The Great Debators © discussion
Religion
>
Creation Vs. Evolution
Andrew... did you read my post? I asked who claims that "something came from nothing"??? Please tell me this before I go any further.
Mod
Please tell me this before I go any further."
I said that to be an atheist you have to believe:
1. Something came from nothing.
2. Matter has alway existed (and life came from non-living matter)
3. Life (in some form) has always existed.
I am NOT saying that anyone claims #1 but if you don't claim #1 you MUST claim #2 or #3. The question I am asking is WHICH DO YOU BELIEVE?
Andrew, no legitimate atheist claims #1. Where in the world did you get this idea?
Mod
I'm NOT saying that they do. You are missing the point. I am saying that IF (which obviously you do) you don't claim #1. Do you claim option #2 or #3. It MUST be one or the other.
I don't have to believe any of those things if I don't want to though. Why MUST I believe one of them to be an atheist? (Yes, I am getting technical on you here, but that's because belief is a very charged word and technically I don't "believe" in any of that stuff, I believe something in a much deeper way.)Also if you're NOT saying they do, then why did you, in message120, claim that it is better than believing in "something came from nothing"? Which I hear cited ALL the time by the religious believers as "proof" against atheism or evolution or whatever, yet none of them can say whoever made such a claim??
Mod
You STILL have not answered my question. Alright since you don't like the word I used (believe just means "to be convinced of") how about: To be a reasonable athiest you must claim MUST claim one of the three options I listed. What I meant in post 120 is that to believe in God makes more sense than to claim ANY of the other options available to an athiest.
If you don't claim any of the options I listed WHAT DO YOU CLAIM?
All that I ever hear from athiests is "Oh, I don't know what happened. Does it really matter anyways? After all we KNOW that after WHATEVER happened, happened then what there was started evolving into what we see today."
That's just hogwash it is logically impossible, you are saying you believe -sorry claim, that if A (formation of life) then B (evolution of species) but you are refusing to prove A. Thus B becomes void.
I haven't answered your question for a very specific reason. You are saying these things are linked to being an atheist. I am saying you do NOT need to believe in any of those things to BE an atheist. They have nothing to do with each other. As it has been pointed out to you in a special thread you made to discuss this topic.I know this will frustrate you... but I just want to know why you think something, so I'm going to answer with another question. Why is the response "I don't know" illogical and hogwash?
I am also not sure your logical setup makes sense. In the context of evolution you don't need to prove A to know what happens in B. These don't work like logical tautologies. There is only one field where these things work. You cannot treat any other field like it.
Mod
If you want to be an Atheist who agree that evolution it faulty at its very core and thus rejects the theory. then my question for you is:
What do you claim "made" everything we see today?
Andrew, atheism isn't a "worldview", it's a view on a specific topic. It addresses only ONE thing, the truth value of God.Does God exist?
1. Yes
2. No
Atheism chooses option 2. That is ALL atheism does. I do not understand why you refuse to acknowledge this.
This is the definition of atheist: noun-
"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
Your refusal to use the definition of atheist is making it impossible for me to answer any of your questions about Evolution. I am sorry if this seems difficult to you, or particularly nit picky, but these details are very important. This is quite possibly why you might wind up in very frustrating arguments with atheists, I am honestly trying to fix this. I run into these misconceptions all the time and I do not know where they came from.
Mod
No, you do NOT have to accept a worldview. Maybe for you they do, in order to have a discussion of any kind. But I don't technically have to if I don't want to. I can do whatever I want really. The only thing I am bound by is physical reality. How I choose to engage it is my own decision. I'm not saying you'd be right about things... I'm just pointing out that you, as a human being, can do whatever you want whenever you want technically. I can even opt to NOT follow laws if I so please.As for evolution... I think evolution has the right idea. And no, it does NOT depend on the creation of life, the creation of life has nothing to do with the model. You don't need to prove creation of life to talk about evolution either. Just like you don't need to discuss the Big Bang Theory to discuss gravitation. Which the Big Bang isn't even fully formed yet, so I certainly don't believe that. And no, the Big Bang also has NOTHING to do with evolution.
I have the unfortunate position of knowing what science says, why it says what it says, how science works, etc... and this is something the majority of people in the world do not understand. Even people that claim they believe what evolution says don't understand what science says. Do I trust everything science says? No, of course not, but that's because I'm a good scientist and any good scientist will give you this response. These are very specific and subtle concepts, and I've noticed people do NOT like having detailed arguments, they just want a quick answer. Creationists are particularly bad at understanding this, just read any book by Ken Ham to see how screwed up he's gotten everything.
Mod
Linda, I think you also missed where Lauren said "if"."
Scientific evidence for the beginning of all things exists. Since Einstein proved that the universe is expanding, then if you looked backward there had to be a time when the universe was infinitely small and had a beginning.
This universe runs on basic laws of physics, one of which is that matter (that which makes up the universe) cannot be created or destroyed. On the other hand, the universe had a beginning. Therefore we know that something came from either nothing or some eternal being outside the laws of physics.
Now take your pick. Which would you prefer to believe? Either something came from nothing or everything came from an Eternal Being outside the laws of physics. It's pretty simple.
I choose to believe the more logical answer. That the Creator God exists.
Linda wrote: "Scientific evidence for the beginning of all things exists. Since Einstein proved that the universe is expanding, then if you looked backward there had to be a time when the universe was infinitely small and had a beginning. "When did Einstein do this? In what paper? I just looked through his collected works and I don't see any paper that is titled to claim this.
"This universe runs on basic laws of physics, one of which is that matter (that which makes up the universe) cannot be created or destroyed. On the other hand, the universe had a beginning. Therefore we know that something came from either nothing or some eternal being outside the laws of physics. "
This isn't true.
"Now take your pick. Which would you prefer to believe? Either something came from nothing or everything came from an Eternal Being outside the laws of physics. It's pretty simple.
I choose to believe the more logical answer. That the Creator God exists. "
Is this where I should tell you that I'm a mathematician/physicist?
Mod
I wrote:
"This universe runs on basic laws of physics, one of which is that matter (that which makes up the universe) cannot be created or destroyed. On the other hand, the universe had a beginning. Therefore we know that something came from either nothing or some eternal being outside the laws of physics. "
and you replied: This isn't true. Can you give me a more specific answer?
I don't claim to know all the answers. I am not a mathematician or a physicist. But I do understand some things. I will do my best to answer. I am not averse to learning.
Well, Einstein wasn't the one that showed the universe was expanding. Edwin Hubble did that. I haven't studied Einstein's General Relativity, I've only studied Special Relativity. General Relativity is very difficult, but I frankly just haven't gotten to it yet. I've been spending time on many other things. From what I'm reading, it was based on Hubble's observations that Einstein had to return to his equations and make adjustments, which resulted in the Cosmological Constant. Unfortunately this sounds like a fudge factor, similar to the Gravitational Constant. They use these to just make the math work out nicely. Physicists aren't as restricted with this stuff as mathematicians. As a mathematician this bothers me greatly.As for the the laws. The observed universe that we understand so far obeys that law. But we are running into issues with things like Dark Matter. We can apparently we only see about 4% of things. Within Black Holes things might not be working very well either. There was something I saw that Stephen Hawking claimed information in Black Holes was lost forever (implying matter is destroyed), but then Leonard Suskind came along and said, no Stephen is wrong. Stephen admitted he was wrong decades later, but he also stated Suskind was wrong. I haven't seen anything more than that, but these are areas where the laws of physics stop making much sense. There are still things we do not understand at the Quantum level, we are just scratching the surface of these things. This stuff is very advanced and well beyond what I know right now. I'm just pointing out that things might not seem so basic.
Mod
From what you said, it doesn't seem a decisive thing that matter can be destroyed, so as far as the rules of physics are concerned, I was not stating a lie, right?
For many years before the discovery of the Big Bang, men believed that the universe was eternal. It had no beginning. That belief caused science to say that there was no need for a God since the universe had no beginning. Even Carl Sagan, not long ago on his famous PBS documentary on evolution said "the universe is, has always been, and ever will be" (something that Christians have reserved as a description of God for centuries). This explanation of the universe having no beginning, gave science the advantage saying that there was no need to explain something that was eternal, since it had to have no initial cause.
But the tables have turned again. Theologians now have the advantage, since the universe had a beginning, what was its cause?
Dr. Stephen Meyers stated: Belief in God is more credible now than any time in the last 100 years. It is the best explanation of all of reality in experience.
You are right, you weren't stating a lie. I was merely trying to point out that it is far more complicated than using the basic laws. They're anything but basic and sometimes Classical Mechanics fails in certain levels.Well, I'm not sure what to say about this. The Big Bang wasn't discovered, it's not even proved completely yet. It is an attempt to collect some observations under one theory, but that is hardly completed at the moment. It may turn out to be wrong in the end, we can't say right now. Christians discussing it's validity doesn't mean much to me, because we don't have this answer right now. I don't even know why Christians are concerned about this.
Well, based on the evidence what do you mean by beginning? The material in the universe didn't poof into existence, it was already there. This goes back to my complaint about how Christians use "something from nothing arguments", yet no one can tell me who made that claim. You seem to be saying that this wasn't always there? (At least that's what I'm getting out of your use of the word eternal.)
I really do not see how God is the best explanation for all reality. Everyone I see that holds an idea of God talk about how elegant things are etc etc. But things are anything but elegant, they're downright chaotic. The only God that could possibly exist would be one of absolute Chaos, because no one in their right mind would develop a universe like this, it's not efficient in the least. Provided said God had creative abilities in the first place.
Mod
In the second half of the 20th century, other discoveries pointed to the beginning of the universe. Cosmic microwave background radiation has been documented and most scientists believe that it is the remnant heat generated during the universe’s early history. It is found throughout the cosmos and indicates the universe’s expansion from a sudden and perhaps violent moment in time.
The Kalam Cosmological argument:
Premise one is that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Something cannot come into being from nothing. The 2nd premise is the universe began to exist. We now have solid scientific evidence for the truth that the universe began to exist. Not proof, but evidence pointing to it. From those two premises, it follows logically that the universe has a cause, whatever begins to exist has a cause, and therefore the universe had a cause. That points to a reality beyond the universe, a transcendent reality, beyond space and time that is therefore non-physical and immaterial which created the universe out of nothing and brought it into being.
The implications of a finite universe, coupled with other discoveries in the 20th century have led many scientists to unmistakably theological conclusions.
“There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and were suddenly galvanized into action. It is simpler to postulate creation ‘ex nihilo’…Divine will constituting ‘nature from nothingness.” Edmund Whittaker, physicist
It all sounds an awful lot like the first chapter of Genesis to me.
The vast majority of even the most skeptical astronomers and cosmologists believe that the universe had a beginning. This belief isn’t based on some theological doctrine. It’s based on scientific evidence. If we follow the evidence wherever it points, it follows that it points clearly and persuasively in the direction of a Creator.
How in the world does that evidence point to a creator? It sounds like you are jumping the gun on this one.It also can't be like the first chapter of Genesis, since this didn't happen in 6 days. Not to mention Genesis has things in the wrong order. And if you agree that Genesis is not perfectly accurate then the book clearly isn't the immutable word of your God.
I do not know who Kalam is, he/she is certainly jumping the gun on discussing what exists beyond the universe though. In any event, by the creation logic you need to also ask where God came from too. Even if you say "god has always been", I would still ask why? Did God just exist with no rhyme or reason other than to exist. How did it become conscious? Why did it bother to create anything? You don't have these problems if you ONLY work with evidence, because there is no evidence for any of that stuff.
Mod
Actually, the order of Genesis is correct if the Big Bang happened because it states that He created light first and then on the fourth day, the sun, moon and stars. The microwave background radiation seems to point to an energy blast and then the stars coming into being later.
Now what is good for the goose is good for the gander and it was never necessary for the science world to explain the beginning of the cosmos when they believed that it had always been. My discussion with you is mainly whether or not the existence of a God is a more viable argument than an atheistic view. I say that it is because though you don't have to believe there is a God, you do have to take the evidence and come to a logical conclusion.
Would you like to look at biological reasons for the existence of God? There is a plethora of evidence there as well.
I don't trust philosophy or it's logic. Pure logic doesn't need to bring you anywhere useful. Seemingly ridiculous statements can be perfectly sound logically. This is why I can do nearly anything I want in the world of math and why I know it is rather dangerous to invoke it when discussing things bound by reality.I have no idea what you mean by the goose and gander thing, but I'm not very interested in what was necessary for science to do in the past. Science has two facets, which seem to confuse the hell out of people.
1) An experimental bent, where they compile evidence and develop explanatory models (usually mathematical).
2a) A theoretical bent, where they try to preempt evidence, this particular realm of theory is not something you should even bring up when discussing the real world. Just like discussing String Theory has absolutely no point in our discussions, it's never been observed. This part is not useful unless 1 confirms it.
2b) Building an overarching theoretical model, where lots of things that were part of 1 turn out to be very related to each other. This results in things like the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Electromagnetism, the Theory of Evolution, etc. Again, it is pointless to do this without 1.
The difference between 2a and 2b, are their dependence on when 1 comes into play. 2a does not need 1, in order to be performed, but it does need 1 to confirm whether it's true or not. 2b needs 1 first to go anywhere.
What am interested in is what specific evidence you have. You haven't demonstrated any, other than "somehow the original matter had to get there". You say this is proof for God, I say you are jumping the gun, because those statements don't have to have any real correlation. The matter could have got there by some entirely different means or have always been there for all I know. But it is not useful to speculate beyond "the matter is there" to come up with reasons and expect them to be validly true. I agree that it is an interesting topic to discuss, just like "what space is our universe expanding into", but these speculations can not lead you to ANY conclusions whatsoever about anything.
And no, there are no biological reasons, if you want to discuss the biological reasons, my girlfriend will be happy to join this group and discuss them with you. She is far more qualified to discuss those topics, whereas I have almost no qualification and only know a little bit about the subject matter. My knowledge about things is rather specific.
"Would you like to look at biological reasons for the existence of God? There is a plethora of evidence there as well. "Like how we gain and then lose gills as embryos? Like how our body is filled with extraneous organs such as appendixes, tonsils, adenoids, tailbones, etc? Not only us, mind you. Whales have hip bones, remnants of their time on land. Like how we share over 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees? How exactly did all the marsupials just happen to end up in Australia after the flood, when NONE of them can swim? Pretty sneaky of God, to place so much convincing evidence of evolution everywhere. I wonder why he did that.
Another good question Lauren, and one I am always wanting more of an answer to. Why did God leave so much evidence of "x scientific evidence". The typical answer I get is "to test our faith"... not sure I really buy that one, that sounds cruel and unusual to me.I also forgot to address this from Linda's post. The order of Genesis is NOT correct. The Earth exists, THEN god says "let there be light". This makes no sense. It may use the the phrase "the earth being unformed and void...", but that doesn't mean the earth wasn't there. Unformed and void: "the Hebrew for this phrase (tohu va-vohu) means "desert waste." The point of the narrative is the idea of order that results from divine intent. There is no suggestion here that God made the world out of nothing, which is a much later conception." Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary pg. 4.
I say again:Andrew wrote: "Lauren,
I feel that it is unfair that in this debate you will ask me to answer your questions (which I answer). But you refuse to answer my questions. This does not make for a reasonable debate."
and
Andrew wrote, June 26 at 7 am: Alan wrote: "Andrew, i don't know the answers to all the questions you raised (this doesn't mean you're right, it means that like most people, i'm not an astrophysist/geologist/biologist/biblical archaeologist...."
I need to go to Church right now but I will get back to you on this question."
This is an interesting debate tactic. Say that you'll respond later to a statement that is, itself, a response to a statement of your own. In your very next post, cry that it's not fair that someone else isn't answering your questions. Over two weeks later, i'm still waiting for him to get back to me. When you complain about something someone else is (or isn't) doing, it's a lot more convincing when it's not something you do yourself.
I'd say it isn't fair but i'm afraid that if i did i'd get more
Mod
Like how we gain and then lose gills as embryos? Like how our body is fille..."
Lauren,
Sorry it took me so long to answer. I've had a busy week.
Tell me, what evidence do you have for embryos having gills? And for the so-called extraneous organs? To which are you referring?
I have seen the report of hip bones in whales, but because of the worldview I hold, I will reserve judgment.
DNA - what can I say? DNA is one of the real evidences for intelligent design. Why we share much of ours with chimpanzees? I would guess that it is the same reason different types of chevys share similar attributes - a common designer.
It isn't true that marsupials are only found in Australia. They are found in South America, Central America, North America - even as far north as Canada.
I am deeply confused as to what we're exactly debating here, people are talking about all sorts of things that don't pertain to evolution vs creationism. What makes all the evidence for evolution really powerful is that it all matches up! Transitional fossils are found in rocks of just the right age and location, matching up with both the evolutionary timeline and the ancestral migration path of species.
Fossils are not randomly scattered. The fossil record also shows us evidence in their structure of an evolutionary "family tree" branching out from a common ancestor. The discoveries in genetics and DNA also show us an evolutionary family tree, one that matches up exactly with the fossil record, Taxidermy and Paleontology.
The evidence found in embryos and vestigial organs both illustrate this same family tree. Dating/age, migration paths, fossil record, embryos, vestigial organs, genetics and DNA all independently tell the exact same story, exactly as the Theory of Evolution predicted.
In fact even without a single fossil and just DNA evidence we could still confidently say that evolution is the best system to correctly explain how everything came to evolve (don't confuse this with how life started but how from humble beginnings life became more varied and divided into species with complex organs etc).
As for an argument against creationism in comparison to evolution. Many organisms show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint. A few examples of bad design imposed by historical constraint:
Wisdom teeth. Our jaws are a bit small for these late-erupting teeth; some people have them, while others do not.
In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.
so if there is a God he designed us badly which is impossible for a perfect creator, right?
Finally, almost every single scientist in fields related to the history of life agree that evolution is a fact. A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that only about 5% of scientists identified themselves as creationists. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in creationism or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of one percent.
"Tell me, what evidence do you have for embryos having gills? And for the so-called extraneous organs? To which are you referring?"Do you have eyes? I just listed the three more well known RIGHT AFTER. Please, actually read my post before you think you know something I don't.
Evidence that I'm looking at the page in my biology textbook right now and it says that. So, my source is the ethos of my textbook.
"I have seen the report of hip bones in whales, but because of the worldview I hold, I will reserve judgment."
This proof is obvious and incontrovertible, but because I insist on sticking my head in the sand, I can't allow myself to see what's right in front of me. Is that about right.
"DNA - what can I say? DNA is one of the real evidences for intelligent design. Why we share much of ours with chimpanzees? I would guess that it is the same reason different types of chevys share similar attributes - a common designer."
DNA shows no evidence of design. It's bulky, it's got tons of leftover, useless genes floating around, and it's so susceptible to mutation, and it's so damn long and complicated and easy to mess up when it copies itself. If it was deigned, I'd expect better.
"It isn't true that marsupials are only found in Australia. They are found in South America, Central America, North America - even as far north as Canada."
You just nailed another one into your coffin. So how did marsupials get to ALL these places, and they STILL can't swim.
I think I would refrain from using the term "transitional", because technically EVERYTHING is a transitional species. There's no such thing as a species not transitioning. WE are a transitional species right now. Transitioning doesn't necessarily need to be a strictly bone structure based concept, for example speciation is dependent on sexual selection. This is a behavioral thing, how could you possibly account for this in bones??Creationists spend so much time talking about lack of transitional species as if it is similar to zeno's paradox. But what they don't seem to understand is that they are also a transitional species, what we are transitioning to who knows... that's one of the great limitations of evolution right now. It's not predictable.
Mod
Do you have eyes? I just listed the three more well known RIGHT ..."
That's your list? tonsils, adenoids and a tailbone? Tonsils and adenoids don't seem to cause a problem as a result of their removal in children, yet that doesn't mean that there is no use. For years the appendix was credited with very little function. But we now know that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. This may be the case with each of the so-called extraneous organs, even a tail bone.
If your textbook contains the famous drawings by Ernst Haeckel, they have been proved to be false, yet they continue to be in textbooks. You see, there are many things that we, all of us, both evolutionists and Intelligent Design advocates, do and say in the zeal for proving what we believe. You say that I am sticking my head in the sand. But the truth is that there are a lot of assumptions being made in the evolutionary camp that are without evidence - fertile imagination maybe, but not evidence. So I reserve my opinion.
DNA is absolutely beautiful. The information contained in one strand of DNA can fill 1000 encyclopedias. Now, if you take all the letters individually that would be contained in a 1000 encyclopedias and shake them up hoping for 1000 volume set of encyclopedias that makes sense, what are your chances? I don't think you would get the same blueprint.
We have seen stones that have scratchings on them, markings like hieroglyphics, and a scientist has identified them as being evidence of intelligence. Why? Because there is a pattern. Now we have this beautiful strand of DNA, practically a signature of the divine, and we are too myopic to notice that it is evidence for intelligence.
No one obviously knows the usefulness of your "leftover" DNA and much like the appendix, I think it is too soon for you to say it is useless.
Marsupials...what's your point?
Mod
Like how we gain and then lose gills as embryos? Like how our body is fille..."
WOAH! MY answer to that is NO! NO! NO!
NONE of those are evidence of Evolution they are all valuable even necessary parts. I'll answer each for you:
Like how we gain and then lose gills as embryos?
WRONG the pictures showing babies were MADE UP! This idea came from the now discredited work of Ernest Haeckle. Heckle basically did a lot of drawings of embryos and made too much of some physical similarities. He was proved false in 1874!
For example Wikipedia says:
"Haeckel produced several embryo drawings that often overemphasized similarities between embryos of related species. The misinformation was propagated through many biology textbooks, and popular knowledge, even today. Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory.[9]" (^ Gerhard Medicus (1992). "The Inapplicability of the Biogenetic Rule to Behavioral Development" (PDF). Human Development 35 (1): 1–8. ISSN 0018-716X/92/0351/0001-0008. Retrieved 2008-04-30.) "Although Haeckel's specific form of recapitulation theory is now discredited among biologists, it had a strong influence on social and educational theories of the late 19th century."
Like how our body is filled with extraneous organs such as appendixes, tonsils, adenoids, tailbones, etc?
NO! all the organ you listed are valueable NOT leftovers from evolution. I'll give you some examples:
Appendix: Has been proved to be NECESSARY for babies. Once we become older we no longer need it.
Tailbone: Is NECESARY for balance.
Not only us, mind you. Whales have hip bones, remnants of their time on land.
WRONG AGAIN! IT was NEVER used for walking on land rather it is used (and is vital to) reproduction.
Like how we jshare over 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees?
Where did you read that? Please give me your sources and I will be glad to debate further with you on the subject. On the other hand, how did DNA form in the first place? It is a LAW of Science that information can only come from pre-existing information?
How exactly did all the marsupials just happen to end up in Australia after the flood, when NONE of them can swim?
The continents split several decades after the flood allowing the animals time to cross dry land. (Also the flood caused an Ice age for some time which would caused Ice bridges from all the continents.)
Pretty sneaky of God, to place so much convincing evidence of evolution everywhere. I wonder why he did that.
So your wrong, they aren't evidences FOR Evolution.
Mod
You are using the BANDWAGON FALLACY, just because 95% of the scientific community says it's right DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S RIGHT!
Mod
Wisdom teeth. Our jaws are a bit small for these late-erupting teeth; some people have them, while others do not.
In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better."
Alright, I am going to open up a MAJOR can-of-worms which I have been debating on another thread for some time: These things are not evidences of Bad design, rather they are the result of Gods curse on Mankind for their disobedience to his rules.
Mod
Andrew wrote: "Lauren,
I feel that it is unfair that in this debate you will ask me to answer your questions (which I answer). But you refuse to answer my questions. This does not..."
What have I not answered? I am doing my best to answer all of your questions. I am sorry if I missed and if you will tell me which ones, I will answer them.
Thanks.
Andrew wrote: "Lauren wrote: ""Would you like to look at biological reasons for the existence of God? There is a plethora of evidence there as well. "Like how we gain and then lose gills as embryos? Like how ou..."
Those are some pretty fast moving continents. Why did they suddenly slow down? I can't find this in the Bible anywhere. Just like I can't find the 1.3 mile "high hills". I guess I should also point out that we are already arguing about this in another thread.
Secondly, you are right about Hoeckle's embryo's, the man was a liar.
We share about 96% DNA with Chimpanzees.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne...
Enjoy.
Who cares how DNA formed? That has nothing to do with Evolution. And if I remember correctly the title of this thread is "Creationism vs. Evolution".
If evolution is false then why did these moths change color? Did god "poof" change them for their own good because "oh noes, the poor moths?!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered...
And how do you explain these Anolis Lizards if evolution isn't real?
http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/lo...
Andrew wrote: "James wrote: "Finally, almost every single scientist in fields related to the history of life agree that evolution is a fact. A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that only about 5% of scientists ..."Would it mean more if I said something like "99% of Evolutionary Biologists think Evolution is real?"
Andrew wrote: "James wrote: "As for an argument against creationism in comparison to evolution. Many organisms show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot const..."So God cursed mankind with Wisdom teeth? And they are slowly being driven out of our species right now? So, does that mean we're getting more righteous if we don't have wisdom teeth? I mean, only two of my wisdom teeth ever came in, the other two never existed, so I must have some awesome standing with God??
I'm sorry, your argument makes no sense.
Andrew wrote: "You are using the BANDWAGON FALLACY, just because 95% of the scientific community says it's right DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S RIGHT!"Excellent, so equally, just because the bible and many Christians, Muslims and Hindus say evolution is wrong doesn't mean they're right either. You're jumping on their bandwagon.
So now we've agreed that nobody should be trusted we need some kind of methodology to independently test a theory (like gravity for instance) and then collaborate to see if we get the same results. A Baloney Detection Kit if you will.
The difference between the two groups (creationists vs scientists) is the 100+ years of research by people who hated, got confused by or just plain disagreed with evolution (and it had a lot of haters at the beginning) looking for problems just kept (and still keep) finding evidence to support it and nothing against common descent/evolution. That's why it's an established theory in science.
On the other hand creationists have been shown to quote mine, distort scientists statements and even co-opted people without their knowledge putting their names on sites and misrepresenting their views.
Use your mind, try to look at the 10 rules and reflect on your sources the people who make claims are they biased? Or are they a number of independents who reach the same conclusions. Religion has an ideology with a purpose, evolutionary theory is just that, an explanation. If a scientist could prove it [evolution]substantially flawed they would and with great relish and become the most famous scientist in the last 200 years.
As for the gods bad design vs evolution. How do you explain that evolution predicts and can explain these flaws through evolutionary terms while in your argument God (being perfect in all things and a being of love and compassion) does in fact want us to suffer get ill and be in pain? As it's all part of his divine plan.
peace
James
Mod
I don't remember ever saying that. If I did, that is not what I meant.
James wrote: "As for the gods bad design vs evolution. How do you explain that evolution predicts and can explain these flaws through evolutionary terms while in your argument God (being perfect in all things and a being of love and compassion) does in fact want us to suffer get ill and be in pain? As it's all part of his divine plan."
You don't get it. The Biblical (Christian) veiw is that God created everything perfect. God set up certian standards by which man must live. He told man what he was not allowed to do. Man disobeyed. God has now punished man by cursing the world with physical problems such as disease, thorns, animal bites, bee stings, poison, and death (and yes, wisdom teeth). The other punishment we receive is seperation from God. Unless we repent we will go to Hell. So the flaws we see are not a result of evolution they are a result of man's rebellion against God, and his sin.
So Andrew... man was perfect then he slowly began to change overtime? By what process? Evolution? de-Evolution, where we get worse as time goes on?Also, very few of my wisdom teeth came in, I haven't been sick in over 5 years, I was stung by a bee once when I was a child, I have never been bitten by an animal (minus insects), I have never been poisoned, I have not died etc. On the other hand I know a Christian who is chronically ill and lives in a great deal of pain. Actually most atheists I know are rather healthy people, though I can't say I know the distribution of wisdom teeth amongst them. By your logic I am clearly some nearly perfect human being, thus I can only conclude that God really wants us all to be atheists, because that belief results in more perfect humans than yours! You should consider becoming an atheist, because you will attain near perfection.
Hey AndrewAndrew wrote: "I don't remember ever saying that. If I did, that is not what I meant."
If you subscribe to creationism you must follow creationist thought on the matter, not just your own anecdotal opinion. All creationist ideology comes from religion hence by saying evolution isn't real and God created man you are stating you believe because your faith and community tells you it's true. You are in effect riding on popular opinion of your religion.
Andrew wrote:"You don't get it."
I find that a trifle insulting, I have actually read the Bible and once quite honestly believed in Christ. In actual fact it was the bible that stopped me believing in God due to the horrors I found within. Once I left that belief behind me I looked at many others and realized they all claimed with the same adamant authority that they were right, I did quite like Buddhism for a time but while it's supernatural elements stopped me believing. However, it's philosophy of life is far more worthy of respect and moral in nature than the bible.
Andrew wrote:"The Biblical (Christian) veiw is that God created everything perfect. God set up certian standards by which man ... [snip] .... we see are not a result of evolution they are a result of man's rebellion against God, and his sin. "
Okay as an English teacher I feel obliged to say "view" and "certain" normally I wouldn't care, I know it's irrelevant, but using a decent web browser with a dictionary removes misspellings and really takes no time at all.
I don't remember any mention of God cursing the earth, could you remind me of the verse in the bible he tells us that all creatures will be blamed/cursed for mans transgressions? I do remember him ejecting Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden and cursing the serpent. But he can't be that perfect if his own creation disobeyed him.
If he was indeed all knowing then he knew even before he created Adam that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree, So god created the world knowing it would be full of suffering, knowing people would go to hell, and knowing that genocide would occur in his name. All because he created the situation and the plan that would keep it that way. Which seems very contradictory to the all loving God.
All that aside, you haven't really explained anything, you are saying the reason evolution so accurately describes why these problems of historical constraint exist is because God cursed earth. Now Evolutionary experts can show 'why' every historical constraint occurs due to a predecessor. Did you watch the video I linked to? To form a proper argument against something you need to give me positive evidence in favour of your theory not just think of negative things in the one you dislike.
You also haven't explained how animals like lizards, locusts, plants and even cells all have major problems that come from historical constraint, if indeed the errors 'are a result of of man's rebellion against God' why do we find the same evolutionary theory works in all life, did all life rebel against god as well?
Peace.
James
Mod
No, I believe in it because of the evidence all around me.
Mod
Here it is:
Genesis 3:17-19 "Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, “You shall not eat of it’:
‘Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”
This curse includes all the disease and problems we say today. They didn't happen right away but over time they came into our (and the animals and plants) genetic codes.
Andrew are you deliberately ignoring my posts?
Andrew wrote: "No, I believe in it because of the evidence all around me."When I talk of evidence I talk about something we can both look at and analyse and agree on, just like CSI building up case against a suspect we build a preponderance of evidence in favour of an idea and tests to prove such a theory wrong fail. Based on the evidence around you you can't really claim the the earth orbits the sun, but I can devise a test for both of us to give us compelling evidence.
You have provided me with no evidence, your evidence is a 2000+ year old book that has contradictory creation stories take Genesis 1:25-27 and Genesis 2:18-19 who was born first man or animals? read your bible think about it. Also in Genesis 1:27 he created man & women and then he need to create another woman in Genesis 2:18-22.
Or what you talk of all the evidence around you. What do you 'see' around you. If you met a man who said that every creature around you and every rock had it's own Spirit/God in it would you think they were wrong like I do? Well 119 million official practitioners of Shinto in Japan would disagree with us, what makes their explanation for creation wrong and yours right? The number of followers? Because we both know that's not a real argument.
I only mention it because we talk of creationism, evolution isn't even about the creation of life but the adaption and speciation of life over millions and millions of years. It predicts and accurately explains why all animal life has historical constraint. It can even predict where and how deep to find particular fossils.
"Genesis 3:17-19" Andrew wrote: "This curse includes all the disease and problems we say today. They didn't happen right away but over time they came into our (and the animals and plants) genetic codes."
Now I appreciate this is a one sided argument, you have your faith and people are wired to find seek the truth to justify their position. Me as much as you. But "Cursed is the Ground for your sake" is not saying genetics, extra organs, bad design nor does it curse the animals of the earth (whose historical constraints are also predicted in evolutionary theory) in fact 'God' in Genesis 6:3 clearly states man will live to 120 years old, which we don't.
Now you can quote mine the bible to say well it "means" genetics, dinosaurs etc but they didn't have the words for them, but honestly that's a weak assumption. You're interpreting the existence of everything on the word of a book, and a translated book based on an oral history at that. This has no more evidence than people believing in Scientology because they have 'heard' the evidence.
Finally, even Archaeology shows that farming came thousands of years after hunter gathering around 8,000–5000 BC. While we have found worked pebbles by man as early as 2.5 million years ago. So Adam would really be worrying more about pebbles not tilling the soil.
Many Christians see creation as allegorical, I'm sure you believe in engineering, medical advancement, radio and T.V, you live in an opulence undreamed of by our forefathers, you don't get in a car fearing the engine will explode, because you trust the engineers, doctors, and the science behind it all.
The reason you don't believe evolution is something you should consider deeply. Were you told it was false or did you study it along with biology to the point where you realised it was wrong. Have you read the entire bible? Or just parts of it.
As always peace.
James
Mod
Building a case requires interpretation of the evidence. As much as we like to think that we are unbiased, what we believe does color our interpretation. Carl Sagan stated that science will go wherever the evidence leads, but clearly, that is not the case.
The Big Bang Theory is the result of the interpretation of evidence. As a Christian, I believe that the evidence is pointing to a Creator because it logically follows that the universe could not have suddenly leapt into existence without a cause. Yet evolutionary scientists will not include an Intelligent source because their answers are only found in the physical world.
I recently was privileged to hear Richard Dawkins and others at a university nearby talking about the beginning and source of life. The panel seemed to be grasping at straws when someone wanted to point to life coming from cells transported from outer space. The only reason they would say such a thing is because the chances of a protein molecule coming from random chance is not plausible. Yet, no one would say that the evidence points to a Creator.
As much as science today wants to say that it is unbiased, I would say that no, science does not go wherever the evidence leads. It has clear boundaries that exclude what seems obvious for the sake of a worldview.
Linda, are you ignoring my posts too???Please explain how it is LOGICAL that you can go from the Big Bang to POOOF a creator. What logic are you using? This sounds like an abuse of Modus Ponens, which is abused FAR too often.
Please also provide the probability calculations that show life being generated on it's own is not plausible and that life seeding from another planet is MORE probable. Also, these scientists are merely theorizing on possibilities, they are NOT grasping at straws. If you think they are, then you greatly misunderstood this talk.
For the record it is NOT random chance that biologists speak of, this is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happens. Also, I feel it needs to be pointed out that the chances of life existing on this planet are 100%. Anyone can plainly see that.
"The Big Bang Theory is the result of the interpretation of evidence. As a Christian, I believe that the evidence is pointing to a Creator because it logically follows that the universe could not have suddenly leapt into existence without a cause. Yet evolutionary scientists will not include an Intelligent source because their answers are only found in the physical world. "Do you understand what the Big Bang theory is?
Attributing everything to a Creator is lazy. It's intellectually lazy. You said, "Well, I dunno how this all happened, and I don't want to bother figuring it out, so let's just say God did it because that's easy."
Linda wrote: "Building a case requires interpretation of the evidence. As much as we like to think that we are unbiased, what we believe does color our interpretation. Carl Sagan stated that science will go wherever the evidence leads, but clearly, that is not the case."So.. If we both take a bowling ball and both drop it from varying heights and time how fast it falls we both can't agree on the speed of descent? With time we could even prove that different sized/weighted objects fall at the same velocity and ultimately we could work out terminal velocity, gravity etc. If 5000+ people independently do the same tests and all show that the speed is concurrent this evidence would require interpretation or would it be a fact? Also how would a number of biased people overturn the thousands of other experiments?
There are two kinds of evidence; positive evidence and failed attempts to disprove the current leading theory with a different one. For example one positive piece of evidence for evolution is fossils and geology which work in unison to show a gradual growth of complexity during the ages and branching into different family groups. One of the other theories of adaption was the "transmutation of species" theory put forward by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Which didn't adequately explain all the evidence that had been discovered although it it did work for some of it, thus the failed theory became a plus for evolution Why? Because each failed alternative to evolution is another attempt to explain the same phenomenon which doesn't account for all the evidence.
Finally people who have tried to disprove evolution directly really just point at things that are supposition or badly researched. The worst argument is 'missing link' arguments because even without the fossil record we could still be confident about evolution due to just bone records, taxidermy and DNA. As far as fossils go it's fantastic we have what we do because of the difficulties in forming them a couple of fossilized gaps does not overturn the trend apparent everywhere.
The reason we are very confident about evolution is because of the amassed positive evidence and huge number of failed alternatives that have been offered and haven't explained all the available data.
Linda wrote: "As a Christian, I believe that the evidence is pointing to a Creator"
As irrelevant as the big bang is to the argument (we are discussing creationist vs evolution approach i.e. all things formed as they are or evolving from a primordial soup) if you are a christian do you believe genesis? Or do you pick and choose the factual / allegorical elements of the bible. Because we can quickly show genesis as being against all the scientific knowledge, archaeology and facts we have available, in fact we're not even discussing exotic facts here we are talking radiocarbon dating, carved pebbles surrounded by the bones of human ancestors, the composition and elements that make up the visible universe, taxidermy etc. Scientists are happy to say we don't know about x, but they then follow up with "but we really want to find out".
So before I continue to debate just let me explicitly ask:
1. How you think the Universe began and how old is it?
2. When did life form after that and as what?
3. When did mankind arrive on the scene?
Just so I know what your beliefs actually are on the matter so I can give a correct rebuttal.
peace
J
Mod
I know that the physical laws are the most stable of all science. There is strength in knowing that these laws are close to indestructible. When something "breaks" one of these laws, science is left to imagine how it could have happened.
Now I will return to the philosophy of interpretation. Your suppositions point to evolution because you are interpreting the fossil evidence to fit evolution. So what do you do with the Cambrian explosion? The fossil record itself records simultaneous and strongly varied forms of life that appear at one time, all over the earth, in the same strata. Each life form is extremely different from another. That doesn't sound like a gradual adaption as Darwin's tree of life indicates.
At the discussion I spoke of in my previous post, Dawkins turns to a man who is speaking, a man who has done work with the living cell (I apologize, I do not remember his name.) Dawkins asked him if he had found the common strand of DNA pointing to Darwin's tree of life. The gentleman replied that it was not a tree but rather a bush. And again, I thought of the Cambrian explosion.
Since I am learning, I would prefer not to get into a discussion regarding Genesis at this time. There is nothing like discussion to sharpen ones understanding.
The Great Debators ©
Books mentioned in this topic
Graduate Research: A Guide for Students in the Sciences (other topics)Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary (other topics)
The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications (other topics)
One Blood: The Biblical Answer to Racism (other topics)
Centuries Of Darkness: Challenge To The Conventional Chronology Of World Archaeology (other topics)
More...
Well then what DO you say?
"Linda, I think you also missed where Lauren said "if"."
But the her point remains that it makes more sense to say that God has always existed than that something came from nothing. Unless you can show otherwise this is one of the strongest refutations to Atheism and it absolutely convinces me.