# Why do Creationists deny the existence of Evolution in face of facts supporting it?



## peeyaj

Like the theory of Universal Gravitation, Evolution is one of the most widely accepted and supported tenets in the history of science. Here are the prime examples of evolution in action:

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

*But why do Creationists deny the existence of Evolution in face of facts supporting it?*

Example:






The movement of Intelligent Design in the United States is especially baffling to me.

According to Wikipedia...



> While an overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological origin,[1][2] creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.......
> 
> The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[27] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.


Read here:

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

and:










Thoughts??


----------



## peeyaj

The United States is second to the last on the countries who accept evolution as a scientific fact....

So sad.


----------



## Ukko

I think there is a social group for this subject.

...scientific cat? Heidinger's?


----------



## Sid James




----------



## TrazomGangflow

I don't understand why some people can't believe in both.


----------



## peeyaj

@Sid James

Good call! I think you were here when TC members debated about the Atheism board I've posted.


----------



## starthrower

"Religious insanity is very popular in the United States" 
- Alexis De Tocqueville

Not much has changed since the 1830s.


----------



## Guest

Because we are dumb, ignorant hicks who are divorced from reality, who cling to guns and religion and don't want to accept what our betters tell us.

Is that what you are hoping to hear? Are you expecting creationists to claim some new epiphany based on what you have shown them? Or are you hoping that atheists will take this as another opportunity to criticize creationists?

Unless you have some new insight that will finally settle this debate, the question seems pointless.


----------



## starthrower

I was just thinking to myself that Dr. Mike will be here any minute! But Andre's right, it's a can o' worms. Live and let live.

Back to the music...


----------



## Dodecaplex

Richard Darwins was a creationist. He was also a genius biologist. Therefore, creationism is true.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> I think there is a social group for this subject.
> 
> ...scientific cat? Heidinger's?


Yes - there is a religious discussion group. Take this there, and spare the moderators the hassle of another thread that will come to no good.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Dodecaplex said:


> Richard Darwins was a creationist. He was also a genius biologist. Therefore, creationism is true.


Who? Did Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin get together and have a strange hybrid baby?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Wow, all those skeptical Scandinavian countries...... also very cold and dead up there...


So it's the belief of evolution that you're an animal, no, less than that. You're "complex" dust whose only purpose in this thing called life is to survive in a fragile, vain way, and then turn back to dust, hopefully continue your species of dust. Really, how do you feel about it? Do you feel like you're better off than someone who has a metanarrative, and how so exactly? How on earth do you have motivation to exist?

These are all just questions to consider, no one here has to answer them.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Wow, all those skeptical Scandinavian countries...... also very cold and dead up there...
> 
> So it's the belief of evolution that you're an animal, no, less than that. You're "complex" dust whose only purpose in this thing called life is to survive in a fragile, vain way, and then turn back to dust, hopefully continue your species of dust. Really, how do you feel about it? Do you feel like you're better off than someone who has a metanarrative, and how so exactly? How on earth do you have motivation to exist?
> 
> These are all just questions to consider, no one here has to answer them.


I feel like someone who has faced the hard and unwelcome facts and survived with my humanity and optimism intact.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Wow, all those skeptical Scandinavian countries...... also very cold and dead up there...
> 
> So it's the belief of evolution that you're an animal, no, less than that. You're "complex" dust whose only purpose in this thing called life is to survive in a fragile, vain way, and then turn back to dust, hopefully continue your species of dust. Really, how do you feel about it? Do you feel like you're better off than someone who has a metanarrative, and how so exactly? How on earth do you have motivation to exist?


Whether you feel positively or negatively about something has no bearing on the nature of reality. And frankly, accepting the fragility of life only makes one realize how precious it is.


----------



## Kopachris

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Wow, all those skeptical Scandinavian countries...... also very cold and dead up there...
> 
> So it's the belief of evolution that you're an animal, no, less than that. You're "complex" dust whose only purpose in this thing called life is to survive in a fragile, vain way, and then turn back to dust, hopefully continue your species of dust. Really, how do you feel about it? Do you feel like you're better off than someone who has a metanarrative, and how so exactly? How on earth do you have motivation to exist?
> 
> These are all just questions to consider, no one here has to answer them.


No. Evolution is not a belief system, something to follow, or something to provide virtues and a reason to live. Evolution is simply a theory (a very well-tested and reasonable theory) to explain how all life on Earth is related. No more, no less. No one "believes in evolution" in the same way that one might believe in God. Evolution is not something to be worshiped or idolized, just as General Relativity isn't something to be worshiped or idolized. And I don't see why God, omnipotent as He is, would take an active hand throughout our history when he could simply create rules for the universe to follow that would generate the result(s) He wants. After all, since time has no meaning to Him, He has no problem with waiting.


----------



## Dodecaplex

mamascarlatti said:


> Who? Did Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin get together and have a strange hybrid baby?


Yes. Here's a picture of him:


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Because we are dumb, ignorant hicks who are divorced from reality, who cling to guns and religion and don't want to accept what our betters tell us.


Well, at least you recognize on some level...


----------



## science

Anyway, in the bizarre way that logically unrelated things go together culturally, 911 and Bush together combined to push a lot of people further away from fundamentalist religion, so the acknowledgement of evolution has increased a lot in the last decade - although of course the funding for creationism flourishes undiminished.

Who knows, perhaps there'll be a pendulum swing back, but I'd bet not a large one. I'd bet it's like the long-term trend toward liberalism. Just as we're not going to see a huge return of segregationists or people opposed to birth control or women's suffrage, we're also not going to see a huge return of creationists. Evangelical Christians are increasingly accepting evolution, and soon they will protest any reference to the fact that they ever did not. 

The next cultural battle ground will be the brain.


----------



## Sid James

It's interesting how the can of worms pic I posted got so many likes (5 of them, which is probably the most I've had for a single post). But I did mean it, I wasn't just being whimsical.



peeyaj said:


> @Sid James
> 
> Good call! I think you were here when TC members debated about the Atheism board I've posted.


I have taken part in a few of these & it can be interesting but I agree with the other member who said it should go on the religion group section thing. I am not a member of those groups but it's apparently less confrontative and divisive/nasty, etc. there. These issues are better put there for more "friendly" debate.

But as regards this -



TrazomGangflow said:


> I don't understand why some people can't believe in both.


Yes, & I have come across at least one Christian who believes firmly in both as you say, & he's a reverend, a pretty prominent one here, he talks about it all the time in the media, & what he says makes sense to me...


----------



## mmsbls

peeyaj said:


> *But why do Creationists deny the existence of Evolution in face of facts supporting it?*


Personally, I don't feel that fact is so difficult to understand. Evolution is a very complex theory that is not remotely obvious or intuitive. It blatantly rejects what Creationists strongly believe. Most facts of evolution are also consistent with a creator God.

In my experience the vast majority of people who believe in evolution do not understand the theory just as they do not understand most scientific theories. Essentially, the only reason for people to believe evolution is the same reason for them to believe most science theories (i.e. science textbooks and scientists assert that they are true).

I witnessed a debate between Duane Gish, a New Earth Creationist, and an evolutionary biologist from my university. Gish showed a cartoon showing the scientific belief that humans came from hydrogen atoms. Half the audience laughed - not a derisive laugh, but a genuine laugh. The thought is preposterous. How many people can explain, in a way that doesn't seem ridiculous, that transformation? How many people have seen evolutionary principles in action?

For those who think it's silly for people not to believe evolution, here are a few interesting thoughts. Many theoretical physicists believe it's possible that the universe is actually a two dimensional hologram. Some believe that time does not exist. Many neurophilosophers believe that free will does not exist. There are strong reasons to believe all of these (Note: I'm not saying science has demonstrated any of these to be true). Suppose that in 5 years the scientific community asserted that all three of these theories are true. Would you believe them?


----------



## violadude




----------



## Kopachris

Sid James said:


> Yes, & I have come across at least one Christian who believes firmly in both as you say, & he's a reverend, a pretty prominent one here, he talks about it all the time in the media, & what he says makes sense to me...


You've met one more [me, I hope].



mmsbls said:


> For those who think it's silly for people not to believe evolution, here are a few interesting thoughts. Many theoretical physicists believe it's possible that the universe is actually a two dimensional hologram. Some believe that time does not exist. Many neurophilosophers believe that free will does not exist. There are strong reasons to believe all of these (Note: I'm not saying science has demonstrated any of these to be true). Suppose that in 5 years the scientific community asserted that all three of these theories are true. Would you believe them?


Depends on how they define "hologram." The way I understand holograms, they are simply clever ways of using interference patterns between waves of light to capture three-dimensional data on a two-dimensional surface. It seems to me that the theory uses "hologram" as an analogy only, though. To claim that the entire universe is a literal hologram is ridiculous, and I doubt there's any way it could be explained to me that would make me believe it.

Or how about this: the scientific community currently asserts that the Higgs mechanism is responsible for breaking electro-weak symmetry and giving particles mass. This assertion is currently in the process of being tested, but it is asserted nonetheless. I personally don't believe it just because the scientific community asserts it. To me, the Higgs mechanism seems like an ugly hack (to borrow from software development parlance). I suppose some philosophy comes into play here--where various theories to describe something each have reasonable doubt, or lack evidence, I choose to believe the one which seems simplest and easiest to understand, because I feel that that is what a perfect being would choose to govern the universe. (This usually involves me coming up with my own ideas, but I lack the mathematical knowledge needed to connect them with the rest of theoretical physics.) I don't know any alternatives to the Higgs mechanism very well, so I remain agnostic on that one. Evolution, on the other hand, is fairly simple and easy for me to understand, and has plenty of evidence to support it. Does a conlanger create all the languages in a family from scratch? No, a conlanger uses well-understood linguistic processes to create artificial diversity, because creating artificial diversity from scratch is inefficient. It seems preferable for God to use well-understood biological processes to create biodiversity, even though efficiency has no meaning to an omnipotent being.

I feel like I've just been rambling on for the past fifteen minutes. If the above doesn't make any sense, just ignore it.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

violadude said:


>


Oh lord.

"Evolution is a theory." So? A theory is a scientific process, and science is a never-ending thing; it's all about coming to more and more accurate conclusions over time based on new data. If it DIDN'T allow such adaptation to new evidence, then that would be incentive for me not to trust it.

"Evolutionists used to believe X, but HAHA, now they believe Y, what a silly theory!" like this guy's saying just isn't a real argument. That's like saying gravity doesn't exist because that damn Newton didn't totally understand all the details from day one.

Oh, this guy must be satire. I couldn't even tell.

With that out of the way, I never got why people have so much stake in what others believe, so I think threads like this have their own scent of religious-like dogma.


----------



## violadude

regressivetransphobe said:


> Oh lord.
> 
> "Evolution is a theory." So? A theory is a scientific process, and science is a never-ending thing; it's all about coming to more and more accurate conclusions over time based on new data. If it DIDN'T allow such adaptation to new evidence, then that would be incentive for me not to trust it.
> 
> "Evolutionists used to believe X, but HAHA, now they believe Y, what a silly theory!" like this guy's saying just isn't a real argument. That's like saying gravity doesn't exist because that damn Newton didn't totally understand all the details from day one.
> 
> Oh, this guy must be satire. I couldn't even tell.
> 
> With that out of the way, I never got why people have so much stake in what others believe, so I think threads like this have their own scent of religious-like dogma.


Haha, ya this guy is satire. It's more obvious in some of his other videos that are just.....ridiculous. But they are pretty darn funny if you know that they are satire.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Why do Creationists deny the existence of Evolution in the face of facts supporting it?

I think there are several interlocking, but not necessarily directly related, factors:

(1) There is a difference between being right and needing to be right. You don't have to look further than the political community in your country for plenty of examples. People's need for their views to be endorsed by others and their existential fear of discovering that were wrong is very strong.

(2) The desire to be part of an underdog community. However perverse, I am convinced this is a factor for some people. When I was a child, my parents were active in the UK Liberal Party and I've grown up sensitive to this phenomenon in some members of minority pressure groups. And/or the need to be part of a community from which one gets other benefits such that one is willing to swallow/ignore any downside to the community; and/or the fear of being excluded from such a community. 

(3) The pervasive influence of one's upbringing coupled with the need not to go against one's parents'/other influencers' beliefs (of course some people respond with wholesale rejection, but not all).

(4) Lack of understanding as in "I don't understand the theory of evolution, therefore it must be wrong": an overweening need to place the individual at the centre of his universe. You get this in a mild form even on TC with the much repeated "X is a great composer because I like his symphonies". And, of course, one can entirely rationally prove that 4 = 6 if one starts with the premise that 2 = 3. The proof proccess isn't at fault.

(5) Ignorance, as in "I don't know what the theory of evolution is, therefore it must be wrong". More of the above.

(6) In a time where many people feel increasingly powerless in the face of ever-increasing awareness of the economy, tsunamis, wars and so on, the need for something spocific, concrete and understandable increases.

(7) A willingness to accept some tenets of a belief system (eg creationism) for the sake of having others which are really important to poeple (eg being loved by Jesus).


----------



## science

violadude said:


> Haha, ya this guy is satire. It's more obvious in some of his other videos that are just.....ridiculous. But they are pretty darn funny if you know that they are satire.


Thing is, when you honestly can't tell whether something is satire or serious - well...


----------



## violadude

science said:


> Thing is, when you honestly can't tell whether something is satire or serious - well...


Ya I understand if someone would see his videos and get pretty pissed off at the prospect that someone was that dumb. But... I was able to tell right away. I mean, his username is Jesusophile


----------



## science

There is a fascinating pattern to watch in discussion about evolution, politics, business and other things: the use of the pronouns "we" and "they." Tells you a lot about where the speakers are coming from, and the socio-political reasons for their beliefs. 

I have changed socio-economic class in my lifetime: born in a ******* trailer park to a family that never bought a new car and collected recycling for extra money, eating government cheese and peanut butter, listening to white southern gospel music, and believing stuff like "evolution is just a theory. C. S. Lewis and Ravi Zacharias were great philosophers; Janette Oke, great literature. Then I changed classes. I hung out in coffee shops with worldly lawyers and doctors, got into Yale, discovered stuff like John Bunyan and Kierkegaard and John Milton and Aquinas and Chrysostom and Origen, or Shakespeare and Locke and Austen and Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche and Woolf. Things changed. Even before I personally knew the evidence for or understood the theory of evolution, I'd realized that all the scientists couldn't be lying so glibly, united in a war against the good Christians of middle America. To me, scientists had become "we" rather than "they." My identity changed, so my mind changed. (Only several years later, and just for curiosity's sake, did I learn about evolution. I still had the Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Ken Hamm teachings in my head, and I was just curious to find out why they were wrong.)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Giving some credibility or none to evolution is one thing. But I am far more perplexed by folks who take the Biblical stories literally. You know, the variety who believe God created the world in six days and took a day off on the seventh, Adam & Eve, Jesus Christ walking on water, miracles etc. _That_ is more disturbing. I know some of these folks. They are nice people but I can't really get to know them more because of a special bridge in their beliefs that blinds them onto a wider plane of discussion regarding real world issues today, let alone scientific topics etc.


----------



## skalpel

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Giving some credibility or none to evolution is one thing. But I am far more perplexed by folks who take the Biblical stories literally. You know, the variety who believe God created the world in six days and took a day off on the seventh, Adam & Eve, Jesus Christ walking on water, miracles etc. _That_ is more disturbing. I know some of these folks. They are nice people but I can't really get to know them more because of a special bridge in their beliefs that blinds them onto a wider plane of discussion regarding real world issues today, let alone scientific topics etc.


I am always fascinated to know what these people make of the discovery of the dinosaurs. You'd think god would take the time to mention the enormous wandering lizards that were around for millions of years.

A person I once knew well and would speak to regularly about this honestly believed that it was more likely that thousands upon thousands of people throughout history have been hoaxing fossil finds of prehistoric beings than that one book, already proven to have enormous scientific and historic inaccuracies, was wrong.
She would often place herself into the common odd belief that it was an 'atheist vs religious' debate, deeply misunderstanding that atheism is lack of belief in an interventional god and not lack of religion, and also misunderstanding that her own christian faith officially accepts evolution as scientific fact.

I think these are at the root of this issue really; people need the comfort of understanding and when they don't feel as though they can understand the truth, there may be an alternative option which is much easier for them to grasp and latch on to. It gives them a sense of definition, understanding and intelligence which is what all humans want.


----------



## peeyaj

In our country, with 85% are Catholics, if you believe in evolution, you are automatically labeled as an Atheist or Heretic.. Which is very sad. 


Evolution is different from Abiogenesis, which is the origin of life in the earth. Evolution is the gradual change on the genetic characteristics of an organism and how it will change over time. Evolution has nothing to do on how life on earth began, rather how the genetic changes of organisms via adaptation, speciation, natural selection created new species.


I think some people are confused with abiogenesis and evolution, and they outright reject it.

AND..

Humans didn't originated from monkeys! Monkeys and humans have a common ancestor.


----------



## mamascarlatti

peeyaj said:


> In our country, with 85% are Catholics, if you believe in evolution, you are automatically labeled as an Atheist or Heretic.. Which is very sad.


Interesting seeing as the Papacy has broadly accepted evolution since 1996.


----------



## peeyaj

mamascarlatti said:


> Interesting seeing as the Papacy has broadly accepted evolution since 1996.


But if you live in the Philippines.........


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Giving some credibility or none to evolution is one thing. But I am far more perplexed by folks who take the Biblical stories literally. You know, the variety who believe God created the world in six days and took a day off on the seventh, Adam & Eve, Jesus Christ walking on water, miracles etc...


And, I gather, this is a recent phenomenon. Previous generations, whether the church heirarchy or the masses just going into Sunday service, understood that these stories are metaphors, intended to be such and of value as such.

Just added (6) and (7) to my list above.


----------



## presto

I call it “blind faith” unable to see or want to see beyond the box.


----------



## peeyaj

An interesting read:

http://patas.co/2011/05/why-evolution-is-right/


----------



## starthrower

Struggling with these issues on a personal level is perfectly natural and laudable for the open minded, thinking individual. I have a problem with the TV preacher/or so called religious philosophers like Ravi Zacharias. There is a disingenuous spirit hovering over their relentless evangelism.

A member of my family handed me a so called scientific pamphlet from Zacharias's organization that was meant to convince the skeptical person of the existence of the soul. It was purported to be authored by PhD in philosophy. One of the arguments in defense of the immortal human soul stated that it must exist because after so many years our bodies are completely regenerated with new cells, yet we remain the same individual. Well the same is true for my cat! I guess this highly educated author has never heard of DNA? What kind of ignorant rubes are these people preaching to? This is cynicism on its highest level.


----------



## Igneous01

starthrower said:


> One of the arguments in defense of the immortal human soul stated that it must exist because after so many years our bodies are completely regenerated with new cells, yet we remain the same individual. Well the same is true for my cat! I guess this highly educated author has never heard of DNA? What kind of ignorant rubes are these people preaching to? This is cynicism on its highest level.


Cats are people too you know


----------



## norman bates

TrazomGangflow said:


> I don't understand why some people can't believe in both.


how can you believe at the same time in adam and eve and man as an evolution of a monkey?


----------



## waldvogel

And once the Creationists drive Evolution into the hellish inferno, next on their list is the Heliocentric Solar System. 

From the book of Joshua 10:12-13 comes this:

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

So, let me get this right... the Sun and Moon are both located directly above a couple of places in Israel? Ok, let's throw in the West Bank and Jordan to locate them precisely. 

And they STOPPED MOVING? Now that's really amazing. The Earth doesn't even rotate on a 24 hour period here - everything rotates around US. I know some people like that. 

Thanks for the astronomy lesson... it's just about as accurate as your biology lesson.


----------



## TxllxT

I would like to suggest: get in one room 6 so-called 'Creationist' Republicans together with 6 so-called 'Creationist' Democrats solve the problem of US debt and in another room 6 so-called 'Evolutionist' Republicans with 6 so-called 'Evolutionist' Democrats solve the problem of US debt. Whichever group comes out first with the solution gets from me the credits of being rational.

Apart from that I consider both concepts, Creationism and Evolutionism, to be highly *irrational*. You really think that between _homo Adamiensis_ and _homo sapiens_ there is the _fact_ of evolution to be stated? Adam at least did not mess up his household under debt. Why not face the _fact_ of steady *degeneration* ('evolution' still being sooo full of idealism)?


----------



## Igneous01

TxllxT said:


> I would like to suggest: get in one room 6 so-called 'Creationist' Republicans together with 6 so-called 'Creationist' Democrats solve the problem of US debt and in another room 6 so-called 'Evolutionist' Republicans with 6 so-called 'Evolutionist' Democrats solve the problem of US debt. Whichever group comes out first with the solution gets from me the credits of being rational.
> 
> Apart from that I consider both concepts, Creationism and Evolutionism, to be highly *irrational*. You really think that between _homo Adamiensis_ and _homo sapiens_ there is the _fact_ of evolution to be stated? Adam at least did not mess up his household under debt. Why not face the _fact_ of steady *degeneration* ('evolution' still being sooo full of idealism)?


Evolution can go both ways: its not just progress and upgrading a species forever: theres downgrading as well, much of what we think happened to most anthropoid and arthropods insects was that they degenerated into smaller forms.


----------



## Guest

waldvogel said:


> And once the Creationists drive Evolution into the hellish inferno, next on their list is the Heliocentric Solar System.


Yes, and then after that we hope to do away with the absurd notion that the world is round. And after that, we are striving to return to the true medical science of leeching.

Oh, thank goodness I have such wonderfully enlightened people who care for my well being and are striving to save me from a world of ignorance. People infinitely knowledgeable on the subject, who can quote for me, ad nauseum, every wikipedia article that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are vastly intellectually superior to me and I am woefully ignorant. Thank Gaia for them!


----------



## Guest

peeyaj said:


> In our country, with 85% are Catholics, if you believe in evolution, you are automatically labeled as an Atheist or Heretic.. Which is very sad.
> 
> Evolution is different from Abiogenesis, which is the origin of life in the earth. Evolution is the gradual change on the genetic characteristics of an organism and how it will change over time. Evolution has nothing to do on how life on earth began, rather how the genetic changes of organisms via adaptation, speciation, natural selection created new species.
> 
> I think some people are confused with abiogenesis and evolution, and they outright reject it.
> 
> AND..
> 
> Humans didn't originated from monkeys! Monkeys and humans have a common ancestor.


But evolution and abiogenesis are of a piece - both are scientific explanations for how we came to be here. Or is life eternal? In order for life to evolve, you first need life. So while the two explain different things, they are linked. Evolution is fun to discuss, but ultimately you need an explanation regarding how that most primitive life came to be in the first place. How did a series of carbon-based molecules come to spawn all life as we know it? How did those necessary original building blocks of life come to be? What came first? The nucleic acid or the protein?

The term "monkey" is very loosely applied. Most people tend to label all non-human primates as monkeys. And therefore it would not be wrong to say that man evolved from a "monkey" if we take that to mean that humans evolved from non-human primates, as what existed before humans was most likely not human and most likely a primate. It is doubtful from any evolution scenario that humans were the very next step from our closest non-primate ancestor.

As to the way that non-believers in evolution are treated in your country, that sounds more like a cultural issue specific to your country, and not to Catholicism in general. So it seems kind of ridiculous to paint all Catholics with that brush when you only cite anecdotal from your one country. Since we are talking here about people who seem to reject scientific reasoning, it is best that when you criticize them, you provide evidence, and not merely anecdotes, else you become guilty of the same kind of non-scientific judgment that you find so shocking in others.


----------



## Polednice

I'm tempted to make it clear that there is no morality in evolution, and no comment on whether or not life has purpose; and I'm tempted to point out that not only is evolution important in biology, it is important in medicine and other sciences that impact on us directly; but rather than elaborate pointlessly on these things, it's probably more useful to state quite simply: this is not an appropriate platform for this discussion.

People who do not accept evolution - at least on a global scale to take into account certain countries with apparently dire education systems - are on the fringe. They seem all the more numerous because of 21st century media, but they have been debunked time and time again. _We don't need to debunk them any more._ We must continue the fight, the debate, the discussion whenever creationism or some other form of anti-evolution enters public policy or our schools, but otherwise we shouldn't give creationists any credit by taking them up on their 'thesis' in more casual arenas. They are the last remaining outliers in a group of people that, in a few centuries time, history students will look back on and think: "Man, these people believed in some funny stuff!" Just like I did only earlier today when reading an Anglo-Saxon charm that was believed to be useful in defence against an attacking dwarf.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> [...]
> Just like I did only earlier today when reading an Anglo-Saxon charm that was believed to be useful in defence against an attacking dwarf.


That charm would be (maybe is) of considerable value on Discworld. In this world, really good lower body protection would be my preference.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Hilltroll72 said:


> That charm would be (maybe is) of considerable value on Discworld. In this world, really good lower body protection would be my preference.


Those axes can reach up quite high you know.


----------



## Ukko

mamascarlatti said:


> Those axes can reach up quite high you know.


The dwarf's high blows are blockable by the same means as attack from a six-footer. They negate the dwarf's advantage.

re axes, I suspect that Discworld dwarfs actually use splitting mauls, as being similar in the hands to the sledgehammers they use in the mines.


----------



## mleghorn

Hey, this is a very interesting topic which I have strong opinions on... but what does it have to do with classical music?


----------



## Guest

mleghorn said:


> Hey, this is a very interesting topic which I have strong opinions on... but what does it have to do with classical music?


Which topic - creationism vs. evolution or the fighting capabilities of dwarfs on Discworld?


----------



## Guest

The dirty little secret of science is that scientific knowledge is really nothing more than the peer reviewed publications of scientists. If it didn't get published in a peer-reviewed journal, it didn't happen. There is no coming together of the minds to decide what is or isn't accepted. No grand council of Nicaea for science. Editors decide whether a study is worthy of their journal, then send the study to others in the field to critique. If they decide it is okay, it goes through. So what we really see is science through a filter. And as we saw with the East Anglia email fiasco, leaders in the field are more than willing to actively suppress studies that they don't believe should have a shot at peer review. I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy to suppress scientific studies that might contradict evolution - but being a member of the scientific community, I also know that it is quite common for results that don't fit with pre-conceived predictions to be sat on.


----------



## norman bates

DrMike said:


> The dirty little secret of science is that scientific knowledge is really nothing more than the peer reviewed publications of scientists. If it didn't get published in a peer-reviewed journal, it didn't happen. There is no coming together of the minds to decide what is or isn't accepted. No grand council of Nicaea for science. Editors decide whether a study is worthy of their journal, then send the study to others in the field to critique. If they decide it is okay, it goes through. So what we really see is science through a filter. And as we saw with the East Anglia email fiasco, leaders in the field are more than willing to actively suppress studies that they don't believe should have a shot at peer review. I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy to suppress scientific studies that might contradict evolution - but being a member of the scientific community, I also know that it is quite common for results that don't fit with pre-conceived predictions to be sat on.


i can't understand what's this have to do with someone who believe in adam and eve.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> [...]
> I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy to suppress scientific studies that might contradict evolution - but being a member of the scientific community, I also know that it is quite common for results that don't fit with pre-conceived predictions to be sat on.


It is this arch-conservatism at-the-top that I attempted to acquaint _Poley_ with; the same conservatism, though working through a different mechanism, that met the introduction of evolution-the-concept in the 19th C. Religion was not the primary animus, it was the 'dragging down' of Homo sapiens to the level of *animal*.

Now, in the internet age, the researcher has the option to self-publish; but without the (process controlled) peer revue, his research and conclusions have no _weight_.

:devil:


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Yes, and then after that we hope to do away with the absurd notion that the world is round. And after that, we are striving to return to the true medical science of leeching.
> 
> Oh, thank goodness I have such wonderfully enlightened people who care for my well being and are striving to save me from a world of ignorance. People infinitely knowledgeable on the subject, who can quote for me, ad nauseum, every wikipedia article that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are vastly intellectually superior to me and I am woefully ignorant. Thank Gaia for them!


It's not personal, Dr. Mike.

Creationists don't have to get more intelligent. They just have to acknowledge evidence.

Making it personal is an intentional diversion from the evidence.

Edit: This post fits better in Dr. Mike's thread. If the conversation goes that way, that thread appears designed for it, while this thread originally was asking a different question.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> It's not personal, Dr. Mike.
> 
> Creationists don't have to get more intelligent. They just have to acknowledge evidence.
> 
> Making it personal is an intentional diversion from the evidence.


I wasn't taking it personal - I was demonstrating the absurdity of the statement I was quoting. The notion that because a person doesn't accept one scientific theory as truth means that they are opposed to all scientific evidence is simply ridiculous. It is fallacious slippery slope reasoning. If we let the creationists win on evolution, then tomorrow they will be telling us that the sun rotates around the earth!

I think this whole thread is rather absurd, so I am playing along. I quite liked the idea of the anti-dwarf charm. Does anybody have anything that works against pesky atheists?


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> I quite liked the idea of the anti-dwarf charm. Does anybody have anything that works against pesky atheists?


Reason.

Plus a few more characters...


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Reason.
> 
> Plus a few more characters...


Nah - then they just start quoting Dawkins and Hitchens to you.


----------



## science

I love you, Dr. Mike. I hope you find a way to make peace with the pesky atheists in your life!


----------



## Guest

Oddly enough, they are all highly concentrated here on this forum. Which is really weird, because I am in science, and I find more religious people in my profession than I do in this forum. So it seems that many scientifically minded people are able to resolve their religion and science in their minds, while non-scientists have a harder time with it.


----------



## Guest

And it seems that the atheists here seem more intent on converting me than I am on converting them.


----------



## science

We were originally discussing evolution, not atheism. 

None of the religious scientists or doctors that I know are creationists. 

And I'd bet that most of the evolutionists that I know are theists.


----------



## Chris

I don't have the time even to read all these posts, let alone reply to them. But just quickly scanning through I note some have attempted to keep a foot in both camps and accept evolution along with the Bible. I am convinced it is either / or. I believe in the existence of Adam and Eve as our first parents and it is impossible to bring in monkeys without destroying the biblical basis of salvation in Christ. You either put your faith in God the Creator or evolution.


----------



## science

Chris, I'd like to adopt an intellectual position without any faith at all. What would that be?

Edit: If it's impossible to have a worldview without any faith, then I'd like the one with the least possible faith - and what would that be?


----------



## Chris

science said:


> Chris, I'd like to adopt an intellectual position without any faith at all. What would that be?
> 
> Edit: If it's impossible to have a worldview without any faith, then I'd like the one with the least possible faith - and what would that be?


I'm struggling with this....I can't see anything is left if you remove God.


----------



## science

Chris said:


> I'm struggling with this....I can't see anything is left if you remove God.


Ok, that's fine. If you think of an answer to my question, let me know. I'd be interested.


----------



## norman bates

Chris said:


> I believe in the existence of Adam and Eve as our first parents


who was Cain's wife?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> I believe in the existence of Adam and Eve as our first parents ...


Do you also agree with incest?


----------



## science

You know, I've never heard a creationist suggest it, but it'd be possible to argue that God just created new women for a few generations--maybe continued to make them from the men's ribs--just without mentioning it.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> The dirty little secret of science is that scientific knowledge is really nothing more than the peer reviewed publications of scientists. If it didn't get published in a peer-reviewed journal, it didn't happen. There is no coming together of the minds to decide what is or isn't accepted. No grand council of Nicaea for science. Editors decide whether a study is worthy of their journal, then send the study to others in the field to critique. If they decide it is okay, it goes through. So what we really see is science through a filter. And as we saw with the East Anglia email fiasco, leaders in the field are more than willing to actively suppress studies that they don't believe should have a shot at peer review. I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy to suppress scientific studies that might contradict evolution - but being a member of the scientific community, I also know that it is quite common for results that don't fit with pre-conceived predictions to be sat on.


And one person's unproveable claim of divine revelation is better than this because...

@Chris: LOL. You so funny!


----------



## science

Polednice said:


> And one person's unproveable claim of divine revelation is better than this because...


... because God told me so.


----------



## norman bates

science said:


> You know, I've never heard a creationist suggest it, but it'd be possible to argue that God just created new women for a few generations--maybe continued to make them from the men's ribs--just without mentioning it.


yes, you can find that part in the director's cut


----------



## skalpel

Chris said:


> I don't have the time even to read all these posts, let alone reply to them. But just quickly scanning through I note some have attempted to keep a foot in both camps and accept evolution along with the Bible. I am convinced it is either / or. I believe in the existence of Adam and Eve as our first parents and it is impossible to bring in monkeys without destroying the biblical basis of salvation in Christ. You either put your faith in God the Creator or evolution.


I have a few serious questions, if you have time to respond.

What is your explanation for the discovery of the fossils of Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus etc?
How would you explain away geological facts that show how old the planet is and how old certain finds are in different layers of rock that have been radioactively dated?
Do you accept, on any level, that selection can form new species or subspecies of animal, whether it is unnatural or natural?
Do you believe that mankind needs your god? Do you not find the many disturbing and immoral acts and advocacies of the Old Testament god uncomfortable to put faith in?


----------



## Kopachris

Chris said:


> I don't have the time even to read all these posts, let alone reply to them. But just quickly scanning through I note some have attempted to keep a foot in both camps and accept evolution along with the Bible. I am convinced it is either / or. I believe in the existence of Adam and Eve as our first parents and it is impossible to bring in monkeys without destroying the biblical basis of salvation in Christ. You either put your faith in God the Creator or evolution.


Why not put your faith in God, the Director of Evolution?


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Do you also agree with incest?


Tell me - if all life were annihilated and all that was left were two individuals, a brother and a sister, would you believe in incest? Or would you accept the necessity of the situation?

Or, more apt - when the first homo sapiens evolved, unless there were numerous simultaneous speciation events, I'm assuming that the first two capable of sexually reproducing with one another were likely very closely related. Is that okay with you?


----------



## science

norman bates said:


> yes, you can find that part in the director's cut


Oh! Look forward to seeing that. Heard a lot about it.


----------



## Chris

Cain's wife was one of his sisters. Only later in man's history did marriage between siblings become illicit. It has been speculated that the first generations of man possessed a purity of DNA which rendered such marriages genetically safe, but only for these initial generations; gradual degeneration of DNA meant this could not continue. Possibly this is connected with the great ages of the patriarchs and the rapid falling off of longevity.

As for the little comments following on divine revelation.....'at the name of Jesus, _every_ knee shall bow'


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> It has been speculated that the first generations of man possessed a purity of DNA which rendered such marriages genetically safe, but only for these initial generations; gradual degeneration of DNA meant this could not continue. Possibly this is connected with the great ages of the patriarchs and the rapid falling off of longevity.
> 
> As for the little comments following on divine revelation.....'at the name of Jesus, _every_ knee shall bow'


Oh, Chris, stop it! My sides are splitting!


----------



## jalex

Deleted............


----------



## Dodecaplex

Chris said:


> . . . As for the little comments following on divine revelation.....'at the name of Jesus, _every_ knee shall bow'


Is that so? According to who?


----------



## norman bates

Chris said:


> Cain's wife was one of his sisters.'


What sister? Bible talks about two brothers.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> What sister? Bible talks about two brothers.


Read Genesis 5:4 - it states there that Adam begat sons and daughters. Doesn't specify how many, or in what intervals. It talks specifically about 3 - Cain, Abel, and Seth. That doesn't mean those were the only children he had.

So what is your point here?


----------



## Chris

Dodecaplex said:


> Is that so? According to who?


According to the one before whom your knee will bow. 'Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt' (Daniel 12:2)


----------



## norman bates

DrMike said:


> Read Genesis 5:4 - it states there that Adam begat sons and daughters. Doesn't specify how many, or in what intervals. It talks specifically about 3 - Cain, Abel, and Seth. That doesn't mean those were the only children he had.
> 
> So what is your point here?


ok. And dinosaurs? It's not just "wikipedia", but a real proof. Bones that are dated with reliable methods. 
I don't think that science is against spirituality. I think it's against illogic stories without a proof.


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> Oh, Chris, stop it! My sides are splitting!


Regrettably the Bible forbids me to answer you. Specifically:

'Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse' (Proverbs 9:7)


----------



## Dodecaplex

Chris said:


> According to the one before whom your knee will bow. 'Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt' (Daniel 12:2)


Is that how you try to prove a statement? By trying to evoke fear in me? Are you serious?


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> Regrettably the Bible forbids me to answer you. Specifically:
> 
> 'Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
> whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse' (Proverbs 9:7)


Oh dear, that is such a shame because I was really looking forward to a response. Thanks for the Bible verse though; it gives me something to read when I'm taking a dump.


----------



## Aksel

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Wow, all those skeptical Scandinavian countries...... also very cold and dead up there...


Hey, hey, HEY, hey! I live there!


----------



## Chris

Dodecaplex said:


> Is that how you try to prove a statement? By trying to evoke fear in me? Are you serious?


No, it wasn't serious. I didn't think there was any chance of Daniel 12:2 evoking any fear in you. But the serious point is that the Bible can only be taken as a revelation from God by faith. There is no getting away from faith. The Bible as divine revelation cannot be proved any more than the existence of God can be proved.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> Nah - then they just start quoting Dawkins and Hitchens to you.


Yeah, reason can get pretty sloppy anyway; unintended sophistry. I have heard of no spoken charm for warding off atheists. When I point out that they are so confident in their reasoning that it amounts to another religion, they just get upset. Too upset, it seems to me. Then, if I respond with "Methinks thou dost protest too much"... all Hell is to pay.

:devil:


----------



## Dodecaplex

Chris said:


> No, it wasn't serious. I didn't think there was any chance of Daniel 12:2 evoking any fear in you. But the serious point is that the Bible can only be taken as a revelation from God by faith. There is no getting away from faith. The Bible as divine revelation cannot be proved any more than the existence of God can be proved.


So if it's all based on faith, then why, if I may ask, do you have faith in the Bible and not in the Vedas?


----------



## Chrythes

Not sure if Chris is trolling or being serious, but he sure is dodgy. Some are still waiting for your answers. 
What I don't understand about believing in God, putting aside fanaticism and all the ignorance, is why one would choose to seek an answer in such abstract, unsubstantiated idea? 
The reason for why we know so much about the universe, the world and ourselves is because people weren't satisfied with an answer that doesn't explain anything. 
Sometimes I just wonder where we could be without religion, maybe instead of Columbus reaching the islands of America, humanity could have reached Proxima Centauri by then.


----------



## Polednice

Chrythes said:


> Not sure if Chris is trolling or being serious, but he sure is dodgy.


I know it's shocking, but he's being serious. Don't try to get a straight answer out of him - his mind was apparently fried decades ago.


----------



## Guest

Chrythes said:


> Not sure if Chris is trolling or being serious, but he sure is dodgy. Some are still waiting for your answers.
> What I don't understand about believing in God, putting aside fanaticism and all the ignorance, is why one would choose to seek an answer in such abstract, unsubstantiated idea?
> The reason for why we know so much about the universe, the world and ourselves is because people weren't satisfied with an answer that doesn't explain anything.
> Sometimes I just wonder where we could be without religion, maybe instead of Columbus reaching the islands of America, humanity could have reached Proxima Centauri by then.


Right - religion has prevented space travel. Sure. Why, without those pesky religious persons, Da Vinci could have probably created the first Hubble space telescope. It was only religion holding him back. I wonder why, though, technology seems to have advanced so much further in countries with solid religious heritages?


----------



## Igneous01

Chrythes said:


> What I don't understand about believing in God, putting aside fanaticism and all the ignorance, is why one would choose to seek an answer in such abstract, unsubstantiated idea?


Well, isn't art also an abstract, unsubstantiated and ambiguous idea? Yet we all indulge in it with great joy, but our experiences are different from everyone elses.

Don't get me wrong, im not siding with anyone here, but countering your question with another question.


----------



## Polednice

Igneous01 said:


> Well, isn't art also an abstract, unsubstantiated and ambiguous idea? Yet we all indulge in it with great joy, but our experiences are different from everyone elses.


I imagine the key difference is that we don't seek answers about our world in art; it is only a reflection...


----------



## Dodecaplex

DrMike said:


> I wonder why, though, technology seems to have advanced so much further in countries with solid religious heritages?


Maybe because they had the most wars, and their sense of urgency was the mother of invention for them.


----------



## Igneous01

Polednice said:


> I imagine the key difference is that we don't seek answers about our world in art; it is only a reflection...


I thought religions were also based on self reflection. ie Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc


----------



## Guest

Dodecaplex said:


> Maybe because they had the most wars, and their sense of urgency was the mother of invention for them.


So then you should be blaming a paucity of wars for us not having achieved interstellar travel quicker. And besides, atheists are always talking about how many wars have been started by us religious people - by your logic, then, religion should have sped up the process of getting us into outer space.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> Tell me - if all life were annihilated and all that was left were two individuals, a brother and a sister, would you believe in incest? Or would you accept the necessity of the situation?


I'm not a dementedly sick individual to accept incest. Nor do I need Biblical justification to accept incest.



DrMike said:


> Or, more apt - when the first homo sapiens evolved, unless there were numerous simultaneous speciation events, I'm assuming that the first two capable of sexually reproducing with one another were likely very closely related. Is that okay with you?


Evolution occured very gradually over a long, long period of time (certainly well over a 6,000 year time horizon for those who accept incest). My own view based on what I understand & read (which may well be incorrect) does not assume that the "first two" happened to be there. There were no such "first two". There would have been a population of them at any particular point in time during the evolutionary train.

I'm not going to discussion evolution any further here. My premise above was to question those who take the Bible literally and the non-sensical perceptions that blind them. Adam & Eve was a charming Biblical story, that's about it.


----------



## Polednice

Igneous01 said:


> I thought religions were also based on self reflection. ie Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc


That's cute, but wrong.


----------



## Dodecaplex

DrMike said:


> So then you should be blaming a paucity of wars for us not having achieved interstellar travel quicker. And besides, atheists are always talking about how many wars have been started by us religious people - by your logic, then, religion should have sped up the process of getting us into outer space.


Indeed. More religion, more wars, more science. The entirety of history makes perfect sense now!


----------



## Igneous01

Polednice said:


> That's cute, but wrong.


how is it wrong? Maybe the establishment will seize and corrupt it, but the original intent cannot be taken away. Taoism and Confucianism might have been the established religions of China, and may have been modified to work in the society. But that doesn't suddenly refute that the original foundation of the belief was self reflection.

Forgot to add Shamanism to the list as well.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

This may be an interesting book for some of you to consider reading:










This is by the brother of the great Christopher Hitchins, and was at one time equally dead solid about atheism.


----------



## Polednice

Igneous01 said:


> how is it wrong? Maybe the establishment will seize and corrupt it, but the original intent cannot be taken away. Taoism and Confucianism might have been the established religions of China, and may have been modified to work in the society. But that doesn't suddenly refute that the original foundation of the belief was self reflection.


Well, seeing as you said "religions were based..." I take it you meant all religions. I don't know enough about Taoism or Confucianism, but I do know that the Judeo-Christian religions were based on dogma meant to describe our universe.



Huilunsoittaja said:


> This may be an interesting book for some of you to consider reading:


The tagline, "How atheism led me to faith" is hilariously petty.


----------



## Meaghan

In the 16 months since I joined this forum, I have yet to see anyone's ideas about religion, science, or politics changed by a fellow TC member. 

For those passionately involved in this debate - I sympathize with your passion, but perhaps your time would be better spent elsewhere (by which I mean not on this or its sister thread) where you will not stress yourselves and each other out so much (and almost certainly in vain).

Be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes!


----------



## Guest

Meaghan said:


> In the 16 months since I joined this forum, I have yet to see anyone's ideas about religion, science, or politics changed by a fellow TC member.
> 
> For those passionately involved in this debate - I sympathize with your passion, but perhaps your time would be better spent elsewhere (by which I mean not on this or its sister thread) where you will not stress yourselves and each other out so much (and almost certainly in vain).
> 
> Be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes!


Maybe after 17 months someone will change their ideas!


----------



## Chrythes

DrMike said:


> Right - religion has prevented space travel. Sure. Why, without those pesky religious persons, Da Vinci could have probably created the first Hubble space telescope. It was only religion holding him back. I wonder why, though, technology seems to have advanced so much further in countries with solid religious heritages?


Every country has a solid religious heritage in its own way. But i believe that most Africans, South Americans,and most of the Middle East and Islamic countries are believers, and they haven't achieved as much scientific breakthroughs as Europe, United States or Japan. The bible states a lot of facts that were understood literally then, if someone said something against them - it was declared as heresy. Personally, i think the problem is that many children were grown in families that had only one answer to many questions - "God did it, this is why X is X etc". By implying such thinking you lose the potential for critical thinking and curiosity to arise , thus suppressing scientific approach - which in its essence never truly answers a question until it has reliable, empirical, measurable, OBSERVABLE data. I believe that many people, even geniuses were taken by the "Godly" approach, taking away from them their inborn abilities. 
Igneous01 - of course it is, but it has a different purpose. Art never tries to answer why we have seasons, how earth was created and what lies ahead in the path of our dying universe. Art might be focused on people's psychology - evoking and expressing feelings, sometimes trying to understand why the world is as it is - but always from the human perspective. While on the other hand science rarely cares about the human factor - mathematics and physics - are the essence. Everything is objective.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Polednice said:


> The tagline, "How atheism led me to faith" is hilariously petty.


How petty? Atheism simply fulfilled nothing for him in the end.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Huilunsoittaja said:


> How petty? Atheism simply fulfilled nothing for him in the end.


Unlike Jesus, who now provides him with such profound warmth and love.

Edit: I was being sarcastic, Huilunsoittaja


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> How petty? Atheism simply fulfilled nothing for him in the end.


Ah, well if that's what the tagline means, then I'd take my remark back. I didn't understand it in that way when I read it before.


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> Ah, well if that's what the tagline means, then I'd take my remark back. I didn't understand it in that way when I read it before.


This is what I like about TC. We have two religion-based threads, one eight pages long and the other four pages long, running at the same time without moderator intervention, and neither have resorted to _ad hominem_ attacks. Some people have even admitted to having a faulty understanding. Try doing that anywhere else on the Internet!


----------



## graaf

Why? Because if they didn't God might "take his revenge":


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Right - religion has prevented space travel. Sure. Why, without those pesky religious persons, Da Vinci could have probably created the first Hubble space telescope. It was only religion holding him back. I wonder why, though, technology seems to have advanced so much further in countries with solid religious heritages?


When the nice religious folks were prevented from legally owning slaves, technology suddenly accelerated.


----------



## graaf

Darwin is so last year...


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> I wonder why, though, technology seems to have advanced so much further in countries with solid religious heritages?


Because you want to see it that way.

If you looked differently, you see that every single country (or culture or whatever, as "country" is a rather random unit) in the world has "a solid religious heritage." Name a single place where people haven't been worshipping spirits for the overwhelming majority of its recorded history.


----------



## TxllxT

*Why do Creationists deny etc.*

The answer:


----------



## Taneyev

Why?. Same reason why a lot of imbeciles denied the Holocaust. Because they are imbeciles.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

starthrower said:


> When the nice religious folks were prevented from legally owning slaves, technology suddenly accelerated.


"_Post hoc, ergo propter hoc_" reasoning- in illustration.


----------



## Polednice

Chi_townPhilly said:


> "_Post hoc, ergo propter hoc_" reasoning- in illustration.


Maybe starthrower would find a short paragraph in English on his logical fallacy a little more helpful than a demonstration that you know some Latin.


----------



## Ukko

I suspect that _starthrower_ is and was aware of the flawed logic, and that the comment was 'for effect'.


----------



## starthrower

I'm not saying it was the sole factor, but do you honestly believe that the existence of slave societies, and the stigma attached to scientific experimentation (getting one's hands dirty) by the ruling classes of past centuries wasn't an impediment to technology?


----------



## amfortas

I can't get past the idea that the existence of God seems completely inexplicable and absurd.

Then again, the existence of anything whatsoever seems equally inexplicable and absurd. As would the existence of nothing at all.

So . . . there it is.


----------



## Polednice

amfortas said:


> I can't get past the idea that the existence of God seems completely inexplicable and absurd.


One of the greatest difficulties I find in these discussions - particularly with people like my partner who calls himself a Christian, but believes in empiricism and doesn't accept miracles or the supernatural - is what people even mean by the word 'God'. If someone mentions the word without definition - which is the usual case - then I rely on my perception of the term, which is most likely going to be inconsistent with theirs. I think this is another flaw in the whole concept of a personal deity.


----------



## science

Polednice said:


> One of the greatest difficulties I find in these discussions - particularly with people like my partner who calls himself a Christian, but believes in empiricism and doesn't accept miracles or the supernatural - is what people even mean by the word 'God'. If someone mentions the word without definition - which is the usual case - then I rely on my perception of the term, which is most likely going to be inconsistent with theirs. I think this is another flaw in the whole concept of a personal deity.


I think this post and the one you quoted both have great points.

When we talk about "God" it is usually the God of monotheistic religions, who has desires and plans and essentially a human psychology.

Philosophically they all know better, or are supposed to. Their careless speech betrays their actual beliefs of course.

(It is interesting, for instance, to hear Christians discuss the incarnation, how a man could be God. The general assumption is that he had a human body and God's mind. Technically that is a heresy because sixteen hundred years ago some really intelligent Christians realized [among other things] that it doesn't make sense to talk about God having a mind. Whatever is analogous to a "mind" in the deity, it must be so unlike a human mind that the human Jesus could not _not_ have had a human mind. But of course this kind of philosophy is waaaaayyyyy too deep. The point here is that the implicit general assumption is that the divine mind is so much like a human mind [that Jesus might have had the divine mind instead of a human one].)

So when we talk about whether "God" exists, we're really talking about a particular instance of a disembodied person, essential the super-est super-spirit. Our own psychology projected onto the cosmos.

But if we instead talk about the ultimate mystery - why there is something rather than nothing, and so on - who knows what is out there? Obviously no one.

I am sure Zeus with his lust for human women, Shiva with his ascetic energy, Kuan Yin with her compassion, Jehovah with his jealousy and pleasure in sacrifices, Odin with his love for great human warriors - I am pretty sure that these personalities are human creations - genuinely so, not merely fictions but actually the sincere products of our religious experiences, but products of human psychology all the same.

If there is an ultimate, nameless, beyond all - whatever there is, it is not these myths, however profound they may be.


----------



## peeyaj

I may be oversimplying things...

St. Thomas of Aquinas defined ''God'' as the First Cause, therefore ''God exists'' in his argument.

Straightdope elaborated it here:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3021/is-there-a-god

I disagree with Cecil's answer there and the Cosmological argument have been ravaged by Bertrand Russel:

http://www.ditext.com/russell/debate.html

and some of his readers have an interesting debate about the topic.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=630218

(I don't know whether it's allowable to post links to other forum. Please edit my post if I've violated a rule.)


----------



## science

I think the Copleston/Russell debate is great; and I think Cecil has understood Aquinas correctly. 

I didn't read most of the comments in the third link. I hope someone pointed out that even if it's true that there is a first cause, it is far from apparent that the first cause is identical to any of the deities of human religious traditions. (This point is equivalent to post 125.)


----------



## amfortas

science said:


> I think the Copleston/Russell debate is great.


Read that Copleston/Russell debate years ago; still find it amusing:

Copleston: In the first place, what do you mean by "modern logic?"
Russell: I don't know, dude, *you* brought up the term, not me. What do *you* mean by it?


----------



## Chris

Chrythes said:


> Not sure if Chris is trolling or being serious, but he sure is dodgy. Some are still waiting for your answers.


Some members apparently have leisure to remain logged onto TC all day, every day. Others are of necessity parsimonious with their time. That is true of most internet forums. My time is limited. In addition, I am not sure all posts directed to me are worthy of an answer. I may choose to ignore those which are merely sneers, insults, insults formulated as questions, or loaded questions in the 'when did you stop beating your wife?' style. But I will try to do a little catching up now.



Dodecaplex said:


> So if it's all based on faith, then why, if I may ask, do you have faith in the Bible and not in the Vedas?


Conscience. The gospel of Jesus Christ assures me that all is well with my soul. My sins are forgiven in Christ and I know that I can approach a holy God without fear. The dread of death and judgment has gone. I do not need the Vedas. The Vedas are (is) redundant.

I could say more, but that will do for a quick answer.



Polednice said:


> I know it's shocking, but he's being serious. Don't try to get a straight answer out of him - his mind was apparently fried decades ago.


Hmm... fried minds, eh? What about someone who not only indulges in a behaviour that would put his maiden aunts to the blush, but insists on embarrassing an unwilling audience with accounts of it? Is that not symptomatic of sautéed neurones? And as for straight answers, did I not give recently give a straight answer to one of your questions, quoting sections of Romans chapter 1? Was it not straight enough? Shall I revisit that answer and straighten it further? But to return to my own overcooked cerebrum. It did at least get me through the education system and a lengthy (if undistinguished) career in IT. The blackened brain cells are at present coping with asp.net and Javascript training. Miraculous.


----------



## Igneous01

Chris said:


> The Vedas are (is) redundant.
> 
> And as for straight answers, did I not give recently give a straight answer to one of your questions, quoting sections of Romans chapter 1? Was it not straight enough?


The Vedas are much older than the old testament, so I dont see how they are redundant?

Problem with your other answer, was that we were hoping it would be you using your own words to answer something. Quotation from scripture is fine, but when quotation is all there is to your answers, then It gives the impression, that you have no interest in the question at hand, nor does it display any level of thinking on your behalf.

Not to insult, I respect your answer as Conscience, but your other answers are ambiguous.


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> Hmm... fried minds, eh? What about someone who not only indulges in a behaviour that would put his maiden aunts to the blush, but insists on embarrassing an unwilling audience with accounts of it?


I don't know what you're talking about here. If you're talking about me, I'm unaware of doing anything of the nature you describe.

And, FYI, "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is" doesn't work on most people.

-----

Back to the original question, does anybody know the creationists' response to the specific evidence of how genetic sequencing shows that the similarities of DNA between species mirrors the family tree that you'd expect in evolution? I can't see how this can be countered except with the idea of diabolical deception (which is obviously a load of nonsense).


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I hope some of you realize there are a lot of non-Christian creationists, yes, even atheists. What do you say to those people for an argument? They don't think the bible is true, but they don't think random chance is true either. What then?


----------



## norman bates

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I hope some of you realize there are a lot of non-Christian creationists,* yes, even atheists. *


Atheists who believe in man created by who?


----------



## amfortas

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I hope some of you realize there are a lot of non-Christian creationists, yes, even atheists. What do you say to those people for an argument? They don't think the bible is true, but they don't think random chance is true either. What then?


I'd say, what *do* they think?


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> They don't think the bible is true, but they don't think random chance is true either.


Well then I would describe to them a little theory called _evolution_, which is nothing to do with random chance.


----------



## Igneous01

Polednice said:


> Well then I would describe to them a little theory called _evolution_, which is nothing to do with random chance.


random mutations? That hasn't been explained yet, its agreed that randomness is inherent in evolution, but its obviously not the sole cause


----------



## Polednice

Igneous01 said:


> random mutations? That hasn't been explained yet, its agreed that randomness is inherent in evolution, but its obviously not the sole cause


Random mutations exist within the evolutionary process, but natural selection is far from random. What is implied when people say "evolution is random" is that evolution says that, one day, the eye popped into existence, or a crocodile evolved into a duck. That's obviously a load of crap.


----------



## Chris

Igneous01 said:


> The Vedas are much older than the old testament, so I dont see how they are redundant?
> 
> Problem with your other answer, was that we were hoping it would be you using your own words to answer something. Quotation from scripture is fine, but when quotation is all there is to your answers, then It gives the impression, that you have no interest in the question at hand, nor does it display any level of thinking on your behalf.
> 
> Not to insult, I respect your answer as Conscience, but your other answers are ambiguous.


Making a quote from Scripture at least has the virtue of honesty. Evangelicals except the Bible as divine revelation and believe it by faith. If I understand you rightly you are saying something like 'don't quote a Bible passage that says "God exists", give us a reason to believe that God exists'. Christian apologists have attempted this sort of thing but I am nervous of it. If I engage an unbeliever in a discussion on the existence of God, am I not implying that I can be persuaded that there is no God? But that would be dishonest as I believe in God by faith.

I also want to be consistent with the apostle Paul in Acts 17. When he was in Athens he was brought to a meeting of the Areopagus where he encountered the great thinkers of the day discussing the latest ideas. Must have been something like a TC discussion thread without the sneering. Paul was a formidable thinker himself and could have joined them in philosophical speculation. But he chose rather to declare the reality of God and warned them that their priority was to be reconciled with the one true God through Jesus Christ.

Maybe 'redundant' was a little too harsh to apply to the Vegas. There may be some worthwhile stuff in the Vegas. I will probably never know. I don't have the appetite to wade through acre after acre of probably-impenetrable wisdom literature. In Christianity, or rather in the person of Jesus Christ, I have come to an oasis which satisfies my soul. And my God is a jealous God who brooks no rivals. "I am the Way, the truth and the life", says Jesus; "no one comes to the Father except through me"


----------



## amfortas

Chris said:


> Maybe 'redundant' was a little too harsh to apply to the Vegas. There may be some worthwhile stuff in the Vegas. I will probably never know.


What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.


----------



## TxllxT

Polednice said:


> One of the greatest difficulties I find in these discussions - particularly with people like my partner who calls himself a Christian, but believes in empiricism and doesn't accept miracles or the supernatural - is what people even mean by the word 'God'. If someone mentions the word without definition - which is the usual case - then I rely on my perception of the term, which is most likely going to be inconsistent with theirs. I think this is another flaw in the whole concept of a personal deity.


Anselmus of Canterbury wrote _Cur Deus Homo_ 'Why God became Man'; what baffles me, is that many people like Polednice treat God as a difficulty, but do not treat Man ('Man', " 'Man' ", "???") as a difficulty. The big bang of the Bible is not 'God' , is not 'Man', but God becoming Man. So instead of bashing the divine, behold for a moment the mystery: why o why did He do that? Why would He do that?


----------



## Chris

amfortas said:


> What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.


Oops....Vedas, not Vegas. Moral of the story is do not rely on Dragon Naturally Speaking.


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> I don't know what you're talking about here. If you're talking about me, I'm unaware of doing anything of the nature you describe.
> 
> And, FYI, "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is" doesn't work on most people.
> 
> -----
> 
> Back to the original question, does anybody know the creationists' response to the specific evidence of how genetic sequencing shows that the similarities of DNA between species mirrors the family tree that you'd expect in evolution? I can't see how this can be countered except with the idea of diabolical deception (which is obviously a load of nonsense).


I am more than happy to draw a veil over the hinted-at behaviour and spare the notional maiden aunts any further blushes.

So DNA studies support the theory of evolution? What you mean is, it is possible to create a model in which evolution occurred. Of course it is possible. Other models can be proposed in which evolution does not occur. It is the same with the Earth. Using uniformitarian assumptions you can create a model in which the Earth is very old. Using Biblical assumptions you can create a model in which the Earth is young. Ditto the universe. A model is little more than a 'let's imagine' scenario. Pretty well anything you like can happen in a model. What actually did happen is an entirely different matter.


----------



## amfortas

Chris said:


> So DNA studies support the theory of evolution? What you mean is, it is possible to create a model in which evolution occurred. Of course it is possible. Other models can be proposed in which evolution does not occur. It is the same with the Earth. Using uniformitarian assumptions you can create a model in which the Earth is very old. Using Biblical assumptions you can create a model in which the Earth is young. Ditto the universe. A model is little more than a 'let's imagine' scenario. Pretty well anything you like can happen in a model. What actually did happen is an entirely different matter.


Well . . . there are models and there are models . . .

I'm reminded of an analogy . . . see, this one little pig built his house out of straw . . . while the other . . .


----------



## Kopachris

Chris said:


> I am more than happy to draw a veil over the hinted-at behaviour and spare the notional maiden aunts any further blushes.
> 
> So DNA studies support the theory of evolution? What you mean is, it is possible to create a model in which evolution occurred. Of course it is possible. Other models can be proposed in which evolution does not occur. It is the same with the Earth. Using uniformitarian assumptions you can create a model in which the Earth is very old. Using Biblical assumptions you can create a model in which the Earth is young. Ditto the universe. A model is little more than a 'let's imagine' scenario. Pretty well anything you like can happen in a model. What actually did happen is an entirely different matter.


And since we weren't there, and supernatural power may have been involved in one or more of the models, you're basically saying there's no way to know for sure. So all our arguing is pointless because we're probably all wrong. Except me, of course.


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> I am more than happy to draw a veil over the hinted-at behaviour and spare the notional maiden aunts any further blushes.
> 
> So DNA studies support the theory of evolution? What you mean is, it is possible to create a model in which evolution occurred. Of course it is possible. Other models can be proposed in which evolution does not occur. It is the same with the Earth. Using uniformitarian assumptions you can create a model in which the Earth is very old. Using Biblical assumptions you can create a model in which the Earth is young. Ditto the universe. A model is little more than a 'let's imagine' scenario. Pretty well anything you like can happen in a model. What actually did happen is an entirely different matter.


Could I have an answer on my genetics question from someone who isn't a raving lunatic?


----------



## Chris

amfortas said:


> Well . . . there are models and there are models . . .
> 
> I'm reminded of an analogy . . . see, this one little pig built his house out of straw . . . while the other . . .


And we both think we live in the brick house. The important think is not to confuse a model with a proof. 'My model fits the data!' cries somebody. Of course it does. Models always fit the data.


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> Could I have an answer on my genetics question from someone who isn't a raving lunatic?


That's funny, we were just talking about a piggie living in a house of straw.

Couldn't resist it.


----------



## amfortas

Chris said:


> And we both think we live in the brick house. The important think is not to confuse a model with a proof. 'My model fits the data!' cries somebody. Of course it does. Models always fit the data.


Models always fit the data used to support them. But there's also the question of what data has to be ignored (or distorted beyond recognition) for the model to exist.


----------



## Ukko

Blasted models anyway. The climate model known as 'Zero', and its offspring, are upsetting about as many people as _Chris_' models do (though maybe not _Poley_. If we have to have models, they ought to be fashion models - only with more meat on their bones!

!!

[I know, Alma is gone and I am a poor substitute.]


----------



## amfortas

Hilltroll72 said:


> [I know, Alma is gone and I am a poor substitute.]


Throw in a couple of "boobs" references now and then and you'll be pretty darn close.


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> Couldn't resist it.


Your lack of resistance is a sin you'll burn for.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Polednice said:


> Could I have an answer on my genetics question from someone who isn't a raving lunatic?


"does anybody know the creationists' response to the specific evidence of how genetic sequencing shows that the similarities of DNA between species mirrors the family tree that you'd expect in evolution?"

I don't know, but if I were a creationist (which I'm not) I would argue that "form follows function" applies at the molecular level--specifically, to genes. I would argue that DNA sequence of a given chimpanzee gene is more similar to that of the human gene than that of the same fruit fly gene because the function of the protein that it codes for (and the cellular environment with which that protein interacts) is more similar.

An evolutionist would say, well that's quite possible, but you have to consider the entire genome, not just the genes within it. What about the long stretches of nonsense DNA which have no apparent function? Why should their sequences in humans be more similar to those found in chimpanzees than those in fruit flies?


----------



## science

One of the standard creationist responses to the question of why we can see light from galaxies more than a few thousand light years away is that the universe was created with the appearance of age. Perhaps they can take a similar line with DNA.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Chris said:


> Making a quote from Scripture at least has the virtue of honesty. Evangelicals except the Bible as divine revelation and believe it by faith. If I understand you rightly you are saying something like 'don't quote a Bible passage that says "God exists", give us a reason to believe that God exists'. Christian apologists have attempted this sort of thing but I am nervous of it. If I engage an unbeliever in a discussion on the existence of God, am I not implying that I can be persuaded that there is no God? But that would be dishonest as I believe in God by faith.


So you're not only depriving yourself of the ability to doubt, but you're also completely ignoring the implications of this type of thinking. Essentially, the crux of your post boils down to faith and nothing but faith. But what you haven't answered is why you have absolute unquestioning faith in Christianity instead of having, for instance, absolute unquestioning faith in Buddhism, or Islam, or Hinduism, or any other religion. Because if there is no reasoning behind one's thinking aside from faith, then one might as well have faith in anything.
And what I noticed is that you immediately question and disregard other religions and then call their books redundant. Yet, you make a special case for Christianity. Why?



Chris said:


> . . . Maybe 'redundant' was a little too harsh to apply to the Vegas. There may be some worthwhile stuff in the Vegas. I will probably never know. I don't have the appetite to wade through acre after acre of probably-impenetrable wisdom literature . . ."


Well, there you go, just shrug your shoulders and say you have no appetite. This may satisfy yourself, but it becomes laughable once you try to argue in such a manner.


----------



## Couchie

Why do atheists deny the existence of God in the face of Bach?


----------



## Dodecaplex

Couchie said:


> Why do atheists deny the existence of God in the face of Bach?


Because Wagner's music is much more intelligently designed.


----------



## Polednice

Couchie said:


> Why do atheists deny the existence of God in the face of Bach?


I think that was a mole on his face, not God.


----------



## Ukko

Dodecaplex said:


> [...]
> Well, there you go, just shrug your shoulders and say you have no appetite. This may satisfy yourself, but it becomes laughable once you try to argue in such a manner.


The scientific evidence is pretty clear that _Chris_ isn't arguing anything. I thought I read him to state specifically that he wasn't/isn't arguing and doesn't want to start.

BTW, he 'makes a special case for Christianity' because that is where his faith is. Even a non-Christian like me finds that _fact_ comprehensible.


----------



## science

Whether you start from faith or from special cases, it's arbitrary either way.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> BTW, he 'makes a special case for Christianity' because that is where his faith is. Even a non-Christian like me finds that _fact_ comprehensible.


I think Dodecaplex is asking a valid question. He's accepting that Chris has evidence-less faith, but wants to know why faith in X instead of Y. If there is no reason for that (at least not a conscious one - I'm sure geography is the _real_ reason), then I'm led to wonder what the point is for a person who thinks like that to even interact with other human beings. It's childish really:

Toddler A: I believe in Santa Claus.
Toddler B: Why?
Toddler A: Because I said so!


----------



## Ukko

Bad logic > bad science. I am not going to call _you_ 'childish', _Poley_ (that would be ad hominem?, but surely an inability to shift mental gears is indicative of _something_?


----------



## science

The point is, it's arbitrary. You cannot excuse an arbitrary assertion with its own arbitrariness. "I have this arbitrary belief just because I have it."

That is true, but not a justification of the belief.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> Bad logic > bad science. I am not going to call _you_ 'childish', _Poley_ (that would be ad hominem?, but surely an inability to shift mental gears is indicative of _something_?


To what gear? From inquisitive, curious, and hungry for truth, to accepting any old crap?


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> To what gear? From inquisitive, curious, and hungry for truth, to accepting any old crap?


There - see what I mean?


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> There - see what I mean?


No, I don't, but you speak on tongues on these issues. I don't think I've actually seen you say anything lucid on the subject of religion even once. Oh well, at least you're not an annoying evangelist telling me that I'm disgusting!


----------



## tahnak

What facts are you talking about for the theory of evolution?
If you think Creation is a myth, then remember that you need a Creator even for the big bang.


----------



## Polednice

tahnak said:


> If you think Creation is a myth, then remember that you need a Creator even for the big bang.


Says who? I'm pretty sure that most of the best qualified physicists on earth currently think that a universe can come from nothing, so let's not allow a primary school notion of cause and effect to determine what we think about the origins of our cosmos.


----------



## Chrythes

About the universe from nothing - i mentioned it here before, guess it was looked upon.
Here's a video explaining why it's possible that the universe might have been created from nothing -


----------



## Dodecaplex

Hilltroll72 said:


> The scientific evidence is pretty clear that _Chris_ isn't arguing anything. I thought I read him to state specifically that he wasn't/isn't arguing and doesn't want to start.


From the nature of his posts, I think it's clear that Chris is being quite argumentative with us. And if he said he's not arguing, then please read his posts and tell me if that isn't arguing.



Hilltroll72 said:


> BTW, he 'makes a special case for Christianity' because that is where his faith is. Even a non-Christian like me finds that _fact_ comprehensible.


Oh, so did he wake up in a hot sweat one day at 4:33 AM and have an epiphany that Christianity is the one and only true religion and that all other religions are bogus? Or did he study all other religions and then determine that Christianity is the one and only true religion?
From reading his posts, you can see that it's neither, and that it all boils down to geography and/or upbringing.


----------



## science

Chrythes said:


> About the universe from nothing - i mentioned it here before, guess it was looked upon.
> Here's a video explaining why it's possible that the universe might have been created from nothing -


As it is an hour long, and I'm exhausted from moving furniture... I'll watch it another time!


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> From the nature of his posts, I think it's clear that Chris is being quite argumentative with us. And if he said he's not arguing, then please read his posts and tell me if that isn't arguing.


If he isn't arguing with his, then he's being sinful - there's a Biblical imperative for him to teach his heathen peers about the glory of our Lord and Saviour.

And definitely watch the Krauss talk - it's brilliant!


----------



## Guest

Dodecaplex said:


> From the nature of his posts, I think it's clear that Chris is being quite argumentative with us. And if he said he's not arguing, then please read his posts and tell me if that isn't arguing.
> 
> Oh, so did he wake up in a hot sweat one day at 4:33 AM and have an epiphany that Christianity is the one and only true religion and that all other religions are bogus? Or did he study all other religions and then determine that Christianity is the one and only true religion?
> From reading his posts, you can see that it's neither, and that it all boils down to geography and/or upbringing.


Have you completely explored all other alternatives to the creation of a universe from nothing and all other alternatives to evolution? Or did you come upon the one that sounded most plausible to you and then stopped looking?


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> No, I don't, but you speak on tongues on these issues. I don't think I've actually seen you say anything lucid on the subject of religion even once. Oh well, at least you're not an annoying evangelist telling me that I'm disgusting!


Perhaps as you age, approach senility, you will be able to shift gears in thinking. Of course when you _get_ to senility, many of the teeth will be stripped, so I hope you start smooth shifting well before then. My observations suggest that happiness in la-la land is not guaranteed.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Have you completely explored all other alternatives to the creation of a universe from nothing and all other alternatives to evolution? Or did you come upon the one that sounded most plausible to you and then stopped looking?


I was about to say, "have YOU?" but then realised that you're actually arguing _for_ stopping when you find something reasonably plausible. Oh dear...


----------



## science

Speaking personally, my own arbitrary commitment to arbitrary traditions went through a few stages.

1. I was born into one, and I believed my parents about it. This lasted until about 2nd grade, and it would probably have lasted longer if I hadn't moved in with my Jehovah's Witness cousins for a couple of months. At the beginning of that time, my aunt and uncle (whose religion was the same as my parents) warned me not to believe their doctrines, and I tried not to, but by the time I moved out...

2. ...they had persuaded me. It was the first time I'd been persuaded to change my religion; the first time I'd in some sense chosen a tradition intentionally, though of course I was still only following adults. Then the first epiphany that probably helped make me such a skeptical person: my cousins told me, as I was leaving, not to forget the doctrines they had taught me, and I said I wouldn't, but I realized at that moment that even if I tried not to, my aunt and uncle would eventually persuade me. I would believe the religion of whoever I lived with. That turned out to be true, and a few months later when I was adopted by some Southern Baptists, I didn't even bother trying to keep my family's distinctive beliefs. I didn't even try to resist being persuaded, I just accepted theirs.

3. By high school, under the influence of books by C. S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Henry Morris, and so on, I was persuaded that my religion was the only rational one. I was unaware of any subconscious or social factors influencing my beliefs.

There were just a few things I needed to clear up: I wanted to know what other people believed and to prove them wrong. I know this is not an instinct many people have, but I knew that in some sense my belief would remain arbitrary until I had specifically rejected the alternatives. So I started to explore other traditions, leading to

4. I fell absolutely in love with Eastern Orthodoxy. Not merely persuaded that it was true (more accurately, that it has the best theology, and I still think so) but absolutely in love with the Church - with the liturgy, the cycle of fasts and feasts, the icons, the Jesus Prayer, all that, but most of all with its God. The God of Love of that tradition is so much more _loving_ than the God I'd been raised to believe in. I really should have become a monk before trying to resolve my last doubts. I'd be in a monastery somewhere contemplating the mystery of salvation...

I had meanwhile experienced an extremely tight Evangelical Christian student community, whose control over us bordered on the cultish.

So in all, I personally know of several non-arbitrary (but non-intellectual) reasons for believing an arbitrary set of assertions about the world. I realize that no one feels like they believe anything by chance. But it's not a coincidence that most people have the same religion as their parents. If it's possible that everyone's parents are right, that's fine I guess.

Anyway, I'm tired, my brain isn't working well.


----------



## Dodecaplex

DrMike said:


> Have you completely explored all other alternatives to the creation of a universe from nothing and all other alternatives to evolution? Or did you come upon the one that sounded most plausible to you and then stopped looking?


First of all, the assumptions you've made about my views are quite inaccurate. I've never stated that the universe came from nothing. In fact, my (current) position on this issue is somewhere between agnosticism and deism. Second, the only thing that I _am_ rejecting is organized religion. From that point forwards, any and all other possibilities and theories that could explain the profound mysteries of life are welcome.

And finally, no, I haven't looked into other theories besides evolution and creationism. And after thinking about them, I decided to reject creationism.
What other theories have _you_ looked into besides evolution and creationism?


----------



## Ukko

I wonder if there is a problem with the use of 'created' here. Does 'created' require a 'creator'? Is there a non-loaded word (borrowed from another language if necessary) that means 'came into existence' - with 'existence' meaning hypothetically observable by some undescribed extra-universe based observer?


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> I wonder if there is a problem with the use of 'created' here. Does 'created' require a 'creator'? Is there a non-loaded word (borrowed from another language if necessary) that means 'came into existence' - with 'existence' meaning hypothetically observable by some undescribed extra-universe based observer?


Language is malleable - make a word up.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Polednice said:


> Says who? I'm pretty sure that most of the best qualified physicists on earth currently think that a universe can come from nothing, so let's not allow a primary school notion of cause and effect to determine what we think about the origins of our cosmos.


You've got the right idea, but if I understand Stephen Hawking's thinking correctly, the universe was neither created *nor* appeared from nothing. Time and space are properties of the universe. They don't exist outside it, so there's nowhere for even nothing to be.

This doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but it does mean that God wasn't needed to create the universe. The concept of creating the universe is meaningless.

Jonathan Sacks, the UK's chief rabbi, showed quite a good understanding of Hawking's ideas in an article he wrote for one of the British newspapers. He doesn't see them as being incompatible with Judaism, so if I ever convert to a religion, I'm going to become a Jew.


----------



## Guest

Dodecaplex said:


> First of all, the assumptions you've made about my views are quite inaccurate. I've never stated that the universe came from nothing. In fact, my (current) position on this issue is somewhere between agnosticism and deism. Second, the only thing that I _am_ rejecting is organized religion. From that point forwards, any and all other possibilities and theories that could explain the profound mysteries of life are welcome.
> 
> And finally, no, I haven't looked into other theories besides evolution and creationism. And after thinking about them, I decided to reject creationism.
> What other theories have _you_ looked into besides evolution and creationism?


I did nothing more than you did to Chris in questioning how broadly he had studied before deciding upon Christianity.

One wonderful thing that comes out of all of this - I hear incessantly about how judgmental Christians can be of others. It appears that isn't a behavior that is monopolized by Christians.


----------



## mmsbls

Physicists do not believe that the universe (our region of spacetime to be more precise) came from nothing. The Big Band theory describes the events and evolution of the universe at a very early time but not the creation act itself. We do not have a consensus view of how the universe came into existence, but many cosmologists prefer a theory where regions of spacetime "pop" into existence from the quantum mechanical vacuum state. This vacuum state is most definitely not nothing, but it does not include space, time, matter (sort of), etc.. The process of a universe "poping" into existence is believed to be closely related to the process of a uranium atom decaying. It is a quantum mechanical transition from one state to another. The process does not have a cause or a creator. Obviously, this concept is rather complicated.

The bottom line is that physicists do not believe all events must have causes, in general do not believe that the creation of the universe had a cause, and therefore, do not believe that the creation of the universe needs a creator. _However_, physicists have no idea why there would be a quantum mechanical vacuum state existing.

It's always seemed to me that religious people find it easier to believe that a sentient being (i.e. God) could exist forever or without cause than a non-sentient thing (e.g. physical reality). I've never understood why that would be.


----------



## pollux

Chrythes said:


> About the universe from nothing - i mentioned it here before, guess it was looked upon.
> Here's a video explaining why it's possible that the universe might have been created from nothing -


Nothing is the same as empty space? NOTHING is the same as empty space?


----------



## Igneous01

pollux said:


> Nothing is the same as empty space? NOTHING is the same as empty space?


its a paradox!!


----------



## Ukko

Igneous01 said:


> its a paradox!!


Nah. There ain't no such thing as 'empty space'.


----------



## pollux

Hilltroll72 said:


> Nah. There ain't no such thing as 'empty space'.


That's what the guy in the video says. He must be right. As I can't sleep, I will review my astronomy books to find a solid explanation for that.


----------



## Kopachris

pollux said:


> That's what the guy in the video says. He must be right. As I can't sleep, I will review my astronomy books to find a solid explanation for that.


Your astronomy books will tell you that the average density of interstellar dust and gas is a few particles per cm³. On top of that, quantum physics will tell you that particles are constantly popping in and out of existence (IIRC, has something to do with "quantum foam"), thus making even intergalactic space not entirely devoid of matter.


----------



## pollux

Kopachris said:


> Your astronomy books will tell you that the average density of interstellar dust and gas is a few particles per cm³. On top of that, quantum physics will tell you that particles are constantly popping in and out of existence (IIRC, has something to do with "quantum foam"), thus making even intergalactic space not entirely devoid of matter.


Now, you don't have to convince me any more! It took me all the day to find the solution, but I finally I found the mathematical formula that demonstrates it all. Here it is:

nº tHiņƣ = em. ɤ. ȶƴ ^ sȹacΣ

Now I can go to bed. What a relief!


----------



## Whipsnade

Hilltroll72 said:


> Nah. There ain't no such thing as 'empty space'.


That's not true, I saw some yesterday. I just can't seem to find it now.


----------



## Ukko

If you were looking in my house... I can't find it either.


----------



## Polednice

Here's a very interesting example of confirming evolution that I learned today (ignore the silly video title - the content is good):


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> Here's a very interesting example of confirming evolution that I learned today (ignore the silly video title - the content is good):


Dead right about the silly title. He hasn't shut me up and a quick internet perusal suggests others creationists are hardly struck dumb. The creation / evolution debate will never have a resolution. There will be no sockdologers in this game.

Unfortunately the title is a fair reflection of the way the speaker opens his argument. "Hah! The creationists have got nothing to answer this! All they do is shrug their shoulders!" - or similar. He does the same at the end. Be wary of any argument that has to be buttressed by this sort of thing.

But to the substance. Two of the easier-to-understand responses are as follows (I mean easier for me understand, by the way):

1. He says humans have a merged chromosome. But if so, where is the proof that this merging happened in pre-humans? Why not in humans? In the creationists' understanding of history it could have happened sometime between Adam and Noah. Remember humanity was reduced to a single family at the time of the latter.

2. There is no certainty that there was ever any merging of chromosomes. The argument is only a molecular version of the 'evolutionary vestiges' arguments which were popular in the past but have been questioned even within the evolutionist camp. For decades it was thought the appendix was an evolutionary remnant but there is evidence that it has a function in maintaining the gut flora. I remember being taught at school that the human embryo went through a fish stage where gills could be seen, but it is now known that these 'gills' are the initial stages of the middle ear canal, parathyroid and thymus glands. The coccyx was thought to be the vestige of a tail but it is now recognised to be essential for maintaining posture. So-called 'junk DNA' is now believed to have a function, rather than being merely a throwback to an earlier species. And so with this so-called merged chromosome. Perhaps this supposed evolutionary remnant will turn out to have some current function.


----------



## amfortas

Given my lack of scientific background, I wouldn't normally get involved in such discussions. But what the heck . . .



Chris said:


> 1. He says humans have a merged chromosome. But if so, where is the proof that this merging happened in pre-humans? Why not in humans? In the creationists' understanding of history it could have happened sometime between Adam and Noah. Remember humanity was reduced to a single family at the time of the latter.


Is there a plausible way to posit this chromosome merge happening so quickly, or so recently, as the relatively brief span humans have existed (especially in the telescoped version held by some fundamentalists?) I honestly don't know, but I would be surprised if scientists thought this possible.



Chris said:


> 2. There is no certainty that there was ever any merging of chromosomes . . . Perhaps this supposed evolutionary remnant will turn out to have some current function.


But if I understand correctly, the evolutionary argument isn't based on whether or not this merged chromosome serves a function, but simply on the fact that it exists--a point a bit less subject to revision by future research.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Assuming we're talking about chromosome 2 here, it certainly serves a function. It contains almost 1500 genes. Its main relevance here, though, is that the merger which formed it, regardless of exactly when it happened, provides evidence that humans and modern apes arose from a common ancestor--and this conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis in a quite fundamental way.


----------



## Kopachris

This is how I understand creationism: 




Which makes arguing against it just as useless as arguing against the existence of a supremely powerful deity. It can't be proven either way.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Kopachris said:


> . . . arguing against it just as useless as arguing against the existence of a supremely powerful deity. It can't be proven either way.


I'd hate to continue the debate, but, while I agree that we can't argue against the existence of a supremely powerful deity, we can definitely argue against the existence of _their_ version of a supremely powerful deity.


----------



## Kopachris

Dodecaplex said:


> I'd hate to continue the debate, but, while I agree that we can't argue against the existence of a supremely powerful deity, we can definitely argue against the existence of _their_ version of a supremely powerful deity.


No, I don't think we can. Technically, we can't argue against the deities of ancient Egyptian, Greek, or Norse mythology, either. Let's assume, for a moment, the ancient Greek pantheon exists. Why don't we know it exists? The gods refuse to give us proof. They are all-powerful (or close enough to it), so we're never going to get any proof as long as they refuse to give it to us. Our world without proof of the gods' existence is exactly as a world without the gods' existence at all. However, the gods still exist, so any "proof" of their non-existence would be false. Replace the Greek pantheon with the God of the Hebrews, and it's still the same story.

"God refuses to give proof of His existence; the ways of God are unfathomable for us; etc." There's no way to argue against that.


----------



## violadude

Kopachris said:


> No, I don't think we can. Technically, we can't argue against the deities of ancient Egyptian, Greek, or Norse mythology, either. Let's assume, for a moment, the ancient Greek pantheon exists. Why don't we know it exists? The gods refuse to give us proof. They are all-powerful (or close enough to it), so we're never going to get any proof as long as they refuse to give it to us. Our world without proof of the gods' existence is exactly as a world without the gods' existence at all. However, the gods still exist, so any "proof" of their non-existence would be false. Replace the Greek pantheon with the God of the Hebrews, and it's still the same story.
> 
> "God refuses to give proof of His existence; the ways of God are unfathomable for us; etc." There's no way to argue against that.


On the other hand, the God of the Christian Bible has said that he's already given us all the proof we need of his existence.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Kopachris said:


> No, I don't think we can. Technically, we can't argue against the deities of ancient Egyptian, Greek, or Norse mythology, either. Let's assume, for a moment, the ancient Greek pantheon exists. Why don't we know it exists? The gods refuse to give us proof. They are all-powerful (or close enough to it), so we're never going to get any proof as long as they refuse to give it to us. Our world without proof of the gods' existence is exactly as a world without the gods' existence at all. *However, the gods still exist*, so any "proof" of their non-existence would be false.


That's a giant leap of logic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that the _idea_ that these gods exist exists, and therefore the gods "exist"? If that's the logic you're going by, then it could be used with anything. I could say "our world without proof of Cthulhu's existence is exactly as a world without Cthulhu's existence at all. However, Cthulhu still exists, so any proof of his non-existence would be false."
I'd like to know how you define existence.


> "God refuses to give proof of His existence; the ways of God are unfathomable for us; etc." There's no way to argue against that.


Perhaps one can't argue against that if it were about a deistic god. But the Christian God has a gigantic book written about him. A book anyone would be easily able to rip apart.


----------



## Kopachris

Dodecaplex said:


> That's a giant leap of logic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that the _idea_ that these gods exist exists, and therefore the gods "exist"? If that's the logic you're going by, then it could be used with anything. I could say "our world without proof of Cthulhu's existence is exactly as a world without Cthulhu's existence at all. However, Cthulhu still exists, so any proof of his non-existence would be false."
> I'd like to know how you define existence.


Nope. Remember, we were only assuming that the gods existed for the sake of argument. I was actually suggesting that agnosticism is the only real solution.



> Perhaps one can't argue against that if it were about a deistic god. But the Christian God has a gigantic book written about him. A book anyone would be easily able to rip apart.


Examples? I think we're thinking of different arguments, here.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Jes*s chri*t I'll be g*d da*n


----------

