence.

Christianity assumes that God started the cosmos off by a sovereign act of creation. In the beginning there was only God – nothing else existed. The matter of which the universe is made was itself created by God. It was then shaped and organised into the world we know. What that process entailed - and how long it took - we simply cannot know in any detail.

Evolutionism assumes that somehow a huge mass of disorganised matter took on shape, form, and organisation without any outside influence or initiative. It also assumes that that matter progressively became more and more organised and complex, still without any outside influence whatsoever - everything just happened. And everything just happened by means of billions and billions of sudden abrupt transitions from species to species, dependent upon the principle of natural selection - all while nobody was doing the selection....

Evolutionism may or may not be a viable account of the workings of the material universe. I remain unconvinced – an evolutionary agnostic, if you like.

I’d suggest that until someone can convincingly explain how species can make the jump from being what they ARE to what they AREN’T – fishes to amphibians, amphibians to lizards, lizards to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, mammals to lower primates, lower primates to human – without breeding across the inter-species boundaries, then the Theory of Evolution remains a theory and belief in it is just that – a matter of belief. I don't want to SEE it; I just want to hear a convincing account of what happens, without being asked to believe in quantume jump after quantum leap after quantum jump.

(Profound apologies for length – been reading the thread and brewing this up for a while now.)

RyeSloan

03-07-2009, 06:39 PM

The concept that the universe was created in six days is just as demonstrable as any alternative theory.
Regarding terminology, can you define "superstition" and explain how it applies to creationism or intelligent design?

That is total and utter bollocks....please please show me any demonstrable evidence of the 6 day claim, then have a look at the huge amount of demonstrable evidence showing the creation of planets, the changes they undertake and of course the millions and millions of years evidence of rock and fossils that can be found under our feet evey day.

For probably the one and only time in my life I am totally in agreement with LH on this.....the argument of 'prove your evolution theory while mine is true cause all you need is faith and the ability to totally ignore hard evidence that proves it to be a pile of crap' is so pathetic I'm surprised LH is even taking the time to point out the obvious and wide open flaws of the 6 day, 6000 year, the scriptures say it is so nonsense.

--------

03-07-2009, 06:48 PM

Yes, and the same has occured naturally in numerous plants.

And 'developed' is a dodgy word, nothing was done to them genetically. They merely responded to artificial external stimulus.

A quick google tells me the experiment was by William Rice and G.W. Salt.

I'm not sure how you'd get hold of their journal article on it but here's the reference anyway...

Am Nat 1988. Vol. 131, pp. 911 DOI: 10.1086/284831

Speciation Via Disruptive Selection on Habitat Preference: Experimental Evidence

William R. Rice and George W. Salt

That teaches me to keep an eye on the thread while I'm typing away.... :rolleyes:

Has there been further development (of the program, that is) or is 1988 the latest reference you have?

(((Fergus)))

03-07-2009, 07:20 PM

RyeSloan

03-07-2009, 07:35 PM

That's what I'm saying. There is no demonstrable evidence of either position. Both require a leap of faith.

ID (intelligent design) says the universe is an organised system therefore it must have had a Creator.

UA (unintelligent accident) also says the universe is an organised system but that it happened by accident.

At the human level, it is easier to relate to ID as this is how we function. If we see an artefact, e.g., the Rolls-Royce in the desert, we automatically assume that someone made it and put it there. UA would have us believe that it was formed by accident out of materials that appeared from nowhere for no reason.

If you accept the ID position (leap of faith) and continue your examination of yourself and the universe on that basis, it leads you in one direction.

If you accept the UA position (leap of faith), it leads you in the opposite direction.

Since the world is round, they both end up in the same place anyway. :wink:Just maybe one route is quicker and/or more scenic. :greengrin

No, now you are talking the whole universe.......I'm minded it might be a bit of both but really it's a concept beyond my humble comprehension however since you were talking about only the earth I can certainly comprehend how a planet is formed and the age the planet must be to have the differing geological attributes it does. You stated that the 6 day theory as in the creation of earth is as demonstrable as any other...that is simply not true.

Takes a large leap of faith to believe in the world being made 6,000 years ago or in 6 days by 'God'....there is no leap of faith required to know that it is certainly older than 6.000 years and God didn't make it in 6 days. We have clear evidence to support the de-bunking of both through the observation of our own planet and the universe around us. No faith required.

GlesgaeHibby

03-07-2009, 07:45 PM

The Creation story doesn't need proof to give it credibility, it needs faith. That is the whole point of religion.

I know that, that's why I said to compare the two as theories of the same ilk isn't possible.

I'm glad you mentioned that, because that's why I went away from religion in the first place.

Faith is completely irrational. It doesn't make sense to believe something for which there is no evidence.

hibsbollah

03-07-2009, 07:51 PM

That's what I'm saying. There is no demonstrable evidence of either position. Both require a leap of faith.

ID (intelligent design) says the universe is an organised system therefore it must have had a Creator.

UA (unintelligent accident) also says the universe is an organised system but that it happened by accident.

At the human level, it is easier to relate to ID as this is how we function. If we see an artefact, e.g., the Rolls-Royce in the desert, we automatically assume that someone made it and put it there. UA would have us believe that it was formed by accident out of materials that appeared from nowhere for no reason.

If you accept the ID position (leap of faith) and continue your examination of yourself and the universe on that basis, it leads you in one direction.

If you accept the UA position (leap of faith), it leads you in the opposite direction.

Since the world is round, they both end up in the same place anyway. :wink:Just maybe one route is quicker and/or more scenic. :greengrin

I can only speak for myself; I believe in evolution, but I do not have all the facts available to me, or have made the necessary cognitive leaps, to know for sure that there is not something else at play. I have seen fossils, I have read 'Universe' by Coupar/Henbest, taken in most of Attenboroughs stuff and trust the scientific establishment. In short, I have faith in the post-Enlightenment world. In my opinion, Fergus is right, faith is required for believers in either position.

(((Fergus)))

03-07-2009, 08:55 PM

No, now you are talking the whole universe.......I'm minded it might be a bit of both but really it's a concept beyond my humble comprehension however since you were talking about only the earth I can certainly comprehend how a planet is formed and the age the planet must be to have the differing geological attributes it does. You stated that the 6 day theory as in the creation of earth is as demonstrable as any other...that is simply not true.

Takes a large leap of faith to believe in the world being made 6,000 years ago or in 6 days by 'God'....there is no leap of faith required to know that it is certainly older than 6.000 years and God didn't make it in 6 days. We have clear evidence to support the de-bunking of both through the observation of our own planet and the universe around us. No faith required.

The definition of "day" in the six days of Creation is discussed earlier in this thread. This definition is not incompatible with current geological circumstances.

The particulars are irrelevant anyway, the general point is: was the universe created by an intelligent source or is it just an accident with no cause and no meaning.

(((Fergus)))

03-07-2009, 09:10 PM

I know that, that's why I said to compare the two as theories of the same ilk isn't possible.

I'm glad you mentioned that, because that's why I went away from religion in the first place.

Faith is completely irrational. It doesn't make sense to believe something for which there is no evidence.

Yes, the discussion seems to be more one of theism vs. atheism. It's not really fair to position religion and science as opposites as there are many religious scientists and vice versa.

As for faith, people wouldn't have faith unless there was a reason for it. They say the more faith you have, the more obvious the reasons for it become. As we discussed earlier, there is evidence for the existence of a creative intelligence in the same way that an exhibition of paintings is evidence of an artist. An atheist would say that the paintings just happened by themselves - a lot of contemporary artists share this philosophy. :greengrin

Actually I think we all have faith, just to varying degrees. It would not be possible to go to sleep at night without a life support system if we didn't have faith that our lungs would keep working and our blood would keep flowing. These automatic functions of the body are in themselves examples of a higher intelligence. Imagine if someone invented a jacket where, if it was ripped, it would automatically repair itself so well you would never know it had ever been damaged. (All free of charge.) The body is doing this and more 24 hours a day and we often just take it for granted.

LiverpoolHibs

03-07-2009, 09:23 PM

That is total and utter bollocks....please please show me any demonstrable evidence of the 6 day claim, then have a look at the huge amount of demonstrable evidence showing the creation of planets, the changes they undertake and of course the millions and millions of years evidence of rock and fossils that can be found under our feet evey day.

For probably the one and only time in my life I am totally in agreement with LH on this.....the argument of 'prove your evolution theory while mine is true cause all you need is faith and the ability to totally ignore hard evidence that proves it to be a pile of crap' is so pathetic I'm surprised LH is even taking the time to point out the obvious and wide open flaws of the 6 day, 6000 year, the scriptures say it is so nonsense.

You, fergal and khib all agreeing with me; this'll take some getting used to!

That teaches me to keep an eye on the thread while I'm typing away.... :rolleyes:

Has there been further development (of the program, that is) or is 1988 the latest reference you have?

I'm not sure, to be honest. Not being particularly science-minded (to put it mildly) means I have to make quite an effort to keep up with this sort of thing and tend to be a few steps behind.

That's what I'm saying. There is no demonstrable evidence of either position. Both require a leap of faith.

ID (intelligent design) says the universe is an organised system therefore it must have had a Creator.

UA (unintelligent accident) also says the universe is an organised system but that it happened by accident.

At the human level, it is easier to relate to ID as this is how we function. If we see an artefact, e.g., the Rolls-Royce in the desert, we automatically assume that someone made it and put it there. UA would have us believe that it was formed by accident out of materials that appeared from nowhere for no reason.

If you accept the ID position (leap of faith) and continue your examination of yourself and the universe on that basis, it leads you in one direction.

If you accept the UA position (leap of faith), it leads you in the opposite direction.

Since the world is round, they both end up in the same place anyway. :wink:Just maybe one route is quicker and/or more scenic. :greengrin

The emboldened bit is a very pertinent point - although it isn't much of an argument for anything.

It was argued in an interesting article I read the other day that human belief in 'creative forces' (eg. God) is essentially hard-wired into our brains. Our over-developed sense of cause and effect (an evolutionary imperative you understand :wink:) means that we constantly seek to attribute a purpose even when one isn't there; we see a bush move and we automatically think that someone is there rather than it being the wind because not to do so would have meant risking attack back in the day. Similarly, atheists who say that religion is a pernicious societal construct don't seem to make alot of sense as children seemingly construct a form of religion off their own back - the same as children who grow up without a 'guiding' language create a quasi-language innately - as a result of this innate desire to attribute cause to effect coupled with the necessary seperation of our reasoning into how we think about physical objects and how we think about 'minds'.

Well, I thought it was interesting anyway... :greengrin

hibsbollah

03-07-2009, 09:32 PM

we constantly seek to attribute a purpose even when one isn't there; we see a bush move and we automatically think that someone is there rather than it being the wind

It is interesting, but you could use the same analogy but reverse the images to prove the opposite is true; 'evolution' becomes 'the creative force', 'the wind' (or rationality) becomes 'God', and the object that you're scared is really moving the bush is, in fact, 'science'.

It all depends on your point of view.

ancienthibby

03-07-2009, 09:43 PM

You, fergal and khib all agreeing with me; this'll take some getting used to!

I'm not sure, to be honest. Not being particularly science-minded (to put it mildly) means I have to make quite an effort to keep up with this sort of thing and tend to be a few steps behind.

The emboldened bit is a very pertinent point - although it isn't much of an argument for anything.

It was argued in an interesting article I read the other day that human belief in 'creative forces' (eg. God) is essentially hard-wired into our brains. Our over-developed sense of cause and effect (an evolutionary imperative you understand :wink:) means that we constantly seek to attribute a purpose even when one isn't there; we see a bush move and we automatically think that someone is there rather than it being the wind because not to do so would have meant risking attack back in the day. Similarly, atheists who say that religion is a pernicious societal construct don't seem to make alot of sense as children seemingly construct a form of religion off their own back - the same as children who grow up without a 'guiding' language create a quasi-language innately - as a result of this innate desire to attribute cause to effect coupled with the necessary seperation of our reasoning into how we think about physical objects and how we think about 'minds'.

Well, I thought it was interesting anyway... :greengrin

Quite important that bit, LH!!

Scripture tells us that God wants to communicate with all his human creation and that there is within us 'the still small voice of God' that human beings can so easily disregard! I see this as the referenced 'hard-wiring' to God which for most of us is something we ignore until, if you like, God smacks us in the face with it.

For some this may be discovered in a death bed conversion, for others it will be a 'Damascus Road' conversion, for still others it will be a 'Pilgrim's Progress over a long lifetime. But, for those who believe that they are a creation of the Living God, the realisation of God's touch on their lives can be hugely overwhelming and so entirely personal that 'non-believers' will have huge difficulties with the concept!

And that's the major conundrum!! God wants to lose not a single soul, but until that still small voice breaks into your life, it's no wonder that you may remain a sceptic!!

Pete

03-07-2009, 11:26 PM

GlesgaeHibby

04-07-2009, 07:48 AM

Yes, the discussion seems to be more one of theism vs. atheism. It's not really fair to position religion and science as opposites as there are many religious scientists and vice versa.

As for faith, people wouldn't have faith unless there was a reason for it. They say the more faith you have, the more obvious the reasons for it become. As we discussed earlier, there is evidence for the existence of a creative intelligence in the same way that an exhibition of paintings is evidence of an artist. An atheist would say that the paintings just happened by themselves - a lot of contemporary artists share this philosophy. :greengrin

Actually I think we all have faith, just to varying degrees. It would not be possible to go to sleep at night without a life support system if we didn't have faith that our lungs would keep working and our blood would keep flowing. These automatic functions of the body are in themselves examples of a higher intelligence. Imagine if someone invented a jacket where, if it was ripped, it would automatically repair itself so well you would never know it had ever been damaged. (All free of charge.) The body is doing this and more 24 hours a day and we often just take it for granted.

I wouldn't say there is evidence for it, but I am with you on this and believe there is something out there that lit the blue touch paper that started everything. That makes logical sense.

I wouldn't die at night if I didn't have faith my lungs work. My body works irrespective of faith.

J-C

04-07-2009, 08:30 AM

Evolution says that animals can evolve to adapt to their individual environments, this is perfectly shown in the Possums and Opossums

Both animals that live a very similar existence but on almost opposite sides of the world. They have developed incredible similarities despite the difference in their distance from each other, this is one of the many examples all over the world of evolution.

http://www.knowyoursto.com/didelphidae/didelphidae.html

LiverpoolHibs

04-07-2009, 09:58 AM

It is interesting, but you could use the same analogy but reverse the images to prove the opposite is true; 'evolution' becomes 'the creative force', 'the wind' (or rationality) becomes 'God', and the object that you're scared is really moving the bush is, in fact, 'science'.

It all depends on your point of view.

Quite important that bit, LH!!

Scripture tells us that God wants to communicate with all his human creation and that there is within us 'the still small voice of God' that human beings can so easily disregard! I see this as the referenced 'hard-wiring' to God which for most of us is something we ignore until, if you like, God smacks us in the face with it.

For some this may be discovered in a death bed conversion, for others it will be a 'Damascus Road' conversion, for still others it will be a 'Pilgrim's Progress over a long lifetime. But, for those who believe that they are a creation of the Living God, the realisation of God's touch on their lives can be hugely overwhelming and so entirely personal that 'non-believers' will have huge difficulties with the concept!

And that's the major conundrum!! God wants to lose not a single soul, but until that still small voice breaks into your life, it's no wonder that you may remain a sceptic!!

Well, sort of I suppose. But yeah, I agree that it doesn't follow from an explanation of why we believe what we do that the belief is wrong.

LiverpoolHibs

04-07-2009, 09:59 AM

J-C

04-07-2009, 11:54 AM

So there's now quite extensive evidence of evolution? :greengrin:wink:

Look, I don't know why you keep having a wee dig at me about this, I've said on numerous occasions that I believe in evolution. The point about the opossums and the possums still isn't fact that evolution exits, it's evidence that shows evoulution may possibly have taken place. Until someone actually witnesses evolution happening ( seeing an animal growing a tail, or getting bigger ears etc ) it's all still theoretical.

The diversity of all creatures and also the similarity of those same creatures allows us to think that evolution is at work, I believe it is, some people don't, that's life.

You keep harping on about this, so why don't you give us all proof as to evolution.
Show us photo's of animals changing or evolving, link us to documentation that evolution has actually happened and been witnessed happening.

GlesgaeHibby

04-07-2009, 12:27 PM

Look, I don't know why you keep having a wee dig at me about this, I've said on numerous occasions that I believe in evolution. The point about the opossums and the possums still isn't fact that evolution exits, it's evidence that shows evoulution may possibly have taken place. Until someone actually witnesses evolution happening ( seeing an animal growing a tail, or getting bigger ears etc ) it's all still theoretical.

The diversity of all creatures and also the similarity of those same creatures allows us to think that evolution is at work, I believe it is, some people don't, that's life.

You keep harping on about this, so why don't you give us all proof as to evolution.
Show us photo's of animals changing or evolving, link us to documentation that evolution has actually happened and been witnessed happening.

How can anybody witness a slow change that happens over a massive period of time?

Imagine a case in a court room. A man stands accused of murdering someone. His blood has been found at the scene, he has no witnesses, his DNA is all over the scene, his fingerprints are on the murder weapon etc etc etc. All the evidence points to him murdering this person. We have every shred of evidence possible, but didn't actually witness it. He is still clearly guilty.

Evolution is similar, we haven't actually witnessed it taking place but we have so much evidence that points to it that it is foolish not to accept it.

GlesgaeHibby

04-07-2009, 12:30 PM

Am I the only person who finds the whole subject pointless?

I understand the desire in some to find out the truth once and for all and put all the other theories to bed...but will it not do more harm than good if it were to be proved that all the "mumbo-jumbo" theories are just that? People live their lives in an honourable and just fashion based on relgious teachings and the consequences of deviation from them. If the afterlife didn't exist what sort of hope would there be and what sort of moral base would exist?

To me it's looking backwards. There's nothing we can do about what has happened in the past....whatever the start was the end result is the same. There's nothing to be gained and peoples efforts should be concentrated on how we can improve the quality of our existence in the present and in the future.

Maybe some things are better left unknown.

I really can't understand that viewpoint. I can't understand how anybody would be satisfied with the viewpoint of one book for explaining everything.

This planet, solar system, universe is truly awe inspiring. The human species has always craved to know more about it, and why wouldn't you want to learn more and understand more about this truly amazing place, how it works, and how we got here?

Advancing our knowledge and pushing to answer big questions in science has given us men on the moon, a vaccination for smallpox, telecommunications etc etc.

How you can find this subject 'pointless' is beyond me. You wouldn't have the internet if it wasn't for physics.

LiverpoolHibs

04-07-2009, 01:39 PM

Dashing Bob S

04-07-2009, 02:45 PM

--------

04-07-2009, 06:41 PM

Anyone who truly believes in evolution would have to explain the phenomenon of Gorgie. Once you pass under those railway bridges you enter a different world and encounter a bizarre subspecies of humanity that any scientist would struggle to explain.

I await a David Attenborough special from Merchiston Hearts club.

A celebrated Hibs supporter of days gone by, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, wrote a fictional account of just such a scientific expedition as you suggest, Bob.

He set it in South America, entitled it "The Lost World", and in it he described a primitive race of savage, predatory sub-humanoid ape-men of limited intelligence and insanitary personal habits.

Of course, where he found the inspiration for such a "fictional" race, I couldn't possibly imagine.... :rolleyes:

Darth Hibbie

04-07-2009, 07:14 PM

Am I the only person who finds the whole subject pointless?

I understand the desire in some to find out the truth once and for all and put all the other theories to bed...but will it not do more harm than good if it were to be proved that all the "mumbo-jumbo" theories are just that? People live their lives in an honourable and just fashion based on relgious teachings and the consequences of deviation from them. If the afterlife didn't exist what sort of hope would there be and what sort of moral base would exist?

To me it's looking backwards. There's nothing we can do about what has happened in the past....whatever the start was the end result is the same. There's nothing to be gained and peoples efforts should be concentrated on how we can improve the quality of our existence in the present and in the future.

Maybe some things are better left unknown.

Would religious belief not be considered to be looking backwards at what has happened, just in a different perspective. Certainly life in the future can be improved by learning about what has happened in the past and then trying to understand what has happened and prevent it happening again or improving on it.

I do not believe there is an afterlife. It does not reduce my quality of life but rather improve it by making the most out of it. It certainly does not make me any less moral for it and I believe I act in an honourable and just fashion.

Given a straight choice between evolution and Christianity then evolution would win every time for me.

J-C

04-07-2009, 07:24 PM

How can anybody witness a slow change that happens over a massive period of time?

Imagine a case in a court room. A man stands accused of murdering someone. His blood has been found at the scene, he has no witnesses, his DNA is all over the scene, his fingerprints are on the murder weapon etc etc etc. All the evidence points to him murdering this person. We have every shred of evidence possible, but didn't actually witness it. He is still clearly guilty.

Evolution is similar, we haven't actually witnessed it taking place but we have so much evidence that points to it that it is foolish not to accept it.

That's what I keep saying but other people keep looking for instant answers to evolution and I keep stating that it takes hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Liverpoolhibs wants proof, there is none only evidence that evolution has occurred, I have given hin two examples, possums/opossums and bats. Both evidence of evolution and as far as I am concerned enough to prove it exists but unless we actually witness it it's still a theory.

GlesgaeHibby

04-07-2009, 07:47 PM

Would religious belief not be considered to be looking backwards at what has happened, just in a different perspective. Certainly life in the future can be improved by learning about what has happened in the past and then trying to understand what has happened and prevent it happening again or improving on it.

I do not believe there is an afterlife. It does not reduce my quality of life but rather improve it by making the most out of it. It certainly does not make me any less moral for it and I believe I act in an honourable and just fashion.

Given a straight choice between evolution and Christianity then evolution would win every time for me.

:top marks

Pete

04-07-2009, 10:59 PM

I really can't understand that viewpoint. I can't understand how anybody would be satisfied with the viewpoint of one book for explaining everything.

This planet, solar system, universe is truly awe inspiring. The human species has always craved to know more about it, and why wouldn't you want to learn more and understand more about this truly amazing place, how it works, and how we got here?

Advancing our knowledge and pushing to answer big questions in science has given us men on the moon, a vaccination for smallpox, telecommunications etc etc.

How you can find this subject 'pointless' is beyond me. You wouldn't have the internet if it wasn't for physics.

I agree that the solar system etc... is fascinating and the urge to know more about it is there.

What I find pointless is the "how we got here" aspect. What would really be the point of knowing this?

The things you speak of are simply positive things relating to space exploration...which is all good. However, do we really have to spend so much time and effort looking back and trying to understand where it all started from? I think sometimes there's too much emphasis on satisfying curiosity than looking for positive solutions to issues that really matter and actual exploration.

Pete

04-07-2009, 11:22 PM

Would religious belief not be considered to be looking backwards at what has happened, just in a different perspective.

Good point.

Certainly life in the future can be improved by learning about what has happened in the past and then trying to understand what has happened and prevent it happening again or improving on it.

Definately but only in the relatively short term. I don't get how finding out the answer to the ultimate question would relate to this. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from finding out how it all began IMHO.

I do not believe there is an afterlife. It does not reduce my quality of life but rather improve it by making the most out of it. It certainly does not make me any less moral for it and I believe I act in an honourable and just fashion.

But what about the billions of people on this earth who do live their lives by religious code? If their systems of belief were to be proved invalid overnight how would they deal with it and what state would they revert to if that's all they know. People like yourself have set your own moral compass but there's this element of uncertainty as to how other societies would react. Maybe I don't have enough faith in human nature but If the theory of evolution was proved to be the only valid one then I forsee anarchy.

Darth Hibbie

04-07-2009, 11:40 PM

Definately but only in the relatively short term. I don't get how finding out the answer to the ultimate question would relate to this. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from finding out how it all began IMHO.

I actually agree with you to an extent here. However if it can help to cure cancer for example then that can only be a good thing.

But what about the billions of people on this earth who do live their lives by religious code? If their systems of belief were to be proved invalid overnight how would they deal with it and what state would they revert to if that's all they know. People like yourself have set your own moral compass but there's this element of uncertainty as to how other societies would react. Maybe I don't have enough faith in human nature but If the theory of evolution was proved to be the only valid one then I forsee anarchy.

:agree: If religion was to suddenly vanish it would cause chaos (what would there be left to discuss on :hnet: we would need to go back to foorball:greengrin). I know a lot of people who have taken comfort from the faith that they hold and without a doubt the church (whatever faith) can be of great help to people and would never take that away from them.

To an extent Morals and standards have been set by the leaders of the time. Historically that has been from the church, politics and even science. Unfortunaltly it would now appear that they are being set by the overpaid sportsmen, actors and musicians.

If there was no religion I think the values we hold would generally speaking be similar. No proof or anything just an opinion.

For me personally there are too many hole in religion for me to have faith in it but have 100% respect for anybody that does.

J-C

05-07-2009, 07:42 AM

Er, I have done...

Where? show me again as my old memory is getting a bit like that nowadays, can't remember you posting any proof of evolution, we have all given examples of where evolution may have taken place but even we can't show proof of it.

As I said give us a link or post pics up showing evolution actually taking place.

da-robster

05-07-2009, 08:09 AM

I wouldn't say there is evidence for it, but I am with you on this and believe there is something out there that lit the blue touch paper that started everything. That makes logical sense.

I wouldn't die at night if I didn't have faith my lungs work. My body works irrespective of faith.

The problem is what caused that and what caused the thing which caused that. It doesn't add up and for me there must be an other answer of which religion maybe one.

GlesgaeHibby

05-07-2009, 08:51 AM

The problem is what caused that and what caused the thing which caused that. It doesn't add up and for me there must be an other answer of which religion maybe one.

Some scientists believe the big bang just happened. I am not in that camp, I find it illogical.

I believe something cause that big bang, and that there probably is a God out there. The infinite regress argument of what created God doesn't really need to apply either. God exists outside our universe, and outside time. We can't comprehend being in a place outwith time, so applying time based logic isn't a good fit here.

GlesgaeHibby

05-07-2009, 08:54 AM

I agree that the solar system etc... is fascinating and the urge to know more about it is there.

What I find pointless is the "how we got here" aspect. What would really be the point of knowing this?

The things you speak of are simply positive things relating to space exploration...which is all good. However, do we really have to spend so much time and effort looking back and trying to understand where it all started from? I think sometimes there's too much emphasis on satisfying curiosity than looking for positive solutions to issues that really matter and actual exploration.

Knowing the truth? I find it fascinating to think of the evolution of the universe, and we'll find out more and more as time goes on.

This also benefits society, for instance, the internet was born out of CERN(Where LHC is now housed) as a means of getting different computers around the globe to analyse huge amounts of data.

LiverpoolHibs

05-07-2009, 12:49 PM

Where? show me again as my old memory is getting a bit like that nowadays, can't remember you posting any proof of evolution, we have all given examples of where evolution may have taken place but even we can't show proof of it.

As I said give us a link or post pics up showing evolution actually taking place.

Posts 61, 65 and 67.

Some scientists believe the big bang just happened. I am not in that camp, I find it illogical.

I believe something cause that big bang, and that there probably is a God out there. The infinite regress argument of what created God doesn't really need to apply either. God exists outside our universe, and outside time. We can't comprehend being in a place outwith time, so applying time based logic isn't a good fit here.

As far as I understand it (which probably isn't very well) Big Bang Theory is alot more dodgy than evolutionary theory, but it has actually been observed hasn't it, via Red Shift and all that sort of thing? The problem is that the Big Bang creates a 'wall' in observational terms past which you can't really see anything. So the theory is only about what the universe looked like after it came into existence and not really how it came into existence. Is that about right?

GlesgaeHibby

05-07-2009, 01:46 PM

As far as I understand it (which probably isn't very well) Big Bang Theory is alot more dodgy than evolutionary theory, but it has actually been observed hasn't it, via Red Shift and all that sort of thing? The problem is that the Big Bang creates a 'wall' in observational terms past which you can't really see anything. So the theory is only about what the universe looked like after it came into existence and not really how it came into existence. Is that about right?

That's about right. Big bang theory evidence consists of redshift, expanding universe etc etc. We are on our way to a better understanding, but it is as yet nothing like as well developed as evolution.

Evolution is one of the most well developed theories, with more evidence to support it than even gravity.

BEEJ

05-07-2009, 01:52 PM

(((Fergus)))

05-07-2009, 07:50 PM

That's about right. Big bang theory evidence consists of redshift, expanding universe etc etc. We are on our way to a better understanding, but it is as yet nothing like as well developed as evolution.

Evolution is one of the most well developed theories, with more evidence to support it than even gravity.

Mmm, the fact we are not floating off into space is pretty conclusive proof of gravity. :greengrin Evolution is not so well documented. :wink:

(((Fergus)))

05-07-2009, 08:20 PM

I wouldn't say there is evidence for it, but I am with you on this and believe there is something out there that lit the blue touch paper that started everything. That makes logical sense.

Here is some evidence of immaterial creative intelligence in the world around us:

You cut yourself and the skin is healed automatically. The organism obviously has a "knowledge" of how the body should be and will therefore "form" it as and when required (in fact, the body is doing this all the time in its ongoing replacement of cells).
An artist has an idea and then manifests it as a physical object. The idea was immaterial and then goes through to a process of materialisation or "creation".
Even on the computer level, all "physical" applications must first be implemented as immaterial concepts (i.e., software - magnetism being an immaterial phenomenon).

I wouldn't die at night if I didn't have faith my lungs work. My body works irrespective of faith.

I didn't mean you would die, I meant you wouldn't be able to go to sleep (if you thought your lungs would stop working automatically). For sure the body works irrespective of faith, however a lack of faith does lead us to take certain measures that (ironically) undermine the health, e.g., vaccination, life insurance and so on.

Twa Cairpets

05-07-2009, 08:47 PM

[QUOTE=Fergus;2085884]Have they managed to test the bit where minerals turn into a living creature?

QUOTE]

Small point, but its a common creationist muddying of the waters to include creation of life with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution only relates to the adaptation and development of organisms over time.

The initial "creation of life" is covered by a theory called abiogenesis, and relates to the creation initially of such organic building blocks as amino acids from "the primordial ooze"

Twa Cairpets

05-07-2009, 08:56 PM

Interesting debate this.

If anyone wants to look online for more info, Youtube has loads of good stuff. On the science side (which I am militantly on), look at the videos by such as Potholer54, Thunderf00t or AronRa - these are accesible, well explained and entertaining. Also, interviews with the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are good. On the Young Earth Creationist side, there are such notables a Kent Hovind (currently in jail for tax evasion, but still a major online presence), Ken Ham, and kirk Cameron.

Anyone on the fence or swithering will need to look at these for about twenty minutes to realise how mind-bendingly bonkers creationism is.

J-C

06-07-2009, 07:18 AM

[QUOTE=LiverpoolHibs;2089093]Posts 61, 65 and 67.

QUOTE]

These posts are a terrible example and explain nothing.

What we have are some scientists playing around with flies and plants, jeez is that not genetically modifying. Plants have been cross pollinated for hundreds of years and animals have been used in experiments for aa long time. remember the mouse with the ear groing on it's back, would you say that was evolution or just some bloke mucking about with genes to make a point.

We can have all the evidence in the world but we still need hard proof to make it real. We have dinasuar bones, we put them together to make what we think the skeleton should look like but we have no idea as to what skin colour they had or what sound they made, this is theory.

Humans, did we grow larger more intelligent brains because we started walking upright or did we get them because we were able to use our two hands and use impliments as tools, which then allowed us to walk upright. These are the theories, as yet we don't know, we have some evidence but as yet no real proof.

I don't want to get into the creation subject as I'm not read up enough to contribute fully to the debate. I do believe there was a big bang but as has been said, what caused the big bang ? We'll probably never know, not in our lifetime anyway but the debate will go on. :wink:

LiverpoolHibs

06-07-2009, 10:48 AM

These posts are a terrible example and explain nothing.

Hahaha, right you are!

What we have are some scientists playing around with flies and plants, jeez is that not genetically modifying. Plants have been cross pollinated for hundreds of years and animals have been used in experiments for aa long time. remember the mouse with the ear groing on it's back, would you say that was evolution or just some bloke mucking about with genes to make a point.

No, no it isn't. The mouse with an ear on it's back is nothing to do with evolution and is in no way similar the 'fly' experiment.

We can have all the evidence in the world but we still need hard proof to make it real. We have dinasuar bones, we put them together to make what we think the skeleton should look like but we have no idea as to what skin colour they had or what sound they made, this is theory.

Humans, did we grow larger more intelligent brains because we started walking upright or did we get them because we were able to use our two hands and use impliments as tools, which then allowed us to walk upright. These are the theories, as yet we don't know, we have some evidence but as yet no real proof.

I don't think you understand the principles of natural selection.

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2009, 11:13 AM

Here is some evidence of immaterial creative intelligence in the world around us:

You cut yourself and the skin is healed automatically. The organism obviously has a "knowledge" of how the body should be and will therefore "form" it as and when required (in fact, the body is doing this all the time in its ongoing replacement of cells).
An artist has an idea and then manifests it as a physical object. The idea was immaterial and then goes through to a process of materialisation or "creation".
Even on the computer level, all "physical" applications must first be implemented as immaterial concepts (i.e., software - magnetism being an immaterial phenomenon).

I didn't mean you would die, I meant you wouldn't be able to go to sleep (if you thought your lungs would stop working automatically). For sure the body works irrespective of faith, however a lack of faith does lead us to take certain measures that (ironically) undermine the health, e.g., vaccination, life insurance and so on.

Vaccination undermines health?
Life insurance undermines health?
Eh?
What?
Hello...Anybody home?

(((Fergus)))

06-07-2009, 11:31 AM

Have they managed to test the bit where minerals turn into a living creature?

Small point, but its a common creationist muddying of the waters to include creation of life with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution only relates to the adaptation and development of organisms over time.

The initial "creation of life" is covered by a theory called abiogenesis, and relates to the creation initially of such organic building blocks as amino acids from "the primordial ooze"

On the other hand, atheist science likes to compartmentalise the whole of life and claim to present its knowledge/theories in one area as being true while conveniently drawing a veil over directly related aspects that are a little more demanding such as "what did the first creature evolve from?"

In other words, conventional science has no overarching concept of life in general. In its attempt to "grasp" the truth in one area it loses itself in the particulars with the result that different specialities end up developing contradictory orthodoxies, e.g., quantum physics versus biology.

Religion, on the other hand, is supposed to concern itself with the general rules of life. The danger here however is that it too will float off into speculative areas (e.g., certain areas of theology) that are just as unsubstantiable and just as useless for living.

They are therefore basically two adjacent worlds: the immaterial (religion) and the material (science). One is concerned with invisible, spiritual forces, while the other focuses on the world of the five senses (physics being the cross-over point).

Nothing in the universe can exist solely in spiritual form or solely in material form, however. Therefore, rather than arguing over "which one is best", we should IMO be considering a marriage of the two. Personally, I think they would temper each other's excesses very well.

To put it in figurative terms, materialist science (with its increasing separation*) is like a decomposing body which is losing its unifying power. False religion, on the other hand, is like a spirit that is unable to enter the world. Put them together and we have life.

* The area of scientific knowledge has been enormously extended, and theoretical knowledge has become vastly more profound in every department of science. But the assimilative power of the human intellect is and remains strictly limited. Hence it was inevitable that the activity of the individual investigator should be confined to a smaller and smaller section of human knowledge. Worse still, this specialization makes it increasingly difficult to keep even our general understanding of science as a whole, without which the true spirit of research is inevitably handicapped, in step with scientific progress. Every serious scientific worker is painfully conscious of this involuntary relegation to an ever-narrowing sphere of knowledge, which threatens to deprive the investigator of his broad horizon and degrades him to the level of a mechanic ...
It is just as important to make knowledge live and to keep it alive as to solve specific problems. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

(((Fergus)))

06-07-2009, 11:35 AM

Vaccination undermines health?
Life insurance undermines health?
Eh?
What?
Hello...Anybody home?

You must be aware of the controversy regarding vaccination.

Life insurance is a drain on a person's wealth, in that sense it is like blood-letting. The person works and works then throws away their money. Pensions are similar as our older generations are now discovering to their cost.

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2009, 11:53 AM

You must be aware of the controversy regarding vaccination.

Life insurance is a drain on a person's wealth, in that sense it is like blood-letting. The person works and works then throws away their money. Pensions are similar as our older generations are now discovering to their cost.

Please tell me that you aren't talking about MMR, as that "controversy" is about as far away from being a controversial as it is possible to be. The work by Andrew Wakefield has been comprehensively disproven, debunked and generally shown up to be the very pinnacle of poorly performed science.

It is truly utter bollocks, and dangerous utter bollocks at that. People have died through not understanding this poarticualr piece of science and reporters giving warped and poorly comprehended messages to the public.

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2009, 12:07 PM

On the other hand, atheist science likes to compartmentalise the whole of life and claim to present its knowledge/theories in one area as being true while conveniently drawing a veil over directly related aspects that are a little more demanding such as "what did the first creature evolve from?"

In other words, conventional science has no overarching concept of life in general. In its attempt to "grasp" the truth in one area it loses itself in the particulars with the result that different specialities end up developing contradictory orthodoxies, e.g., quantum physics versus biology.

Religion, on the other hand, is supposed to concern itself with the general rules of life. The danger here however is that it too will float off into speculative areas (e.g., certain areas of theology) that are just as unsubstantiable and just as useless for living.

They are therefore basically two adjacent worlds: the immaterial (religion) and the material (science). One is concerned with invisible, spiritual forces, while the other focuses on the world of the five senses (physics being the cross-over point).

Nothing in the universe can exist solely in spiritual form or solely in material form, however. Therefore, rather than arguing over "which one is best", we should IMO be considering a marriage of the two. Personally, I think they would temper each other's excesses very well.

To put it in figurative terms, materialist science (with its increasing separation*) is like a decomposing body which is losing its unifying power. False religion, on the other hand, is like a spirit that is unable to enter the world. Put them together and we have life.

* The area of scientific knowledge has been enormously extended, and theoretical knowledge has become vastly more profound in every department of science. But the assimilative power of the human intellect is and remains strictly limited. Hence it was inevitable that the activity of the individual investigator should be confined to a smaller and smaller section of human knowledge. Worse still, this specialization makes it increasingly difficult to keep even our general understanding of science as a whole, without which the true spirit of research is inevitably handicapped, in step with scientific progress. Every serious scientific worker is painfully conscious of this involuntary relegation to an ever-narrowing sphere of knowledge, which threatens to deprive the investigator of his broad horizon and degrades him to the level of a mechanic ...
It is just as important to make knowledge live and to keep it alive as to solve specific problems. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

atheist science likes to compartmentalise the whole of life and claim to present its knowledge/theories in one area as being true while conveniently drawing a veil over directly related aspects that are a little more demanding such as "what did the first creature evolve from?"

Science isnt atheist, deist or theist. It is science. The last point I've already commented on. The science of where life originated from is called abiogenesis - there is no veil being drawn.

In other words, conventional science has no overarching concept of life in general. In its attempt to "grasp" the truth in one area it loses itself in the particulars with the result that different specialities end up developing contradictory orthodoxies, e.g., quantum physics versus biology.

There isnt a unified theory of relativity, if thats what you mean. your second sentence is just nonsense. Using physics to explain, say, the reproductive cycle of fish would be like using a banana to unscrew a light bulb. Utterly pointless.

Religion, on the other hand, is supposed to concern itself with the general rules of life. The danger here however is that it too will float off into speculative areas (e.g., certain areas of theology) that are just as unsubstantiable and just as useless for living.

Religion attempts to inflict its particular ways of behaviour an morality in everyone. It is used as tooll to explain life, its creation and the necessity (usually) to worship unconditionally for fear of some unspeakable recriminations in the afterlife.

They are therefore basically two adjacent worlds: the immaterial (religion) and the material (science). One is concerned with invisible, spiritual forces, while the other focuses on the world of the five senses (physics being the cross-over point). Nothing in the universe can exist solely in spiritual form or solely in material form, however. Therefore, rather than arguing over "which one is best", we should IMO be considering a marriage of the two. Personally, I think they would temper each other's excesses very well.

Dangerous, dangerous nonsense. Religion is purely to do with faith. Science relies on testing, checking, duplicating and confirming or changing theories in the light of new evidence. It is in this area almost diametrically opposed to religion. Trying to use religion to "temper excesses" means that you would have to have a pre-conceived idea of an outcome, which is fundamentally against the scientific method. Couldnt agree more about religion embracing science. If it did, it wouldnt last long.

To put it in figurative terms, materialist science (with its increasing separation*) is like a decomposing body which is losing its unifying power. False religion, on the other hand, is like a spirit that is unable to enter the world. Put them together and we have life.

I dont even begin to grasp what youre getting at here. This just means nothing. Your quote mining of Einstein is manipulative and irrelevant.

(((Fergus)))

06-07-2009, 12:19 PM

Please tell me that you aren't talking about MMR, as that "controversy" is about as far away from being a controversial as it is possible to be. The work by Andrew Wakefield has been comprehensively disproven, debunked and generally shown up to be the very pinnacle of poorly performed science.

It is truly utter bollocks, and dangerous utter bollocks at that. People have died through not understanding this poarticualr piece of science and reporters giving warped and poorly comprehended messages to the public.

No, I'm talking about the natural disinclination to inject questionable substances directly into the bloodstream of young babies. A baby's body is designed to receive "external" material through one hole only and from one particular source.

I've also had the privilege to observe children within the same families who have received decreasing amounts of vaccination (from full spectrum in the oldest child to zero intervention in the youngest ones) and have drawn my own conclusions from that.

I believe there are also some researchers out there who have examined the drug company's own data and made some interesting observations too. Naturally, that debate will remain inconclusive as there is serious money at stake.

--------

06-07-2009, 02:27 PM

Posts 61, 65 and 67.

I followed up your links, LH, and the articles regarding those experiments were incomprehensible.

While I accept that that's because they were written for qualified biologists rather than laymen, it still leaves me wondering exactly what controls were applied to the specimens used in the experiments.

It's one thing to say that speciation took place without any outside influence; it's another to show conclusively that it did so. Those articles might do just that, but there's no way of knowing given the complexity of the language.

Another question is whether the same speciation would be observable in, say, small mammmals, birds, or fish if similar experiments were set up using them as specimens?

(That's assuming that the experiments described in those papers were themselves valid and accurately described.)

Has this actually been done? If so, what were the results?

As far as I understand it (which probably isn't very well) Big Bang Theory is alot more dodgy than evolutionary theory, but it has actually been observed hasn't it, via Red Shift and all that sort of thing? The problem is that the Big Bang creates a 'wall' in observational terms past which you can't really see anything. So the theory is only about what the universe looked like after it came into existence and not really how it came into existence. Is that about right?

Seems so to me.

So where did the Big Bang come from?

Isn't redshift more about the process of change in the cosmos as it now is, rather than about how the whole cosmos came into being?

Is matter eternally-existent and self-organising? And if so, how is that idea less rational than the idea of an eternally existent creator?

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2009, 03:38 PM

No, I'm talking about the natural disinclination to inject questionable substances directly into the bloodstream of young babies. A baby's body is designed to receive "external" material through one hole only and from one particular source.

I've also had the privilege to observe children within the same families who have received decreasing amounts of vaccination (from full spectrum in the oldest child to zero intervention in the youngest ones) and have drawn my own conclusions from that.

I believe there are also some researchers out there who have examined the drug company's own data and made some interesting observations too. Naturally, that debate will remain inconclusive as there is serious money at stake.

Your logic here is flawed.

Its not good to inject babies with a vaccine level dose to avoid them getting, lets say, measles.

But it is ok - in a world where the science/technology exists to avoid it happening - to allow them to be exposed to infectious doses, which could make them seriosuly ill, disabled or dead?

And it is ok to take a selfish decision not to vaccinate on the grounds of some vague concerns delivered by doomsayers with an agenda? selfish because (1) the chils isnt immunised, and (2) every individual who isnt immunised decreaes the "herd immunity" throughout the wider population, threatening a much wider section of the public.

Obviosuly your detailed study of some random family is evidence enough. I'd love to see that peer reviewed and published in the BMJ. "My aunty betty didnt let her kids get the jab and he hasnt had measles". Well there you go.

Maybe you'd like smallpox back? Oh sorry - youve come up with the good old unarguable of a nod, a wink and a touch of the nose relating to the conspiracy of big pharma and the money machine.

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2009, 03:50 PM

Seems so to me.

So where did the Big Bang come from?

Isn't redshift more about the process of change in the cosmos as it now is, rather than about how the whole cosmos came into being?

Is matter eternally-existent and self-organising? And if so, how is that idea less rational than the idea of an eternally existent creator?

Red shift only shows that the Cosmos is expanding, and that the "steady state" theory of the Universe is wrong. It doesnt on its own have anything to say on how creation happened, but is suggestive of an initial "singularity" from which the universe expanded.

Where the Big Bang came from is beyond my ken, but I dont see any evidence of it coming from some Abrahamic God as laid out in the Bible, Qu'ran or Torah, or from Zeus, Jupiter, Ahura Mazda or Odin.

The school of thought that suggests because we dont understand it we need to fill this knowledge void with something we can get our heads around - even if it is a fairy tale - is to my mind humans trying to make order out of disorder, which is a natural (in the truest sense of the word) thing to do.

hibsbollah

06-07-2009, 04:11 PM

--------

06-07-2009, 04:39 PM

Red shift only shows that the Cosmos is expanding, and that the "steady state" theory of the Universe is wrong. It doesnt on its own have anything to say on how creation happened, but is suggestive of an initial "singularity" from which the universe expanded.

What exactly do you mean by "singularity" in this context?

Where the Big Bang came from is beyond my ken, but I dont see any evidence of it coming from some Abrahamic God as laid out in the Bible, Qu'ran or Torah, or from Zeus, Jupiter, Ahura Mazda or Odin.

The school of thought that suggests because we dont understand it we need to fill this knowledge void with something we can get our heads around - even if it is a fairy tale - is to my mind humans trying to make order out of disorder, which is a natural (in the truest sense of the word) thing to do.

The point about the BB being seen as the point of origin of the cosmos is exactly that - where it came from, nobody knows.

So the question of where the material universe originated isn't a question that science can answer.

So when Richard Dawkins or someone like him becomes dogmatic about the topic of the existence/non-existence of God, he's just as guilty of fantasising as any myth-maker in human history.

The suggestion that I or any other Christian believer willfully fills a "knowledge void" with "something we can get our heads around" misses the point entirely. The God of Genesis, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (some of His Biblical titles) is very clearly and unmistakeably Someone we aren't now and never will be able to "get our heads around".

The size, complexity and intricacy of the universe even as it's imperfectly known to present-day science surely forces the question of its origins on us regardless of belief. IMO it's those who suggest that it "just happened" somehow who are guilty of irrationality and wish-fulfillment.

GlesgaeHibby

06-07-2009, 04:52 PM

The point about the BB being seen as the point of origin of the cosmos is exactly that - where it came from, nobody knows.

So the question of where the material universe originated isn't a question that science can answer.

So when Richard Dawkins or someone like him becomes dogmatic about the topic of the existence/non-existence of God, he's just as guilty of fantasising as any myth-maker in human history.

The suggestion that I or any other Christian believer willfully fills a "knowledge void" with "something we can get our heads around" misses the point entirely. The God of Genesis, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (some of His Biblical titles) is very clearly and unmistakeably Someone we aren't now and never will be able to "get our heads around".

The size, complexity and intricacy of the universe even as it's imperfectly known to present-day science surely forces the question of its origins on us regardless of belief. IMO it's those who suggest that it "just happened" somehow who are guilty of irrationality and wish-fulfillment.

But how can you be sure your christian God is THE one and only God?

What about Muslims, Hindu's, Jew's that are equally convinced their God is correct?

GlesgaeHibby

06-07-2009, 05:08 PM

Mmm, the fact we are not floating off into space is pretty conclusive proof of gravity. :greengrin Evolution is not so well documented. :wink:

Gravity is way more complicated than that. You believe in it because you can feel/experience it. Gravity is also much more deep and complex, and very few can fully understand it, Einstein was one of the lucky few who managed to 'tame' gravity and came up with a remarkable theory of general relativity.

There is still much more evidence in favour of evolution, and it is a stronger developed theory. Look at modern genetics for example, we are so closely related to apes, as predicted by evolutionary theory.

--------

06-07-2009, 05:14 PM

But how can you be sure your christian God is THE one and only God?

What about Muslims, Hindu's, Jew's that are equally convinced their God is correct?

That's an entirely different subject.

We're discussing theories of evolution, theories of origins, and the question of whether there was anything or anyone before the Big Bang.

A Muslim or a religious Jew (as opposed to a cultural or racial Jew, who may not believe in any God at all) would at least agree with me that the universe didn't just happen by accident.

The question of who exactly God is and how He does things? That's a discussion between me and them. :devil:

EuanH78

06-07-2009, 05:34 PM

Anyone in this debate know anything about Zero point field?

Might be an interesting addition to the mix. :wink:

RyeSloan

06-07-2009, 05:58 PM

Two Carpets...excellent posts, you have articulated what I was trying to say on this matter a thousand times better than I ever could have!! (You saved me a fair amount of time as well!! :wink:) :agree:

As for vaccinations being nothing but the creation of big pharma and life assurance really only being bled dry and throwing your money away....:bye:

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2009, 06:07 PM

The point about the BB being seen as the point of origin of the cosmos is exactly that - where it came from, nobody knows.

Certainly I dont know Doddie, but I am prepared to admit that. What I don't claim is to know is that it came from a creator.

So the question of where the material universe originated isn't a question that science can answer.

Yet. And isnt it just a tad intellectualy lazy to claim that because science hasnt proved a theory of Universal creation that (a) such a proven theory doesnt exist, waiting to be found - that would be like claiming microbes or bacteria didnt exist before germ theory was proven, or (b) because we dont know scientifically that it just must have been a creator

So when Richard Dawkins or someone like him becomes dogmatic about the topic of the existence/non-existence of God, he's just as guilty of fantasising as any myth-maker in human history.

Nope, wrong end of the stick. I do tend towrds the Dawkins end of the spectrum, but his militancy often attracts this criticism. there is a major difference between faith - believing in something without real (scientific) evidence, and atheism - which is a specific lack of belief, often as a result of looking at the relevant evidences and making a decision based on the results.

The suggestion that I or any other Christian believer willfully fills a "knowledge void" with "something we can get our heads around" misses the point entirely. The God of Genesis, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (some of His Biblical titles) is very clearly and unmistakeably Someone we aren't now and never will be able to "get our heads around".

Ok, fine, but fundamentally it is a bronze-age, middle eastern man made construct, that has changed (and I specifically avoid using the word evolved here) to conservatively react against the social patterns and changing morals of any given time period.

In another reply youve dismissed the question of "Why your God?" in a very terse fashion. It isnt another question, it is core to what you believe in and the stance you take. I think there has to be a black and white view here. Either the bible, in your case, is totally correct or a complete myth. It cant be anything else. If it is true, I'm in for a hard time when I pop my clogs, and every current scientific process, thought and theory is monumentally flawed in some way we dont know about. If its wrong, then everything that has been theorised, tested and disproven/proven to give us the body of scientific knowledge we have so far amassed gives us the best picture of how life and the Universe began, how life develops and evolves.

You must surely believe in your version of religion being fundamentally and absolutely true. For example, do you believe in the story of Genesis being literally true? If it is, great, but from the point of view of universal origin, who created the creator?

The size, complexity and intricacy of the universe even as it's imperfectly known to present-day science surely forces the question of its origins on us regardless of belief. IMO it's those who suggest that it "just happened" somehow who are guilty of irrationality and wish-fulfillment.

I think that this is something of a straw man argument - no scientist with even an outline knowledge of the ideas and theories involved would or could say "it just happened". Thats not how science works, ther eis no theory there to look at skeptically or test or analyse. It is, however, how faith works.
"How did the Universe happen?"
"God made it"
"Ok then"

GlesgaeHibby

06-07-2009, 06:15 PM

That's an entirely different subject.

We're discussing theories of evolution, theories of origins, and the question of whether there was anything or anyone before the Big Bang.

A Muslim or a religious Jew (as opposed to a cultural or racial Jew, who may not believe in any God at all) would at least agree with me that the universe didn't just happen by accident.

The question of who exactly God is and how He does things? That's a discussion between me and them. :devil:

I think most people would agree with you on that. No scientists think it happened by accident, it's just we haven't found out what caused the big bang yet.

You choose to invoke a supernatural being, others don't. Just because we currently can't explain it doesn't mean we need to invoke a God.

--------

06-07-2009, 06:23 PM

I think that this is something of a straw man argument - no scientist with even an outline knowledge of the ideas and theories involved would or could say "it just happened". Thats not how science works, ther eis no theory there to look at skeptically or test or analyse. It is, however, how faith works.
"How did the Universe happen?"
"God made it"
"Ok then"

You're doing it yourself - advancing a "straw man" argument. :devil:

I would say that you have a seriously imperfect idea of "how faith works" if you think those last three lines are a fair and accurate depiction of the process.

Secondly, I think you have a rather optimistic view of scientists if you really believe that ALL scientists are so conscientiously committed to testing and analysing theories with unfailingly sceptical minds. That's not how a lot of research grants are awarded.

And I was under the impression that science was about testing knowledge of facts; when we come to apportioning "balance of probabilities" estimates to theories, we're dealing in speculations which at times are as abstruse as the old question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin....

GlesgaeHibby

06-07-2009, 06:33 PM

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2009, 06:42 PM

You're doing it yourself - advancing a "straw man" argument. :devil:

I would say that you have a seriously imperfect idea of "how faith works" if you think those last three lines are a fair and accurate depiction of the process.

Secondly, I think you have a rather optimistic view of scientists if you really believe that ALL scientists are so conscientiously committed to testing and analysing theories with unfailingly sceptical minds. That's not how a lot of research grants are awarded.

And I was under the impression that science was about testing knowledge of facts; when we come to apportioning "balance of probabilities" estimates to theories, we're dealing in speculations which at times are as abstruse as the old question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin....

I dont see any straw man there Doddie, just reacting to your implied point that scientists say "they dont know".

On your second point, there is a big difference between individual scientists and science/scientific method. Generally, this works. theories and ideas are put forward, tested, peer-reviewed and published to allow for replication. Of course scientists are people, but if they persist in going down the wrong route they are shown to be wrong by others. Examples include the MMR scare recently, or Cold Fusion last decade. When it comes to research grants and the like - great, keep them coming. Ideas are put forward as incomplete ideas and they are then tested to develop them an to see if it is viable with a specific outcome in mind - nothing wrong with that at all. What is critical is that if the "desired" outcome doesnt happen, the scientific community wont allow it to be published as otherwise.

The reason why pseudo scientific quack cures and nonsense like homeopathy takes root is that the claims are not subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny of double-blind testing and the like because the researcher/developer has a vested interest in the outcome, and will not allow it to be peer-reviewed orscrutinised.

I dont see where Ive ever talked about balance of probabilities - bit of a tangent there Doddie. I do take the view however that any theory in science is based on a balance of probability, but somen theories are so probable as to be taken as fact. To think otherwise would be to be so closed-minded as to be almost religious...

--------

06-07-2009, 06:42 PM

How does faith work then? If I was to define faith in the simplest way it would be 'Believing something with no evidence for it'

It is a completely irrational thought process.

"What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we hope for is going to happen. It is the evidence of things we cannot see...."

(Hebrews 11:1; NLT)

Best I can do.

EuanH78

06-07-2009, 06:59 PM

You're doing it yourself - advancing a "straw man" argument. :devil:

I would say that you have a seriously imperfect idea of "how faith works" if you think those last three lines are a fair and accurate depiction of the process.

Secondly, I think you have a rather optimistic view of scientists if you really believe that ALL scientists are so conscientiously committed to testing and analysing theories with unfailingly sceptical minds. That's not how a lot of research grants are awarded.

And I was under the impression that science was about testing knowledge of facts; when we come to apportioning "balance of probabilities" estimates to theories, we're dealing in speculations which at times are as abstruse as the old question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin....

Whilst being a scientifically minded individual I have to agree with Doddie that the fundamental nature of faith has been misunderstood here.

Faith, as a concept must transcend evidence to the contrary, If the answer is known then there is no faith involved.

Science may prove the big bang happened but it cannot be used as a tool to disprove someones faith, that would be a fallacy and is unfair. Dawkins is a prime example, his arguements against faith are completely incoherent and hes a total fud to boot.

I fail to understand how science and faith cannot co-exist, science must accept all possibilities until proved otherwise, ergo must accept the potential possibility of a creator until it can be repeatedly tested to be false.Measuring results against ancient texts and concepts of a creator is not science.

What would happen if science actually proved the existence of a creator?

EuanH78

06-07-2009, 07:11 PM

How does faith work then? If I was to define faith in the simplest way it would be 'Believing something with no evidence for it'

It is a completely irrational thought process.

Its not a thought process at all. Many great things have been achieved by those who choose to have faith over rationality.

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2009, 07:17 PM

Whilst being a scientifically minded individual I have to agree with Doddie that the fundamental nature of faith has been misunderstood here.

Faith, as a concept must transcend evidence to the contrary, If the answer is known then there is no faith involved.

Science may prove the big bang happened but it cannot be used as a tool to disprove someones faith, that would be a fallacy and is unfair. Dawkins is a prime example, his arguements against faith are completely incoherent and hes a total fud to boot.

I fail to understand how science and faith cannot co-exist, science must accept all possibilities until proved otherwise, ergo must accept the potential possibility of a creator until it can be repeatedly tested to be false.Measuring results against ancient texts and concepts of a creator is not science.

What would happen if science actually proved the existence of a creator?

You wont be surprised that I disagree with rather a lot of this!

Faith and science are mutually exclusive when they try to cross into each others fields.

Co-existence is entirely acceptable, as long as religionists dont tell me, for example, that the Earth was created 6000 years ago and that this needs to be taught in schools on an equal basis to evolution.

if you dont understand Dawkins, re-read it. Incoherent I personally would have very far down my list of words to describe him - he can be very ascerbic, but good for him. Try Hitchens or Sam Harris for a different slant on it.

Your argument that science be used to disprove God is neatly addressed by Bertrand Russell:

"If I were to suggest that . . . there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time".

And by the way, I'd be delighted if science proved a creator.

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2009, 07:18 PM

Its not a thought process at all. Many great things have been achieved by those who choose to have faith over rationality.

Name one great thing that could not have been achieved by someone who chose not to belive in a deity

EuanH78

06-07-2009, 07:56 PM

EuanH78

06-07-2009, 07:57 PM

Name one great thing that could not have been achieved by someone who chose not to belive in a deity

building of the pyramids?

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2009, 08:13 PM

building of the pyramids?

Nope

EuanH78

06-07-2009, 08:37 PM

Nope

Out of curiosity, How do you suppose the Pyramids were built? considering that, even today we do not have the technology available to emulate them?

Henry Ford is applicable.

J-C

06-07-2009, 09:25 PM

Hahaha, right you are!

No, no it isn't. The mouse with an ear on it's back is nothing to do with evolution and is in no way similar the 'fly' experiment.

I don't think you understand the principles of natural selection.

The mouse with the ear was sarcasm. :wink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

I understand it perfectly well and would say the two points I made were pretty spot on.

Humans are the perfect example of natural selection and their adaptation to their environments are well documented, the onle piece we don't have is the missing link, which we know is there but haven't found yet.

Dinosaurs have shown through their diversity that they adapted over thousands of years to their environment and ruled the planet for those thousands of years.

I'll await your usual snide remarks and silly laughs in your next post, which I shall duly ignore because you are just repeating yourself and it's getting a bit boring.:yawn:

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2009, 10:15 PM

Out of curiosity, How do you suppose the Pyramids were built? considering that, even today we do not have the technology available to emulate them?

Henry Ford is applicable.

Off topic a bit, but do you really believe that the technology doesnt exist to rebuild the pyramids (if someone wanted to for some reason), and that they were built by the power of faith?

Or am I missing something?

--------

06-07-2009, 10:21 PM

You wont be surprised that I disagree with rather a lot of this!

Faith and science are mutually exclusive when they try to cross into each others fields.

Co-existence is entirely acceptable, as long as religionists dont tell me, for example, that the Earth was created 6000 years ago and that this needs to be taught in schools on an equal basis to evolution.

if you dont understand Dawkins, re-read it. Incoherent I personally would have very far down my list of words to describe him - he can be very ascerbic, but good for him. Try Hitchens or Sam Harris for a different slant on it.

Your argument that science be used to disprove God is neatly addressed by Bertrand Russell:

"If I were to suggest that . . . there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time".

And by the way, I'd be delighted if science proved a creator.

Your second sentence is meaningless. Isaac Newton was a believer - that didn't stop him being capable of scientific thought. Indeed, his religious faith, and the desire to learn as much as he could about a universe he saw as God's creation, was a major motivator for his work.

And your idea of co-existence seems to me to be co-existence only on your own terms - you reserve the right to prevent me from saying certain things to you, while you can say whatever you like to me. You can teach evolutionism in schools, but I won't be given the chance to put the creationist point of view on anything like an equal footing. And the creationist view you present as mine is an extreme view, long discredited.

It may surprise you to learn that there are plenty of people who are deeply suspicious of the validity or truth of any of the various evolutionist standpoints who don't agree with Archbishop Ussher that the world was created at nightfall on the 22nd October 4004 BC. Which was a position arrived at in AD 1654, btw - would you agree that theology has moved on a bit from then? Because sometimes it gets a wee bit irritating being told what I believe by people who don't listen to me when I try to explain what I DO believe. You don't have to believe it all started 6,000 years ago to believe in a Creator God.

I have the film of Dawkins' interview with Jeremy Paxman from 22 Sept 2006 running right now. Dawkins repeatedly put words into the mouths of people he disagrees with; he misrepresents their positions, and at least once he lets slip the comment that he doesn't share the same thought-processes as "ordinary people". And he writes folks like me off as "died-in-the-wool faith-heads". If I didn't have his own assurance that all he's interested in is the truth, I'd be inclined to accuse him of a wee touch of intellectual arrogance there.

It's easy to discount your opponents if you constantly misrepresent extremism as their default position. How many Christians - even American Christians, if it isn't racist to make that qualification - really long earnestly to see a world-wide nuclear holocaust as the doorway to Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ? I know some do, but to suggest that this is the default position of Evangelical Christianity, as Dawkins comes close to doing is dishonest. Either Dawkins hasn't done his homework, or he's deliberately and mischievously misrepresenting the position of the people whose beliefs he's attacking.

He seems to like to portray himself as the courageous scientist boldly going where no man other than himself has gone before. "We weren't born to be comfortable - some of us value truth more than comfort." If he thinks anyone can truly be a Christian without facing some downright uncomfortable truths about himself or herself - painful truths, even - then he hasn't done his homework, not one bit. He's talking from ignorance. There's not a lot comfortable or cosy about genuine Christian conversion, I assure you.

If I were to suggest that . . . there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time".

What's Russell actually saying in the paragraph you quote? That belief in God is the same as the delusions that accompany paranoid schizophrenia? I've worked in a psychiatric hospital, and the scenario he describes is very similar to a story told me buy one of the patients in a ward I was detailed to.

Russell makes the same mistake (or perpetrates the same inaccuracy) as dawkins does in the Paxman interview. He sees God as part of the cosmos, as a being or artifact contained within the universe.

IF God exists - and you and I disagree on that question - but IF He exists he exists beyond the boundaries of space and time. Matter, space, and time are all components of the created universe.

The stuff of which you and I and everything we know is made up of is part of the created universe.

The space in which that stuff exists is also part of that created universe.

And time, in which both matter and space have their duration is also part of that universe.

And so is Russell's teapot. I thought he'd have had the brains to understand THAT. :devil:

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2009, 10:33 PM

The mouse with the ear was sarcasm. :wink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

I understand it perfectly well and would say the two points I made were pretty spot on.

Humans are the perfect example of natural selection and their adaptation to their environments are well documented, the onle piece we don't have is the missing link, which we know is there but haven't found yet.

Dinosaurs have shown through their diversity that they adapted over thousands of years to their environment and ruled the planet for those thousands of years.

I'll await your usual snide remarks and silly laughs in your next post, which I shall duly ignore because you are just repeating yourself and it's getting a bit boring.:yawn:

This is a common misconception.

Loads of "missing links" have been found

Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus to name but a few. Most recently the discovery of "Ida" Darwinius Masillae a very, very old ancestor of primates was described a "the missing link", but it isnt - its just another example of thousands of transitional species found across all biological species.

It is an easy cop out for creationists or people who dont understand evolution to say "Ive never seen a dog give birth to a camel" or some such nonsense. Thats not what evolution claims or has ever proposed. Anyone who thinks this just doesnt get the basics of the theory.

--------

06-07-2009, 10:50 PM

This is a common misconception.

Loads of "missing links" have been found

Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus to name but a few. Most recently the discovery of "Ida" Darwinius Masillae a very, very old ancestor of primates was described a "the missing link", but it isnt - its just another example of thousands of transitional species found across all biological species.

It is an easy cop out for creationists or people who dont understand evolution to say "Ive never seen a dog give birth to a camel" or some such nonsense. Thats not what evolution claims or has ever proposed. Anyone who thinks this just doesnt get the basics of the theory.

Don't you mean "genus" or "families"?

Eight major ranks or classifications: species - genus - family - order - class - phylum - kingdom - domain - life?

Not all creationists are "people who don't understand evolution".

And the line about the dog and the camel's about as stupid as Russell's tea-pot - it's legitimate for anyone to ask questions regarding the transitions involved in the alleged process of evolutionary speciation. How does one species (self-contained and breeding only within the boundaries of that species) become another species? Outside the controlled and possibly manipulated enviroment of the biology lab?

If you have such a grasp of "the basics of the theory", please explain - if possible without recourse to ridicule or misrepresentation of what other people have said.

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2009, 11:05 PM

Your second sentence is meaningless. Isaac Newton was a believer - that didn't stop him being capable of scientific thought. Indeed, his religious faith, and the desire to learn as much as he could about a universe he saw as God's creation, was a major motivator for his work.

And your idea of co-existence seems to me to be co-existence only on your own terms - you reserve the right to prevent me from saying certain things to you, while you can say whatever you like to me. You can teach evolutionism in schools, but I won't be given the chance to put the creationist point of view on anything like an equal footing. And the creationist view you present as mine is an extreme view, long discredited.

It may surprise you to learn that there are plenty of people who are deeply suspicious of the validity or truth of any of the various evolutionist standpoints who don't agree with Archbishop Ussher that the world was created at nightfall on the 22nd October 4004 BC. Which was a position arrived at in AD 1654, btw - would you agree that theology has moved on a bit from then? Because sometimes it gets a wee bit irritating being told what I believe by people who don't listen to me when I try to explain what I DO believe. You don't have to believe it all started 6,000 years ago to believe in a Creator God.

I have the film of Dawkins' interview with Jeremy Paxman from 22 Sept 2006 running right now. Dawkins repeatedly put words into the mouths of people he disagrees with; he misrepresents their positions, and at least once he lets slip the comment that he doesn't share the same thought-processes as "ordinary people". And he writes folks like me off as "died-in-the-wool faith-heads". If I didn't have his own assurance that all he's interested in is the truth, I'd be inclined to accuse him of a wee touch of intellectual arrogance there.

It's easy to discount your opponents if you constantly misrepresent extremism as their default position. How many Christians - even American Christians, if it isn't racist to make that qualification - really long earnestly to see a world-wide nuclear holocaust as the doorway to Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ? I know some do, but to suggest that this is the default position of Evangelical Christianity, as Dawkins comes close to doing is dishonest. Either Dawkins hasn't done his homework, or he's deliberately and mischievously misrepresenting the position of the people whose beliefs he's attacking.

He seems to like to portray himself as the courageous scientist boldly going where no man other than himself has gone before. "We weren't born to be comfortable - some of us value truth more than comfort." If he thinks anyone can truly be a Christian without facing some downright uncomfortable truths about himself or herself - painful truths, even - then he hasn't done his homework, not one bit. He's talking from ignorance. There's not a lot comfortable or cosy about genuine Christian conversion, I assure you.

If I were to suggest that . . . there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time".

What's Russell actually saying in the paragraph you quote? That belief in God is the same as the delusions that accompany paranoid schizophrenia? I've worked in a psychiatric hospital, and the scenario he describes is very similar to a story told me buy one of the patients in a ward I was detailed to.

Russell makes the same mistake (or perpetrates the same inaccuracy) as dawkins does in the Paxman interview. He sees God as part of the cosmos, as a being or artifact contained within the universe.

IF God exists - and you and I disagree on that question - but IF He exists he exists beyond the boundaries of space and time. Matter, space, and time are all components of the created universe.

The stuff of which you and I and everything we know is made up of is part of the created universe.

The space in which that stuff exists is also part of that created universe.

And time, in which both matter and space have their duration is also part of that universe.

And so is Russell's teapot. I thought he'd have had the brains to understand THAT. :devil:

Doddie - excellent and articulate reply, and I mean that honestly with no sarcasm. Obviously I disagree with it :wink:, but it is good.

I accept that you are not a young-earth creationist, and apologise if thats the impression I gave.

You point on theology moving on from the middle ages is a moot point - certain elements of certain religions have changed, others less so. I would suggest that Roman Catholicism has only very recently been dragged kicking and screaming into 20th century, never mind the 21st, and that islam is stuck somewhere before then, but that is a whole different can of worms.

I dont think that extreme evangelism is the default position for most christians. I rather think it more depressing than that - most Christians (in the UK certainly) seem to believe by rote and habit, without any real understanding why.

Where religion of any colour bothers me is that it teaches unquestioning obedience and acceptance - it is the antithesis of skeptical thought and the process by which activities such as science develops. The question of whether or not Newton was a christian is irrelevant - if he had been a Musilm, Atheist or Sun worshipper his scientific ideas would still have been right because he was an exceptional thinker.

Very many scientific ideas are hindered or clouded by religion, debate is stifled and polarised by religion not willing to listen to ideas. Stem Cell research, GM food, vaccination, abortion - all emotive ideas that do need questioned and reviewed with societies (informed) views being listened to, but why bring a particular faith into it, with the apparent moral certainties espoused by religious leaders of all creeds.

We arent going to agree on Dawkins - I think he is a genius, you think he is arrogant. lets agree to disagree on that one.

I think your final points relate to the idea that God exists outwith our knowledge, therefore to seek to prove he exists is ultimately futile because he is beyond our ability to comprehend.

Fair enough if thats your view, but from an external point of view, the entire basis of your belief system is built on something of a shaky edifice. You choose to base everything on the reported word of the Bible, written by man, in which god appears as something of a meddling, spoiled prude (in the Old Testament at least), and only appears to be interested in the goings-on of a very small part of the world at a particularly backward point of their history.

J-C

06-07-2009, 11:14 PM

This is a common misconception.

Loads of "missing links" have been found

Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus to name but a few. Most recently the discovery of "Ida" Darwinius Masillae a very, very old ancestor of primates was described a "the missing link", but it isnt - its just another example of thousands of transitional species found across all biological species.

It is an easy cop out for creationists or people who dont understand evolution to say "Ive never seen a dog give birth to a camel" or some such nonsense. Thats not what evolution claims or has ever proposed. Anyone who thinks this just doesnt get the basics of the theory.

They are some of what scientists have thought to be the missing link but as yet they cannot agree which one is our real ancestor. I think most of us agree we are of the Hominin species Homo Erectus which left Africa around 2 million years ago of which we are decended( Homosapien ) but it is the link between them and the original ape we came from that's still to be found. Many skulls have been found and this one of the more recent.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0327_060327_skull.html

Your dog and camel makes no sense, evolution is about one animal changing shape or form to adapt to it's environment, not changing into another species.

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2009, 11:24 PM

Don't you mean "genus" or "families"?

Eight major ranks or classifications: species - genus - family - order - class - phylum - kingdom - domain - life?

Not all creationists are "people who don't understand evolution".

And the line about the dog and the camel's about as stupid as Russell's tea-pot - it's legitimate for anyone to ask questions regarding the transitions involved in the alleged process of evolutionary speciation. How does one species (self-contained and breeding only within the boundaries of that species) become another species? Outside the controlled and possibly manipulated enviroment of the biology lab?

If you have such a grasp of "the basics of the theory", please explain - if possible without recourse to ridicule or misrepresentation of what other people have said.

Should have said species across biological history. Thanks for clearing it up for me.:devil:

In terms of the theory of evolution, I cant explain it better than the expert, so here is one Ive found from Ohio Stae University, as it happens.

When one speaks of biological evolution, one is implicitely referring to a number of mechanisms all of which either do or can result in the occurrence of change in allelic frequencies with time. Recall that an allele is a variation in the nucleotide sequence associated with a particular loci (or gene) on a chromosome of a particular organism. By means of mutation (i.e., changes in nucleotide sequences), new alleles may be formed. The ratio of the absolute number of a given allele to the total number of alleles found at a given loci is called the frequency of that allele. Any mechanism which results in a change in the frequency of any allele is called biological evolution (or simply evolution if it is understood that one is speaking of a biological system). Since all such mechanisms either do not occur instantaneously or tend to be not limited to single events, one speaks of changes in allele frequency occurring as time advances. Thus, evolution is change in allele frequency over time.

By way of example, DNA replicates itself. When an imperfect replication occurs there is a change in allele frequency. This can cause major changes in a population over time, especially if initially similar populations develop in isolation (like the Galapagos where Darwin developed his idea).

We cant breed with other apes, but we are so closely matched at a genetic level for it to impossible for us not have had common ancestors. Even the fact that they have an extra pair of chromosones has been shown to illustrate evolution in action. (Our chromosone number 2 is clearly the result of the fusing of two chrmosones found in other apes).

I offer you this as an example of evolutionary speciation.

--------

07-07-2009, 10:37 AM

Thank you.

I'm going to go away and think about that. :wink:

Darth Hibbie

07-07-2009, 01:47 PM

Out of curiosity, How do you suppose the Pyramids were built? considering that, even today we do not have the technology available to emulate them?

Henry Ford is applicable.

Its my understanding that the great pyramid was actually built about the time of creation as the bible tells us (ie about 6000 years give or take). If God had indeed had a hand in the building of something so magnificent then I would have thought it would have been included in the bible. Just a thought like.

As for how it was built?

1. Some ruler of the time had a huge workforce build it (as per some of the Hieroglyphics have suggested) over a large period of time.

2. There was some form of superior human in terms of strength or size that was wiped out in the great floods as discussed on another thread not so long ago.

3. The aliens done it.

Personally I prefer option 3 but 1 is probably more likely. The ruler may have said he was doing it in (insert appropriate gods) name however it could have been done without that.

I am afraid that the discussion on the main topic is starting to go over my head but have found it very interesting and informative and has certainly made me think a great deal about it. So keep up the good work.

Twa Cairpets

07-07-2009, 05:30 PM

These two videos give quite good insight into how evolution works and gives rise to speciation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZwUV-auY4w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s&feature=fvw

If you are interested in pro-evolution guys on You Tube I can recommend Thunderf00t, Potholer54, cdk007 and AronRa. The vids these guys put up are generally excellent, entertaining and informative.

EuanH78

07-07-2009, 08:04 PM

Its my understanding that the great pyramid was actually built about the time of creation as the bible tells us (ie about 6000 years give or take). If God had indeed had a hand in the building of something so magnificent then I would have thought it would have been included in the bible. Just a thought like.

As for how it was built?

1. Some ruler of the time had a huge workforce build it (as per some of the Hieroglyphics have suggested) over a large period of time.

2. There was some form of superior human in terms of strength or size that was wiped out in the great floods as discussed on another thread not so long ago.

3. The aliens done it.

Personally I prefer option 3 but 1 is probably more likely. The ruler may have said he was doing it in (insert appropriate gods) name however it could have been done without that.

I am afraid that the discussion on the main topic is starting to go over my head but have found it very interesting and informative and has certainly made me think a great deal about it. So keep up the good work.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that god had a hand in it, thats all a bit literal as far as I'm concerned.

It's obviously possible to build the pyramids, there's a couple of rather obvious pieces of evidence to show that.

What I mean is, without the belief (or faith) in that god, they would never have been built at all, there would be no reason to.

I suppose my point may be a little obtuse.

Twa Cairpets

07-07-2009, 09:12 PM

I'm not suggesting for a minute that god had a hand in it, thats all a bit literal as far as I'm concerned.

It's obviously possible to build the pyramids, there's a couple of rather obvious pieces of evidence to show that.

What I mean is, without the belief (or faith) in that god, they would never have been built at all, there would be no reason to.

I suppose my point may be a little obtuse.

Not really - but it would be fair to say that the building was done by an individual exerting extreme executive power.

There is a modern equivalent. The largest solid* building in the world is in Bucharest - it was built by the regime of Nicolae Ceacescu in the 1980s, (and consumed something in the region of 40% of Romanias resources in that time) and was done without any reference to God or as a result of faith.

* the largest building (in terms of footprint) is the Pentagon, but Romanians will quickly tell you that that doesnt count because it has a whole in the middle of it

EuanH78

07-07-2009, 09:25 PM

Not really - but it would be fair to say that the building was done by an individual exerting extreme executive power.

There is a modern equivalent. The largest solid* building in the world is in Bucharest - it was built by the regime of Nicolae Ceacescu in the 1980s, (and consumed something in the region of 40% of Romanias resources in that time) and was done without any reference to God or as a result of faith.

* the largest building (in terms of footprint) is the Pentagon, but Romanians will quickly tell you that that doesnt count because it has a whole in the middle of it

Clearly that would be true, I'm not too sure the guys doing the heavy lifting would be so keen really. The same was probaly true in Romania. Though it could be argued that Ceacescu's god was Communism ( I dont really want to go down that road to be honest) faith and belief in an idea, if you will.

laughing at ' that doesnt count, its got a bloody big hole in the middle' :D

Fantic

07-07-2009, 09:30 PM

How is belief in the Christian God and evolution compatible?

The Bible states that God made man in his image on the 6th day of creation approx 6000 years ago.

How is that compatible with evolution over the Earth's 4.5 Billion year age? Man has only existed for a tiny fraction of that age, which doesn't fit in at all with scripture.

Easy. Ask yourself this question. Why does the kettle boil ?

Answer 1 - The electricity heats the element which in turn heats the atoms to 100 degrees and the steam flicks the switch etc

Answer 2 - To make a cup of tea.

Twa Cairpets

07-07-2009, 10:19 PM

Fantic

07-07-2009, 10:25 PM

Either I'm missing something awfully clever here, or that is a truly pish answer.

Your missing something awfully clever. :greengrin

J-C

07-07-2009, 10:27 PM

Either I'm missing something awfully clever here, or that is a truly pish answer.

I think he's implying that there's not always the one easy answer to anything, just depends on how you look at things.

Fantic

07-07-2009, 10:35 PM

I think he's implying that there's not always the one easy answer to anything, just depends on how you look at things.

Exactly. Lewis put it a little better than me ( i stand in the East!)

''I was standing today in the dark toolshed. The sun was shining outside and through the crack at the top of the door there came a sunbeam. From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dust floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place. Everything else was almost pitch black. I was seeing the beam, not seeing things by it.

Then I moved, so that the beam fell on my eyes. Instantly the whole previous picture vanished. I saw no toolshed, and (above all) no beam. Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, ninety-odd million miles away, the sun. Looking along the beam, and looking at the beam are very different experiences.''

--------

08-07-2009, 02:34 PM

Your missing something awfully clever. :greengrin

He is, isn't he? :devil:

Twa Cairpets

08-07-2009, 08:05 PM

HibsMax

09-07-2009, 01:33 AM

Easy. Ask yourself this question. Why does the kettle boil ?

Answer 1 - The electricity heats the element which in turn heats the atoms to 100 degrees and the steam flicks the switch etc

Answer 2 - To make a cup of tea.
Answer 1 please.

And I'll tell you why.

Simply wanting a cup of tea does not make the kettle boil. On the other hand, filling it with water, plugging it in, completing the electrical circuit, etc., does.

Answer 2 fits the question, "Why are you boiling the kettle?". The kettle, having no conscience, knows nothing about anything, never mind a cup of tea.

By the way, the original point is not lost on me. I'm just being argumentative. :wink:

--------

09-07-2009, 12:53 PM

Answer 1 please.

And I'll tell you why.

Simply wanting a cup of tea does not make the kettle boil. On the other hand, filling it with water, plugging it in, completing the electrical circuit, etc., does.

Answer 2 fits the question, "Why are you boiling the kettle?". The kettle, having no conscience, knows nothing about anything, never mind a cup of tea.

By the way, the original point is not lost on me. I'm just being argumentative. :wink:

Fair enough, Max.

So - WHO put the kettle on? :cool2:

Fantic

09-07-2009, 05:16 PM

Trying to avoid biting, but needing to comment...

From a philosphical aspect, you can look at anything in any number of ways, in the same way as a mutitude of religions seek to explain creation in their own specific way. Which is fine.

However, there is, I would suggest only one correct answer to explain how organisms develop.

If you're a christian, I put it to you that you need to believe that evolution is limited to a microscale, only explains differences within a species and that all living species were placed fully formed by a creator during Genesis

If you believe this, then unfortunately by default, you have to disbelieve evidence from almost every field of science to the contrary.

If there is a middle ground, then surely youre guilty of picking and choosing which elements of the bible you choose to believe. From the point of view of faith/salvation, is this not something of a dangerous route to go down?

Its not only the different ways of looking at things but the realisation that there are ways we are not capable of (yet anyway). I don’t think many people will argue with the practical notion of evolution these days but that’s not the point. It doesn’t rule anything else out. The following is a christian view in support of evolution IMO

‘’If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents--i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy--are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’’

And another-

''Professing no objection to the notion that "man is physically descended from animals," Lewis suggested that over time God "perfected the animal form" that was to become the first man by endowing it with human consciousness. The resulting "Paradisal man" engaged in full and unbroken communion with God while remaining, by our standards, a savage.''

To be a christian you don't have to disbelieve or believe anything science throws at you. Who knows how many dimensions there are in the universe but i would bet there are plenty we know nothing about.

Twa Cairpets

09-07-2009, 08:02 PM

Its not only the different ways of looking at things but the realisation that there are ways we are not capable of (yet anyway). I don’t think many people will argue with the practical notion of evolution these days but that’s not the point. It doesn’t rule anything else out. The following is a christian view in support of evolution IMO

‘’If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents--i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy--are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’’

And another-

''Professing no objection to the notion that "man is physically descended from animals," Lewis suggested that over time God "perfected the animal form" that was to become the first man by endowing it with human consciousness. The resulting "Paradisal man" engaged in full and unbroken communion with God while remaining, by our standards, a savage.''

To be a christian you don't have to disbelieve or believe anything science throws at you. Who knows how many dimensions there are in the universe but i would bet there are plenty we know nothing about.

Uh-huh.

The basic point you are making then is that we're not capable yet of thinking about the mechanism by which the christian God created us?

But you're prepared to believe in the increasingly inaccurate translations from archaic languages by up to 40 different people recording things up to 200 years after the alleged facts happened in a relatively benighted age before technologies like printing existed? Faith indeed.

Your first quote is sequence of non-sequiteurs that makes any point irrelevant. Evolution does nothing more - in its simplest terms - than seek to explain the diversity of life and the changes evidenced over decades, millennia and eons through science and the fossil record. It doesnt seek to explain anything else, accident or otherwise.

Your second quote is much more interesting, but equally disputable. Science defines a mechanism for explaining how we evolve, so therefore its got to down to God? If it is, its fair to say that he's a bit haphazard in his design - upside down eyes, rabbits who have to eat their own ***** because their stomachs are the wrong way round, redundant body organs. If thats a "perfected form", I'd hate to see his work on a bad day.

"To be a christian you don't have to disbelieve or believe anything science throws at you. Who knows how many dimensions there are in the universe but i would bet there are plenty we know nothing about"

I love this one. Science "throwing" things at you? Choices in believing what science says? Come on. You cant choose to disbelieve gravity. You cant choose to disbelieve radioactivity. You cant choose to disbelieve the effect antibiotics have on illness. Science doesnt throw things at anyone - it presents tested and testable hypotheses that over a period of time form into laws (like the laws of thermodynamics) or strongly supported theories such as evolution.

Sure, there may be other dimensions, but its not in mankinds skill to see them or test them - yet. I choose not to fill a (potential) void of knowledge with bronze age fairy stories. Whilst I wouldnt deny anyone the right to believe what they want, it does depress me that otherwise rational human beings do.

As a last thought, I read an excellent quote somewhere about a guy who was debunking the kind of appalling supernaturalism you get on Most Haunted or GhostHunters. "When they hear a noise coming from a cellar or see movements in corrdors, how do they know its a ghost and not an alien?

HibsMax

09-07-2009, 11:08 PM

Fair enough, Max.

So - WHO put the kettle on? :cool2:

Polly?

HibsMax

09-07-2009, 11:13 PM

I haven't read through this entire thread because I've not had the time but this topic does interest me a lot.

At the end of the day I would have to say that I don't profess to KNOW anything. I just have my own beliefs based upon what I have learned. One thing I am certain of is that we (humans) have only just scratched the surface. Assuming certain scientific findings / calculations are true...our own galaxy is 100million light years across. And there are countless other galaxies out there. We're not even a small fish in a big pond. We're waaaay more insignificant than that.

Woody1985

10-07-2009, 05:38 PM

EuanH78

10-07-2009, 07:53 PM

Uh-huh.

The basic point you are making then is that we're not capable yet of thinking about the mechanism by which the christian God created us?

But you're prepared to believe in the increasingly inaccurate translations from archaic languages by up to 40 different people recording things up to 200 years after the alleged facts happened in a relatively benighted age before technologies like printing existed? Faith indeed.

Your first quote is sequence of non-sequiteurs that makes any point irrelevant. Evolution does nothing more - in its simplest terms - than seek to explain the diversity of life and the changes evidenced over decades, millennia and eons through science and the fossil record. It doesnt seek to explain anything else, accident or otherwise.

Your second quote is much more interesting, but equally disputable. Science defines a mechanism for explaining how we evolve, so therefore its got to down to God? If it is, its fair to say that he's a bit haphazard in his design - upside down eyes, rabbits who have to eat their own ***** because their stomachs are the wrong way round, redundant body organs. If thats a "perfected form", I'd hate to see his work on a bad day.

"To be a christian you don't have to disbelieve or believe anything science throws at you. Who knows how many dimensions there are in the universe but i would bet there are plenty we know nothing about"

I love this one. Science "throwing" things at you? Choices in believing what science says? Come on. You cant choose to disbelieve gravity. You cant choose to disbelieve radioactivity. You cant choose to disbelieve the effect antibiotics have on illness. Science doesnt throw things at anyone - it presents tested and testable hypotheses that over a period of time form into laws (like the laws of thermodynamics) or strongly supported theories such as evolution.

Sure, there may be other dimensions, but its not in mankinds skill to see them or test them - yet. I choose not to fill a (potential) void of knowledge with bronze age fairy stories. Whilst I wouldnt deny anyone the right to believe what they want, it does depress me that otherwise rational human beings do.

As a last thought, I read an excellent quote somewhere about a guy who was debunking the kind of appalling supernaturalism you get on Most Haunted or GhostHunters. "When they hear a noise coming from a cellar or see movements in corrdors, how do they know its a ghost and not an alien?

Unknown Science, things we are not able to explain by science, yet.

One person chooses to believe in a creator to explain the universe, you might argue differently. However, you cannot say they are wrong until it is proven to be so. To do so would be pre-judicial to the results of the very scientific method you uphold in such high regard. (Irony Bypass operation: see Richard Dawkins)

Ancient texts may or may not be meant to be taken literally, I have no idea, not being a believer. I think most people who believe in the 'Christian God' would take at least some of the bible analogously. Why should you think any different to them?, except perhaps to use it as a stick to beat them with.

What is true about most religious texts (of any faith) is that there is a lot of wisdom and philosphical thought in them that is as relevant today as it was back then.

I propose, it is the application of this philosophy and wisdom that leads to someone having faith, whether it be learned from religious writings, or from personal experiences and thought (as in my own case) and not the dogmatic belief that the earth was created in 6 days.

I continue to propose that there is absolutely no reason that faith and science cannot co-exist together in this format and by accepting this no-one has to disbelieve gravity or radiation or anything else for that matter (or dark matter :wink: )

At least we agree on 'Most Haunted' and probably that tosser 'John Edward' as well :greengrin

HibsMax

10-07-2009, 10:26 PM

As a last thought, I read an excellent quote somewhere about a guy who was debunking the kind of appalling supernaturalism you get on Most Haunted or GhostHunters. "When they hear a noise coming from a cellar or see movements in corrdors, how do they know its a ghost and not an alien?
Who's to say that God isn't an alien? ;)

Good post.

There is a good book called "Why Darwin Matters". I encourage people to read it if they can.

hibs0666

12-07-2009, 03:57 PM

What these verses are asking is: “How can anyone know enough to speak with any authority about the beginnings of things? How can anyone claim to have any knowledge of cosmic origins beyond an act of faith, that act of faith being a choice to believe or disbelieve the account that makes sense to oneself?”

Fortunately, science is extremely inquisitive whereas 'religion' and 'faith' is entirely the oposite. Based on the available evidence, sceince has developed and continues to evolve a model of the cosmic origin. The religious response
- that it was down to some supernatural being - is almost facile in comparison. For example, the religious response does absolutely nothing to explain the bit about the origin of god.

The fact is that nobody actually knows - we weren't there, and everything that's written about theories of the origin of the cosmos is to a greater or lesser degree speculation.

Everything we encounter is speculation as it is an interpretation of the available evidence. Religion bases itself on a few arbitrary books and their arbitrary translation. Give me science every time.

I believe that the universe and all the life that it contains is the creation of God. That's my belief. I can't prove it, any more than Richard Dawkins can prove his position either. (Dawkins believes there is no God. Quite simply, he'll never prove that beyond all reasonable doubt - it's a basic principle of philosophical argument that you can't ever prove a negative.)

Dawkins does prove that the supernatural, omnipotent god does not exist beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is not absolute after all, and Dawkins case is compelling.

Belief in a creation demands belief in a massive quantum leap from nothing to everything at the moment of creation. Genesis 1 states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...."

Science, clearly, agrees there was a massive quantum leap that resulted in the creation of the universe. Fortunately sceince does not have to deal with the creation of god problem that religion conveniently chooses to ignore.

That isn't saying that God took what was already there and organised it into trees and plants and seas and rivers and animals and birds and fish and stars and planets and people and so on. That verse says that out of nothing, God created the building-blocks of the cosmos - period. Creatio ex nihilo, to quote the old theologians. I agree that that's a huge concept to accept, but no more enormous that the concept of evolution, IMO.

Except evolution is based on a huge body of evidence whilst religion is based on no more than a few vague words. And, if evolution is proven wrong, then science will adopt newer, better models. Religion does not have this concept as faith requires no justification and brokers no argument.

We can argue about whether this passage is factual, poetic, mythological or whatever, but its main point remains the same – it says that God made all matter in a gigantic quantum leap of creativity, and then proceeded to shape that matter into the universe we live in today.

Again, it does nothing to explain the creation of this super-complex entity that did all this moulding and shaping.

The theory of evolution would appear to get rid of the problem of that quantum gap between “before the beginning” and afterwards. It also allows us to form a practical theory of being without taking account of the possibility of the existence of a Creator God. However, there is a problem with evolutionary theory.

Evolution was never intended to address the question of the creation of life.

Christianity assumes that God started the cosmos off by a sovereign act of creation. In the beginning there was only God – nothing else existed. The matter of which the universe is made was itself created by God. It was then shaped and organised into the world we know. What that process entailed - and how long it took - we simply cannot know in any detail.

Again, who created this supernatural entity of such huge power and ability?

Evolutionism assumes that somehow a huge mass of disorganised matter took on shape, form, and organisation without any outside influence or initiative. It also assumes that that matter progressively became more and more organised and complex, still without any outside influence whatsoever - everything just happened. And everything just happened by means of billions and billions of sudden abrupt transitions from species to species, dependent upon the principle of natural selection - all while nobody was doing the selection....

Evolutionism may or may not be a viable account of the workings of the material universe. I remain unconvinced – an evolutionary agnostic, if you like.

Yet you are convinced by a few words from ncient texts that lack any sort of corroboration whatsoever? :wink:

Twa Cairpets

13-07-2009, 08:36 AM

Unknown Science, things we are not able to explain by science, yet.

One person chooses to believe in a creator to explain the universe, you might argue differently. However, you cannot say they are wrong until it is proven to be so. To do so would be pre-judicial to the results of the very scientific method you uphold in such high regard. (Irony Bypass operation: see Richard Dawkins)

Ancient texts may or may not be meant to be taken literally, I have no idea, not being a believer. I think most people who believe in the 'Christian God' would take at least some of the bible analogously. Why should you think any different to them?, except perhaps to use it as a stick to beat them with.
What is true about most religious texts (of any faith) is that there is a lot of wisdom and philosphical thought in them that is as relevant today as it was back then.
I propose, it is the application of this philosophy and wisdom that leads to someone having faith, whether it be learned from religious writings, or from personal experiences and thought (as in my own case) and not the dogmatic belief that the earth was created in 6 days.

I continue to propose that there is absolutely no reason that faith and science cannot co-exist together in this format and by accepting this no-one has to disbelieve gravity or radiation or anything else for that matter (or dark matter :wink: )

At least we agree on 'Most Haunted' and probably that tosser 'John Edward' as well :greengrin

There is a well known argument regarding proving a negative - it is effectively impossible, especially in matters of faith. Apart from Russells teapot, the other oft-cited example is that of the flying spaghetti monster - an american student as a philosophical exercise stated that his claim to believe in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the creator of the universe was equally as valid as any other deity as it was not disprovable. "Absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence". Science doesnt seek to disprove God - its not what it is set out to do. The scientific evidence for evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology and any other science you may think about does tend strongly towards there being no divine creator as there is no evidence whatsoever for it, but that is a by product rather than an aim.

It really irritates me that Christians decide that they can take elements of the bible analogously. Which bits? The bits that don't fit with evidence? The bits that are less sociably acceptable now than they were 2000 years ago like slavery/misogyny? The bits that are just plainly bonkers?

Sure, there are good things in the Bible - not killing is a pretty good idea for example, but that is a biologically hard-wired state in my opinion. It is such a shame that so many have been killed in the name of various Gods isnt it?

I'm all for philosophical thought, debate, opinion and the like - it helps define and shape the human experience. I just dont think faith in a deity should have anything to do with it.

I do believe that such faith is inheretly anti-science and anti-progress, limiting and blocking the development of both scientific advancement and philosophical discourse, as, by definition, it can brook no alternative.

ancienthibby

13-07-2009, 05:28 PM

PeeJay

13-07-2009, 06:51 PM

So how then do you account for the fact that so many scientists (many, many well-renowned) profess to be Christians and find that their work is quite compatible with their faith in our Creator God??:greengrin

I would hazard a guess that many of the "many, many" simply play ball with "Christians" (or, e.g. Jews, Muslims - whatever in other countries) i.e. they bow to social pressure. Look at the US - could you imagine a president getting elected if he didn't profess to "believe"? And, of the US presidents elected: how many do you really believe, believed?
Same with your faithful scientists: to get funding for research or even simply to be considered for a post, many in the US or other countries will have to tick the "I believe" box if they want to remain in the frame or even get ahead. Nothing like Christian "tolerance" :faf: to hone your ability to practice a wee white lie every now and then is there! I guess they just risk it regarding whether your Creator God know's if they're lying or not? :wink: It's possible, don't you think?:bye:

Twa Cairpets

13-07-2009, 07:17 PM

So how then do you account for the fact that so many scientists (many, many well-renowned) profess to be Christians and find that their work is quite compatible with their faith in our Creator God??:greengrin

Just to put this random point in context, Here is some data. It is an excerpt from the piece sourced at: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

[Summary of a paper that appeared in the 23 July 1998 issue of Nature by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313.]

Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Larson and Witham used the same wording [as in the Leuba studies], and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%.

The results were as follows (figures in %):

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3

Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high.
The authors elaborated on these figures:

Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

So bang goes that argument then.

Woody1985

13-07-2009, 07:23 PM

So bang goes that argument then.

:faf:

ancienthibby

13-07-2009, 07:47 PM

Just to put this random point in context, Here is some data. It is an excerpt from the piece sourced at: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/sci_relig.htm)

[Summary of a paper that appeared in the 23 July 1998 issue of Nature by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313.]

Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Larson and Witham used the same wording [as in the Leuba studies], and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%.

The results were as follows (figures in %):

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3

Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high.
The authors elaborated on these figures:

Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

So bang goes that argument then.

Hardly.

My point simply was that there are any number of scientists who see no incompatibility between their scientific work and their Christian belief. Here's a wee list of current scientists who do exactly that.
Science & Christian Belief

Editors

Denis R. Alexander MA PhD
Ernest Lucas MA PhD
Editorial Board

Professor R.J. Berry, FRSE
University College London, UK

Professor V. Betina
Slovak Technical University of Bratislava, Slovakia

Professor Henri Blocher,
Faculté Libre de Théologie Evangélique (Vaux-sur-Seine), France

Professor David Block, FRAS
University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

Professor David Booth
University of Birmingham, UK

Professor M.H.P. Bott, FRS
University of Durham, UK

Professor G. Andrew D. Briggs,
University of Oxford, UK

Professor John Bryant
University of Exeter, UK

Professor R.H. Bube
Stanford University, USA

Professor D.C. Burke, CBE
formerly Vice Chancellor, University of East Anglia, UK

Dr Peter J. Bussey
University of Glasgow, UK

Dr. Peter G.H.Clarke
University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Professor Edward B. Davis
Messiah College, USA

Professor Allan J. Day
University of Melbourne, Australia

Professor Calvin B. DeWitt
University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

Dr. Valgene L. Dunham,
Coastal Carolina University, USA

Professor O. Gingerich
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA

Dr. David R. Given,
Lincoln University, New Zealand

Professor Joel B. Green
Asbury Theological Seminary, USA

Professor Andrew P. Halestrap,
University of Bristol, UK

Professor Sir Brian Heap FRS
University of Cambridge, UK

Professor Paul Helm
formerly King's College London, UK

Sir John Houghton, CBE, FRS
Meteorological Office, UK

Professor C.J. Humphreys, FIM, FInstP
University of Cambridge, UK

Professor M.A. Jeeves, CBE, FRSE
University of St Andrews, UK

Professor D.G. Jones
University of Otago, New Zealand

Professor Christopher Kaiser
Western Theological Seminary, USA

Professor G.K. Kinoti
University of Nairobi, Kenya

Professor David N. Livingstone, FBA
The Queen's University of Belfast, UK

Professor David Lyon
Queen's University, Canada

Professor A.E. McGrath
University of Oxford, UK

Professor Andrew Miller CBE, FRSE
Edinburgh University, UK

Professor Nancey Murphy,
Fuller Theological Seminary, USA

Professor David Myers,
Hope College, USA

Professor John R. Pilbrow FInstP
Monash University, Australia

Professor Sir Ghillean Prance FRS
President, Institute of Biology, UK

Professor C.A. Russell, FRSC
The Open University, UK

Professor Jeffrey P. Schloss
Westmont College, USA

Professor Howard J. Van Till
Calvin College, USA

Professor Bob White, FRS
University of Cambridge, UK

Professor John White FRS
The Australian National University

Professor D.J. Wiseman, FBA
formerly University of London, UK

Despite what you might think there are many scientists at work today for whom no conflict exists between science and Christian belief.

Twa Cairpets

13-07-2009, 08:43 PM

Hardly.

My point simply was that there are any number of scientists who see no incompatibility between their scientific work and their Christian belief. Here's a wee list of current scientists who do exactly that.
Science & Christian Belief

Editors

Denis R. Alexander MA PhD
Ernest Lucas MA PhD
Editorial Board

Professor R.J. Berry, FRSE
University College London, UK

Professor V. Betina
Slovak Technical University of Bratislava, Slovakia

Professor Henri Blocher,
Faculté Libre de Théologie Evangélique (Vaux-sur-Seine), France

Professor David Block, FRAS
University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

Professor David Booth
University of Birmingham, UK

Professor M.H.P. Bott, FRS
University of Durham, UK

Professor G. Andrew D. Briggs,
University of Oxford, UK

Professor John Bryant
University of Exeter, UK

Professor R.H. Bube
Stanford University, USA

Professor D.C. Burke, CBE
formerly Vice Chancellor, University of East Anglia, UK

Dr Peter J. Bussey
University of Glasgow, UK

Dr. Peter G.H.Clarke
University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Professor Edward B. Davis
Messiah College, USA

Professor Allan J. Day
University of Melbourne, Australia

Professor Calvin B. DeWitt
University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

Dr. Valgene L. Dunham,
Coastal Carolina University, USA

Professor O. Gingerich
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA

Dr. David R. Given,
Lincoln University, New Zealand

Professor Joel B. Green
Asbury Theological Seminary, USA

Professor Andrew P. Halestrap,
University of Bristol, UK

Professor Sir Brian Heap FRS
University of Cambridge, UK

Professor Paul Helm
formerly King's College London, UK

Sir John Houghton, CBE, FRS
Meteorological Office, UK

Professor C.J. Humphreys, FIM, FInstP
University of Cambridge, UK

Professor M.A. Jeeves, CBE, FRSE
University of St Andrews, UK

Professor D.G. Jones
University of Otago, New Zealand

Professor Christopher Kaiser
Western Theological Seminary, USA

Professor G.K. Kinoti
University of Nairobi, Kenya

Professor David N. Livingstone, FBA
The Queen's University of Belfast, UK

Professor David Lyon
Queen's University, Canada

Professor A.E. McGrath
University of Oxford, UK

Professor Andrew Miller CBE, FRSE
Edinburgh University, UK

Professor Nancey Murphy,
Fuller Theological Seminary, USA

Professor David Myers,
Hope College, USA

Professor John R. Pilbrow FInstP
Monash University, Australia

Professor Sir Ghillean Prance FRS
President, Institute of Biology, UK

Professor C.A. Russell, FRSC
The Open University, UK

Professor Jeffrey P. Schloss
Westmont College, USA

Professor Howard J. Van Till
Calvin College, USA

Professor Bob White, FRS
University of Cambridge, UK

Professor John White FRS
The Australian National University

Professor D.J. Wiseman, FBA
formerly University of London, UK

Despite what you might think there are many scientists at work today for whom no conflict exists between science and Christian belief.

Not that a governing body called Science and Christian Belief would in any way be biased one way or t'other, or the fact that at a brief count about 10-15% are based at theological college or other simialr institute (and thats just the ones I can be arsed checking) would in any way colour the editorial board. And frankly, if thats the best you can dredge up, its not really that stunning is it.

Of course some scientists have faith, and view it as compatible and non-conflicting. I think the onus really rests with you to explain why so many scientists don't have faith, wouldnt you say? Place facts, the ability to think critically, skeptically and without prejudice in front of intelligent people and the vast majority decide that - nah, it isnt right. Its also interesting if you look at the background of the respondents in the Nature survey and other ones (like Scientific American September 1999) that the biggest incidence of disbelief is amongst those who you might expect to see Gods presence every day - Cosmologists, Biologists and Physicists.

Of course, you might not believe the resarch results, but I think you'll find "Nature" is held in somewhat higher regard as an academic journal than "Science and Christian Belief".

hibs0666

13-07-2009, 09:20 PM

Of course, you might not believe the research results, but I think you'll find "Nature" is held in somewhat higher regard as an academic journal than "Science and Christian Belief".

I wonder how such religious scientists react when science and religion are in clear conflict?

For example, I wonder what they would say about the result of scientific studies of the effect of interecessionary prayer such as the one below from no less an institution as Harvard Medical School.

For me, papers such as this show clearly the need to take sides - either you believe in the power of good science or you believe in a personal god - the two appear very incompatible indeed.

Prayer power paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567?dopt=AbstractPlus)

"BACKGROUND: Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome. We evaluated whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery."

"METHODS: Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality."

"RESULTS: In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups."

"CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

LiverpoolHibs

13-07-2009, 09:28 PM

This has been (and may continue to be) a rather a fantastic thread.

TwoCarpets really should post on this bit of the board more often.

Twa Cairpets

13-07-2009, 09:58 PM

This has been (and may continue to be) a rather a fantastic thread.

TwoCarpets really should post on this bit of the board more often.

Thanks Liverpool. Just wait till someone defends spiritualism, homeopathy, reiki, crystal healing or or any other pseudoscientific bollox, then I'll really get on my high horse! :greengrin

just a wee question for AncientHibee, Doddie, Fergus or any of the other guys on the pro-religion side.

Do you disbelieve in evolution because your faith won't allow you to, or because you fundamentaly dont believe the evidence presented? Genuine question - Im interested.

J-C

13-07-2009, 10:08 PM

HibsMax

13-07-2009, 11:00 PM

I've always been curious as to why there's no mention in the bible about Dinosaurs, Neanderthal man, Wooly Mammoths, sabre tooth tigers, Giant sloths and the like. God must have created them as they try to tell us, he created all living things but curiously forgot to mention these facts in the bible. The bible a book written about 5,000 years ago containing fables and stories very hard to even prove.
Here's an explanation for dinosaurs:
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

I didn't read it all, it's just the first page that popped up when I searched for Christians and dinosaurs.

J-C

13-07-2009, 11:18 PM

Here's an explanation for dinosaurs:
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

I didn't read it all, it's just the first page that popped up when I searched for Christians and dinosaurs.

Basically what I got out of that are they had no clue as to dinosaurs etc
Behemouth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth a large or very large creature, as yet unknown because it is in general terms.

Leviathan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan again a general term for any large sea creature

So far no description just terms for animals that are mystical like giant serpents and dragons etc. I'm pretty sure ancient people would've found and dug up some dinosaur bones and not knowing what creatures they were, used there imaginations and came up with these mythical creatures.

The bible gave detailed descriptions about most of the living creatures we see today because it was only written a few thousand years ago, so these would've been the same animals we know today. When dinosaur bones were first discovered a few hundred years ago we never knew what they were, mainly due to the fact they had bever been seen or written about before. If they had been described clearly in the bible I'm sure scientist would've known exactly what they were instead of guessing and giving them latin names to describe each one.

GlesgaeHibby

14-07-2009, 06:36 AM

Hardly.

My point simply was that there are any number of scientists who see no incompatibility between their scientific work and their Christian belief. Here's a wee list of current scientists who do exactly that.
Science & Christian Belief

Editors

Denis R. Alexander MA PhD
Ernest Lucas MA PhD
Editorial Board

Professor R.J. Berry, FRSE
University College London, UK

Professor V. Betina
Slovak Technical University of Bratislava, Slovakia

Professor Henri Blocher,
Faculté Libre de Théologie Evangélique (Vaux-sur-Seine), France

Professor David Block, FRAS
University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

Professor David Booth
University of Birmingham, UK

Professor M.H.P. Bott, FRS
University of Durham, UK

Professor G. Andrew D. Briggs,
University of Oxford, UK

Professor John Bryant
University of Exeter, UK

Professor R.H. Bube
Stanford University, USA

Professor D.C. Burke, CBE
formerly Vice Chancellor, University of East Anglia, UK

Dr Peter J. Bussey
University of Glasgow, UK

Dr. Peter G.H.Clarke
University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Professor Edward B. Davis
Messiah College, USA

Professor Allan J. Day
University of Melbourne, Australia

Professor Calvin B. DeWitt
University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

Dr. Valgene L. Dunham,
Coastal Carolina University, USA

Professor O. Gingerich
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA

Dr. David R. Given,
Lincoln University, New Zealand

Professor Joel B. Green
Asbury Theological Seminary, USA

Professor Andrew P. Halestrap,
University of Bristol, UK

Professor Sir Brian Heap FRS
University of Cambridge, UK

Professor Paul Helm
formerly King's College London, UK

Sir John Houghton, CBE, FRS
Meteorological Office, UK

Professor C.J. Humphreys, FIM, FInstP
University of Cambridge, UK

Professor M.A. Jeeves, CBE, FRSE
University of St Andrews, UK

Professor D.G. Jones
University of Otago, New Zealand

Professor Christopher Kaiser
Western Theological Seminary, USA

Professor G.K. Kinoti
University of Nairobi, Kenya

Professor David N. Livingstone, FBA
The Queen's University of Belfast, UK

Professor David Lyon
Queen's University, Canada

Professor A.E. McGrath
University of Oxford, UK

Professor Andrew Miller CBE, FRSE
Edinburgh University, UK

Professor Nancey Murphy,
Fuller Theological Seminary, USA

Professor David Myers,
Hope College, USA

Professor John R. Pilbrow FInstP
Monash University, Australia

Professor Sir Ghillean Prance FRS
President, Institute of Biology, UK

Professor C.A. Russell, FRSC
The Open University, UK

Professor Jeffrey P. Schloss
Westmont College, USA

Professor Howard J. Van Till
Calvin College, USA

Professor Bob White, FRS
University of Cambridge, UK

Professor John White FRS
The Australian National University

Professor D.J. Wiseman, FBA
formerly University of London, UK

Despite what you might think there are many scientists at work today for whom no conflict exists between science and Christian belief.

I thought his name would pop up!

Anyway, that is a tiny number of Scientists around the world. The percentage of Physicists that believe is tiny.

Twa Cairpets

14-07-2009, 10:08 AM

Basically what I got out of that are they had no clue as to dinosaurs etc
Behemouth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth a large or very large creature, as yet unknown because it is in general terms.

Leviathan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan again a general term for any large sea creature

So far no description just terms for animals that are mystical like giant serpents and dragons etc. I'm pretty sure ancient people would've found and dug up some dinosaur bones and not knowing what creatures they were, used there imaginations and came up with these mythical creatures.

The bible gave detailed descriptions about most of the living creatures we see today because it was only written a few thousand years ago, so these would've been the same animals we know today. When dinosaur bones were first discovered a few hundred years ago we never knew what they were, mainly due to the fact they had bever been seen or written about before. If they had been described clearly in the bible I'm sure scientist would've known exactly what they were instead of guessing and giving them latin names to describe each one.

There is a strong creationist movement in the USA, and one of there most vociferous bodies is - to my mind - a deeply dangerous organisation called Anwers in Genesis. Their take on dinosaurs and evolution can be found here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs

It is an interesting read - utterly, utterly bonkers, full of misdirection, logical fallacies, and confirmation bias - but interesting nonetheless.

As I'm sure Doddie will point out, not all Christians (indeed in the UK it is a small percentage) are "young-earth" creationists like these guys, but although I am fundamentally opposed to the outpourings of the likes of Answers in Genesis, I have a grudging respect for them in so far as they try to make the facts fit the Word of God as they see it in the bible. Not for them the cop-out of "some bits of the bible are to be taken as allegory" or moral fable. For them this is what the Big Guy says, end of.

--------

14-07-2009, 11:01 AM

Thanks Liverpool. Just wait till someone defends spiritualism, homeopathy, reiki, crystal healing or or any other pseudoscientific bollox, then I'll really get on my high horse! :greengrin

Just a wee question for AncientHibee, Doddie, Fergus or any of the other guys on the pro-religion side.

Do you disbelieve in evolution because your faith won't allow you to, or because you fundamentaly dont believe the evidence presented? Genuine question - I'm interested.

I take leave to doubt the depth of your interest - however....

First, what YOU say I said isn't what I said. I said I'm an agnostic on the subject - I genuinely don't have the information to formally discount or accept the Theory of Evolution. Or rather, any single one of the various versions that are about these days. Agnostics aren't disbelievers - we reserve our judgement.

Second, speaking for myself alone, what I believe or disbelieve isn't a matter of someone else telling me what I can accept and what I must reject. If my understanding of evolutionary biology and palaeontology is defective, it's no more so than the understanding of (say) the Old Testament displayed by one or two of the anti-religionists on this thread. At least I'm prepared to admit that there are things I don't understand.

What puzzles me about this discussion is that whatever one's understanding of how the universe works, there's no answer to the question of where it came from.

Evolution itself (in the event that it proves true) has absolutely nothing to say on the matter. Evolutionary theory is about the organisation and re-organisation of matter. But you can't organise or re-organise what isn't there, and at some point matter must have come into existence - unless of course you're suggesting that matter itself is eternal. Which then raises even deeper questions about what matter is and where it came from. Except it didn't come from anywhere. It just was/is/will be, world without end....

Everything we're aware of exists in time. We can't conceive of anything that has neither a beginning nor an end. We can speculate about it, but our minds can't really get round the idea of anything that literally WAS always there, IS here, and WILL BE there - without ever ceasing to be.

And I see no greater irrationality or superstition in believing in an eternal Creator God than I see in the idea of some eternal, unchanging 'stuff' which some scientists posit as the building blocks of the cosmos.

I'm not the one with my head in the sand. Either give me some sort of account of how the 'stuff' you and I and everyone and everything else is made of came into existence - which evolutionary theory does not do - or accept that maybe - just maybe - the kid with the Spaghetti Monster was more sensible than Dawkins and the Prophets of Accidental Existence.

Woody1985

14-07-2009, 11:26 AM

I take leave to doubt the depth of your interest - however....

First, what YOU say I said isn't what I said. I said I'm an agnostic on the subject - I genuinely don't have the information to formally discount or accept the Theory of Evolution. Or rather, any single one of the various versions that are about these days. Agnostics aren't disbelievers - we reserve our judgement.

Second, speaking for myself alone, what I believe or disbelieve isn't a matter of someone else telling me what I can accept and what I must reject. If my understanding of evolutionary biology and palaeontology is defective, it's no more so than the understanding of (say) the Old Testament displayed by one or two of the anti-religionists on this thread. At least I'm prepared to admit that there are things I don't understand.

What puzzles me about this discussion is that whatever one's understanding of how the universe works, there's no answer to the question of where it came from.

Evolution itself (in the event that it proves true) has absolutely nothing to say on the matter. Evolutionary theory is about the organisation and re-organisation of matter. But you can't organise or re-organise what isn't there, and at some point matter must have come into existence - unless of course you're suggesting that matter itself is eternal. Which then raises even deeper questions about what matter is and where it came from. Except it didn't come from anywhere. It just was/is/will be, world without end....

Everything we're aware of exists in time. We can't conceive of anything that has neither a beginning nor an end. We can speculate about it, but our minds can't really get round the idea of anything that literally WAS always there, IS here, and WILL BE there - without ever ceasing to be.

And I see no greater irrationality or superstition in believing in an eternal Creator God than I see in the idea of some eternal, unchanging 'stuff' which some scientists posit as the building blocks of the cosmos.

I'm not the one with my head in the sand. Either give me some sort of account of how the 'stuff' you and I and everyone and everything else is made of came into existence - which evolutionary theory does not do - or accept that maybe - just maybe - the kid with the Spaghetti Monster was more sensible than Dawkins and the Prophets of Accidental Existence.

You could get the information if you wanted to.

Do you choose not to because it is seen as a threat to your faith? If so, the first sentence of your last paragraph isn't true.

--------

14-07-2009, 11:36 AM

You could get the information if you wanted to.

Do you choose not to because it is seen as a threat to your faith? If so, the first sentence of your last paragraph isn't true.

I do as much reading on the subject of creationism/evolutionism as you do on Biblical theology, I think. Maybe more.

LH referred me to some articles earlier in the thread. I followed the link, but the articles are written at a professional level. I read them through, but they didn't mean a lot to me, because the language was highly professional specialised 'jargon'. That's not the right word, but I'm trying to explain what I mean when I say I haven't the information.

You insinuate that I know very well where I could read up, but refuse to do so. We can have a pissing context about what we've read and how much we understood, but life's too short.

However, can you answer the questions I raised about the origins and nature of the material universe? Who put the kettle on? Who lit the blue touch-paper and set it all going? Or did NOTHING become SOMETHING when NOBODY didn't do ANYTHING? And then went on and on and on becoming lots of different SOMETHING ELSES when NOBODY didn't do ANYTHING again and again and again?

Do you have a link to something that will?

J-C

14-07-2009, 11:40 AM

I do as much reading on the subject of creationism/evolutionism as you do on Biblical theology, I think. Maybe more.

LH referred me to some articles earlier in the thread. I followed the link, but the articles are written at a highly professional level. That's what i mean when I say I haven't the information.

You insinuate that I know very well where I could read up, but refuse to do so. Well, can you answer the questions I raised about the origins and nature of the material universe? I've read a lot of words on both sides of the arguments, and I still haven't found an atheist who can answer me.

Do you have a link to something that will?

You might like to read this Doddie, quite interesting.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/origin-of-the-universe.htm

hibs0666

14-07-2009, 12:14 PM

However, can you answer the questions I raised about the origins and nature of the material universe? Who put the kettle on? Who lit the blue touch-paper and set it all going? Or did NOTHING become SOMETHING when NOBODY didn't do ANYTHING? And then went on and on and on becoming lots of different SOMETHING ELSES when NOBODY didn't do ANYTHING again and again and again?

Do you have a link to something that will?

But how is God an answer to these questions? Re-stating your questions...

Who created God?
Who lit the blue touch-paper to set God going?
Did the materials that God used to create the universe come from nothing?
Or did God appear from NOTHING to become SOMETHING when NOBODY didn't do ANYTHING?

--------

14-07-2009, 02:07 PM

You might like to read this Doddie, quite interesting.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/origin-of-the-universe.htm

Yup.

Intelligent Design or Random Chance.

Personally, I don't find Random Chance an adequate explanation of even the minute portion of the universe I live in.

Just don't see it, frankly. Or put it another way, it's not a persuasive or satisfactory way of accounting for so much.

If I'm on jury duty, I have to reach my verdict 'beyond reasonable doubt', right? I think there's reasonavle doubt against the idea that the universe happened by random chance. Too much evidence of Intelligent Design.

I'm not closing my mind off; I'm looking at the evidence around me and drawing what I consider to be a reasonable conclusion.

--------

14-07-2009, 02:15 PM

But how is God an answer to these questions? Re-stating your questions...

Who created God?
Who lit the blue touch-paper to set God going?
Did the materials that God used to create the universe come from nothing?
Or did God appear from NOTHING to become SOMETHING when NOBODY didn't do ANYTHING?

If you read the Book of Exodus, in chgapter 3 you find Moses being put on the spot by the Almighty. He asks the Almighty what the Almighty's name is. The answer: 'I am Who I am....' Or equally likely, since the book was written in Hebrew and Hebrew verb-tenses aren't like English ones - 'I will be Who I will be....'

God is, was, will be ever the same. I don't deny that this is a matter of faith. I don't deny that I can't explain it all in words of one syllable. I wish I could, but I can't.

This is a deep and deepening conviction that's been with me since I was in my mid-20's, and it never leaves me. there's too much rational, intelligent desiign in what I see around me for it all to have happened by chance, and if I have to account for the God I believe in, then the account I have in the Old and New Testaments makes a lot more sense than Dawkins and all his tribe.

Fantic

14-07-2009, 03:14 PM

Look at it this way-

If it weren't for god and the church - we would all be Jambos.

End of thread.

Twa Cairpets

14-07-2009, 04:38 PM

If you read the Book of Exodus, in chgapter 3 you find Moses being put on the spot by the Almighty. He asks the Almighty what the Almighty's name is. The answer: 'I am Who I am....' Or equally likely, since the book was written in Hebrew and Hebrew verb-tenses aren't like English ones - 'I will be Who I will be....'

God is, was, will be ever the same. I don't deny that this is a matter of faith. I don't deny that I can't explain it all in words of one syllable. I wish I could, but I can't.

This is a deep and deepening conviction that's been with me since I was in my mid-20's, and it never leaves me. there's too much rational, intelligent desiign in what I see around me for it all to have happened by chance, and if I have to account for the God I believe in, then the account I have in the Old and New Testaments makes a lot more sense than Dawkins and all his tribe.

At the risk of offending your deeply held convictions Doddie, I think it hard to justify the juxtaposition of the words "rational" and "Intelligent Design". Are you an ID believer in the sense that you believe all life was placed fully formed in its current format less than 10,000 years ago?

Intelligent Design as a concept has been pretty comprehensively debunked as a valid scientific concept, certainly if you take the US definition of what it is. The Dover trial in Pennsylvania even legislatively ruled against it.

There is an excellent, even-handed series on this which is excellent viewing. The first episode on YouTube is on this link.

I'd recommend it for both sides in the debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R54LGX5_10&feature=related

Lastly, if I was to say "the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and all his tribe", you'd probably be offended by this. I'm not in the slightest offended by your Dawkins statement, but its smacks just a tad of double standards given some of your earlier postings about reporting people because of the offence they were causing. Then again I dont worship Dawkins, so maybe its different.

--------

14-07-2009, 04:59 PM

At the risk of offending your deeply held convictions Doddie, I think it hard to justify the juxtaposition of the words "rational" and "Intelligent Design". Are you an ID believer in the sense that you believe all life was placed fully formed in its current format less than 10,000 years ago?

If you quote me, quote me accurately. The phrase I used was 'rational, intelligent design', one phrase without capitals. I was referring to the patterns and structures clearly discernible in the world around us - it's there, even if you aren't prepared to admit it.

And again, don't distort the argument by insinuating that 'Intelligent Design' arguments (as opposed to Randon Chance) all follow oon from Archbishop Ussher. They don't. Even the original writer of Genesis 1 didn't suggest such a thing.

Intelligent Design as a concept has been pretty comprehensively debunked as a valid scientific concept, certainly if you take the US definition of what it is. The Dover trial in Pennsylvania even legislatively ruled against it.

There is an excellent, even-handed series on this which is excellent viewing. The first episode on YouTube is on this link.

I'd recommend it for both sides in the debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R54LGX5_10&feature=related

Well, if the Pennsylvania judicial system thinks that, it MUST be right. And why must I take the US definition? Again - you assume you can define what I say by choosing one strand of the argument and putting it on me. Answer me - not what you'd like me to be saying.

Lastly, if I was to say "the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and all his tribe", you'd probably be offended by this. I'm not in the slightest offended by your Dawkins statement, but its smacks just a tad of double standards given some of your earlier postings about reporting people because of the offence they were causing. Then again I dont worship Dawkins, so maybe its different.

Trust me - I DON'T worship the Moderator of the General Assembly any more than you worship Dawkins, and I wouldn't be offended in the slightest if you used that phrase 'and all his tribe'.

But it seems that more people than I have a touch of double standards if that offends you. Dawkins himself uses the phrase 'bone-headed God-botherers' in public debate. Don't hand it out if you can't take it.

HibsMax

14-07-2009, 05:36 PM

At the end of the day, I think our biggest problem is that we (humans) actually believe there is an answer.......or at least an answer that our puny minds can comprehend. Think of things in this way. Imagine trying to explain the inner workings of a computer's central processing unit to a caveman (or a Jambo will do). It would be impossible. I believe that in X years time, humans will have advanced similarly and we will understand things we cannot even start to comprehend now. I don't know what the value of X would need to be to notice a radical change in thought.

Twa Cairpets

14-07-2009, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by TwoCarpets
At the risk of offending your deeply held convictions Doddie, I think it hard to justify the juxtaposition of the words "rational" and "Intelligent Design". Are you an ID believer in the sense that you believe all life was placed fully formed in its current format less than 10,000 years ago?

If you quote me, quote me accurately. The phrase I used was 'rational, intelligent design', one phrase without capitals. I was referring to the patterns and structures clearly discernible in the world around us - it's there, even if you aren't prepared to admit it.

And again, don't distort the argument by insinuating that 'Intelligent Design' arguments (as opposed to Randon Chance) all follow oon from Archbishop Ussher. They don't. Even the original writer of Genesis 1 didn't suggest such a thing.

Intelligent Design as a concept has been pretty comprehensively debunked as a valid scientific concept, certainly if you take the US definition of what it is. The Dover trial in Pennsylvania even legislatively ruled against it.

There is an excellent, even-handed series on this which is excellent viewing. The first episode on YouTube is on this link.

I'd recommend it for both sides in the debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R54L...eature=related

Well, if the Pennsylvania judicial system thinks that, it MUST be right. And why must I take the US definition? Again - you assume you can define what I say by choosing one strand of the argument and putting it on me. Answer me - not what you'd like me to be saying.

Lastly, if I was to say "the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and all his tribe", you'd probably be offended by this. I'm not in the slightest offended by your Dawkins statement, but its smacks just a tad of double standards given some of your earlier postings about reporting people because of the offence they were causing. Then again I dont worship Dawkins, so maybe its different.

Trust me - I DON'T worship the Moderator of the General Assembly any more than you worship Dawkins, and I wouldn't be offended in the slightest if you used that phrase 'and all his tribe'.

But it seems that more people than I have a touch of double standards if that offends you. Dawkins himself uses the phrase 'bone-headed God-botherers' in public debate. Don't hand it out if you can't take it.Doddie - you are guilty of quote mining and selective interpretation here.

I asked a question regarding your interpretation of ID or id, capitalised or not. You've answered by blustering about Usher, not about what you mean by the phrase "inteligent design". I am interested, because it helps me understand your world view.

If you disagree with the generally held definition of it, fine. The Dover case is interesting precisley because it looks at what (the US interpretation of what) ID is in a structured way - ie through a legal procedure. You'll have your opinion on whether its right or wrong. If neither of the stances taken are compatible with your world view, then its still interesting becasue it examines what Im sure you would view as the two poles of the spectrum on evolution.

Your last sentence I dont really understand. The views on this thread have been -for the most part - interesting and thought provoking. Ive no interest in descending into name calling, and Ive a very thick skin anyway.

If Dawkins does say that in public debate, its a rare occurence, and to my mind, a shame. Descending into name calling in a public arena I think only deflects from what I would view as the basic correctness of his stance.

I've read his books and watched a lot of his debates, and I dont recall seeing it. If you know which debate it was on, I'd be interested to look it up to get a feel for context.

--------

15-07-2009, 09:40 AM

Doddie - you are guilty of quote mining and selective interpretation here.

I asked a question regarding your interpretation of ID or id, capitalised or not. You've answered by blustering about Usher, not about what you mean by the phrase "inteligent design". I am interested, because it helps me understand your world view.

If you disagree with the generally held definition of it, fine. The Dover case is interesting precisley because it looks at what (the US interpretation of what) ID is in a structured way - ie through a legal procedure. You'll have your opinion on whether its right or wrong. If neither of the stances taken are compatible with your world view, then its still interesting becasue it examines what Im sure you would view as the two poles of the spectrum on evolution.

Your last sentence I dont really understand. The views on this thread have been -for the most part - interesting and thought provoking. Ive no interest in descending into name calling, and Ive a very thick skin anyway.

If Dawkins does say that in public debate, its a rare occurence, and to my mind, a shame. Descending into name calling in a public arena I think only deflects from what I would view as the basic correctness of his stance.

I've read his books and watched a lot of his debates, and I dont recall seeing it. If you know which debate it was on, I'd be interested to look it up to get a feel for context.

Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design limits the time-scale to a few thousand years. I don't.

But you seem to be determined to argue on that ground and no other.

Your use of the word 'blustering' suggests you're looking for an argument rather than a discussion, and I'd rather not give you one. Ussher's chronology is the one upon which some ID people base their arguments - your specification of '10,000 years' as a timescale for creation suggested that that's where you were coming from.

As far as Dawkins is concerned, I've listened to a number of his interviews and debates myself. He consistently uses such terms - Google his interview with Paxman on YouTube and you'll hear him. You'll also hear him explain that he and his friends are 'courageous' thinkers facing realities that 'ordinary people' run away from.

That's the interview most easily obtainable. There have been plenty others.

Now i've explained my 'world-view'. This is tedious. Goodbye. :bye:

Twa Cairpets

15-07-2009, 01:33 PM

Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design limits the time-scale to a few thousand years. I don't.

But you seem to be determined to argue on that ground and no other.

Your use of the word 'blustering' suggests you're looking for an argument rather than a discussion, and I'd rather not give you one. Ussher's chronology is the one upon which some ID people base their arguments - your specification of '10,000 years' as a timescale for creation suggested that that's where you were coming from.

As far as Dawkins is concerned, I've listened to a number of his interviews and debates myself. He consistently uses such terms - Google his interview with Paxman on YouTube and you'll hear him. You'll also hear him explain that he and his friends are 'courageous' thinkers facing realities that 'ordinary people' run away from.

That's the interview most easily obtainable. There have been plenty others.

Now i've explained my 'world-view'. This is tedious. Goodbye. :bye:

As you have now declared yourself absent from this thread because it is "tedious", I think I can now launch a critique of your "arguments" from a more Dawkinsian perspective, if only to confirm your prejudice against atheists.

1) Youve not answered a single question or point I've raised with anything like a coherent answer. When I've asked "What do you think/believe", you answer by saying - and I paraphrase here - "Well I don't believe "X" if thats what you mean...". This is a typical response from creationists/religionists - the logical fallacies used by those who believe in the supernatural are legion. Have a look at www.logicalfallacies.info (http://www.logicalfallacies.info) to see how many you can spot have been used in this and the other religion thread by you and you co-religionists.

An example to illustrate:

You say above: "Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design limits the time-scale to a few thousand years. I don't. But you seem to be determined to argue on that ground and no other".
This was in answer to my "Are you an ID believer in the sense that you believe all life was placed fully formed in its current format less than 10,000 years ago?" and "I asked a question regarding your interpretation of ID or id, capitalised or not. You've answered by blustering about Usher, not about what you mean by the phrase "inteligent design". I am interested, because it helps me understand your world view.If you disagree with the generally held definition of it, fine.".

I dont see that as a determination to argue in any particular ground - in fact, almost the opposite. I'm not entirely shocked about you seeing only what you want to see, though. Fairly fundamental to your whole belief system, I would have thought. It doesn't however make for a good debate or discussion.

2) You accuse me of wanting to have an argument by using the perfectly apt word "blustering" in the last post. Nope. Utterly wrong. I have gone out of my way to be civil and keep the discussion at a sensible level. I would respectfully request you go back and read the posts on this thread over the last few days and tell me honestly who is getting themselves all inflamed and argumentative. Erm. That'll be you then.

It is a fairly typical approach from religionists to argue on an emotional rather than rational basis. Thanks for confirming this once again.

3) Hibs0666 asked about who was around before God, and you quoted back some trite response on "beyond reasonable doubt" in a jury. You are - what was it now - agnostic about evolution, because its not proved beyond reasonable doubt. But you take on faith - literally - the bible as being such proof. Logical fallacy of Circular Reasoning:
"Why do you believe the bible is the Word of God?"
"Because God inspired the writers of the bible"
"Why do you believe God inspired the writers of the bible"
"Because thats what it says in the bible"

Proof beyond reasonable doubt!?! - I pity the poor bugger who has you on the jury!

4) Dawkins. You said: "Dawkins himself uses the phrase 'bone-headed God-botherers' in public debate." and then "As far as Dawkins is concerned, I've listened to a number of his interviews and debates myself. He consistently uses such terms - Google his interview with Paxman on YouTube and you'll hear him". Well, I've followed up your suggestion, and nowhere does he say that, or anything remotely like it. But then its dead easy to throw out lines that most people won't follow up and check. I do. Any other suggestions?

5) Research. I've given a number of references for places to look and people to read. You claim to agonise and soul-search regularly, so can I suggest you read/look at any or all of the following:

Authors: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, James Randi, Bertrand Russell
YouTube: Thuderf00t, Potholer54, Potholer54debunks, AronRa, cdk007

And yes, I have read the bible.

6) Finally, as you do appear to be a clergyman of some sort, I'm sure your parishioners and your God will be delighted that you've decided that having a sensible grown up discussion, albeit on a football website, is in fact tedious, and is dismissed with a smiley.

Nice to know my soul aint worth saving.

PeeJay

15-07-2009, 01:58 PM

As you have now declared yourself absent from this thread because it is "tedious", I think I can now launch a critique of your "arguments" from a more Dawkinsian perspective, if only to confirm your prejudice against atheists.

1) Youve not answered a single question or point I've raised with anything like a coherent answer. When I've asked "What do you think/believe", you answer by saying - and I paraphrase here - "Well I don't believe "X" if thats what you mean...". This is a typical response from creationists/religionists - the logical fallacies used by those who believe in the supernatural are legion. Have a look at www.logicalfallacies.info (http://www.logicalfallacies.info) to see how many you can spot have been used in this and the other religion thread by you and you co-religionists.

An example to illustrate:

You say above: "Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design limits the time-scale to a few thousand years. I don't. But you seem to be determined to argue on that ground and no other".
This was in answer to my "Are you an ID believer in the sense that you believe all life was placed fully formed in its current format less than 10,000 years ago?" and "I asked a question regarding your interpretation of ID or id, capitalised or not. You've answered by blustering about Usher, not about what you mean by the phrase "inteligent design". I am interested, because it helps me understand your world view.If you disagree with the generally held definition of it, fine.".

I dont see that as a determination to argue in any particular ground - in fact, almost the opposite. I'm not entirely shocked about you seeing only what you want to see, though. Fairly fundamental to your whole belief system, I would have thought. It doesn't however make for a good debate or discussion.

2) You accuse me of wanting to have an argument by using the perfectly apt word "blustering" in the last post. Nope. Utterly wrong. I have gone out of my way to be civil and keep the discussion at a sensible level. I would respectfully request you go back and read the posts on this thread over the last few days and tell me honestly who is getting themselves all inflamed and argumentative. Erm. That'll be you then.

It is a fairly typical approach from religionists to argue on an emotional rather than rational basis. Thanks for confirming this once again.

3) Hibs0666 asked about who was around before God, and you quoted back some trite response on "beyond reasonable doubt" in a jury. You are - what was it now - agnostic about evolution, because its not proved beyond reasonable doubt. But you take on faith - literally - the bible as being such proof. Logical fallacy of Circular Reasoning:
"Why do you believe the bible is the Word of God?"
"Because God inspired the writers of the bible"
"Why do you believe God inspired the writers of the bible"
"Because thats what it says in the bible"

Proof beyond reasonable doubt!?! - I pity the poor bugger who has you on the jury!

4) Dawkins. You said: "Dawkins himself uses the phrase 'bone-headed God-botherers' in public debate." and then "As far as Dawkins is concerned, I've listened to a number of his interviews and debates myself. He consistently uses such terms - Google his interview with Paxman on YouTube and you'll hear him". Well, I've followed up your suggestion, and nowhere does he say that, or anything remotely like it. But then its dead easy to throw out lines that most people won't follow up and check. I do. Any other suggestions?

5) Research. I've given a number of references for places to look and people to read. You claim to agonise and soul-search regularly, so can I suggest you read/look at any or all of the following:

Authors: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, James Randi, Bertrand Russell
YouTube: Thuderf00t, Potholer54, Potholer54debunks, AronRa, cdk007

And yes, I have read the bible.

6) Finally, as you do appear to be a clergyman of some sort, I'm sure your parishioners and your God will be delighted that you've decided that having a sensible grown up discussion, albeit on a football website, is in fact tedious, and is dismissed with a smiley.

Nice to know my soul aint worth saving.

:top marksGood day for posts IMO, first off early this morning the "Wedding Video and now this: an excellent post! I myself contributed but a little to this thread, certainly nothing as well articulated as some of the posts on here, but I find it has been anything but “tedious”.

There was me thinking “it’s time the close season was over”, but threads like this almost make up for the dearth of Hibs in the football arena at the moment. :thumbsup:

hibs0666

15-07-2009, 02:49 PM

:top marksGood day for posts IMO, first off early this morning the "Wedding Video and now this: an excellent post! I myself contributed but a little to this thread, certainly nothing as well articulated as some of the posts on here, but I find it has been anything but “tedious”.

There was me thinking “it’s time the close season was over”, but threads like this almost make up for the dearth of Hibs in the football arena at the moment. :thumbsup:

I'm the same - thought the thread was very illuminating but it seems that the supporters of religion do not feel in a position to justify their faith any further.

ancienthibby

15-07-2009, 03:58 PM

I'm the same - thought the thread was very illuminating but it seems that the supporters of religion do not feel in a position to justify their faith any further.

The redoubtable Doddie needs no apologists on this thread, but I sympathise with him when faced (again!) by another thread from TC wherein his main line of attack/defence is one Richard Dawkins.

I am far from as well read as Doddie is, but I have read enough and followed the science/religion debate enough to be able to point out that in the eyes of many, Richard Dawkins is considered to be a bit of a 'busted flush' on this matter. I can refer you to the writings of David Robertson, John Lennox and the estimable Alister McGrath, himself a convert to Christianity from aethism. In his book, 'The Dawkins Delusion', McGrath says this:

'...the hostile and pejorative spin relentessly placed upon religion by Dawkins assers that it is a universal, unambiguous evil, which is a dengerous threat to civilisation...It is this feature of the work which has led its mauling by so many informed critics on all sides of the debate...'

Again, Keith Ward's book 'Why There is almost Certainly a God' garnered this review from Russell Stannard, Professor Emeritus of Physics..'A deft, enjoyable, courteous - yet completely devasting - critique of Richard Dawkins latest foray beyond his sphere of scientific expertise.'

I have pointed out before, and believe it to be the case, that there is much good work and debate ongoing between scientists and theologians and that should be encouraged by us all!

Twa Cairpets

15-07-2009, 04:28 PM

The redoubtable Doddie needs no apologists on this thread, but I sympathise with him when faced (again!) by another thread from TC wherein his main line of attack/defence is one Richard Dawkins.
I am far from as well read as Doddie is, but I have read enough and followed the science/religion debate enough to be able to point out that in the eyes of many, Richard Dawkins is considered to be a bit of a 'busted flush' on this matter. I can refer you to the writings of David Robertson, John Lennox and the estimable Alister McGrath, himself a convert to Christianity from aethism. In his book, 'The Dawkins Delusion', McGrath says this:

'...the hostile and pejorative spin relentessly placed upon religion by Dawkins assers that it is a universal, unambiguous evil, which is a dengerous threat to civilisation...It is this feature of the work which has led its mauling by so many informed critics on all sides of the debate...'

Again, Keith Ward's book 'Why There is almost Certainly a God' garnered this review from Russell Stannard, Professor Emeritus of Physics..'A deft, enjoyable, courteous - yet completely devasting - critique of Richard Dawkins latest foray beyond his sphere of scientific expertise.'

I have pointed out before, and believe it to be the case, that there is much good work and debate ongoing between scientists and theologians and that should be encouraged by us all!

No no no no no no no no no no no no no.

Its really, really not. I didnt raise him in the first place - he is a central player in the debate, so obviously he needs referred to, but as long is it correctly done and referenced. It was, I thought, a thread on evolution v creationism, not a debate on Dawkins.

(As an aside though, the constant disparaging of Dawkins as an individual "Arrogant", "aggressive", etc is a classic tactic of the religious - its called an ad hominem logical fallacy. You'll find a link in my original post).

I have on my shelf a copy of "The Dawkins Delusion" by McGrath. It is, in my opinion of course, one of the most insipid little tomes ever written. Every trick is there, quote mining, wilful misrepresentation of positions, ad hominem attacks - the works. I have read it one and a half times - I just couldnt get through it a second time without the need to have a vomit recepticle handy.

If youve read the Dawkins Delusion, AncientHibee, have you read The God Delusion? Kind of required to allow a balanced view, I would have thought. It is in sections very weighty mind you, and a bit dry - Christopher Hitchens "God is not Good" is to my mind eminently more readable.

ancienthibby

15-07-2009, 05:01 PM

No no no no no no no no no no no no no.

Its really, really not. I didnt raise him in the first place - he is a central player in the debate, so obviously he needs referred to, but as long is it correctly done and referenced. It was, I thought, a thread on evolution v creationism, not a debate on Dawkins.

(As an aside though, the constant disparaging of Dawkins as an individual "Arrogant", "aggressive", etc is a classic tactic of the religious - its called an ad hominem logical fallacy. You'll find a link in my original post).

I have on my shelf a copy of "The Dawkins Delusion" by McGrath. It is, in my opinion of course, one of the most insipid little tomes ever written. Every trick is there, quote mining, wilful misrepresentation of positions, ad hominem attacks - the works. I have read it one and a half times - I just couldnt get through it a second time without the need to have a vomit recepticle handy.

If youve read the Dawkins Delusion, AncientHibee, have you read The God Delusion? Kind of required to allow a balanced view, I would have thought. It is in sections very weighty mind you, and a bit dry - Christopher Hitchens "God is not Good" is to my mind eminently more readable.

TC, I think by now AncientHibee is entitled to be mightily miffed at your confusion of him with myself!!:devil:

That very book on your shelf also quotes that well-known socialist philosopher, Terry Eagleton, ( who has also been described as 'abrasive') offering this view of Dawkins:

'...he (Dawkins) can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view is which is a priori improbable as it is empirically false..'

In your earlier post you said as follows:

I think I can now launch a critique of your "arguments" from a more Dawkinsian perspective,

I was merely pointing out that I could well understand Doddie's sense of exhaustion at more of the same about someone whose output is now severly critisied, if not rejected, by others on his own side!

Twa Cairpets

15-07-2009, 06:03 PM

TC, I think by now AncientHibee is entitled to be mightily miffed at your confusion of him with myself!!:devil:

Apologies...

That very book on your shelf also quotes that well-known socialist philosopher, Terry Eagleton, ( who has also been described as 'abrasive') offering this view of Dawkins:

'...he (Dawkins) can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view is which is a priori improbable as it is empirically false..'

I hadnt consciously come across this chap, but I've had a wee scan through - seems an interesting bloke. But could I refer you to the following http://http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/, and you'll see why this quote is effectively pointless in the discussion.
In your earlier post you said as follows:

I think I can now launch a critique of your "arguments" from a more Dawkinsian perspective,

You're not get irony here, are you? The rest of the sentence was "if only to confirm your prejudice against atheists." Nice quote mining though, but why let accuracy get in the way of substantiating a point, eh?

I was merely pointing out that I could well understand Doddie's sense of exhaustion at more of the same about someone whose output is now severly critisied, if not rejected, by others on his own side!

Ancient, I think you will find that if you do more than ten minutes research, you will find that Dawkins "side", such as it is, is pretty much accepted completely by those on the Atheist side of the spectrum - different shades, sure, and differences on detail, but as a coherent body of intellectual thought, it really is not far off a unified approach.

As is theory of evolution as a science by those involved with science.

But please can I make this absolutely clear. Whilst I agree with Dawkins pretty much down the line, I have not at any point sought to make any of this thread a debate about him. Doddie has. You have. Not me. You keep bringing him up, and I'll keep responding, but please understand that poor old Doddies exhaustion is entirley self inflicted

.

Fantic

15-07-2009, 10:52 PM

No no no no no no no no no no no no no.

Its really, really not. I didnt raise him in the first place - he is a central player in the debate, so obviously he needs referred to, but as long is it correctly done and referenced. It was, I thought, a thread on evolution v creationism, not a debate on Dawkins.

(As an aside though, the constant disparaging of Dawkins as an individual "Arrogant", "aggressive", etc is a classic tactic of the religious - its called an ad hominem logical fallacy. You'll find a link in my original post).

I have on my shelf a copy of "The Dawkins Delusion" by McGrath. It is, in my opinion of course, one of the most insipid little tomes ever written. Every trick is there, quote mining, wilful misrepresentation of positions, ad hominem attacks - the works. I have read it one and a half times - I just couldnt get through it a second time without the need to have a vomit recepticle handy.

If youve read the Dawkins Delusion, AncientHibee, have you read The God Delusion? Kind of required to allow a balanced view, I would have thought. It is in sections very weighty mind you, and a bit dry - Christopher Hitchens "God is not Good" is to my mind eminently more readable.

poiema (something made) and logos (something said) is the main point you can't seem to come to terms with. Doesn't matter how many times. You have your own way of thinking and thats fine - but remember that others may have different experiences to yours and you shouldnt keep shooting them down with your hard 'facts' (poiema). It is a little tedious.

--------

15-07-2009, 10:57 PM

I'm the same - thought the thread was very illuminating but it seems that the supporters of religion do not feel in a position to justify their faith any further.

Don't flatter yourselves.

I'm just getting tired of having TwoCarpets constantly shifting the ground and distorting my posts, telling me (inaccurately) what I believe, and not addressing the points I'm actually making. That's not discussion - that's intellectual assault.

And I'm not exhausted, nor am I 'poor old Doddie'.

The thread may be have started off about belief in evolution around the world, but it's a valid point to make that while evolution claims to describe (in part) the way the universe works, it says nothing whatsoever about where it came from.

And I kept out of it until I realised that 'Christian belief' was being represented as being a literal belief in a 6-day creation based on the chronology of an Anglican Bishop of Antrim who died more that 300 years ago. That happened less than half-way down page one of the thread, and it's continued since.

And at the risk of being told yet again that the point is irrelevant, while the Theory of Evolution is about the organisation and re-organisation of matter, for one last time, where did the matter come from in the first place? How did the process start? WHEN did it start?

GlesgaeHibby

15-07-2009, 11:20 PM

And I kept out of it until I realised that 'Christian belief' was being represented as being a literal belief in a 6-day creation based on the chronology of an Anglican Bishop of Antrim who died more that 300 years ago.

I thought that was how the Bible, which is God's word, describes how things started.

The Bible States that God made man in his image. This doesn't leave room for evolution at all.

That's why I stopped being a Christian. All evidence suggests the universe is old and we have slowly evolved. I don't believe you can try and find verses in the Bible (taken out of context) to try and fit old universe/evolution in with Christianity, because it just doesn't fit.

And at the risk of being told yet again that the point is irrelevant, while the Theory of Evolution is about the organisation and re-organisation of matter, for one last time, where did the matter come from in the first place? How did the process start? WHEN did it start?

We can't answer that question yet. But just because we can't answer the question, doesn't mean mankind won't in time find an answer.

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of Absence.

It took a while before mankind realised the Earth was round, but just because they did not know that at the time, didn't mean it wasn't round.

How/When did the process that created our universe and life start?
We don't currently know for sure, but I see that as no reason to duck the question and invoke some supernatural being.

J-C

15-07-2009, 11:24 PM

Twa Cairpets

15-07-2009, 11:49 PM

Don't flatter yourselves.

I'm just getting tired of having TwoCarpets constantly shifting the ground and distorting my posts, telling me (inaccurately) what I believe, and not addressing the points I'm actually making. That's not discussion - that's intellectual assault.

And I'm not exhausted, nor am I 'poor old Doddie'.

The thread may be have started off about belief in evolution around the world, but it's a valid point to make that while evolution claims to describe (in part) the way the universe works, it says nothing whatsoever about where it came from.

And I kept out of it until I realised that 'Christian belief' was being represented as being a literal belief in a 6-day creation based on the chronology of an Anglican Bishop of Antrim who died more that 300 years ago. That happened less than half-way down page one of the thread, and it's continued since.

And at the risk of being told yet again that the point is irrelevant, while the Theory of Evolution is about the organisation and re-organisation of matter, for one last time, where did the matter come from in the first place? How did the process start? WHEN did it start?

Interesting. I find your accusation of intellectual assault truly baffling, as I have emphasised I've tried to address all your points in all your posts. You may find it tedious, ive found it rather fun, to be honest. If you truly think I've been OTT, show me the post, or PM me, and I'll gladly, happily and publicly retract it if I agree. If anyone else on this thread either from the "pro" or "anti" evolution camp can find examples, again, I'll be happy to look at them, cos Im a nice guy.

I suggested once that you were a young earth creationist, you replied you werent, and I accepted it. You're the one flogging that particular dead horse.

But okay. Starting from scratch then.

I dont know how the universe started. Neither does science, and I would suggest nor can anyone know. One can believe, but one can't know - I hope we can agree on that. As I understand it there are several theories which are incomplete, and certainly not robust. You believe God created the Universe. Could you then answer these two questions on the forming of the World/Universe.

1) Did God have a creator, or is it part of faith to accept that he has always been around?
2) I believe the earth to be around 4.5 billion years old. It is my understanding that various branches of science have arrived at this conclusion independently. it is my belief that for all of these sciences to be wrong would be fundamentally impossible. How old do you believe it is?Note - I am not in any way shape or form suggesting that you think it is 6000, 10000 or however many years old. How could I - youve never actually revealed how old you think it is.

On evolution, you have said that you dont fully accept evolution as science - you're are an evolutionary agnostic. I think I read that you dont believe that any species has evolved into a different one. Do you therefore believe that all the species of the world (both existing and extinct) were created fully formed by God, and have been subject solely to micro variation over time.

These are just questions so I dont at any point ever misrepresent your beliefs. Whether or not you want to believe it, I am honestly interested

Twa Cairpets

15-07-2009, 11:58 PM

poiema (something made) and logos (something said) is the main point you can't seem to come to terms with. Doesn't matter how many times. You have your own way of thinking and thats fine - but remember that others may have different experiences to yours and you shouldnt keep shooting them down with your hard 'facts' (poiema). It is a little tedious.

Fantic, for the second time on this thread youve left me at a loss. Sorry, I dont understand your point. ive had a wee look through stuff for poiema and logos, and save a small reference regarding the definition of romanticism in Narnia in letters from CS Lewis, I'm at a loss - feel free to point me in right direction. If of course its not too tedious.

And imagine anyone trying to use facts to base there argument on. How unsporting! I'll try to use guesswork and superstition in the future.

--------

16-07-2009, 12:24 AM

Let me just turn that question around Doddie and ask, where did God come from? If there was nothing to start with then how did God himself appear, was he created? and if so by whom or by what?

All these questions cannot be answered and will still be argued until time immemorial, I think we should all agree to disagree and let's just get on with our lives believeing in whatever faith or science you want. :greengrin

My point is that either one BELIEVES in a creator (an act of faith) or one BELIEVES in a material universe which is itself eternal and self-sustaining (another act of faith). The evidence available doesn't PROVE anything one way or the other as far as I can see; so you either have an eternal and self-existent God, or an eternal and self-sustaining universe. Whichever you choose to believe in either came into existence spontaneously, or existed, exists, and will continue to exist from eternity to eternity without ever ceasing to exist. It seems to me to be a question of where one decides to stop, and where one therefore places one's faith, rather than a matter of proof either way.

But I don't see that either one of these views is more or less rational than the other.

As for Genesis 1, GH, there's a considerable difficulty in translating into English from ancient Hebrew, and I've become increasingly aware that the translators of the English Bible have leant far too heavily on the formative 16th century versions rather than going back to ascertain what exactly the original Hebrew text is saying. Genesis 1 is a passage that needs a lot of scrutiny IMO, and the original Hebrew doesn't IMO bear out a narrow 6 times 24-hours interpretation a number of my co-religionists would want to insist on. But saying that doesn't preclude a belief in Intelligent Design as opposed to Random Chance in regard to theories/concepts of origins.

But I'm not a Hebrew specialist - I rely on other men's scholarship for my understanding of these things.

I CAN say, though, that the expression "the Word of God" in this context can only properly refer to the Hebrew/Aramaic text of the OT and the Koine Greek text of the NT rather than the English translations, which vary not only in readability and accessibility, but also in interpretation and in closeness to the original text.

Bear in mind that 100% congruence of translation from any one language into any other is impossible to achieve, especially in texts that total somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 pages in most English editions.

Fantic

16-07-2009, 12:27 AM

Fantic, for the second time on this thread youve left me at a loss. Sorry, I dont understand your point. ive had a wee look through stuff for poiema and logos, and save a small reference regarding the definition of romanticism in Narnia in letters from CS Lewis, I'm at a loss - feel free to point me in right direction. If of course its not too tedious.

And imagine anyone trying to use facts to base there argument on. How unsporting! I'll try to use guesswork and superstition in the future.

If you haven't already - read the 7 chronicles of Narnia and wonder why so many children (and adults) find them fascinating. Then read 'Planet Narnia' by Michael Ward.

You asked :greengrin

PeeJay

16-07-2009, 08:06 AM

Bear in mind that 100% congruence of translation from any one language into any other is impossible to achieve, especially in texts that total somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 pages in most English editions.

:no way: With respect, this is nonsense - I'm a professional translator and get it right every day :trumpet: (well ... mostly) and have been doing so for several years, as is the case with the vast majority of my colleagues.

Of course YOU may choose to BELIEVE that I get it wrong: my clients however do not!:agree:

--------

16-07-2009, 09:58 AM

:no way: With respect, this is nonsense - I'm a professional translator and get it right every day :trumpet: (well ... mostly) and have been doing so for several years, as is the case with the vast majority of my colleagues.

Of course YOU may choose to BELIEVE that I get it wrong: my clients however do not!:agree:

No, it isn't.

There's a world of difference between translating one modern language into another within a defined context, and the problems involved in dealing with documents 3,000 to 3,500 years old where the context within which the document took shape is one of the first things that have to be defined.

Forget religious texts - have you any idea of the problems involved in dealing with the text and meaning of something like 'Beowulf'?

What you do and what I'm talking about are two totally different things.

PeeJay

16-07-2009, 10:32 AM

No, it isn't.

There's a world of difference between translating one modern language into another within a defined context, and the problems involved in dealing with documents 3,000 to 3,500 years old where the context within which the document took shape is one of the first things that have to be defined.

Forget religious texts - have you any idea of the problems involved in dealing with the text and meaning of something like 'Beowulf'?

What you do and what I'm talking about are two totally different things.

No I still think you're wrong and you "assume" too much regarding myself methinks! Anyway, you're digging your own hole here, if you ask me - one could perhaps postulate that your faith is based on something you are not too sure has been translated properly? I wouldn't place too much blame on the "English translators" either - do you think German translators also got it wrong or correct: do you think Germans believe something perhaps altogether different - isn't the bible the same everywhere?

I don't think any of the "problems" in the bible text were solely those of translators (if at all), I think the problem is more likely to have been the deeds of people with vested interests in interpreting and editing things to suit their political/theocratic/dogmatic outlook. So many changes to the bible, so many things left out ...? How can anyone have any faith in it - it's beyond me!

And BTW - for what it's worth - I've actually studied "Beowulf" - I loved studying it and listening to those who can enunciate the text correctly (that I cannot do!). I am indeed fully conversant with the problems involved in translating ancient texts - I'm sure it's not beyond mankind, after all if it was, we'd all have to learn Hebrew to find out what really is stated in the bible - but perhaps you have, if so what's the true story? If not don't you then just have to believe it because someone "says" that's the way it was? Who is that someone? Can you personally vouch for "him"?

Anyway, I have to get on - have a nice day!:bye:

Twa Cairpets

16-07-2009, 10:47 AM

Don't flatter yourselves.

I'm just getting tired of having TwoCarpets constantly shifting the ground and distorting my posts, telling me (inaccurately) what I believe, and not addressing the points I'm actually making. That's not discussion - that's intellectual assault.

And I'm not exhausted, nor am I 'poor old Doddie'.

The thread may be have started off about belief in evolution around the world, but it's a valid point to make that while evolution claims to describe (in part) the way the universe works, it says nothing whatsoever about where it came from.

And I kept out of it until I realised that 'Christian belief' was being represented as being a literal belief in a 6-day creation based on the chronology of an Anglican Bishop of Antrim who died more that 300 years ago. That happened less than half-way down page one of the thread, and it's continued since.

And at the risk of being told yet again that the point is irrelevant, while the Theory of Evolution is about the organisation and re-organisation of matter, for one last time, where did the matter come from in the first place? How did the process start? WHEN did it start?

Doddie

Things were bugging about this post, even after I wrote my reply to this yesterday (post 211 - I'd love to hear your response).

1) The first reference to young-earth creation was JC50 who immediately said it wasnt true. GlesageHibby then suggested it was, and the debate move on from there. Fergus came closest to defending the point, although his views seem to shift. It has never been held up by me or anyone else as the crux of this argument or the main point of debate by those on the evolution side of the fence. You continue to beat down a point that has not been made.

2) You, and only you, raised the point about Ussher.

3) I've re-read every post Ive made here and frankly I can see nothing whatsoever that could have been deemed distorting, shifting, offensive, hectoring or bullying. I've never once suggested that you have a particular view - I've asked questions about what your views are and you stubbornly refuse to answer.

4) Although this is not directly in your post above, Ive checked re-the Dawkins stuff too. It was you who brought him into the body of the discussion initially - posts 69 and 121 if you're interested.

You accuse me of intellectual assualt. I fundamentally disagree with that, but I'd rather be guilty of putting forward my point based on reason, evidence and rational argument than the way you have chosen to conduct yourself. Bluster, appeals to emotion, straw men, the whole gamut.

I think the phrase I would use would be intellectual dishonesty.

--------

16-07-2009, 11:09 AM

No I still think you're wrong and you "assume" too much regarding myself methinks! Anyway, you're digging your own hole here, if you ask me - one could perhaps postulate that your faith is based on something you are not too sure has been translated properly? I wouldn't place too much blame on the "English translators" either - do you think German translators also got it wrong or correct: do you think Germans believe something perhaps altogether different - isn't the bible the same everywhere?

I don't think any of the "problems" in the bible text were solely those of translators (if at all), I think the problem is more likely to have been the deeds of people with vested interests in interpreting and editing things to suit their political/theocratic/dogmatic outlook. So many changes to the bible, so many things left out ...? How can anyone have any faith in it - it's beyond me!

And BTW - for what it's worth - I've actually studied "Beowulf" - I loved studying it and listening to those who can enunciate the text correctly (that I cannot do!). I am indeed fully conversant with the problems involved in translating ancient texts - I'm sure it's not beyond mankind, after all if it was, we'd all have to learn Hebrew to find out what really is stated in the bible - but perhaps you have, if so what's the true story? If not don't you then just have to believe it because someone "says" that's the way it was? Who is that someone? Can you personally vouch for "him"?

Anyway, I have to get on - have a nice day!:bye:

You're right - Beowulf is a bad example. And I apologise for making assumptions about you area of expertise. That was out of order.

The problems of Bible translation relate to a limited number of passages where there are either gaps in the existing manuscripts, or a number of variant manuscripts. Very seldom do the variations affect the core meaning of the text - I know of no case where the text itself is in any significant doubt. And where there are variations, all variations are noted as marginals, in whatever translation.

There isn't doubt about the text of Genesis 1 - the problem is that Genesis 1 is dealing with something which is very hard to put into language - the beginnings and origins of everything that is or ever has been.

For example, how does one translate the hebrew 'yom'; can one say that a day is 24 hours long - before the sun and moon, day and night, are in existence? And is Genesis 1 a scientific text (no it isn't) or a communication seeking to express the inexpressible to those who are themselves part of the universe whose creation can't be described because language itself is also part of that creation?

It's not about changes in the text, either, or bits left out. The layers of original sources have left a clear track to show how we arrive at the present-day texts from the ancient manuscripts. It's there, visible, and can be traced.

Anyway, I apologise again for making assumptions. FWIW, the King James Version's probably about as accurate a translation of Ancient Hebrew into 17th century English as is possible to achieve; and 20th century versions tend to vary along two lines - those that seek to translate word-for-word as the KJV did, and those that seek to translate ancient concepts into modern ones, like the Good News or the New Living Translations.

PeeJay

16-07-2009, 04:36 PM

You're right - Beowulf is a bad example. And I apologise for making assumptions about you area of expertise. That was out of order.

The problems of Bible translation relate to a limited number of passages where there are either gaps in the existing manuscripts, or a number of variant manuscripts. Very seldom do the variations affect the core meaning of the text - I know of no case where the text itself is in any significant doubt. And where there are variations, all variations are noted as marginals, in whatever translation.

There isn't doubt about the text of Genesis 1 - the problem is that Genesis 1 is dealing with something which is very hard to put into language - the beginnings and origins of everything that is or ever has been.

For example, how does one translate the hebrew 'yom'; can one say that a day is 24 hours long - (Did Jesus not state that Sunday should be a "day" of rest as God had rested on that day - is that not definitive?) before the sun and moon, day and night, are in existence? And is Genesis 1 a scientific text (no it isn't) or a communication seeking to express the inexpressible to those who are themselves part of the universe whose creation can't be described because language itself is also part of that creation?

It's not about changes in the text, either, or bits left out (What about the 5th Gospel of Thomas or supposed other gospels that were lost (Luke, 1.1.2)?) The layers of original sources have left a clear track to show how we arrive at the present-day texts from the ancient manuscripts. It's there, visible, and can be traced (What about the Council of Nicea, wasn't there some form of editing/reinterpreting practised there?).

Anyway, I apologise again for making assumptions. FWIW, the King James Version's probably about as accurate a translation of Ancient Hebrew into 17th century English as is possible to achieve; and 20th century versions tend to vary along two lines - those that seek to translate word-for-word as the KJV did, and those that seek to translate ancient concepts into modern ones, like the Good News or the New Living Translations.

I guess we are all guilty of perhaps assuming too much about others, particularly on forums such as this. I actually enjoy debates like this very much, I learn quite a few things and I realise things are not always "black & white". I like to think we can all debate without getting too personal or upset about another person’s opinion, no doubt we’ll be debating on here for quite some time yet. Unlike in Ireland it seems, which has seen fit to introduce a chillingly ludicrous law. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/09/ireland-blasphemy-laws (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/09/ireland-blasphemy-laws)

Don’t wish to hijack the thread, I’m sure this will turn up elsewhere – just for info – you may have seen it already? No doubt it will run and run... :bye:

--------

16-07-2009, 04:52 PM

I guess we are all guilty of perhaps assuming too much about others, particularly on forums such as this. I actually enjoy debates like this very much, I learn quite a few things and I realise things are not always "black & white". I like to think we can all debate without getting too personal or upset about another person’s opinion, no doubt we’ll be debating on here for quite some time yet. Unlike in Ireland it seems, which has seen fit to introduce a chillingly ludicrous law. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/09/ireland-blasphemy-laws (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/09/ireland-blasphemy-laws)

Don’t wish to hijack the thread, I’m sure this will turn up elsewhere – just for info – you may have seen it already? No doubt it will run and run... :bye:

" The proposed law does not protect religious belief; it incentivises outrage and it criminalises free speech. Under this proposed law, if a person expresses one belief about gods, and other people think that this insults a different belief about gods, then these people can become outraged, and this outrage can make it illegal for the first person to express his or her beliefs...."

Dear God! We'd all be in jail for this thread.

"Constable! I'm outraged! Arrest him!"

hibbybrian

16-07-2009, 04:53 PM

There isn't doubt about the text of Genesis 1 - the problem is that Genesis 1 is dealing with something which is very hard to put into language - the beginnings and origins of everything that is or ever has been.

It's also crammed into an incredibly short passage of text.

A synopsis in bullet points would be that creation was in the following sequence:

light (appears)/is created
firmament (appears)/is created
waters gathered
lights in the firmament (appear)/are created
sea creatures (appear)/are created
birds (appear)/are created
land creatures (appear)/are created
man (appears)/is created

Doesn't seem too much different to a bullet point synopsis (from the Scientific point of view) - only the pesky timescale of 6 days as opposed to six periods of time :wink:

For example, how does one translate the hebrew 'yom'; can one say that a day is 24 hours long - before the sun and moon, day and night, are in existence? And is Genesis 1 a scientific text (no it isn't) or a communication seeking to express the inexpressible to those who are themselves part of the universe whose creation can't be described because language itself is also part of that creation?

given the problems Moses had getting his people to understand basics, I'm not sure they were ready for Einstein's theory of relativity, never mind the big bang theory which is still considered hypothetical - I'm sure it was Paul who wrote that it was better to say 5 words which people could understand than 10,000 words in tongues. There are also references in the Bible referring to things becoming clearer in time (with greater knowledge and understanding) and maybe this thread is one of them :devil:

Woody1985

16-07-2009, 05:13 PM

It's also crammed into an incredibly short passage of text.

A synopsis in bullet points would be that creation was in the following sequence:

light (appears)/is created
firmament (appears)/is created
waters gathered
lights in the firmament (appear)/are created
sea creatures (appear)/are created
birds (appear)/are created
land creatures (appear)/are created
man (appears)/is created

Doesn't seem too much different to a bullet point synopsis (from the Scientific point of view) - only the pesky timescale of 6 days as opposed to six periods of time :wink:

given the problems Moses had getting his people to understand basics, I'm not sure they were ready for Einstein's theory of relativity, never mind the big bang theory which is still considered hypothetical - I'm sure it was Paul who wrote that it was better to say 5 words which people could understand than 10,000 words in tongues. There are also references in the Bible referring to things becoming clearer in time (with greater knowledge and understanding) and maybe this thread is one of them :devil:

Oh the irony. :devil:

Twa Cairpets

16-07-2009, 07:15 PM

hibbybrian

16-07-2009, 07:49 PM

Doddie - you ignoring my questions now? you never did tell me how old you thought the earth is.

at least Doddie and I are upfront with how old we are :greengrin :devil:

J-C

16-07-2009, 10:58 PM

at least Doddie and I are upfront with how old we are :greengrin :devil:

So too am I :devil::wink:

HibsMax

17-07-2009, 01:47 PM

Twa Cairpets

17-07-2009, 03:16 PM

The funny thing about all of this is that there is no evidence to prove that God really exists and science cannot prove how the universe began so both sides of the argument have their hurdles.

As I said in an earlier post, I think, it's entirely possible (very likely in fact) that we simply don't have what it takes to understand any of this. Perhaps our universe is just one of billions of interconnected universes like bubbles in a bath tub. Each bubble grows into existence then eventually pops. Of course the life of a bubble is but a fraction of our universe. But then who's to say that 14 billion years is a long time? It certainly is to us but in the big picture, it may be a blink of an eye.

Regardless of how the universe was created or where matter came from in the first place, I still believe in evolution. I believe that there is enough evidence to show, in part, how we (all animal species) have evolved over a very, very long time. Or in the blink of an eye, depending on your perspective. ;)

Good Post

Presumably the Big Bang become the Huge Pop in Bubble Universe theory? :wink:

I would like to extend your first point to show the underlying difference as I see it between the two sides.

Science does not claim to know how the Universe began. It will continue to put forward rational, testable and falsifiable theories to attempt to come to an answer, but as you rightly say it may ultimately be fruitless.

Religion - of all hues - however, does claim to know that, basically, "God did it". The basis for this proof is the word of God evidenced in any one of a mutitude holy books/versions thereof, or being passed down through generations through cultural history. It does not allow for contradiction or testing, as it is a divine "gift".

With the theory of evolution, however, it is different. Multiple and diverse scientific disciplines have all illustrated the basic fact of evolution, as broadly defined elsewhere in this thread (post 148). It is a theory only insofar as science still accepts that the process can be further understood. There is no controversy in scientific circles about its existence as a fact, and I know of no secular University in the world that has a science department that disputes it as being such.

We do know about evolution, and whether or not those of a religious bent decide not to accept it is an issue for them. If there is a way for them to combine their faith with an acceptance of the theory of evolution, great, but to claim disbelief (or indeed agnosticism on the subject) based on lack of knowledge whilst at the same time claiming their version as an incontrovertible fact is to be brazenly ignorant, mind-bendingly arrogant and to deny the accuracy of virtually every accepted scienctific principle current today.

PS - Hey - Doddie! I take it Im either on ignore or you havent an answer to any of the very civil questions I asked in posts 211 and 218. Cowardly lion accusation...:wink:

HibsMax

17-07-2009, 06:55 PM

Twa Cairpets

17-07-2009, 07:28 PM

Another thing that I find intriguing, and maybe I wouldn't if I did more research, is that there are people from all corners of the globe that believe in God or Gods. How can they all be wrong? But then how can they all be right? Perhaps something happened a few thousand years ago (a visitation from other, more-advanced life-forms) that touched everyone and then everyone documented it in their own way. These stories could change because of the lack of a universal language at the time.

I do not believe in God but I'm not against people who believe in God and I would never say to anyone, "God does not exist. Fact!", I just want some evidence to back up those claims. It seems to me that if the same things happened today as they did several thousand years ago, we would document it better and there would be evidence to prove to future generations that what happened really happened. By the same token, I wonder why we don't see those same things today.

The creation story has "evolved" as time has gone on, as evidenced by death and re-birth stories long pre-dating Christs supposed resurrection.

As for the lack of a single, universal tongue, well, if you are Christian, there is a fairly straightforward answer for that. You will obviously form your own view on it, but I've read it and re-read it and it really doesnt appear to the behaviour of a particularly pleasant deity. I offer you Genesis chapter 11, verses 1-9, from the King James Version:

1And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

2And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

3And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

4And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

HibsMax

17-07-2009, 07:33 PM

Oh, what a prankster he is / was. ;)

Fantic

18-07-2009, 01:09 PM

Another thing that I find intriguing, and maybe I wouldn't if I did more research, is that there are people from all corners of the globe that believe in God or Gods. How can they all be wrong? But then how can they all be right? Perhaps something happened a few thousand years ago (a visitation from other, more-advanced life-forms) that touched everyone and then everyone documented it in their own way. These stories could change because of the lack of a universal language at the time.

I do not believe in God but I'm not against people who believe in God and I would never say to anyone, "God does not exist. Fact!", I just want some evidence to back up those claims. It seems to me that if the same things happened today as they did several thousand years ago, we would document it better and there would be evidence to prove to future generations that what happened really happened. By the same token, I wonder why we don't see those same things today.

What you have touched on here is something known as 'universal morality' . There is thought to be a common morality throughout humanity.

The idea is that people have a standard of behaviour to which they expect other people to adhere. People all over the earth know what this law is and when they break it. There must be someone or something behind such a universal set of principles.

Quote
'These then are the two points that I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.'
The idea that this Moral Law is simply our 'herd instinct' or is just a 'social convention" doesn't wash - its too strong.(but i'm sure someone on here will put me right:wink:)

Its romanticaly called the "Deep magic which everyone knows''.

Twa Cairpets

18-07-2009, 06:59 PM

What you have touched on here is something known as 'universal morality' . There is thought to be a common morality throughout humanity.

By whom? And do you mean throughout the history of humanity as a whole? Certain moral areas are viewable as a basic evolutionary process - if you kill someone, you have stood throughout history a fairly good chance of being killed - and im not talking about war here. What has been seen as moral and acceptable has changed monumentally over the last few decades/centuries it is disputable, which lends one to think that there is not a common, unchanging morality. I'm not bible-bashine here, but that tome does have a fairly un-liberal take on areas such as slavery and genocide.

The idea is that people have a standard of behaviour to which they expect other people to adhere. People all over the earth know what this law is and when they break it. There must be someone or something behind such a universal set of principles.

Why cant the thing behind it be mankind?

Quote
'These then are the two points that I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.'

Where is the quote from? I'd like to see its context.

The idea that this Moral Law is simply our 'herd instinct' or is just a 'social convention" doesn't wash - its too strong.(but i'm sure someone on here will put me right:wink:)

Its not social convention - it is both the result of biological evolution and social change and development.

Its romanticaly called the "Deep magic which everyone knows''.

Who calls it the Deep Magic which everyone knows?

.

Woody1985

21-07-2009, 09:48 PM

Twa Cairpets

21-07-2009, 10:33 PM

A quick thought on creationism.

Why are there so many different races of people on the planet? If Adam and eve were the first people then surely people from across the globe would have the same /similar appearance or have people evolved from there to adapt to their surrounding i.e different skin pigmentation etc?

You would have to date the change from Noah, post flood, rather than Adam and Eve (whcih makes it much, much more recent), but the most common creationist reasoning Ive come across is that they accept that evolution only occurs at a micro level, within a species, and that such differences can be explained in this way.

It doesnt give a good account for Gods design though, in my eyes, when you look at a thing like sickle cell anemia, (which makes absolute sense and is a real doozy for the pro-evolution argument). Briefly, SCA is a hereditary disease that affects solely black Africans and people of African descent. SCA is cause by both parents passing on a mutant gene to their offspring giving them this fairly unpleasant condition. So what? you say. The mutant gene also confers a much higher degree of protection against the much more deadly and prevalent disease malaria, so there is a naturally selected advantage in having this - in short, youre more likely to pop your clogs of malaria than SCA. If God designed this, he was having an off moment or is a bit of a racist.

HibsMax

26-07-2009, 01:01 PM

What you have touched on here is something known as 'universal morality' . There is thought to be a common morality throughout humanity.

<snip>

The idea that this Moral Law is simply our 'herd instinct' or is just a 'social convention" doesn't wash - its too strong.(but i'm sure someone on here will put me right:wink:)

I have two thoughts about this:
1. humans have learned over time that working together e.g., NOT killing one another, is far more productive. There are many examples of this in nature that can be observed e.g., ant colonies (which also, in some cases, exhibit slavery. Interesting). Do ants, lions, etc. subscribe to this universal morality or are they just living their lives in the way that works best for them?

2. humans aren't really allowed to act the way they want to, in civilised parts of the world, as the rest of the humans "know better" and if you break any of the rules, you will be punished (if caught).

I honestly believe it's learned behaviour. Look at us now compared to thousands of years ago when we were nomadic tribes.

HibsMax

26-07-2009, 01:03 PM

Twa Cairpets

26-07-2009, 07:50 PM

Just a quick question about evolution. OK, two.

1. Did dogs evolve from wolves?
2. My understanding of Creationism is that everything was placed here on earth as-is. So that means that every species of dog that exists today has always existed. Do you really believe that?

1. No. Like us and all other primates, they share a common ancestor

2. There are lots of different types of creationism. Best description of the different types that I know of is on Skeptoid.com. Link here. (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4082). (Brilliant podcast Skeptoid by the way). I obviously think they are all wrong.

HibsMax

28-07-2009, 01:11 AM

1. No. Like us and all other primates, they share a common ancestor
:confused:

So you don't think that dogs evolved from wolves? I am not saying that wolves themselves didn't in turn evolve from something else, I just want to know who believes that all domestic dogs around today ultimately come from one source.

Twa Cairpets

28-07-2009, 08:23 AM

:confused:

So you don't think that dogs evolved from wolves? I am not saying that wolves themselves didn't in turn evolve from something else, I just want to know who believes that all domestic dogs around today ultimately come from one source.

I stand (at least partially) corrected! I've done a bit of digging, and found the following:

The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves. Not only their behavior changed; domestic dogs are different in form from wolves, mainly smaller and with shorter muzzles and smaller teeth. Darwin was wrong about dogs. He thought their remarkable diversity must reflect interbreeding with several types of wild dogs. But the DNA findings say differently. All modern dogs are descendants of wolves, though this domestication may have happened twice, producing groups of dogs descended from two unique common ancestors. Link to source here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html)

HibsMax

28-07-2009, 08:40 PM

Good stuff.

The question I have for the anti-evolutionists is........is that wrong?

Fantic

03-08-2009, 09:53 PM

Good stuff.

The question I have for the anti-evolutionists is........is that wrong?

I dont think that reducing nature to her mathematical elements gives man any real power - but i'm not 'anti-evolution'. I'm just trying to point out that its not really the answer to very much.

All but the most elementary human thinking depends upon metaphor and imagination. It's practicly impossible to deny that. Science insists on dealing with data but there would be none of this data without imagination.

Man should not only be concentrating on constructing bigger (or smaller) computers , but also that the human mind needs to be increasingly aware of its own creative activity. Without this the universe becomes all fact with no meaning. Which in turn doesn't make sense - as the mind itself is spiritual. The idea that evolution rules out heaven is nonsense. imo.

Twa Cairpets

03-08-2009, 10:05 PM

I dont think that reducing nature to her mathematical elements gives man any real power - but i'm not 'anti-evolution'. I'm just trying to point out that its not really the answer to very much.

All but the most elementary human thinking depends upon metaphor and imagination. It's practicly impossible to deny that. Science insists on dealing with data but there would be none of this data without imagination.

Man should not only be concentrating on constructing bigger (or smaller) computers , but also that the human mind needs to be increasingly aware of its own creative activity. Without this the universe becomes all fact with no meaning. Which in turn doesn't make sense - as the mind itself is spiritual. The idea that evolution rules out heaven is nonsense. imo.

Evolution doesnt try to answer everything. Just to remind you, here is what it is in a nutshell:

When one speaks of biological evolution, one is implicitely referring to a number of mechanisms all of which either do or can result in the occurrence of change in allelic frequencies with time. Recall that an allele is a variation in the nucleotide sequence associated with a particular loci (or gene) on a chromosome of a particular organism. By means of mutation (i.e., changes in nucleotide sequences), new alleles may be formed. The ratio of the absolute number of a given allele to the total number of alleles found at a given loci is called the frequency of that allele. Any mechanism which results in a change in the frequency of any allele is called biological evolution (or simply evolution if it is understood that one is speaking of a biological system). Since all such mechanisms either do not occur instantaneously or tend to be not limited to single events, one speaks of changes in allele frequency occurring as time advances. Thus, evolution is change in allele frequency over time.

Thats all it is.

Science deals with data because thats what it does. It doesnt try to make philosophical points or moral judgements. it doesnt try to disprove heaven. it does give people the evidence, however, upon which they can make sense of the world, and challenge outlandish and outrageous claims.

Your point is a classic straw man - claiming something that no-one on the evolution side is claiming,and argue against it.

Fantic

03-08-2009, 10:23 PM

Evolution doesnt try to answer everything. Just to remind you, here is what it is in a nutshell:

When one speaks of biological evolution, one is implicitely referring to a number of mechanisms all of which either do or can result in the occurrence of change in allelic frequencies with time. Recall that an allele is a variation in the nucleotide sequence associated with a particular loci (or gene) on a chromosome of a particular organism. By means of mutation (i.e., changes in nucleotide sequences), new alleles may be formed. The ratio of the absolute number of a given allele to the total number of alleles found at a given loci is called the frequency of that allele. Any mechanism which results in a change in the frequency of any allele is called biological evolution (or simply evolution if it is understood that one is speaking of a biological system). Since all such mechanisms either do not occur instantaneously or tend to be not limited to single events, one speaks of changes in allele frequency occurring as time advances. Thus, evolution is change in allele frequency over time.

Thats all it is.

Science deals with data because thats what it does. It doesnt try to make philosophical points or moral judgements. it doesnt try to disprove heaven. it does give people the evidence, however, upon which they can make sense of the world, and challenge outlandish and outrageous claims.

Your point is a classic straw man - claiming something that no-one on the evolution side is claiming,and argue against it.

God or Darwin - That was the poll this thread is based on - isn't it?

I didn't say evolution claims to answer everything or what it is.

Twa Cairpets

03-08-2009, 10:31 PM

God or Darwin - That was the poll this thread is based on - isn't it?

I didn't say evolution claims to answer everything or what it is.

Nope, the statistics quoted in the OP are those of the percentage of people in the various countries who "agree the scientific evidence for evolution exists". The obvious (and probably fair) assumption is that the remaining percentage believe in creationism of one form or another.

Fantic

03-08-2009, 10:46 PM

Nope, the statistics quoted in the OP are those of the percentage of people in the various countries who "agree the scientific evidence for evolution exists". The obvious (and probably fair) assumption is that the remaining percentage believe in creationism of one form or another.

:rules:

Looking at that again it looks like God or Darwin anyway

HibsMax

04-08-2009, 09:48 PM

Fantic

04-08-2009, 10:25 PM

My point was that creationists believe that everything is on this earth as it was created / designed by God. If there is proof that shows that all domestic dogs are descendants of wolves, does that not prove that the creationists are wrong?

Yes everything on the earth is created by a creator. Why wouldn't it be? Look at it this way-

Suppose I am writing a novel. I write "Mary laid down her work; next moment came a knock at the door!" For Mary who has to live in the imaginary time of my story there is no interval between putting down her work and hearing the knock. But I, who am Mary's maker, do not live in that imaginary time at all. Between writing the first half of that sentence and the second, I might sit down for three hours and think steadily about Mary ... and the hours I spent in doing so would not appear in Mary's time (the time inside the story) at all

It takes time to create.

HibsMax

04-08-2009, 11:01 PM

Yes everything on the earth is created by a creator. Why wouldn't it be? Look at it this way-

Suppose I am writing a novel. I write "Mary laid down her work; next moment came a knock at the door!" For Mary who has to live in the imaginary time of my story there is no interval between putting down her work and hearing the knock. But I, who am Mary's maker, do not live in that imaginary time at all. Between writing the first half of that sentence and the second, I might sit down for three hours and think steadily about Mary ... and the hours I spent in doing so would not appear in Mary's time (the time inside the story) at all

It takes time to create.

I'm sorry, you lost me there. What point are you trying to make?

My point is this. Creationists believe that all creatures exist on this planet the exact same way as God created them. There was no evolution. But there is evidence, in abundance, to prove this incorrect. I picked dogs as a recent example.

"It takes time to create" - or, as I would put it, "it takes time to evolve".

EDIT : to answer your initial question, "Why wouldn't it be?" -- because it evolved, it wasn't created (IMO).

IndieHibby

04-08-2009, 11:05 PM

Yes everything on the earth is created by a creator. Why wouldn't it be? Look at it this way-

Suppose I am writing a novel. I write "Mary laid down her work; next moment came a knock at the door!" For Mary who has to live in the imaginary time of my story there is no interval between putting down her work and hearing the knock. But I, who am Mary's maker, do not live in that imaginary time at all. Between writing the first half of that sentence and the second, I might sit down for three hours and think steadily about Mary ... and the hours I spent in doing so would not appear in Mary's time (the time inside the story) at all

It takes time to create.

Creationists are trying to have their cake and eat it. They want to believe that all life was created as it exists today, yet invoke God as the 'creator' of evolution as a mechanism (the ones that are prepared to cede to the evidence). Completely contrarian and intellectually corrupt.
My question to them would be :

"Did God intend for all living things to produce more offspring than could possibly survive, and if so, is it not cruel to create life for it to spend it's entire exisitence in pain, discomfort and starvation?" Ergo - is God a cruel God?

The fact of the matter remains that life evolves and that, over time, all life has a common ancestor. It has been proven to be so for some time.

Many people of faith have accepted this into their current undersanding of their faith. Those that haven't; well, words fail me really....