creationism and human races (adam and eve question)

Sam Vimes

On the topic of religious visions, I thought I'd tell you all about something that's been annoying me all day. On boards today I keep getting an ad down the bottom right of the screen for sky digital. This ad:


And every time I look at it out of the corner of my eye I see Donkey from Shrek. This guy:

Donkey's mouth is around the feet of the penguin and the snout is the penguin's chest

And that's because before an image reaches your conscious mind your brain filters it through its own understanding. It tries to tell you what you're seeing based on things it's already seen. It's a very useful function of the human mind but sometimes it can misfire. Every time I look at that picture I see Donkey for a second until I focus on it and realise that's not what it is.

And that's why people have religious visions. They see something that their brain doesn't process properly, the word Jesus gets thrown up because its already in their understanding, and voila, they've had a religious experience

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I've asked this before but don't recall getting an answer: care to name the scientists who hold to a Flat Earth? I can name thousands who hold to Creationism.
Please list the thousands of biologists who hold to Intelligent Design and instant creation

Where did I say thousands of biologists?

Would you like me to list the millions who hold to evolutionary theory ... do I win

You certainly on the side of the large majority. So if majorities prove truth, you do indeed win.

You are really missing this point. How is your handful of Creationists any different to my handful of Flat Earthers http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7540427.stm

Creationists are different from the one? scientist mentioned here (a computer scientist), in that they are have many scientists qualified in the revelent fields and producing scientific argument for their case. In fact, the Flat Earth thing looks very like an on-going spoof rather than a serious belief system (but I could be wrong).

You say you have scientists but when you look at the tiny handful of scienitsts you have none of them are basing their beliefs on science, it is all on religion.

They base their beliefs on religion, but they demonstrate the correctness of their case by science.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

On the topic of religious visions, I thought I'd tell you all about something that's been annoying me all day. On boards today I keep getting an ad down the bottom right of the screen for sky digital. This ad:


And every time I look at it out of the corner of my eye I see Donkey from Shrek. This guy:

Donkey's mouth is around the feet of the penguin and the snout is the penguin's chest

And that's because before an image reaches your conscious mind your brain filters it through its own understanding. It tries to tell you what you're seeing based on things it's already seen. It's a very useful function of the human mind but sometimes it can misfire. Every time I look at that picture I see Donkey for a second until I focus on it and realise that's not what it is.

And that's why people have religious visions. They see something that their brain doesn't process properly, the word Jesus gets thrown up because its already in their understanding, and voila, they've had a religious experience

As someone who has never had a religious vision, I find that interesting. It does account for so many foolish visions I'm sure. That and smoking the wrong stuff. I'm sure some others are demonic in origin. But some may be from God - we cannot limit His right to speak to us how He wills.

My encounters with God have been entirely internal.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

You said "It has to the Christian". Why does it have to be Christian? If I went to Saudi Arabia I'd find millions of people who would say "It has to the Muslim"
Am I to assume the answer is "God has revealed its infallibility to us directly in our spirits".

Correct.

He hasn't revealed it in my spirit or in the spirits of 66% of the world's population.

Correct. Though He has not left you without a witness to His existence - nature and conscience both speak to all mankind.

And if I was to tell you that I could completely explain using only naturalistic science why you could feel something so strongly despite it not being true would you believe me?

My internal witness has been supported by many occurrences of God's intervention in answer to prayer. So it is not a matter of delusion.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Actually that is exactly what means.

Creationism is invented pseudo-science, an attempt to reconcile religious belief with what the evidence is showing.

Whether DeWitt knows he is inventing this or not is irrelevant. I can't speak to the motivations of all Creationists. Some I'm sure are lying. Others are simply compartmentalising, as humans are so good, because they cannot face reality.

None of them are doing science.

One side or the other is certainly lying or compartmentalising.

I know God to be true, so I take my beliefs on origins from Him. But I also know several of the Creationists scientists personally; I trust them as being honest and respect their ability to avoid compartmentalising.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Where did I say thousands of biologists?

I know perfectly well you didn't say biologists because you know perfectly well that you don't have more than 50 biologists who actually agree with Creationism.

The views of a chemistry professor or a electrical engineer about the validity of biological evolution are about as relevant so the views of a Computer scientists on the flatness of the Earth.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You certainly on the side of the large majority. So if majorities prove truth, you do indeed win.

And what about if the large majority determine if there is a "debate" taking place.

If 99.9999% of biologists accept Darwinian evolution as accurately explaining life on Earth and 0.0001% of them don't does that mean there is a serious debate taking place over the validity of evolution.

Can we apply that logic to the Flat Earthers?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationists are different from the one? scientist mentioned here (a computer scientist), in that they are have many scientists qualified in the revelent fields and producing scientific argument for their case.

Except they are not, as the pages and pages of the Creationism thread demonstrates. Only a tiny handful of the tiny handful of scientists that actually are Creationists are in relevant fields and they do not produce good science to back their views up, views that were formed based on religious belief.

The Flat Earthers have an experiment to demonstrate the Earth is flat. It is actually a testable experiment, which is interestly a heck of a lot more than the Creationists ever produced.

If you run the experiment you will find that the results of the experiment do not match the predictions of a Flat Earth, but do match the predictions of a curved Earth.

The Flat Earthers choose not to "interpret" the results that way, and dismiss those that do as being biased and part of a scientific conspiricy to tow the official line.

Sound familiar :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

In fact, the Flat Earth thing looks very like an on-going spoof rather than a serious belief system (but I could be wrong).

For months after I first say it I thought Answers in Genesis had to be a spoof. Unfortunately ...

wolfsbane wrote: »

They base their beliefs on religion, but they demonstrate the correctness of their case by science.

And then the rest of the scientific community (the 99.999%) come along and demonstrate the incorrectness of the "science" (if it even is science rather than conjecture) they use to demonstrate their case.

But because they are basing their beliefs on religion that they hold must be true they ignore this. Everything that doesn't confirm the religious beliefs must be wrong. And they invent a conspiracy of atheist achedima to explain why so few agree with them. It can't be because I'm actually wrong, it must be because everyone else is lying to themselves.

Again this is exactly like the Flat Earth society.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

One side or the other is certainly lying or compartmentalising.

I know God to be true, so I take my beliefs on origins from Him.

Which would make you a very bad scientist because you could be wrong and not know it. Refusing to accept you could be wrong, believing that you have a perfect judgement, would make anything you say or believe wholly untrust worthy because no one else can trust that you are prepared to assess your own judgements based on external evidence.

To a Flat Earther it doesn't matter what you show them because they already know the Earth is flat, so any evidence to the contrary must be wrong.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I also know several of the Creationists scientists personally; I trust them as being honest and respect their ability to avoid compartmentalising.

Given the first part of this post that a rather ridiculous claim. You believe them because they agree with you on what you already hold must be true and cannot be wrong.

Shocking

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Correct. Though He has not left you without a witness to His existence - nature and conscience both speak to all mankind.

Only if you begin with the assumption and then attribute them to him after the fact, it's called the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Nature and conscience speak to the truth of evolution because that's what the scientific evidence indicates, except to the people who think that everyone will murder each other if evolution is true and so convince themselves it's not

wolfsbane wrote: »

My internal witness has been supported by many occurrences of God's intervention in answer to prayer. So it is not a matter of delusion.

Tell me, has anything ever come from a prayer that could not possibly have happened anyway, without divine intervention? I don't want to hear about things that seem very unlikely because unlikely things happen a lot more than people think. I'd like something that absolutely required divine intervention, with some kind of evidence to back it up if possible because it's easy to say he made you fly around the room and all I can say is 'no he didn't' because I wasn't there

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

In fact, the Flat Earth thing looks very like an on-going spoof rather than a serious belief system (but I could be wrong).

I find it interesting to hear you say that because as far as denying irrefutable facts goes, flat earthers and creationists go hand in hand. I have the same doubt in my mind about the seriousness of it all when talking to a creationist, I feel like I'm being taken for a fool because I can't understand how someone can be so blind to the facts of the world around them. The world is millions of years old and all animals evolved from a common ancestor. These are facts as well supported as the fact that the world is round. It might not be intuitive to you and it might not fit with what your old book says but there are mountains of evidence that are as compelling, even more compelling than a photograph taken by an astronaut in space and anyone who says otherwise is misunderstanding the evidence either deliberately or, like you, because they think there is no morality without God so they're too terrified to even consider the possibility that these mountains of evidence might be right.

Seriously mate, the vast majority of christians are able to accept the facts and still remain a christian, why can't you do the same? Or better yet, why can't you acknowledge that the bible is incompatible with the facts and instead of dropping the facts drop the bible, possibly even still keeping a belief in God but a God that was not involved in writing the bible?

Turtwig

Perhaps we could try a stream of conscience approach?

Let's the play the devils advocate regarding the Flatness of Earth?
WB I want YOU to convince US that the earth is indeed round?

First point : I believe all outer space images and documentary films have been duly faked. The fictional films and texts have been misguided.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Perhaps we could try a stream of conscience approach?

Let's the play the devils advocate regarding the Flatness of Earth?
WB I want YOU to convince US that the earth is indeed round?

First point : I believe all outer space images and documentary films have been duly faked. The fictional films and texts have been misguided.

I suppose I would start with direct observation: take a flight East-West until I get back to where I started. If I observed no edge/underside/overside to the world, I would accept the evidence of my eyes. That, and the curvature of the earth I had more clearly seen from a height.

Now, if you can show me an organism evolving into something very different - a simple self-replicating molecule into an mite, for example, then you have me convinced. But if you are going to look at things and speculate on how they came to be, let's get rid of the mountains of evidence that are as compelling argument.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

I find it interesting to hear you say that because as far as denying irrefutable facts goes, flat earthers and creationists go hand in hand. I have the same doubt in my mind about the seriousness of it all when talking to a creationist, I feel like I'm being taken for a fool because I can't understand how someone can be so blind to the facts of the world around them. The world is millions of years old and all animals evolved from a common ancestor. These are facts as well supported as the fact that the world is round.

We can see the world is round, if we just take a flight around it. Fact. Observable science.

We cannot see the world is millions of years old and all animals evolved from a common ancestor. We only reach that conclusion if we presuppose a great many things. In other words, we interpret the evidence. Same evidence for all of us; for you it says very old earth, for me it says recent and fallen creation. You point to certain items that would require a very long time to occur given current rates of formation/change. I point to others that indicate a recent earth.

But I'm not willing to dismiss the evolution case as non-science, for it presents scientific argument for itself. You however dismiss the creation case as non-science, even though it produces scientific argument to support it.

Yes, Yes, I know - 'It's not science'. Circular argument. We also could say evolution is not science and claim the prize. But such behaviour would only point to the fear of the opponent's case.

It might not be intuitive to you and it might not fit with what your old book says but there are mountains of evidence that are as compelling, even more compelling than a photograph taken by an astronaut in space and anyone who says otherwise is misunderstanding the evidence either deliberately or, like you, because they think there is no morality without God so they're too terrified to even consider the possibility that these mountains of evidence might be right.

I don't see these mountains. I suspect they are mostly in your head. I do see many of the arguments for an old earth - but I see those for a young one too:
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Seriously mate, the vast majority of christians are able to accept the facts and still remain a christian, why can't you do the same?

They can't defend their position from the Bible. I've seen their attempts, and they are woeful.

Or better yet, why can't you acknowledge that the bible is incompatible with the facts and instead of dropping the facts drop the bible, possibly even still keeping a belief in God but a God that was not involved in writing the bible?

If they were facts, I would be open to that. But honestly, I have learnt to distinguish between interpretations and facts. Some interpretations may be facts, but one should not assume they are.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

I suppose I would start with direct observation: take a flight East-West until I get back to where I started. If I observed no edge/underside/overside to the world, I would accept the evidence of my eyes. That, and the curvature of the earth I had more clearly seen from a height.

Now, if you can show me an organism evolving into something very different - a simple self-replicating molecule into an mite, for example, then you have me convinced. But if you are going to look at things and speculate on how they came to be, let's get rid of the mountains of evidence that are as compelling argument.

To evolve a simple self replicating molecule into a mite take millions of years. You've deliberately asked for something that cannot be shown to happen in your lifetime. We can, however, show that it happened in the past

We can show you e-coli that can metabolise citrus that couldn't 20 years ago and an organism that used to be single-celled but now exists in groups of 100 or more due to predatorial pressure. Is that good enough?

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Correct. Though He has not left you without a witness to His existence - nature and conscience both speak to all mankind.
Only if you begin with the assumption and then attribute them to him after the fact, it's called the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Nature and conscience speak to the truth of evolution because that's what the scientific evidence indicates, except to the people who think that everyone will murder each other if evolution is true and so convince themselves it's not

Even when I wasn't a Christian, my conscience said nothing about evolution being true or false. It did warn me about things I liked to do that were evil - even though I had not been taught Christian ethics. It did warn me there was a Higher Authority to whom I was accountable. When I was old enough to appreciate the wonders of the universe around, it warned me that a Creator made them and it was He to whom I was accountable.

But I put that out of my mind. That's what everyone does. However, it returns. We accommodate it as best we can, by picking and choosing a morality to live by - just enough to still the strongest warnings of conscience. Some are better at suppressing conscience than others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
My internal witness has been supported by many occurrences of God's intervention in answer to prayer. So it is not a matter of delusion.
Tell me, has anything ever come from a prayer that could not possibly have happened anyway, without divine intervention? I don't want to hear about things that seem very unlikely because unlikely things happen a lot more than people think. I'd like something that absolutely required divine intervention, with some kind of evidence to back it up if possible because it's easy to say he made you fly around the room and all I can say is 'no he didn't' because I wasn't there

No, I have not had any water turned to wine incidences. Just direct changes to events that were very unlikely. Such things happen to one naturally of course - it is just that when they happen in response to specific prayer and not just in the once in a life-time natural sort of way, but many times - then I have no trouble in believing God indeed answered my prayer. That and the fact that in some cases I knew beforehand that it was going to happen.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

We can see the world is round, if we just take a flight around it. Fact. Observable science.

We cannot see the world is millions of years old and all animals evolved from a common ancestor. We only reach that conclusion if we presuppose a great many things. In other words, we interpret the evidence. Same evidence for all of us; for you it says very old earth, for me it says recent and fallen creation. You point to certain items that would require a very long time to occur given current rates of formation/change. I point to others that indicate a recent earth.

Here's an example. Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon. It decays in a very precise way, its half life is 5,730 ± 40 years. Due to this very predictable decay it can be used to give a very accurate estimate of something's age. There are mountains of carbon-14 on the planet that can only exist in their present form if they have been decaying for millions of years. I have just proved young earth creationism wrong.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I'm not willing to dismiss the evolution case as non-science, for it presents scientific argument for itself. You however dismiss the creation case as non-science, even though it produces scientific argument to support it.

Yes, Yes, I know - 'It's not science'. Circular argument. We also could say evolution is not science and claim the prize. But such behaviour would only point to the fear of the opponent's case.

Scientists prove their case, creationists proclaim things to be a certain way and stick their fingers in their ears when people point out that they're wrong. That's not science

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't see these mountains. I suspect they are mostly in your head. I do see many of the arguments for an old earth - but I see those for a young one too:
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

You've linked me to that page before. The first in the list of points: "DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years" is fiction so I have no interest in reading any further. They have just proclaimed this and have nothing to back it up. And I can confidently say they have nothing to back it up without reading any further because I know its not true.

Creationists do not follow the scientific method. If they did they would have their work published in scientific journals just like all other scientists. There is no conspiracy to silence creationists, scientists will accept whatever evidence is presented to them as long as it can be backed up but time and time again it has been shown that creationists simply proclaim things to be the way they think they are and wonder why that's not enough for everyone. They seem to think science can be treated like a religion where something can be accepted by the masses just because an authority figure said it but that's not how science works

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To evolve a simple self replicating molecule into a mite take millions of years. You've deliberately asked for something that cannot be shown to happen in your lifetime. We can, however, show that it happened in the past

We can show you e-coli that can metabolise citrus that couldn't 20 years ago and an organism that used to be single-celled but now exists in groups of 100 or more due to predatorial pressure. Is that good enough?

An e-coli doings things it couldn't do before is consistent with the change-within-kind model of creationism. It is still an e-coli. Still a bacteria. Yes, I have asked for something that cannot be shown to happen in our lifetime - that's my point: evolution from one thing into a different thing is not observable.

The single-cells now associating with one another - have they ceased to be single-cells? Can they survive on their own? Or are they just a colony?

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

I suppose I would start with direct observation: take a flight East-West until I get back to where I started. If I observed no edge/underside/overside to the world, I would accept the evidence of my eyes. That, and the curvature of the earth I had more clearly seen from a height.

Now, if you can show me an organism evolving into something very different - a simple self-replicating molecule into an mite, for example, then you have me convinced. But if you are going to look at things and speculate on how they came to be, let's get rid of the mountains of evidence that are as compelling argument.

How did the Greeks surmise the world was round?
No planes back then? Only speculation and models based on observation though some of it wasn't direct.
My challenge WB is for you to convince US that the world is round using only 'classical techniques'
No Space Travel.
No Airplanes etc.
Just you and your own observations.

So can you please elaborate on your point of 'seeing it from a height'- WB we are going to show you how science works and how we gather Evidence that leads to conclusions:)

Edit : Please don't make me have to try the 'hollow earth' approach because that gets wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more complicated, but we know, WB, we know what the earth consists of and how old it is, we really do

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I have not had any water turned to win"e incidences. Just direct changes to events that were very unlikely. Such things happen to one naturally of course - it is just that when they happen in response to specific prayer and not just in the once in a life-time natural sort of way, but many times - then I have no trouble in believing God indeed answered my prayer. That and the fact that in some cases I knew beforehand that it was going to happen.

This is a very odd glitch in human reasoning that I've come across many times. An example is when I was in school in a class once the teacher was about ten minutes late and I said to the girl next to me "Do you think she's out?". And she got annoyed at me and said I'd ruined it as if the fact that I had said that had in some way effected whether the teacher was in or not

Unlikely things happen an awful lot more than people think and for every time that someone prays for something and it happens there are a hundred more where it didn't. Things happen with pretty much exactly the same frequency you would expect if it was simply chance effecting it.

Also, say you had some disease and you were praying to get better. People don't quite seem to realise that God could have stopped them getting sick in the first place and chose not to, God is complicit in their being sick. I know of no other circumstance where someone is involved in a violent crime and then the injured party asks for the accomplice to be their doctor. It's very odd to me.

And then there's the fact that it's very presumptuous to ask the creator of the universe to change his overall plan to suit one of the ants in the ant hill. If the thing you're praying for is part of God's plan you'll get it and if not you won't. Praying won't do anything and tbh I would hate if it did. Say a loved one was sick and you didn't pray for them to survive. I would consider it absolutely despicable for God to allow that person to die for no other reason than you didn't take the time to chat to him for a while.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I suppose I would start with direct observation: take a flight East-West until I get back to where I started. If I observed no edge/underside/overside to the world, I would accept the evidence of my eyes. That, and the curvature of the earth I had more clearly seen from a height.

Now, if you can show me an organism evolving into something very different - a simple self-replicating molecule into an mite, for example, then you have me convinced. But if you are going to look at things and speculate on how they came to be, let's get rid of the mountains of evidence that are as compelling argument.

You have already been shown evidence of an organism evolving into something different. You reject that based on a whole load of invented objections (when has a fruit fly evolved into something other than a fruit fly!)

A flat Earther could do exactly the same thing.

They could claim they want to see the curved Earth from where they are on the runway, they reject to infer it from assembling points of data along the flight.

The pilot would have to say that is impossible, you can only infer the curved Earth from a plane flight by flying straight and arriving back at the airport and assembling point data along the way that you put together to form a picture that is explained by a curved Earth.

The Flat Earther rejects that as being insufficient evidence, they want to "see it", in the same way you reject the evidence presented for evolution as being insufficient. Just as the flat Earther wants to "see" the curved Earth in one go at a fixed point on the ground to believe it, you require that you physically witness in a manner of hours something that could takes thousands of years.

All the arguments for rejecting the evidence for evolution are as convoluted and unconvincing as the arguments against a curved Earth. The requirements placed on evolution to produce evidence that can be physically witnessed are as ridiculous as what the Flat Earthers say.

But if you have already decided that there has to be a problem with something it is easy to find excuses to reject it and it is very easy to place the bar so high that you know no evidence can ever satisfy that.

Using your method I could very easily reject all evidence for a curved Earth.

It gets even more ridiculous when you contrast this strict requirement on the evidence with your total lack of requirement that Creationism or your religion provide any where near equivalent evidence.

All you do Wolfsbane is betray your real motivation here.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

The single-cells now associating with one another - have they ceased to be single-cells? Can they survive on their own? Or are they just a colony?

All the single-celled ones died out because a predator was placed in the vat that ate the single celled ones. Some began to clump together because they had a gene that allowed it and were too big to eat. They had this gene previously but it didn't come to the fore because it wasn't a major advantage. You can read more about it here:

http://pleion.blogspot.com/2008/11/w...ve-before.html

Chlorella vulgaris is an asexual, unicellular green alga. It has been observed in the laboratory to maintain unicellularity for thousands of generations. Boraas and his collaborators (1998) kept Chlorella for two decades in this way. Then they decided to add a predator, Ochromonas vallescia, also a unicellular organism. It has a flagellum (a tail with which it can swim about), and it eats Chlorella. This is bad news for the Chlorella population, which thus experiences a shift in selective pressure. While it was previously adapted to maximize growth by uptake of nutrients, with Ochromonas around it is suddenly more advantageous to have some sort of defense, even if that should come at a cost of the rate at which it can reproduce.

While we could imagine other mechanisms of defense, size is an obvious choice. Very soon (about 10 days) after the introduction of the flagellate predator, Chlorella colonies started to form. These initially consisted of aggregates of tens to hundreds on Chlorella cells, adhering to each other. Their sheer size prevented the predator from eating them, and thus the multicellular Chlorella was fitter than the unicellular ones, and as a result the unicellular Chlorella all but disappeared. Multicellularity had evolved right before the lucky scientists' eyes.

wolfsbane wrote: »

An e-coli doings things it couldn't do before is consistent with the change-within-kind model of creationism. It is still an e-coli. Still a bacteria. Yes, I have asked for something that cannot be shown to happen in our lifetime - that's my point: evolution from one thing into a different thing is not observable.

It is one thing into a different thing. The e-coli in that vat have genes that other e-coli do not have, they are not the same thing. They're just not different enough that we would stop giving them the arbitrary human label "e-coli". We call them different strains. It has been proven that new genes can be produced through random mutation, therefore the mechanism of evolution has been proven. The only difference between an e-coli and us is that we have different genes so there is nothing stopping it happening except time.

And of course that's the problem. I asked you what it would take to prove evolution and you gave a vague statement of "one thing to a different thing", without defining what that means or how I would meet that criteria and not quite realising that since those two strains now have different genomes, they are different things. Then you said that the only way to prove to you that the world is millions of years old is to sit here for millions of years because anything else is "not observable". You have placed yourself into a position where you will never have to give up your claims because you have deliberately placed vague and impossible demands on the people making counter claims. That's not science

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

The Flat Earther rejects that as being insufficient evidence, they want to "see it", in the same way you reject the evidence presented for evolution as being insufficient. Just as the flat Earther wants to "see" the curved Earth in one go at a fixed point on the ground to believe it, you require that you physically witness in a manner of hours something that could takes thousands of years.

^
|
|
What he said

PDN

This has become another Creationism thread, something that Fanny Cradock stated at the beginning we wanted to avoid.

Anyone got a good reason why it shouldn't be merged with the big thread?

Sam Vimes

Here's an example wolfsbane:

1. I can explain Newton's laws of motion, that an object can be made to move at x speed if given y Newtons of force
2. I can show that space is a vacuum and that in a vacuum an object that is given momentum will continue in a straight line without ever slowing down
3. I can show that our nearest star is 4 and a half light years away

Given those three things I can conclusively prove that if I go into space and push an object at a certain speed, it will reach our nearest star in, say, 100,000 years. I don't actually have to do it to prove it because the maths and science behind it is sound. We know the three facts above confidently so we can deduce things from them

But to the creationist that's not good enough. He won't accept that we can determine how long it would take the object to reach the star unless we actually sit here for the next 100,000 years and watch it.

That's ridiculous I hear you cry. We know Newton's laws of motion, we know space is a vacuum and we know how far away the star is so we can prove conclusively how long it would take. The only way someone wouldn't accept that is if they had a holy book whose entire foundation would be shaken if we could accurately determine this. Then he'd do anything to avoid having to admit to himself that its version of events has been proven wrong.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

This has become another Creationism thread, something that Fanny Cradock stated at the beginning we wanted to avoid.

Anyone got a good reason why it shouldn't be merged with the big thread?

No objection here, it's pretty much the same thread

chozometroid

wolfsbane wrote: »

One side or the other is certainly lying or compartmentalising.

I know God to be true, so I take my beliefs on origins from Him. But I also know several of the Creationists scientists personally; I trust them as being honest and respect their ability to avoid compartmentalising.

I appreciate you standing up for your beliefs, wolfsbane. Even in this era when creationists are dismissed as delusional at best, the majority opinion is not right by default.

I have to agree with Wicknight about theistic evolution being merely an effort to fit God into the theory of evolution. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense how God was kinda "here and there" during the millions of years, or that one day He picked two of the more beautiful evolved apes and declared them to be made in His image.

This brings to mind the efforts of William Lane Craig to defend belief in God. While I appreciate him defending the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I feel he has made too many compromises to make himself more respectable among the scientific community. He glady denies being a creationist as if they are a joke and of course he's not one. He's being way too safe, IMO, and in the end, he only defends the most basic, vague, stripped-down belief in a Christian God whose Bible no one is qualified enough to draw conclusions from.

Sam Vines wrote:

The world is millions of years old and all animals evolved from a common ancestor. These are facts as well supported as the fact that the world is round.

This reminds me of when I watch something on Discovery Channel and hear a statment like: "the centipede has been around for 400 million years." I don't hear the words "is believed to be" or even "the theory of evolution shows that," but instead just a statement made as if it's a fact. (It appears that either the centipede didn't evolve, or the dating methods are wrong.)

Satan really has made countless ways to distract mankind away from the important things in life. I wonder if it's worth debating atheists over the origins of life, since they don't believe in God. How many people are atheists simply because evolution appears to contradict the Bible? They presuppose creationism could not possibly be right, because it would prove God exists. It's no wonder it is so vehemently rejected by the world.
As for the young earth/old earth/theistic evolutionists debate, there is a common ground in the belief of God. The problem is in the placement of authority. For the OE and TE crowd, they are taught something by the secular world that goes against what the Bible says, so they must reinterpret the scriptures until there is no longer any conflict. I don't see why this is necessary at all. Faith in God is not dependant upon agreement with popular secular beliefs.
Rejecting creationism is an effort to appear to be "modern" and "open-minded" to fellow "respected" peers.
Christians are to be a peculiar people and not to be of the world. The world hated Jesus before it hated you.

Creationists are labeled as "narrow-minded" in the very strongest sense, which is of course another tactic to make them seem ignorant and unable to see supposed plain facts. I take offense to this. Their interpretation of what they observe no more affected by their presuppositions than that of the atheist.

What about the idea that all animals appear to have a common ancestor? What should we expect them to look like if God had created them? Should some have DNA, and some not? If they all have DNA, should they all be so dissimilar and yet live on the same planet? I think the answer is that God used the same basic model of physical life to allow these creatures to live on Earth. How different of a composition should be expected if these creatures were created separately from each other by one Creator?

Creation is like a collection of artwork which displays a variety of colors, mediums, and themes, but shares a common beauty and design imagined by one artist.

CerebralCortex

Nah.

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

This reminds me of when I watch something on Discovery Channel and hear a statment like: "the centipede has been around for 400 million years." I don't hear the words "is believed to be" or even "the theory of evolution shows that," but instead just a statement made as if it's a fact. (It appears that either the centipede didn't evolve, or the dating methods are wrong.)

That's because they are as close to being conclusively proven as it is humanely possible to prove something. The idea that there is serious debate over the validity of evolution is a myth perpetuated by creationists.

chozometroid wrote: »

Satan really has made countless ways to distract mankind away from the important things in life. I wonder if it's worth debating atheists over the origins of life, since they don't believe in God. How many people are atheists simply because evolution appears to contradict the Bible? They presuppose creationism could not possibly be right, because it would prove God exists.

No, in fact they determine creationism to be wrong because it is in contrast to the entirety of human learning since the age of enlightenment.

chozometroid wrote: »

As for the young earth/old earth/theistic evolutionists debate, there is a common ground in the belief of God. The problem is in the placement of authority. For the OE and TE crowd, they are taught something by the secular world that goes against what the Bible says, so they must reinterpret the scriptures until there is no longer any conflict. I don't see why this is necessary at all. Faith in God is not dependant upon agreement with popular secular beliefs.

I agree

chozometroid wrote: »

Creationists are labeled as "narrow-minded" in the very strongest sense, which is of course another tactic to make them seem ignorant and unable to see supposed plain facts. I take offense to this. Their interpretation of what they observe no more affected by their presuppositions than that of the atheist.

Well no really its because they are ignorant and unable to see plain facts. Everyone on the planet except the people that begin with the assumption that the bible is perfect truth are able to see these facts

chozometroid wrote: »

What about the idea that all animals appear to have a common ancestor? What should we expect them to look like if God had created them? Should some have DNA, and some not? If they all have DNA, should they all be so dissimilar and yet live on the same planet? I think the answer is that God used the same basic model of physical life to allow these creatures to live on Earth. How different of a composition should be expected if these creatures were created separately from each other by one Creator?

Creation is like a collection of artwork which displays a variety of colors, mediums, and themes, but shares a common beauty and design imagined by one artist.

That only takes account of the genomes that exist today, It doesn't take account of the genomes that have been discovered from various points in history from animals that no longer exist but have genomes >99% similar to ours and all the steps along the way. Also it presupposes that the only thing that could make our genomes similar is the Christian God when in reality I could just as easily say it was the invisible pink unicorn who did it. It's not up to me to show that God didn't have involvement, it's up to you to prove that he did, or more importantly that he must have

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If I use a natural process in order to deliberately produce something for a reason it's still intelligent design, which was the point I was making. Labradoodles were bred for blind people who were allergic to the hair of Labrador guide dogs but not that of poodles. Labradoodles were intelligently designed. It doesn't have to involve supernatural powers to be intelligent design

Who said anything about supernatural powers being a necessity in design? Not I! Instead, I was trying to illicit a response from you regarding species that we have been designed or have subtlety influenced their evolutionary course to suit our ends. What of them? Are they subject to evolution? Or should they forever be categorise as entities somehow exempt from natural process - and therefore quite apart form evolution - because they are subject to intelligently designed plan?

On one hand there is the idea that allows for a species to be yoked by evolution but also directed by intelligence (God, man, aliens or whatever) at some point. Presumably this "direction" would be away from results that natural process would otherwise have produced. Hence we have sausage dogs, wheat clutivars, trees that have been selectively bred, and, as some Christians would contend, mankind.

On the other there is pitiless evolution where no interference beyond blind processes is tolerated. In this regard, a species subject to certain guided processes that have consequently altered its natural evolutionary course is to be considered somehow apart from evolution.

Never the twain shall meet, it seems.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The second line of thought would be real evolution but that's more the cosmological argument because everything except the setting in motion can currently be explained by science without the necessity of a God. People who say that are basically just saying God was involved in evolution because they like to think he was and not because there is anything to indicate that he was.

That's just fine. I've no objection categorising the "setting in motion" of the universe as a cosmological argument. However, given that the people subscribing to such a belief don't claim that God's fiddling is necessary for evolutionary outcomes, it seems to me that your objection in bold is completely unnecessary.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Who said anything about supernatural powers being a necessity in design? Not I! Instead, I was trying to illicit a response from you regarding species that we have been designed or have subtlety influenced their evolutionary course to suit our ends. What of them? Are they subject to evolution? Or should they forever be categorise as entities somehow exempt from natural process - and therefore quite apart form evolution - because they are subject to intelligently designed plan?

On one hand there is the idea that allows for a species to be yoked by evolution but also directed by intelligence (God, man, aliens or whatever) at some point. Presumably this "direction" would be away from results that natural process would otherwise have produced. Hence we have sausage dogs, wheat clutivars, trees that have been selectively bred, and, as some Christians would contend, mankind.

On the other there is pitiless evolution where no interference beyond blind processes is tolerated. In this regard, a species subject to certain guided processes that have consequently altered its natural evolutionary course is to be considered somehow apart from evolution.

Never the twain shall meet, it seems.

The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is "directed by intelligence (God, man, aliens or whatever) at some point. Presumably this "direction" would be away from results that natural process would otherwise have produced" and of course the only point I was making is that such a belief is just intelligient design by another name. Intelligent design through the process of evolution is still intelligent design and is no more supported by evidence than creationism
.

The results of evolution are exactly what we would expect them to be if they were directed by a natural process and not at all what we would expect them to be if an omnipotent designer was guiding it. Theistic evolution is an attempt to force a designer into a situation that does not require one and where one doesn't fit. It takes the one explanation we have of complexity without design and says "na this had design too" and uses as supporting evidence the fact that I can't prove them wrong. And when I point to the aspects of animals that would be terrible design indicating direction by a natural process that couldn't tell the difference people ask who am I to question God
. Again only the confirmatory evidence is evidence, everything else is a mystery.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's just fine. I've no objection categorising the "setting in motion" of the universe as a cosmological argument. However, given that the people subscribing to such a belief don't claim that God's fiddling is necessary for evolutionary outcomes, it seems to me that your objection in bold is completely unnecessary.

People who use the term theistic evolution who acknowledge that it does not require a God are the most confusing to me because they acknowledge that, given the laws of physics, it could have happened without God but they like to call it theistic evolution anyway. If they don't think God had a direct involvement in evolution then it is no more theistic evolution than the fact that I used the laws of physics to build a house makes it a theistic house. If its called theistic evolution only because the laws of physics allow it to happen then we can stick that label on everything in existence and claim God was involved because he didn't specifically prohibit it

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

How many people are atheists simply because evolution appears to contradict the Bible? .

I was a Christian for many years and I accepted evolution, it was only recently that I realised the argument that evolution doesn't support a deity.

I'm an atheist because well, If I could explain in words, then you would be too.:)
The viewpoint and belief in a deity is nothing more than some sort of delusion that tricks the mind to me. I try to refrain from any belief system so my mind can be as open as possible and hopefully not influenced by any stream of thought- the key word being try:(