|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 03/25/2004 : 10:10:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:Doormar
I would challenge you to come up with a list of atheist scientists and their discoveries as compared to scientists with faith?
quote:DaveW
I expect such a list would show that the number of atheist scientists at any given time is proportional to the number of atheists in the general population at the same time, proving nothing more than that scientists are people who have various beliefs. Instead, a more interesting challenge to you would be to show that even one scientific discovery required faith in a god in order to have been discovered. In other words, that even a single scientific discovery could not have been discovered by an atheist.
It might be valuable at this point to bring up once again that science comes with a method. In part, the scientific method removes religious and scientific bias from the equation by means of peer review, repeatability, and the ability to make certain predictions that the theory suggests. For example, using the theory of evolution, we would expect to find the most simple of life forms (only) in the oldest layers of earth where fossils are found. That prediction holds true. A scientists faith or lack of faith will not effect the results of his research because to move from hypothesis to a theory involves review and verification by other scientists who would, very often, like nothing more than to shoot that hypothesis down. That is why a scientific theory is held in such high regard. It has to withstand testing and verification by those other than original scientist and his conclusions.
edited for clarity |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 10:11:33 [Permalink]
|
I have already commented on how you began this thread and you failed to answer my questions. If you eliminate evidence from this discussion, then there is no basis on which to evaluate this story and you are just witnessing.
I never said it would be easy for anyone to get it.
You have passed judgement on me, but let me make one thing perfectly clear, "I am willing to change my mind, I've done it before." But in order for me to change my mind about the merits of any assertion begins with ...
? am missing the last part of your point. I am not passing judgment on you at all. Don't think I was personally attacking you, moakley. I apologize if that is the way it came out. I'm not asking you to believe the account of creation, just hear what it says. Isn't the testimony of a witness considered as part of the evidence regarding many cases? You can refute the witness if you want, but its customary to hear him out first. Many refute creationism without a real clue as to what is taught. I've tried to understand where evolutionists are coming from. I study what they say, I look at their evidence. I don't just summarily dismiss them. Is it too much to ask an evolutionist leaning person to hear out the other side? Are they afraid of "contamination" or something? Do they think there is some mystical power in the words of the Bible, that they are afraid to read them? What you believe is your choice. One can be the lawyer or the juror or the judge, or all three at different times. I'm asking you to be the juror in this thread, that's all. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 10:31:15 [Permalink]
|
Dave said,
Such skepticism, in a skeptic's forum, should be expected. Your attempts to deflect it will fail so long as you treat this thread as a dialog amongst people willing to assume the "truth" of the Bible. I know this because my own attempts to keep such a thread running and free from side-tracking failed. It took me seven pages to figure it out, however. I hope that you can learn the same lesson in just three.[/quote]
A good point, Dave. I may be in the wrong forum. I am willing to have people thrust their arguments in my face. I'm not afraid of the arguments.
As to presenting "my" ideas about creationism: I was hoping others would join in with their ideas regarding Genesis, not simply bash the book and author before reading it. LOL I was hoping to learn some things from others, also. I have gotten through some ideas up through the fourth day of creation.
The fifth day is as follows in the Biblical account: "20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day."
I note that the words "after his kind" is used quite a bit by the author. Clearly, the idea of a few species of animals evolving into millions is not what is being said here. Each species was individually made. So those "creationists" who say that God could have done it through a long macro evolution process, do not believe the Biblical account, and, therefore, should be classified as non-Biblical creationists. When God commanded the beasts to "be fruitful and multiply", he wasn't commanding macro evolution because they were made "after their kind". So, one can derive some information by reading the account, even if one does not believe it to be so.
Also, note that the author mentions specifically how God created "great whales". They did not evolve from little fish, but were created on the fifth day as the giant beasts of the earth, that would be Friday.
Isn't it amazing how these seven days still remain the means of defining the passage of time. Years and dates have changed, but days remain the same, always seven. It is accepted almost world wide.... |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 03/25/2004 10:43:28 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 10:41:04 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Kil
It might be valuable at this point to bring up once again that science comes with a method. In part, the scientific method removes religious and scientific bias from the equation by means of peer review, repeatability, and the ability to make certain predictions that the theory suggests.
Point taken, Kil. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 10:49:51 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
I don't need to refute your invisible dragon, Dave, I believe you have one.
In that case, I've got this wonderful bridge I'd like to sell to you, also.quote:
Why does one need to refute Moses? Don't you think that of the couple million people that followed him at least one of their descendants nearer to that time could have easily refuted these events, but none did. Don't you think the absence of such refute says quite a bit?
Not if the final edit on the Pentateuch didn't take place until 800 years after the exodus from Egypt. The citation I gave you earlier suggests that there are plenty of Biblical scholars who believe that the stories were nothing but oral tradition until at least 250 years after the exodus, and surely both Moses and his close kin were dead by then.quote:
How do you refute an actual occurance witnessed by so many?
That's precisely why I'm asking you for confirming evidence that those stories did actually occur and were witnessed by millions. If the Bible is all you've got, then it's not much.quote:
Now it's true, that no man witnessed the creation, but Moses's reputation of closeness to God gives him more credence than anyone else (except Jesus) to discuss the issue. Based on that knowledge alone, many give heed to Moses's description of the creation.
But that is based upon the assumption (without evidence) that God exists. Your argument has come full circle: God exists because he did all these things for Moses, and Moses was correct because he was close to God. I see nothing but a tautology.quote:
It is likewise true that no believer in Evolution in any field of science can unequivocally say they "know" what happened in the beginning.
And none are. If they do, they are fools. Instead, you are the one who is claiming to know what happened, based upon a single book of uncertain authorship and historicity.quote:
So to make this an "evidence" argument and emphasis unprovable evidence as more relative than the people giving us the ideas is not a credible argument.
Absolutely wrong. Anybody can write a book saying anything they want. There is no other evidence of manna, a burning bush, or Moses himself. When there has been all sorts of fiction written in the last 4,500 years or so, what reason do I have to believe that the Bible is not fictional in its description of the miracles Moses performed?quote:
Consider that in a courtroom, where evidence is given, there is testimony given on both sides about the evidence, and part of that testimony can and many times does include the credibility of those presenting the evidence. A policeman with an axe to grind loses his credibility when presenting evidence that can easily be tainted. The more upright and "professional" a witness is, the more credence is given to their testimony.
Neither history nor science work like a courtroom does.quote:
And, thus, the testimony of Moses has great weight with many people.
Only to those who think both that Moses wrote what he's claimed to have written (and how he wrote about his own death, I'll never know) and that his words have not been changed in the 800 years following. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 14:27:23 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
A good point, Dave. I may be in the wrong forum.
Well, really, the wrong web site, perhaps. I'm not saying that this thread is unwelcome here, just that you should expect numerous "off topic" posts in response, if you're going to define "off topic" as anything which questions your basic assumptions.quote:
I am willing to have people thrust their arguments in my face.
I'm not sure this succeeds as a metaphor on a message board on which you can freely skip posts.quote:
I'm not afraid of the arguments.
That's good to hear.quote:
As to presenting "my" ideas about creationism: I was hoping others would join in with their ideas regarding Genesis, not simply bash the book and author before reading it. LOL
For starters, many here have read the book, and even much commentary about it from various religious sources.
My take on Genesis is that, like many other creation stories and early histories, it is a collection of stories which attempt to answer the big "where did we come from" question long before anything approaching "modern science" was around to help out. These stories are, after all, more than 3,200 years old, and often disagree with what we can learn on our own just by looking around.
And, taken simply as a story, Genesis is neither good nor bad, and neither it nor its author (or authors) deserves "bashing." The problems crop up when we are expected to take these stories as literal truth.quote:
I was hoping to learn some things from others, also.
One of the reasons I like the SFN is that I can do just that (learn from others) almost every day.quote:
I note that the words "after his kind" is used quite a bit by the author.
No creationist has ever offered a definition of "kind" which has stood up to scrutiny. I'm wondering what yours is, explicitly.quote:
Also, note that the author mentions specifically how God created "great whales". They did not evolve from little fish, but were created on the fifth day as the giant beasts of the earth, that would be Friday.
Modern science tells us that whales evolved from land mammals; which evolved from reptile-like creatures, which evolved from amphibians (I think), which evolved from "little fish" - but whales didn't directly evolve from "little fish," no, since they'd probably be fish themselves were that the case.quote:
Isn't it amazing how these seven days still remain the means of defining the passage of time. Years and dates have changed, but days remain the same, always seven. It is accepted almost world wide....
Since a lunar month is about 28 days, an easy four-way division makes for seven-day "weeks." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2004 : 14:56:19 [Permalink]
|
Domer you started this thread with this:
quote:
Many clues lie within the description that Moses gave about the six days of creation. If mixed with wisdom, these clues tell much more about the beginnings of the universe than people realize. This forum is a place for those interested in what the Bible says about Creation. We'll try to note the logic and order as the days of creation proceeded. We can note any contradictions or confirmations with science or logic as we go on.
When science and logic were brought into the discussion you yelled foul! Genesis has no logic or scientific support. The universe and the Earth are clearly billions of years old. There are mountains of evidence to support that. You can discuss genesis as a myth or a parable that may have some theological points, but genesis cannot be discussed rationally as a record of actual creation.
I have read genesis many times and have studied it in a course that I took in college. Funny, even the Jewish professor that taught the course said that genesis is myth. He was very devout jew who obtained special permission from his Rabbi to speak the name 'Yahwe' so that he could effectively teach the course.
PS, I also believe that rainbows (the refractive properties of light) existed before 'the flood'.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 06:21:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Isn't the testimony of a witness considered as part of the evidence regarding many cases? You can refute the witness if you want, but its customary to hear him out first. Many refute creationism without a real clue as to what is taught.
We read what you had to say, we are quite familiar with this creation story, and it became time for you to support your assertions. And if we find that any part of a persons testimnoy is false, then the remaining testimony may be dismissed due to the unreliable nature of the witness.
quote:
Is it too much to ask an evolutionist leaning person to hear out the other side?
But once you eliminated evidence from the discussion you were just preaching and there is not a receptive choir in a skeptic forum. We know this creation story and without evidence it is just a story.
quote:
Are they afraid of "contamination" or something?
No, I welcome the opportunity to learn from others. But you have had nothing new to say.
quote:
Do they think there is some mystical power in the words of the Bible, that they are afraid to read them?
I, too, was a christian at one time and I did what so many christians are encouraged to do. Read the bible. That's when the bible became just a recorded collection of stories and quotes. The reason faith is so important became incredibly clear. The stories were just too fabulous.
quote:
What you believe is your choice. One can be the lawyer or the juror or the judge, or all three at different times. I'm asking you to be the juror in this thread, that's all.
Then I have to believe that your opening arguments are now complete and you are about to present your evidence. But this is a skeptic forum you cannot expect us to sit idly and just read what you have to say. We are not the jury. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2004 : 19:43:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Also, note that the author mentions specifically how God created "great whales". They did not evolve from little fish, but were created on the fifth day as the giant beasts of the earth, that would be Friday.
The idea that whales evolved from fish give insight to the hidden truth that you really, seriously, need to read up on biology, and evolutionary theory. The wisdom that can be derived from this is that you shouldn't make assertions about having an informed opinion about evolution, when you constantly put your foot in your mouth.
It reflects poorly on your credibility.
quote:
We'll begin our discussion with verse one of Genesis, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." A starter question: Did this verse imply that a physical realm existed before the first day or not?
This verse implies that the author who wrote it: (correctly) guessed that there existed no physical realm before the first day of the Universe. It is rather straight forward, and logical. If the heavens is everything but the earth, then none of it existed before it was created. With a yes/no question he had a 50-50 chance of getting it right.
In the beginning, God created the heavens (then He was busy doing other things for 10 billion years to pass, until...) and the Earth.
This could work. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2004 : 16:58:11 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by moakley
and it became time for you to support your assertions. . .
These (Biblical account of creation)are not my assertions or my story. I've just read them like anyone else. I happen to believe the story, while you do not. It isn't my place to prove the story scientificly. It was not written in a scientific journal. But it was not written by a lunatic or ignorant man either. I really don't think that we have the capability to know positively what happened through scientific means at the beginning of our planet. We can learn more and more about the things that exist today and relics we find, but conclusive evidence as to their origin is not easy to decifer. The rejection of creationist views, I am finding, is not based solely on science, but belief. The evidence of science can point both ways with different theories, but does not point only to evolutionary theory as the only posible means. It is still just as viable as always that God created each species individually. Most evolutionists reject belief in God due to "lack of evidence". But such evidence of a spiritual being cannot be found if one refuses to acknowledge the existance of a spiritual rhelm. How can you scientificly find what you refuse to research? Let's face it, many, if not all of you believe in naturalism:
"The doctrine of those who deny a supernatural
agency in the miracles and revelations recorded in the
Bible, and in spiritual influences; also, any system of
philosophy which refers the phenomena of nature to a blind
force or forces acting necessarily or according to fixed
laws, excluding origination or direction by one
intelligent will." or by a newer defintion, " the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations."
If you wish to deny this belief, you are free to do so, but most of you have made it plain in your posts that this is exactly as you believe. It is not a scientific or logical conclusion...it is a belief system, as we see scientists who maintain this belief and scientists who believe in the supernatural and intelligent design.
Most of your arguments point back to this basic belief you hold, which is naturalism. Of course, most of my arguments point back to my belief also. To espouse your basic belief as "scientific" is simply nonsense. Have you or anyone definitively proved the "nonexistance of God or spirit"? I think not. It remains a belief system. It is a system commonly refered to as atheism. It was tried on the national scale in the former Soviet Union as the state belief and resulted in much corruption and evil within that system, which was eventually overthrown by peaceful means. The new Russia allows the teaching of religion in its schools and is not an athiest state. Athiesm failed in practice in the Soviet Union, yet many hang onto it as a viable means of belief here in America. What is my point? There is now evidence pointing to the weakness of naturalism in the real workings of the world, so it must join the condemned religions that have failed, also. It no longer stands out as an unproven alternative belief system. It has been tried and it failed and is also failing in the other communist states where it is being tried. It has led to great oppression of the people in those nations. Those who claim inherent goodness in atheism have been vividly debunked. And yet you think that scientific advancement will only come as all antinaturalism is eliminated in science. Wow. There is much reason to believe that there is a God and that religion related to that God can play a positive role in society, including science. An avowed naturalist, however, will have a very hard time seeing this as they already have a tainted view toward anything supernatural or anyone that espouses that view. Were they open to the possibility of the supernatural, it might open up a lot of answers which are locked out from their minds at this point.
I will point out again that to be a skeptic does not involve holding to a certain position regarding belief in God. There are many who believe in God, yet do not have "faith" in the same God, or know what or whom is the true God. They've not come to a conclusion on the matter. Some have concluded there is a God but they dont' want any part of Him. Others conclude there is no God or spirit. Some think there is spirit, but no God. Most of you believe in no spirit and no god. That by no means places you in any higher category in regards to science and I reject your notion that it does. I also reject the notion of denying the viability of a written account (the Bible) simply because you have no "scientific evidence" relating to that account(I've seen much). However, all evidence is not scientific (able to be reproduced in a test tube, tested, and probed). The very basis of your argument, that all evidence is scientific comes from your naturalist viewpoint, or belief system. You are able to deny any spiritual evidence by simply refuting its existence or believing only your personal experience in the matter without regard to the testimony of anyone else contrary to you, even if there are millions with such testimonies. Truly it is a self induced spiritual blindness that you have. I dare say upon scrutiny and serious questioning, each of you would reveal signs of spiritual activity within your own personal life or even experiences that you cannot otherwise explain.
MOakley
"I, too, was a christian at one time and I did what so many christians are encouraged to do. Read the bible. That's when the bible became just a recorded collection of stories and quotes. The reason faith is so important became incredibly clear. The stories were just too fabulous
So you rejected the stories altogether, yet you find it easier to grasp evolutionary theory about the miracle of life that is equivolent to the worst crap shoot in history. The unbelievable odds of millions of viable creatures evolving from a handful doesn't strike you as pure craziness, simply by adding billions of years to the formula? An intelligent, all powerful God creating an intelligent human being in his own image is so far fetched that believing in your evolving from an ape is much more convincing given billions of years to do so. I think all of you evolutionists need to recalculate the statisically probability of your theory, as you will find that just that one scenario mentioned in the last sentence would take longer than twice the amount of years you've allotted for millions of creatures to evolve. Your faith is far greater than mine. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2004 : 20:18:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
These (Biblical account of creation)are not my assertions or my story. I've just read them like anyone else. I happen to believe the story, while you do not. It isn't my place to prove the story scientificly. It was not written in a scientific journal. But it was not written by a lunatic or ignorant man either.
I agree. The creation story was not recorded by an ignorant man. But that being said it was quite likely originated by man. I have seen estimates that the number of gods/spirits that man has feared and worshipped approaches 2500. I suspect that you believe that 2499 of these gods/spirits were created by man. If this is the case we are within 1 god of being in total agreement. (M.Shermer)
quote:
I really don't think that we have the capability to know positively what happened through scientific means at the beginning of our planet.
I agree. Anything prior to the beginning of the universe would just be speculation on anyones part.
quote:
We can learn more and more about the things that exist today and relics we find, but conclusive evidence as to their origin is not easy to decifer.
Just because understanding how something could occur is difficult doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and proclaim "God did it".
quote:
It is still just as viable as always that God created each species individually.
How is it a viable explaination?
quote:
Most evolutionists reject belief in God due to "lack of evidence". But such evidence of a spiritual being cannot be found if one refuses to acknowledge the existance of a spiritual rhelm. How can you scientificly find what you refuse to research?
Doomar, there are member of this site who are far more qualified than I, but "The supernatural is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry". Why? "Because the supernatural refuses to provide any experiementally repeatable or independently observable data."
If I had the time and the educational background necessary I too could follow the accumulated data supporting any theory and quite likely come to the same conclusion. That a particular theory is a good explanantion for the available data.
Where as most of what faith claims as knowledge begins and ends with "God did it". Once you accept that there really isn't much need for thinking when denying the accumulated knowledge of science which you find contrary to doctrine. This is really dishonest and bothersome. Why would a god create a species with such an incredible brain. A brain capable of understanding the complex nature of many things. Even things that can be viewed as contrary to what is supposed to be god's word. Why would god expect this species not to use such an incredible gift?
quote:
... naturalist ... atheist ...
If a label is necessary, then you may use either of these when describing me.
quote:
Have you or anyone definitively proved the "nonexistance of God or spirit"?
I doubt the existense of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent god. But if you will recall the rules of logic, the one making the positive assertion bears the burden of proof.
quote:
There is now evidence pointing to the weakness of naturalism in the real workings of the world, so it must join the condemned religions that have failed, ...
I find it interesting how often Christian turn non-belief in the supernatural into a religion. Why do they do that ? Do they believe that it somehow weakens a position they view as opposing theirs? Ironic, isn't it.
quote:
An avowed naturalist, however, will have a very hard time seeing this as they already have a tainted view toward anything supernatural or anyone that espouses that view. Were they open to the possibility of the supernatural, it might open up a lot of answers which are locked out from their minds at this point.
Supernatural beliefs are without limits. Reason and science are not.
quote:
MOakley
"I, too, was a christian at one time and I did what so many christians are encouraged to do. Read the bible. That's when the bible became just a recorded collection of stories and quotes. The reason faith is so important became incredibly clear. The stories were just too fabulous
So you rejected the stories altogether, yet you find it easier to grasp evolutionary theory about the miracle of life that is equivolent to the worst crap shoot in history. The unbelievable odds of millions of viable creatures evolving from a handful doesn't strike you as pure craziness, simply by adding billions of years to the formula?
You either must not be reading or understanding all of the links that members of these forums have provided on what evolution is. You are still repeating Christian misinformation and lies. I doubt your sincerity on how you are willing to learn and challenge your beliefs when you show no sign of understanding that which you desparately want to deny.
quote:
An intelligent, all powerful God creating an intelligent human being in his own image is so far fetched that believing in your evolving from an ape is much more convincing given billions of years to do so. I think all of you evolutionists need to recalculate the statisically probability of your theory, as you will find that just that one scenario mentioned in the last sentence would take longer than twice the amount of years you've allotted for millions of creatures to evolve. Your faith is far greater than mine.
Doomar, I am sure that you are a decent fellow and I would in no way deny you or your fellow Christians your faith. I am sure you find it consoling. I know my Mother does. I have |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 03/28/2004 20:21:10 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2004 : 21:36:12 [Permalink]
|
Doomar wrote:quote:
I really don't think that we have the capability to know positively what happened through scientific means at the beginning of our planet. We can learn more and more about the things that exist today and relics we find, but conclusive evidence as to their origin is not easy to decifer.
Nobody said it was easy. It involves millions of pieces of evidence, and then millions more deductions and inferences to put the puzzle together into a cohesive picture of the past.quote:
The rejection of creationist views, I am finding, is not based solely on science, but belief. The evidence of science can point both ways with different theories, but does not point only to evolutionary theory as the only posible means.
There is no other scientific theory in competition with evolution as to the description of the processes through which we find the diversity of life we do today.quote:
It is still just as viable as always that God created each species individually.
Only if you reject the scientific evidence, or resort to Last-Thursdayism.quote:
Most evolutionists reject belief in God due to "lack of evidence".
I challenge you to support the implied claim that most evolutionists reject belief in God. This evolutionist is waiting for evidence of God before believing in one (or many). The lack of such evidence tells me that I should not draw a conclusion about whether or not God exists.quote:
But such evidence of a spiritual being cannot be found if one refuses to acknowledge the existance of a spiritual rhelm. How can you scientificly find what you refuse to research?
And just how can we research something we cannot - by definition - measure?quote:
Let's face it, many, if not all of you believe in naturalism:
Snipped the poor definition, which attempts to portray naturalism as a sort of religion itself. Religions are more than just simple beliefs, but you've tried to conflate "belief" with "faith" before (unsuccessfully).quote:
If you wish to deny this belief, you are free to do so, but most of you have made it plain in your posts that this is exactly as you believe. It is not a scientific or logical conclusion...it is a belief system, as we see scientists who maintain this belief and scientists who believe in the supernatural and intelligent design.
Show me a single scientific conclusion of intelligent design. You cannot, because none exist - the conclusions of ID are based upon a logical fallacy, that if no detailed scientific explanations for all biological minutae exist, we must conclude "God did it."
On the other hand, you are correct that there are assumptions which science requires, but which are not logically or scientifically provable. The idea that natural laws apply equally well everywhere in the universe is one such assumption. That we haven't yet found a place in which the force of gravity is described by a different equation than we use around here doesn't mean we won't find one, but we also don't have any reason to think that we will ever find one.quote:
Most of your arguments point back to this basic belief you hold, which is naturalism. Of course, most of my arguments point back to my belief also. To espouse your basic belief as "scientific" is simply nonsense.
That basic belief is the foundation of hard science. Whether the laws of physics, for example, are set by God or not doesn't matter. The science of physics isn't out to find an answer to that question. It's intent is to describe what we can observe. Belief systems don't enter into that equation, because physical laws work exactly the same way regardless of which god or gods one believes exist (or no god at all). Changing one's religious beliefs doesn't change the way science works.quote:
Have you or anyone definitively proved the "nonexistance of God or spirit"? I think not. It remains a belief system. It is a system commonly refered to as atheism.
In discourses such as this, it is up to the claimant to supply the evidence for their claims. It isn't up to me, for example, to disprove God, it's up to you to demonstrate that your belief has a basis in fact, if you wish me to agree with your belief. If you don't, then what do you care whether I believe in God or not?quote:
It was tried on the national scale in the former Soviet Union as the state belief and resulted in much corruption and evil within that system, which was eventually overthrown by peaceful means.
What an utter crock of nonsense. There were so many different problems within the USSR (economic, social, and political) that to single out atheism as the cause of them all is ridiculous. Especially in light of the fact that the people could, and did, practice their religions under communist rule. Marx based part of his ideas about communism on the activites of some early Christian sects, even.quote:
The new Russia allows the teaching of religion in its schools and is not an athiest state.
Where is the evidence for these claims?quote:
Athiesm failed in practice in the Soviet Union, yet many hang onto it as a viable means of belief here in America.
No, communism failed in practice. Atheism was not the basis for communism, nor was it a major player in communism's downfall in the USSR.quote:
What is my point? There is now evidence pointing to the weakness of naturalism in the real |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2004 : 11:08:08 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, Doomar, Doomar. I am posting this even though Dave and Moakley have covered some of this territory already...
quote:
These (Biblical account of creation)are not my assertions or my story. I've just read them like anyone else. I happen to believe the story, while you do not. It isn't my place to prove the story scientificly. It was not written in a scientific journal. But it was not written by a lunatic or ignorant man either.
You can't prove the story scientifically. The evidence that you must deny, however, says that Genesis could not have happened exactly as written. You could, if you wanted, take it as a parable. Not good enough for you? OK, whatever. But many Christians and Jews do understand it that way. This is not an atheist vs. believer argument no matter how much you want to paint it that way.
quote:
I really don't think that we have the capability to know positively what happened through scientific means at the beginning of our planet.
Maybe yes and maybe no. Seems to me that you already know so I am not sure what you mean by "we" unless you are waiting for science to confirm your faith.
quote:
We can learn more and more about the things that exist today and relics we find, but conclusive evidence as to their origin is not easy to decifer.
True. That is why we call what the evidence suggests theory's. Of course, a theory is a pretty lofty position in science.
quote:
The rejection of creationist views, I am finding, is not based solely on science, but belief.
Baloney. The rejection of creationism is that creationists lack evidence for their views. Again, there are plenty of scientists who believe in god while rejecting biblical literalism.
quote:
The evidence of science can point both ways with different theories, but does not point only to evolutionary theory as the only posible means. It is still just as viable as always that God created each species individually.
Baloney. Present one paper, one study, one bit of research that has been successfully peer reviewed that suggests that evolution does not happen. I am willing to put money on this one. (Duan Gish or Dr. Dino do not count because they only publish in house, skirting scientific scrutiny. That is unless you can find where they actually did publish in a scientific journal.) As for god, science takes no position. You will have to work that out in your own head.
quote:
Most evolutionists reject belief in God due to "lack of evidence".
You are confusing those who understand that evolution happens with those who are atheists. I'm sure some evolutionists, as you call us, are atheists but I am just as sure that some of us are not. Me for example. I'm agnostic.
quote:
But such evidence of a spiritual being cannot be found if one refuses to acknowledge the existance of a spiritual rhelm.
I don't refuse to acknowledge the existence of a spiritual realm. I simply doubt that one exists. I would need evidence of its existence before I could refuse to acknowledge it.
quote:
How can you scientificly find what you refuse to research?
How do you research what you can't find? By the way, things like the effects of the healing power of prayer have been researched. So it isn't quite true that science has not attempted to find something.
quote:
Let's face it, many, if not all of you believe in naturalism:
"The doctrine of those who deny a supernatural
agency in the miracles and revelations recorded in the
Bible, and in spiritual influences; also, any system of
philosophy which refers the phenomena of nature to a blind
force or forces acting necessarily or according to fixed
laws, excluding origination or direction by one
intelligent will." or by a newer defintion, " the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations."
If you wish to deny this belief, you are free to do so, but most of you have made it plain in your posts that this is exactly as you believe. It is not a scientific or logical conclusion...it is a belief system, as we see scientists who maintain this belief and scientists who believe in the supernatural and intelligent design.
I prefer the newer definition. Truth is though, I take no position on gods hand in all of this. I see no reason to. Once again, it would be wrong to assume that everyone who understands and accepts evolution has no god belief, and no creation belief that is beyond natural. Evolution happens. How people deal with gods part in that is up to them. Certainly there are those who doubt that god had any hand in it at all. I'm sure that comes a shock to you after hanging out at SFN as long as you have...
quote:
Most of your arguments point back to this basic belief you hold, which is naturalism. Of course, most of my arguments point back to my belief also. To espouse your basic belief as "scientific" is simply nonsense. Have you or anyone definitively proved the "nonexistance of God or spirit"? I think not.
If anyone said "there is no god" you would be correct. That would be a belief. I may be missing something but I have not read that anywhere here. (Unless you count the little quote I posted about Moses in another thread.) What I have read is that there is no evidence, beyond anecdotal, that a god exists. My best guess is there is probably no god.
quote:
It is a system commonly refered to as atheism. It was tried on the national scale in the former Soviet Union as the state belief and resulted in much corruption and evil within that system, which was eventually overthrown by peaceful means. The new Russia allows the teaching of religion in its schools and is not an athiest state. Athiesm failed in practice in the Soviet Union, yet many hang onto it as a viable means of belief here in America. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2004 : 09:34:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
We can learn more and more about the things that exist today and relics we find, but conclusive evidence as to their origin is not easy to decifer.
Not easy, that's true, but we will find out eventually. That's the strength of science combined with human curiosity.
quote:
The evidence of science can point both ways with different theories, but does not point only to evolutionary theory as the only posible means.
Then back up your claim!
Produce a scientific theory that explains the evidence just as good as for evolution. You can start with radiometric dating, and carbon-dating with year-rings of trees. Then explain the fossil record. I'm eagerly waiting. Also, we have light from stars showing absorption lines from matter occupying the space in between, which could only have been picked up in transit through 100'000+ years.
quote:
It is still just as viable as always that God created each species individually.
If He did, then why are the similarities in the DNA between related species so many? There are ~1,2% difference only between us and the chimp.
quote:
Most evolutionists reject belief in God due to "lack of evidence".
That's bull-droppings. Most evolutionists do not reject God. God is simply not a factor in the equation. Since we have no evidence that God actually manifests Himself in the physical world, we have no reason to include Him in any equation.
Though Isaac Newton was considered religious, he never included a God-variable in his law of gravity, there was no need for it, it worked too well anyway. Neither did Einstein, nor Maxwell include any God-variables in their equations.
quote:
It is a system commonly refered to as atheism. It was tried on the national scale in the former Soviet Union as the state belief and resulted in much corruption and evil within that system, which was eventually overthrown by peaceful means.
That is just so much bullshit!
You obviously carry lots of grievances toward atheism, as you have a tendency to see everything in black and white, Christianity on one side and (other religions and) atheism as it's evil opposition.
Anytime you get a chance to blame anything for bad shit that happens, you blame atheism. Every other minute I'm reading your posts I swing between being furious and weeping for your inability to see the world for what it is.
The Soviet Union's fall was due to many factors. Pride being one of the major factors, as well as mismanagement, person-cults... the list is long but atheism played an irrelevant role.
quote:
And yet you think that scientific advancement will only come as all antinaturalism is eliminated in science. Wow.
Look at the Arab world. They have one of the most important natural riches in the world (oil). But because religious fundamentalists who rejected any kind of knowledge/learning that did not originate in the Koraan, was in power, not only did their scientific progress stop dead in it's tracks, but social development as well. Now look at them, what a sorry state they are in. The only civilization they have is what they get/borrow from the western world.
And it pains me that you are eager to go down that same road too.
quote:
There is much reason to believe that there is a God and that religion related to that God can play a positive role in society, including science.
Please show us how...
quote:
I also reject the notion of denying the viability of a written account (the Bible) simply because you have no "scientific evidence" relating to that account(I've seen much).
If you have seen much scientific evidence, why do you refuse to share it? We have asked you many times already, but let's do it again:
Show us the evidence! Please!
quote:
I dare say upon scrutiny and serious questioning, each of you would reveal signs of spiritual activity within your own personal life or even experiences that you cannot otherwise explain.
If you are talking about situations where I stop my car to help someone in trouble just out of kindness of my heart, then I accept that you have several definitions of "spiritual activity". One is when you read the bible and believes it is the word of God, and promptly goes on telling everyone not believing the same that they will go to hell. The other one is where I say "Jesus is a homo, a faggot, and a false God, which I renounce. There is no God!" yet I stop to help people I haven't even met before out of the kindness of my heart.
quote:
So you rejected the stories altogether, yet you find it easier to grasp evolutionary theory about the miracle of life that is equivolent to the worst crap shoot in history.
You reject evolution on false grounds. You have been fed lies about evolution, and you don't even bother to check if what you have been taught about evolution has any merits what so ever. Time and time again you have made statements, that we have pointed out, that are misrepresentations of the theory of biological evolution, and how it is supposed to be applied. And yet you refuse to check for yourself who are right, IRC or the sources we direct you to.
I say that it is YOU, Doomar, who are afraid to face the true implications of evolution.
We have said many times before that you should take more time to study evolution. We don't ask you to believe in it. But we ask you to study it, so that you will understand what it teaches. When you have proved to me that really do understand ToE, and still reject it, then I will not bother you as much about it.
quote:
The unbelievable odds of millions of viable creatures evolving from a handful doesn't strike you as pure craziness, simply by adding billions of years to the formula?
L |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 04/07/2004 16:18:39 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2004 : 20:44:53 [Permalink]
|
I apologize for not responding very quickly, as I've been busy. I'll try to read everything as I am able.
You either must not be reading or understanding all of the links that members of these forums have provided on what evolution is. You are still repeating Christian misinformation and lies.
I have been reading them, but I must admit to confusion, as there are several beliefs about evolution and especially the beginning of life arguments which seem to be put into another category from evolution. I've yet to hear a clear definition of the origin of life theory believed by most evolutionists. From my reading of Darwin, he allowed for God's creation, yet only a few simplistic species of life. At that time he did not realize the immense complexity of each life form, as we do today, else he might of abandoned his theories altogether.
By the way, Christian misinformation about evolution? How 'bout evolutionist misinformation about evolutionary theory? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
