July 1, 2006

If You Don't Believe In Evolution, I Want Your Input


This post is inspired by the shutdown that Jewish Atheist wrote about at a religious blog that was discussing ID. That inspired a well thought out post by Ben Avuyah. Hellbound Alleee has questions specifically for Christians too, she is getting some response at least. Hopefully I can get some sincere response too.

Anti-evolutionists, try to be honest, you really don't have much of a background in science, right? You don't do too much research at sites like Talk Origins, correct? So I can only conclude that you don't believe in evolution because you don't want to believe in evolution. Why is that? Is there a certain bible passage or bible passages that claim that evolution could not have happened, is this why you don't buy into evolution? Is it because you want man to have special status? Is it something your parents taught you? Do you really think your Preacher or Rabbi knows more about science than actual scientists? If you are going to answer, please don't pretend that you don't believe in evolution because of your understanding of science. That would be dishonest. Face it, you use apologist sources like Answers in Genesis to give you support, not real understanding, and if that source turned around and stated evolution is fact, you would find another source.


I'm not expecting to get much response here because as seen in the past here and on other blogs, those who don't believe in evolution seem to stay away from these types of discussions. Pharyngula, recently asked for real questions from those who applauded Coulters stance against evolution, and all of a sudden, the Coulter loving trolls disappeared from his site.

56 comments:

  1. Hm. No comments. Am I surprised?
    Nope.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is early yet. I just posted it a half hour ago.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What good is a partially evolved sex organ?

    Wait, don't just fly over that, think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Are there really people who don't believe in evolution? That's like saying, "the world is flat" or "God sends hurricanes to punish the gays". I mean, I know that we are an intellectually lazy society - but that's about 5th grade is a science level of understanding. Surely if you are of that small of a mind you can’t operate a computer well enough to post your bizarre ranting. Well, maybe AOL...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jesse, sex organs have evolved. They have had to be functioning throughout or procreation would not be possible.
    Again, I wanted to say away from science, because as I stated, creationists do not rely on real science and tend to just poke holes in science they obviously don't understand, nor care to.
    Here is some info for you. You can research the rest. The answers are out there, if you want them.

    The question I have that I'd like answered, is why you don't want to believe in evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "They have had to be functioning throughout or procreation would not be possible."

    THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT! Partially evolved sex organs render procreation impossible!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why do people believe in evolution? I call it the "God in Gaps" syndrome.

    As amazingly well researched evolution is, obviously there are some links we have yet to discover in the chain of evolution. And for reasonable people, these gaps in knowledge do not mean that science is fundamentally flawed, the gaps just suggest that there is we have not uncovered all.

    However, for IDers, these gaps are frightening. The idea that any scientific theory can always be improved is frightening. So what do they do? They invent a God in Gaps. They claim that because we are missing one minor link in the human chain of evolution, God must be the answer and science is wrong.

    For IDers, what they fear most is not having the wrong answer, but not having an answer at all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. eva: "They claim that because we are missing one minor link..."

    Minor? Excuse me, but partially evolved sex organs render evolution impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jesse Gritter:

    THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT! Partially evolved sex organs render procreation impossible!

    What is a "partially evolved sex organ?" Are you talking about the penis, the testicles, the ovaries, what? All of those things evolved and we can see examples of intermediaries between them and single-celled organisms.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I read there is a plant that self fertilises, it bends its stamen and fertilises the female part.

    Whee if men could bend their penis and fertilise themselves or women had larger clitoris the little penis and fertlise themselves.

    So its all about the new genes we get when we cross fertilise.

    But some ancient lost Atlantis people say that we willed our child , that is no sex to get a child, and that, sex separation was a later event.

    just rambling....

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jesse, your argument is based on the incredulous image of fully developed humans walking around waiting for their sex organs to develop....the whole organism evolves together, not by independent pieces, like sex organs. There are clear examples of tissue specialization, including distinct areas for procreation, in the simplest multicellular organisms. Volvox is a good example.

    If anything, Evolution teaches us that we are connected to all life on this planet. You should ask yourself why do all mammals have sex organs that are morphologically the same?

    Free Constantinople

    ReplyDelete
  12. Doesn't anyone get sick of answering irrelevant questions that theists throw into the mix? Jesse completely dodged the question there and started rambling about something completely incoherent. He isn’t going to be taught anything if that is the type of the argument that convinces him.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The reason you're not getting any coherent comments from people who believe in God is the pretentious, provocative and, if you'll pardon the irony, holier-than-thou attitude with which you phrase all your posts.

    I agree with most of what you say regarding atheism and evolutionary theory, but it doesn't mean that I don't find your petty method of address galling. I imagine your site is almost impossible to read for and poor sap who, woe betide their little soul, doesn't think exactly what you do.

    Throw a bit of crass, patronising exposition on your personal solution for those idiots in the Middle East, and, well done, it's no wonder all your readers agree with you, because the only people who'll stick around for long will be those who think exactly what you think, in exactly the overbearing way that you think it, because anyone else is intellectually alienated by your ridiculous pomposity.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Statto, I have never seen an unbiased or unopinonated blog, and I'm sure you don't have one either, as your comment is quite pompous and overbearing.

    FC

    ReplyDelete
  15. Statto, I'm on the sarcastic side, but not the condescending side.

    As far as not being able to understand my blog, I'll take it as a compliment. I am a layman when it comes to science, in other words, I'm not a rocket scientist. So I only make scientific posts that I can understand and try to stay away from
    technical issues.

    I do get many who disagree with me. Many Atheists are passive on The War on Terror. Many even argue on the Palestinian side, yet they still keep coming back.

    I knew the question I posed in this particular post would not be answered (I was hoping otherwise), because I know that Fundies will not answer this type of question from experience. It has nothing to do with my attitude.

    And yes FC, if it wasn't for me to be opionated in my sarcastic way, I wouldn't even have a blog.

    That being said, I'd love to have the entire world read this thing, but if anyone feels I'm condescending or too abrasive or offensive, there is no need for them to show up here.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Here's something to think about...

    The basic problem in this kind of discussion, is that religion and science work in two different worlds.
    Science deals with the natural world, what can be see, touched, experimented with. Religion works with the super-natural world. It includes the natural world, but it also includes things 'beyond' the natural world. Any scientist will tell you that they cannot prove or disprove the existance of the super-natural world. Science is not capable of exploreing it. There is nothing wrong with that, its just the nature of science.

    A person in the natural world, is like a 2-dimensional person, in a 3-demensional world (super-natural). Everything he see's is strictly 2-dimensional, to see beyond that is impossible.

    If a person does not believe in a super-natural world, then science is sufficent to provide him a framework in which to live. But a person who does believe in a super-natural world, need something beyond science to explain it... hence religion.

    I dont have to reconcile the scientific concept of evolution with the biblical concept of creation.... I accept that there is a God, as so i accept that science see 'reality' only in the thin slices that it is able to test and theorize on.. so it doenst bother me when science and religion dont agree. After all, as far as I am concerned, science is like the 2-dimensional man in a 3D world.
    Dont think i'm slamming science.. i'm not. Science is great.. was the love of my life before i got into computers ;) Its one of the most usefull tools we've come up with to deal with our world, and provides us with good working answers. doesnt mean they are always right, but they get the job done :)
    But even science occasionaly tosses up something that stands flat against evolution... There is one PHD i know of, who has studied the oldest known rock formations.. the base rocks. And while other scientist disagree with his conclusions of WHY, the evidence shows that those rocks, formed in a period of seconds..... not the thousands of years needed by evolution.
    Anyway.. just a thought.. doesnt answer your question specificly ;) but give another perspective to the whole discussion maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "...because I know that Fundies will not answer this type of question from experience."


    Of course, fundamentalists can't answer the question from experiance, they haven't yet evolved!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dave, please point out one peer reviewed study that makes one question whether evolution is true, or one peer reviewed study that questions the age of the earth.

    Again, I ask, why do you want to look for loopholes in evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  19. All that concerns me is that you are becoming a blinkered fundamentalist, just with a different bent to the Christian Right you seek to oppose. I think that what you call sarcasm is in fact quite inflammatory, even to fellow atheists.

    …if anyone feels I'm condescending or too abrasive or offensive, there is no need for them to show up here.

    True, but that argument is invalid firstly because people can't find out that you're abrasive without showing up, and secondly because, as a reductio ad absurdum, that kind of attitude justifies any level of horrible bigotry, as long as it's possible to ignore it. Just like the terrible injustices you see in the Middle East…why not just look the other way as you suggest I do?

    As you say on my 'blog, it's impossible to convert believers, and so I'm unlikely to convince you. But lest you be the ugly face of atheism, I would implore you to tone down th 'sarcasm'.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Bacon

    One of the points i was trying to make, addresses the question you just asked.. using science to prove or disprove a super-natural concept/event.. cant be done, even science will agree with that.

    As to looking for 'loopholes' in evolution.. I dont assume that evolution is the law/rule.. and so dont need a loophole.. perhaps a bit of semantics, but it is still not necessary for me.

    Here's a couple things to consider.. and remember, i'm NOT a scientist ;)
    We assume that time is linear and constant. A pretty good assumption, since we live with it every day.. shall we say that our experimental evidence would support that conclusion ;)
    But.. what if it isnt linear and constant???? what impact could that have on evolution?
    Here's the issue... we know that time is not constant. Einstein predicted it was not, and how to prove it. He was right, tested and proven. We can change the 'rate' of time by changeing speed (all though.. to the people experienceing the changed rate, it still seems constant.) So it isnt constant.. is it also not linear? who knows ;)

    Geneology.. I'm fascinated by it.. do it in my spare time.. but anyone who tells you they can trace thier family back to 'adam' has a hole in thier heads ;)
    However.. an interesting study has been done over the last few years.. looking for the most recent common ancestor of all living people. (one person who is in EVERYONE's family tree) This study determined that this individual lived between 2000 and 5000 years ago (the most likely being 3500). That corrisponds pretty well with the Biblical story of a flood ~4000 years ago. thats 'kinda interesting.. but' if you know what i mean. What is interesting is that the study also found, that everyone living today, had the exact SAME set of ancestors.. between 5000 and 7000 years ago.. which fits with a creation story set at ~6000 years ago.
    (this was published in 'Nature', i dont have a date. Steve Olson / Joseph Chang / Douglas Rohde)

    This does NOT prove creation or disprove evolution.. but does give me some faith in the accuracy of the Bible.
    Its only evidence.. not flat out proof, and short of watching God create a world in 7 days, or watching an new species evolve.. we'll never have unanswerable proof of either.

    Any way.. like i said previously.. just to give a different perspective.
    Thank you for allowing me to speak here.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  21. Here's the article and the abstract:


    Nature. 2004 Sep 30;431(7008):562-6. [MEDLINE]

    Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans.

    Rohde DL, Olson S, Chang JT.

    Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA.

    If a common ancestor of all living humans is defined as an individual who is a genealogical ancestor of all present-day people, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for a randomly mating population would have lived in the very recent past. However, the random mating model ignores essential aspects of population substructure, such as the tendency of individuals to choose mates from the same social group, and the relative isolation of geographically separated groups. Here we show that recent common ancestors also emerge from two models incorporating substantial population substructure. One model, designed for simplicity and theoretical insight, yields explicit mathematical results through a probabilistic analysis. A more elaborate second model, designed to capture historical population dynamics in a more realistic way, is analysed computationally through Monte Carlo simulations. These analyses suggest that the genealogies of all living humans overlap in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular, the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors.


    This is interesting, but it is important to not take this out of context. Unfortunately, Nature Publishing NEVER allows free access to the whole articles they publish so we can only see the abstract. The results of overlap of mathematical models at 4000 years should be considered in the light that many civilizations are much older than 5000 years. So were the ancient Egyptians not really humans? Hmmm? I think Damascus holds the record as the oldest continually inhabited city at around 8 to 10 thousand years.

    really it would be VERY important to get the WHOLE article to understand these models.

    free constantinople

    ReplyDelete
  22. Statto, I'm hardly a militant Atheist. I'm pretty tame, but I do enjoy mocking.

    Dave, I'm familiar with Olson, he attacks geneology on a mathematical basis, but makes glaring errors. Scientific studies show that man traces back to a man in Africa 60,000 years ago and females traces back to a female 150,000 years ago in Africa.
    Olson states that a common ancestor existed 6000 years ago. Without geneological proof. It is a known fact that Aboriginals first showed up in Australia 40,000 years ago, and Clovis Man showed up in North America prior to 12,000 years ago, and the descendants of North American Indians showed up between 8 and 12,000 years ago. And of course there are those lines who never left Africa, or left less than 5 or 6,000 years ago.
    As far as the Ark and a great flood that covered the earth goes....it is a ridiculous story backed up by no scientific proof. And yes, scientific fact could easily prove a global flood at a certain period of time.
    And I am not a scientist. But it is claims of the Ark that prove the bible not to be literal and allegorical at best.

    ReplyDelete
  23. FC, Olson wrote a book.
    There is a recent AP article about it.

    It is based on pure math. Math doesn't work with populations. It doesn't take into account famines, wars, natural disasters etc that wipe out large chunks of populations.

    Here is a scientific approach to common ancestry.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ahh but Bacon..

    You are basing your 'glaring errors' on what you believe to have been proven. When an alternative theory is proposed, is it wrong simply because it doesnt agree with what you belive to have been proven?
    Science is always in a state of flux, it is its nature. What we 'know' to be true today, we find was only an aproximation of the truth, or simply wrong tomorrow. So what science 'knows' today.. I'll take with a grain of salt.. if you dont mind ;) (Einstein once said that his theory of relativity, was not 'the answer', but just his best guess at the answer.. that is what science is.. at least he recognized it)

    The analysis of mtDNA set the aproximate dates for human migration that you refered to. Its a pretty new science, and possibly not as refined as it needs to be. The 'age counting' mutations in the dna were assumed to happen at 1 mutation every 10,000 years.. why? because that fit the current theories of human migration. Since then, several tests have concluded that the 1 mutation / 10k years is not accurate, and that the mutations occur much more rapidly then that, and the rate of mutations is not even constant with in linage lines. Further more, the theory only works if mtDNA is ONLY trasmitted by the female parent.. studies have indicated that is not the fact, and there is much discussion revolving on that issue. If male mtDNA is transfered, then it is impossible to measure the mutation rate.
    I wont pretend to understand all that.. the point isnt that they are right or wrong, but that we dont know if they are right or wrong ;) We take it on faith that they know what they are talking about... until a better idea comes along.

    As to statistics (math).. it only works on populations, it doesnt work on individuals. The reason we have the mathmatical sciences of statistics and probability is that it does work on populations.

    The original work on this topic, did in fact, not take into account many of the 'facts of life' so to speak. I dont remember the exact time.. but i think they indicated that the most recent common ancestor(MRCA) was at 20k years back under that model. The model was refined to cover many of the situations that people would realy run into, and that brought the MRCA to the 2-5k years ago range.
    In the original model, it assumed a 'flat world' with a uniform distribution. Anything that disrupts that uniform distribution (mountains, oceans, famines, floods, wars..) only serves to tighten the time frame, bring the MRCA closer to our time.

    I'm real way off track here. I have no intention of argueing the validity of anyones belief system. Just point out that there are other ways to look at things. That science does not, and can not provide all the answers. (Much as I enjoy science)

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dave b, any chance of you posting a link to a source regarding mtDNA inherritance from a father?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Don't hold your breath choosedoubt,

    sperm only inject chromosomal DNA into an egg at fertilization. There is absolutely no doubt about that, as it would be so easy to show. First evidence of this has been provided that in family studies where you compare mtDNA's, the children's mtDNA (sons and daughters) always match the mother's mtDNA not the fathers. There is no debate about this.

    further this statement by Dave is entirely incorrect
    "The 'age counting' mutations in the dna were assumed to happen at 1 mutation every 10,000 years.. why? because that fit the current theories of human migration."

    Mitochondrial DNA mutation rates are determined by copy fidelity of the enzymes involved in the process of replicating and repairing DNA, it was determined by geneticists and biochemists who did not give a whit about "human migration."

    Also he states
    "If male mtDNA is transfered, then it is impossible to measure the mutation rate."

    If male mtDNA were transferred then sons and daughters would have a mixture of father and mother mtDNA, as stated above this is easily tested and never the case.

    FC

    ReplyDelete
  27. CD
    There are various articles about it.. and whatever they say,(some positive, some negative) remember tht this is an area that there is not a lot of agreement in. You are going to find arguements on both sides of this fence..

    However here are a couple of links to articles about parental mtDNA, i'll mention them, because they point out that it creates a problem for people using it as we have discussed here..

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2716
    or
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/831495/posts

    it is a couple years old, but you can find other articles.
    (again.. it doesnt prove anything other then our ability to mis-undersand.. but it might provide some evidence to support whatever you do believe.)

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  28. anonymous - hence the request for a source :)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thanks Dave. Interesting reading, but I'd like to read more. Either way, it does no damage to the theory of evolution. Even if paternally inherrited mtDNA is confirmed it certainly does nothing to discredit evolution or credit creationsists even if it does add an additional factor to consider when using mtDNA mutations as a dating method.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thanks for the articles

    The first one however, is a study of a single person (with a genetic defect no less), this is not the way normal genetics works

    From the second article
    "Several recent papers, however, have suggested that elements of mtDNA may sometimes be inherited from the father."

    I think the keys here are "sometimes" and "elements".

    Genetic studies like maternal eve would never be performed by choosing one person and doing an analysis. Larger populations of people would contribute to these studies to compensate for "contaminated" samples and statistical outliers. Your point about nothing being proven or disproven is well taken, but in this case, I don't think "elements" in "some" samples are enough to skew the results. The statistical test are robust enough to compenstae for outliers and other mishaps.

    FC

    ReplyDelete
  31. Again Dave, you stated you are not a scientist yet it is apparent that you are picking up your information from creationist web sites whose science consists of poking holes in modern biological and geological science. C'mon, be honest.

    My question again to you is why do you really have a problem accepting evolution and perhaps an ancient earth? What part of the bible states that evolution is false? or Did you learn this from a Preacher, Priest or Rabbi?

    I'll leave the paternal mitochondrial DNA topic to someone who understands the significance of your two articles. Actually, one real article, the second is just creationist propoganda.

    ReplyDelete
  32. FC, from what I'm reading on the subject, 99.9% of the time, paternal mitochondrial DNA, does not pass:

    From Talkorigins:

    The use of mitochondrial mtDNA to investigate human history is not without drawbacks.

    The rate of mtDNA mutation is not well known. A study by Parsons et al. (1997) found a rate 20 times higher than that calculated from other sources. In an article reviewing mtDNA research, Strauss (1999a) reports that mtDNA mutation rates differ in some groups of animals, and can even vary dramatically in single lineages. Although there are many agreements, some divergence dates for modern animals calculated from mtDNA do not match with what is known from the fossil record. There are suggestions from a few sources that paternal mtDNA can sometimes be inherited, which could affect analyses based on mtDNA.

    In 1999 Awadalla et al. published a study suggesting that mtDNA could sometimes be inherited from fathers. If mtDNA is inherited only from mothers, the correlation between different mutations should not depend on how far apart on the genome they were. Instead, their measurements showed that mutations at distant sites on the mtDNA genome were less likely to be correlated than nearby mutations, suggesting that mtDNA from mothers and fathers could sometimes get mixed. However, there is no explanation so far as to how this recombination could be occurring, and the possibility that other phenomena could be causing this effect has not yet been disproved. If it occurs, mixing would mean that the dates from current mtDNA studies would be too old. If mixing is common enough, it could even mean that there was no mitochondrial Eve, because different parts of the mtDNA molecule would have different histories. (Awadalla et al. 1999, Strauss 1999b) Other studies, however, have contradicted these results and argued for strictly maternal mtDNA inheritance (Elson et al. 2001), and, according to Sykes (2001), the Awadalla paper and another paper which also suggested that mtDNA could be inherited paternally were based on incorrect data and were later retracted.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Here is an article on the subject by Panda's Thumb, calling the finding insignificant when it comes to evolution and Mito Eve.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think what we see in comments on this thread are a typical Creationist pattern of "in I find one contrary example, then your theory must be wrong". This of course, is silly. The onus is on the doubters to show that paternal transference of mtDNA is not just possible (especially in people with genetic defects), but common enough in normal populations to challenge the weight previous evidence.

    FC

    ReplyDelete
  35. Good article BEAJ

    I like this quote
    "So the topic turns out to be evolutionarily relevant in another way, and reaffirms the old rule in biology: there’s nothing so absurd or unusual that it doesn’t exist in at least one organism."

    one example (or more) does not break the theory's back

    FC

    ReplyDelete
  36. FC
    Surely you are not suggesting that information comeing from a source that disagree's with your beliefs, can simply be discarded as 'propoganda'....

    besides.. the two articles say the same basic thing.
    (I know you are not suggesting that.. was just giving you a hard time ;) )

    as for where i get my information.. i purposefully try to avoid 'creationist sites' .. however that one was pretty clear and easy to follow.

    Bacon has just posted another article that discusses both the 'clock rate' and the paternal inheritance issue. Since the Awadalla study.. more study's have been done, and the paternal inheritance of mtDNA seems even more likely (at least from the dozen or so sites i have found)

    As to how the clock was set to 1 mutation every 10k years.. Obviously, we have no directly measureable evidence that goes back 10K years.. so another method (other then direct measurement) had to be used.
    They compared the human and chimp genomes and determine what they felt was the correct number of mutations that needed to have happened to go back to the common ancestor of both humans and chimps. Then they used the estimated date as set by the geological evidence, as the time frame, divide (i guess there is a slight modification to strictly divideing) .. divided the number of mutation into the time frame ~5million years, and came up with ~10k years per mutation.
    It's kind of like taking a string and guessing it is 50 ft long, then marking off '1 foot' sections and using it to measure things.

    Of course how they selected the initial timeframe is somewhat a non-issue, as experimental evidence shows that mutations occur in a rate of 1 in 25-40 generations rather then the 1 in 500 generations of the original 'scale'.

    Again.. its important to remember.. that none of this proves or disproves either evolution or creation. It simply shows that the scientific truths you have today.. may change in a short period of time. As hard as we try, we do not realy understand nature. (but we do good enough to enjoy a decent life ;) )

    One of my points in bring up the mtDNA issue, is that with the current 'faster' mutation rate, the proverbial Mitocondrial Eve, falls in time scope with the Math study done by Olson and company.. it is just interesting.

    Of course, the important question you ask has nothing to do with the sciences, but why i believe what i believe.
    You and I come from two vastly seperated sides of an issue. We have very little 'common ground' ;)
    Remember that from the start, i have said that i believe in the super-natural, in saying that, I am saying that i believe there is more to the universe then what we can see and test with our sciences. Our sciences are a limited tool that can only investigate part of our environment. Like i use as an example, a 2D person in a 3D world.

    Scientific theory is good, it works, it provieds answers we can use.. however those answers do not have to accuratly represent reality in order to work. To me, they are simpy our best guess on how things work, without resorting to super-natural influences.. and because i believe in the super-natural, i have no problem regulating science to just a tool. one that can and does make mistakes.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  37. So Dave, you are saying that science can not explain everything. And the answer to that is "not yet". But theism explains nothing and never will - it is a non-answer and provides absolutely no understanding or insight - it is a quit ridiculous stance.

    Furthermore, the supernatural hypothesis is one that has been consistently overturned. From sun gods to astrology, the supernatural "explanation" has lost absolutely every battle against science when science has delivered the understanding that accurately describes phenomena to the point of accurately predicting reoccurance.

    It's important to remember that the scientific method is actually based on disproving theories, not proving them as it is a logical fallacy to state that one can prove that event B follows event A on every occassion. But if just one time event B does not follow event A then one has disproven the theory that event A certainly causes event B. Evolution is a theory and the reality is that it's just one word for an extremely deep topic, subtheories will be disproved and already have been, but the core concept of mutation and inherritence has overwhelming evidence in favour of it, without any requirement or indeed evidence of any supernatural influence.

    Science does make mistakes of course, but theism, creationism and ID are mistakes. They are mistakes because there is not one signle observable reason or piece of suggestive evidence in their favour. The young earth hypothesis is firmly disproven by observable phenomena in fields ranging from astronomy through to zoology. It amkes absolutely no difference whether science appears to fumble at times or not because it is the very nature of science that new theories advance upon and replace old theories. To criticise science for not having all the answers perfectly in order is like criticising a seed for not being a tree it ignores the growth in understanding and knowledge which is the product of process.

    Scientists embrace new information whether it fits with their existing theories or not. It is only theism that says "this isthe answer and end of story" - despite the fact that nothing supernatural has ever occured and no evidence of the supernatural has ever stood up to investigation. Theists forget how many times theism has lost to the advancement of understanding and the discovery of new questions. Claiming the supernatural explanation for anything is simply a way of trying to pass of ignorance as wisdom and it can never weather the more profound understanding that science continues to expand.

    ReplyDelete
  38. CD
    You are right science is the process of proposing a theory and then attempting to disprove it.
    On occasion, something becomes so well grounded in fact, that it stops being a theory, and becomes a law (actually has a scientific proof)

    I'm going to answer along two lines..
    the first being that if science is allowed to make mistakes, correct them and move on.. then isnt Thiesm allowed to do the same? (sungods .. astrology) If you believe in the super-natural, then surely you have to be given the same allowence to mis-understand that science has. Personally, I dont believe in the 'evolution of theism' any more then i believe in biological evolution.. but it is still an interesting point :)
    In that line, you have to understand that those issues (disproving sun gods) is completely immaterial to my stand. As in my belief system, God created man and actually sat down and talked to him, 1st hand relationship. All these other super-natural views, are perversions of the 'truth', let see.. equivalent to a bad scientific theory, based in bad science.
    So to say that Thiesm has been proven wrong based on those examples, is to ignore my theological position that discounted them before they were ever dreamed up.

    The second issue would be that by its very nature, science is not capable of investigateing the super-natural. In fact, any scientist who claims to be doing such, is accused of using psudoscience.
    The natural universe, is simply the part of the super-natural universe that we can see and interact with. That is self limiting, science is not capable of proving or disproveing anything outside of the natural universe. And if you ask any scientist, they will say so. One thing science has cosistantly shown, is that there is more beyond our current understanding, and everything we learn, only shows there is more we dont know.

    You suggest that i criticise science for not haveing all there answer perfectly in order.. I dont. I realy dont expect it to, I understand the fluid nature of science. however, if we allow science to be respected without haveing all its 'ducks in order'.. why cant we allow 'theism' the same right? If you cant condem science because a piece of it appears to be wrong, can you condem thiesm because a piece of it appears to be wrong?

    Remember.. ;) i'm not here to argue the validity of evolution. There are people who could argue the details of that for the rest of thier lives (on both sides.. and they do do it ;) )
    Bacon made an open invitation for someone who did not believe in the classical theory of evolution, to share thier reasoning.
    I'm not attempting to answer that directly.. simply point out that there are other positions in which to view the science of evolution from. Positions that once you've made a decision to accept, are as valid as the position you have when you choose not to accept it.

    You may not accept my position on the super-natural, but it is a postion that can neither be proven or disproved with our current understanding of science.. So to accept it, or to not accept it both take a certian amount of a step into the unknown. And as large a step as you see me taking into the unknown.. from my position, you are takeing an equally large step the other way.

    Your step makes science a ruler against which things are measured, mine says that science is simply a limited tool that helps us understand, but is fundamentally handicaped by not haveing access to all the data (the super-natural)

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dave, why are you not answering my question directly?

    Why as a non scientist do you insist on looking for answers to "holes" in science from non-scientists? Why do you reject evolution? And again, you have proved here that it isn't because of your knowledge of science.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dave,

    "So to say that Thiesm has been proven wrong based on those examples, is to ignore my theological position that discounted them before they were ever dreamed up."

    Well, that's simply not true. Whether you are a christian, a jew, a muslim or whatever, yours was not the first religion. It is also not the only religion that shares a common creation myth, just as it shared myths regarding for instance the organization of the solar system. These myths have been proven to be just that, myths with no basis in fact as demonstrated by repeated observation.

    "The second issue would be that by its very nature, science is not capable of investigateing the super-natural."

    Science cannot investigate that which does not exist, however much of what has been considered supernatural has been revealed by science to be entirely natural (day and night, disease, explipses, thunder, lightning, weather, volcanos, geological features, the list in practically endless).

    "That is self limiting, science is not capable of proving or disproveing anything outside of the natural universe."

    Theism is not capable of demonstrating that there is anything outside of the natural universe to investigate. Not one shred of evidence in the history of the entire universe from what we have seen to date. So "self-limiting science" is rather a foolish statement since you are suggesting that science limits itself by only examing what can be examined. This is further ridiculed by the fact that theoritical science often predicts phenomena many years before we are able to observe them and confirm their existence. Can you explain how theism is not self-limiting? It appears to me that there must be some severe limitation if one can be presented with millions of mutually corrobating observations and yet still deny observable reality in favour of a "theory" that has not one single observation to its credit.

    "You suggest that i criticise science for not haveing all there answer perfectly in order.. I dont. I realy dont expect it to, I understand the fluid nature of science. however, if we allow science to be respected without haveing all its 'ducks in order'.. why cant we allow 'theism' the same right? If you cant condem science because a piece of it appears to be wrong, can you condem thiesm because a piece of it appears to be wrong?"

    That appears to be a balanced view to someone lacking scientific education, but it is not a balanced view because it is ignoring the fact that creationism has not one single piece of evidence to support it. Evolution has millions of pieces of evidence supporting it. It simply isn't balanced. OK, evolution still has many questions. The fossil record is not complete, although there are a vast number of significant fossil examples clearly demonstrating transitionary states. Creationsism doesn't just have a few holes and it is unfair and intellectually vacant to align it in credibility to evolution on that basis because creationsim has NO EVIDENCE. Nothing at all - zip - nada. Present some evidence in support of creationism and then yes it would have won the right to be considered as a competing theory, but with no evidence other than pointing out that science doesn't have all the answers then the argument is absolutely invalid.

    If I present a theory that the earth was created by kangaroos and my only "proof" of this is that the study of the evolution of life on this planet is an ongoing study then shoulpd I expect my kangaroo theory to be given credit? Of course not, and this is exactly the same ground that creationsim treads. With no evidence at all in it's favour and no evidence at all in contra to evolution it is not a competing theory - it's just plain wrong.

    "Positions that once you've made a decision to accept, are as valid as the position you have when you choose not to accept it."

    Not if the basis for validating/supporting a theory is evidence, which it is in science. It's absurd to suggest that subscribing to faith is an equally valid method of determing truth as the detailed investigation and testing of ALL evidence.

    "You may not accept my position on the super-natural, but it is a postion that can neither be proven or disproved with our current understanding of science.. So to accept it, or to not accept it both take a certian amount of a step into the unknown. And as large a step as you see me taking into the unknown.. from my position, you are takeing an equally large step the other way."

    Again, you are asserting that the two positions are comparable on grounds of equal merrit and this is simply not true. For one thing, theism asserts a final answer. That isn't just step into the unknown - it's a giant leap into pure fantasy. It is still more ludicrous in that the final answer actually provides absolutely no information. Asserting a creator as a solution at best just shifts the focus away from a study of something that we have evidence exists (the universe) to the study of something we have no evidence of and therefore no interaction with and no ability to observe (the supernatural/god/the creator/the great kangaroos). And in shifting the focus you lose awareness of the fact that then the creator requires explanation and since the creator "created" the entire universe the creator is arguable still more complex and unlikely than the universe you have created him to explain. No, a step into the unknown this is not. This is a step into pure fantasy and logical graveyard of the uncritical mind.

    Science on the other is based on taking steps into the unknown - it's called investigation. It is the process by which real answers are uncovered and real understanding expanded and it only ever offers specific answers to specific questions - never a detail free catch all default empty hypothesis that does absolutely nothing to enhance understanding of anything. You can state all you like that you have nothing against science but you should probably learn what it is before you decide. It is the force by which your supernatural universe has been hardened into observable, reproducible, understandable fact and there has not once ever been a case of the reverse occuring. You cannot change the fact that you are basing your theory on the absence of evidence in a theory with which you disagree despite the fact that there are millions of pieces of supportive evidence for it and absolutely no evidence at all for the theory you support. That, if you'll excuse me for saying it, is just plain stupid. It's pure faith. And faith in this particular disagreement has been clearly proven to be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  41. But CD

    In your postition.. you have made science the ruler against which everything is measured. You propose that the only valid position is the scientific position. the only valid course of investigation is the scientific one.
    So, in order for me to validate my position, you require proof that falls inside your system.
    Thats frankly absurd
    Why should i have to validate my position by your rules? Particularly if i consider your rules to be simply a subset of the rules? a subset that is currently incapable of determining the validity of my position.
    This isnt dogma.. this is understanding that there is more to the universe then science is capbable (currently) of understanding or explaining.

    CD, you dont have to agree with me, i'm sure you never will ;) I'm not even asking you to agree with me. I'm simply pointing out there are perspective outside the scientific one, perspectives that by thier very nature, can not be proven or disproven by science.

    That there IS a God, is a position that science can neither prove or disprove, yet is the foundation of my belief system.. now if someone COULD prove it one way or another (by scientific means) that would sure simplify so many other things ;)

    Bacon..
    Why as an athiest, do you insist on looking for answers to holes in theological issues from other athiest? Dont answer that ;) it wasnt a serious question.. but it is the same question you asked me.

    the simple answer is, as i've said before.. I dont consider science the rule by which 'truth' is measured. I consider science as one tool to use to understand the universe, and believe it is a tool that is fundamentally handicaped because it doesnt have access to all the data. that doesnt mean it is unuseable.. it just means it has to be used within the limits of its capabilities.
    As i've stated, I believe in a super-natural world. It cant be proven by science, it cant be disproven by science.. I believe in it.
    The nice thing is.. that scientific discovery can be enjoyed for the sake of discovery itself.. not because it proves anything (or disproves anything). New findings in science dont shake my world, they are simply more fun things to play with.
    I'm not a PHD, but i'm also not exactly a science illiterate. I have a pretty good grasp of the theory of evolution. A lesser grasp on the formation of the universe. I understand the scientific method very well ;) I have some understanding of both the strengths and holes in the theories, and a continueing interest in seeing how science answers the holes.

    I suspect that in the end.. creationist (theist) will discover that science was more right about more things then they thought.. and that science (non-theist?) will find that the super-natural is more real then they suspected.

    Bacon, CD ( FC? ;) )

    The point of this discussion wasnt to find answers to all the questions that mankind has ;)
    Bacon asked for some input from a person who did not believe in evolution. I think you hoped that someone would come with facts that might be used to disprove evolution and those could be discussed. I'm not interested in argueing facts.. its not that i dont know or understand them, its not that i dont know or understand the reasoning behind them.

    I believe in a God, in particular a Biblical God.. and if you take that position (and yes CD, it is a matter of faith to take this position). If you take that position, then you have to acknowledge tht His creation extends a bit beyond what science (currently) can understand or investigate.
    Of course.. if you dont believe in God.. then the rest does not follow, and you are left with science to answer your questions.

    This in particular isnt something I will argue about :) as there is no way to win such an arguement from either side.

    Our positions are opposite to the extreme ;) and none of us would be willing to give up the way we measure what is true.
    And while you may not accept it.. some people dont agree with science in some areas (evolution?) not because they dont understand the science, but because the believe in something bigger then science.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dave, the point is I didn't want to have someone come here to argue evidence about evolution. I wanted people to come here to state why evolution is unacceptable to their belief system.

    I don't look for holes in theology. I only look at facts and reality. The observation of facts then turn the literal bible into junk. For example, the Ark, a young earth, even the Exodus and a historical Jesus. I have no problem believing in any story that was backed up by facts and evidence. I'm not closed minded.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dave I have no problem what-so-ever with your faith in the super-natural. However I recognize the personal "dig" you make in comparing it in the terms of 2 dimensional (naturalists) and 3 dimensional (super-naturalists), which of course implies that naturalists are lacking in both dimension and perspective. This is pure BS. Let's be clear that Creationists have been attacking Evolutionists for a long time. The place for Science education is in the class and Religious education is in church. It is the Creationists who clearly do not respect these borders and first tried in the 1970's and 1980's to smear evolution as a religion to have it removed from science classes. When this failed, Creationists changed their strategy to say that Intelligent Design was a science just like Evolution and deserves to be in schools. Now after key cases in federal court, ID is dead as a threat to real science curricula. But even now I can hear the rumbling of the Creationists "dusting off" their old "70's challenge" that Evolution is really just a religion.

    Here is my question to Creationists:
    Don't you understand that by shifting strategies and attacking Evolution on any point you think will work, not by one you think is true, that you reveal yourselves as having a strange obsession with destroying a sound theory?

    FC

    ReplyDelete
  44. Me think the fault lies with the version of Christianity that chose the path of dogma as truth , ultimate truth.

    Look back at 325 AD, as ONE instance, when the battle was waged between Arians and Althanians[ todays Catholics] for the supremacy of idea whether the Son was after the Father and thus lesser than the Father or the Son is co-equal of Father.

    Arians said Son is lesser and Althanians said Son is co equal.
    This was settled at this Nicean Council convened by first Christian Roman Emperor Constantine.

    What I want to say, is that dogma determines truth and Arians were out of the mainstream, as were Gnostics a century earlier when the battle was waged over supremacy of Gospels. I am referring to Gnostic and non Gnostic gospels. What we see today Mark Matthew Luke John are the latter. There are more but they are the former and until recently, they were hidden as non mainstream.

    The context of right thought to approach truth, is carried to purity of thought and faith in such pure and correct thought.

    The notion of the Old Testament and New as word of God, places a supremacy on the literal meaning.

    The advent of Protestanism with each reading the Bible, lead to literal intepretations even today, when, others have marched to non literal readings because of scholastic achievement in science history and many other disciplines.

    The average Protestant reader has no such luxury or benefit of such other in depth disciplines and so they go by literal reading and are time and literally trapped by faith and absence of modern discipline.

    This is a phase and will pass when knowledge becomes more pervasive.

    Too long to write....

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dave,

    You are highly mistaken. Science is neither the measure nor the units. Science is a process of determining fact. If investigation is intended to discern fact then science, in fact critical thinking and evidence based learning, is without doubt the only valid method. All other methods are at best equivalent to a guess – even if by chance you happen across the correct answer to any specific questioning you are unable to determine reason and so lack understanding regardless of the result.

    That is not absurd. Absurd is assuming that a book, compiled and edited over hundreds of years, with the mot significant section of that book to our discussion at this time genesis being a translation from pictorial representations etched in leather is more factual than millions of independent mutually corroborative observations that contradict that leather etching.

    Science does not have a perspective. You are confusing a method with a perception. The comparison is simply not valid. You are confusing your genres. Science may be beautiful, but it is not poetry nor is it fantasy. Your alternative “perspectives” lack merit as they lack evidence and are not based on logical deduction and reasoning. You are in fact championing the methodology of ignorance over the methodology of discovery and despite your obvious intelligence you do not seem to be aware of the difference.

    I cannot prove that there is not a god, but I can prove that the god of the Old and New Testament and the god of Muhammad are logically incoherent according to their own references. I can prove that we are not descended from Noah. I can prove that the diversity of animal species on this planet would have occupied a greater volume than his ark. I can prove that many of the stories and events in the bible share startling similarities with older pagan myths and that many alleged historical events within the texts are absolutely contradicted by observable fact. I can prove that by your own text your god cannot be what that very text describes it as due to powerful inconsistencies between alleged qualities and alleged action.

    So no, I cannot prove that there is no god, but I can prove that your god does not exist even before bringing into the issue evidence outside of your own scripts.

    Your plea for truth is based on emotional comfort and not evidence. It is not a comparable strategy for discovery and understanding and despite its lax requirement to adhere to the facts has still not delivered a single coherent argument in its favour based upon either evidence or logic.

    BEAJ asked you for input and he may correct me if I am wrong but I believe the input he desired was to know your reasons, not necessarily hard facts, but reasons to support your conclusion. You have not given any reasons. You have given conclusion only – god exists – but have given not one single reason as to how or why you have reached that conclusion. How do you justify the conclusion? Do you not feel rather stupid having reached a conclusion with no justification?

    The answer will of course be no. You will consider faith to be a rational justification of your conclusion but here you have one fallacy supporting another and vice a versa in what appears to the rational mind to be a vicious circle of self-reinforcing ignorance. Faith is not a justification. Faith is something that requires justification because it is a conclusion and yet theists always use one baseless conclusion to support another baseless conclusion. You lack reason and you have provided none here.

    Don’t get me wrong. Your posts regarding mtDNA inheritance were interesting and I have no doubt that you are both intelligent and well educated. But you have excused an enormous part of your understanding from having to have reason and I consider that to be vacuous, valueless and harmful.

    Belief is irrelevant. Observation and reproducible experimentation have absolutely nothing to do with belief. Testable theories have nothing to do with belief. Science has nothing to do with belief.

    Belief has absolutely nothing to do with truth.

    Please provide your reasons for belief in something with no evidence over something that entirely contradicts your belief and yet has millions of reasons - millions of observations

    ReplyDelete
  46. Choose, I'm not looking for reasons why a YEC believes the earth is young and that evolution is crap, I'm looking for why it is important to them that evolution is false, why do they have to dismiss science or poke holes in science? What part of the bible makes them have to reject evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  47. BEAJ, I stand corrected. One step at a time.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Wow talk about a can of worms.. someone help me nail the lid back on LOL

    Lets start with Bacon first.. you are asking why i believe what i believe (includeing the evolution issues)
    Lets start by saying that while I believe in a young earth, there is a lot about evolution that i find interesting, even factual. I dont argue against evolution (not specificly) but i do have some issues with it. I dont dismiss or try to poke holes in sound science (and yes a lot behind evolution is sound), i try to use science to help me understand my God more. And here is where things come to a head. If we can at this point, lets just accept that for whatever reasons, i have sufficent proof for myself to believe in my God. This causes an impass between science and God. The reason is, that God claims that the scriptures, are His word. One of the very first things He says, is that He created the world, and everything in it, includeing man.
    As i said,,an impass, because science has a (well documented) theory that says that life arose on its own by random chance. So where does that leave me?
    I have to choose between believing in a God who claims creation, or science that says it was all a random occurance. I have a God that claims to exist outside the natural world we see, designed it and keeps it running.. or science that says if you give chaos long enough, it will settle into order and produce an intelligent human being. -- remember, we're going on the assumption that I have found sufficent grounds for myself to believe in this God. --
    Well.. If I realy believe in this God... then I will accept His word over science every time, and will try to find a way to reconcile the two differing points of view. The first time I accept science as being a superiour authority to God, I cease to believe Him. I cant have it both ways.
    So the problem for ME isnt proveing or disproveing evolution (or any other theory) but reconcileing the differences between science and my 'Faith'.
    I cant speak for other people who disagree with evolution. Some of them are best described just as CD describes them, they simply attack to attack. I though am not looking to defeat evolution in particular, it is a theory that i believe will be reconciled in time. To me, it is like putting together any puzzle.. if i come to a place, where the pieces no longer seem to fit, i assume there are more pieces somewhere. (thats just a simple illistration.. lets not get too hung up on it ;) )

    I think FC next.. first an apology, it realy was not my intention to imply aht anyone lacked in dimension or perspective. I had not thought of that when i used the 2D / 3D example. I agree with you completely that to make the associated analogy would be BS and insulting.
    It is just that that example fits my concept so well in other ways. a 2D person can only see in 2D, even if he is in a 3D world. all 3D objects, look like 2D objects to him. So again , I apolgize.. no slight intended at all.
    One point you made is very important, that is that religion should not be taught as if it is science. I'm not saying that people should not use religion to give bounds to science,, but it most definatly should not be taught as if it was science.
    In specific, my answer to your question is, that I (and presumably other creationist) dont need to 'attack' Evolution. I think that to bring up inconsitancies and try to resolve them is acceptable, to point out flaws in fact/process/theory is also acceptable, any scientist would do the same.. afterall, science is a search for truth. So while there are a lot of Creationist that blindingly attack Evolution, dont think that means that eveyone who questions evolution, is blindingly attacking it ;) Personally, I believe the question of evolution vs creation will resolve itself at some point in time. Since I am not an expert in those particular area's, I will have to let others do research.
    ( I would like to point out, that i know of 'Evolutionist' who just as blindingly attack creationist.. it is an attitude that surfaces on both sides.. no excuse for it on either side)

    CD i'm going to try to answer your question. I think that our points of view on this are so different that you will simply not accept my 'arguement' as haveing any validity.. but hey..

    I believe the Bible is accurate. Of course, its impossible to prove, but evidence suggests that it is.
    The Bible records many names of people and places, many of them were considered to be fictional by people not convinced of the Bibles accuracy.. until archaeology started finding evidence that supported the Bibles position. Now the Biblical record of history for the middle east is pretty much established as being accurate according to archaeology. Of course, there are many things in the Bible that have not been proven, or can not be proven by archaeology.

    From a historical proof point, again the Bible is deemed a reliable record of history. There are other 'non-biblical' sources, that confirm many of the stories, people, places recorded in the Bible. Confirm it to a degree that passes the bar for a historical proof.
    Of course, neither the archaeological evidence, or the historical evidence prove the Bible is divinely inspired.

    One thing that we need to understand, is that the Bible is not a single book, not even 2 books.. It is actually 66 books, written by about 40 authors, covering about 1500 or so years. and these guys are all consistant with each other.

    That is important because in addition to the previous items.. the Bible is prophetic, and it is accurate in its prophecies. Just to be clear, writers of the various books of the Bible, told what was going to happen in the future. Not in ambigous terms that anyone could come up with a 'fulfilment' for, but exact descriptions of times / events / people.
    For the Bible to be accurate in this way.. it goes beyond science.
    This is evidence that it isnt just another book, and that there is more to nature then science can see.
    The evidences supporting the accuracy of the Bible in the area's where the evidence exists, make a good arguement for accepting that the Bible is accurate in the area's that can not be 'tested'.
    So yes I believe in a God, I believe I have sufficient evidence to support that position. Now we are back where I was at the beginning, when I asked you to assume I felt I had sufficent reason to believe what I believe.

    You may not agree with my position ;) I would guess that you very much disagree with with me.

    Bacon, The whole of the Bible is so tightly wound together, that if evolution was 'true' almost every part of the Bible would have to be false. Is that why most YEC's seem to have a drive to reject evolution? Cant tell you.. realy have not discussed it much with them. But it is why I dont believe it...

    I hope that came closer to answering your question..

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hi Dave,

    I, for one, appreciate your answer. And you are absolutely right – I don’t agree with you :)

    But I do find it interesting that you do see inconsistencies and consider that these inconsistencies between the biblical version and scientific understanding will one day be resolved.

    Most interesting is your closing comment “Bacon, The whole of the Bible is so tightly wound together, that if evolution was 'true' almost every part of the Bible would have to be false. Is that why most YEC's seem to have a drive to reject evolution? Cant tell you.. realy have not discussed it much with them. But it is why I dont believe it...”

    I am certain that your faith is highly important to you. Do you see that this importance may manifest as a bias that prevents you from impartiality when considering the evidence? After all, you state that to accept evolution means that the bible is essentially false. If your faith is based upon the bible, then it is your faith and all that it means to you (personal security, the idea of ever lasting life in heaven, seeing deceased loved ones again, and so on – all things I am sure you care very deeply about) that is threatened by evolution.

    Although I admit that I’d love to debate our differing understandings – maybe when the topic allows – for now I have only this to say…

    Truth doesn’t care.

    ReplyDelete
  50. LOL CD :)
    well, in that one specific, you and I agree completely .. that is 'Truth doesnt care'. It is our definition of Truth that seperates us so far.
    It's been great discussing this with you all.. i'm sorry it took me so long to recognize what questions i realy needed to answer ;)
    Only one thing I'd like to add / clarify.. Science (any science) does not threaten me or my faith. It probably does threaten many people. I went to college to become a nuclear chemist, then i got seduced by computers ;) (ok i'm a geek )I love science, i DO understand it.. i've just found that i dont have to be bound by it. You would not agree with that assesment, and thats fine. But to understand ME and how I think. you have to at least understand that is what I believe.
    Well i'm off to enjoy the holiday.. for those of you here in the USA Happy 4th ;) if you dont live here..make up and excuse and skip work anyway :)

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dave B, because you say that the bible has been proved to be historically true does not make that statement true.
    There is no evidence of the Exodus, a historical Jesus, the Ark, and a young earth. None. The fact you believe in a Young Earth and state that if that is wrong, the bible is wrong says a lot.

    We know for a fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is 13.9 billion years old.

    You are basically saying that God is a trickster. He put all the evidence on this planet and in the universe to lead scientists to find the earth is ancient and evolution is fact, but inspired a works to the contrary in the bible.

    Scientists never tried to disprove God, in fact the earliest scientists were highly religious. The just made a bunch of theories based on observations of the evidence.

    40% of Americans believe in an old earth, evolution, and God...around 15% of Americans throw God out the window, and 45% are YECs like you. But YECs aren't found in Europe so much.....the Vatican now has a stance where they don't call science crap like you obviously do by rejecting real science that proves evolution and an ancient earth.

    In fact, YECs are mostly found in America in the Western World.....the rest of the West gets it.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I think indignant evolutionists towards ID (intelligent design) are just being scientific pussies. ID does sit it the weird space of "chicken or egg" arguments. ID says God set up everything however, evolution assumes to have many complex cellular organelles and biochemical mechanisms in place to work. So ID sits in the space of how did all these basic mechanisms come to be ?

    The questions raised by ID are valid. For evolutionists to just point to the complexity of the cellular chemistry came about by probability and infinte time is a weak argument. That thinking is along the lines of the 1000 monkeys in 1000 years writing War and Peace. Many scientific theories are not so “absolute” that they can’t be subject to change, on tomorrow’s new finding or set of measurements, as we can find just by going over the cover stories over a year on scientific publications. Especially theories based with unknowable or limited knowledge assumptions, or potentially incomplete models.

    I also think that people who do try to scientifically analyze the bible, may be wasting their time. I have read many of the creationist theories, and I have yet to find any theory that is fully cohesive. Many of the theories seem to end up eventually using parts of the same science that they are trying to discredit. Besides if there actually was irrefutable proof of God’s existence, a lot of our “free will” would be out the door. So I think if there is a all powerful God who would like us to freely choose his way (without guilt or coercion), over our own greatness, he is not going to let himself be “proven”.

    My personal thoughts are that the creation story is not meant to be looked at scientifically. It is trying to describe the rift between man and God and the nature of God. The bible is meant for everyone. If it was written like "On the third day God created deoxyribonucleic acid ribosomes, endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, and associated enzymes of the basic building blocks of life “and went on to describe the process of cellular division, you would probably lose most of the illiterate sheep herders from your message and God’s message would only be for people with at least a master’s degree in biochemistry.

    I look at things that science tries to explain (with incomplete models or arguable assumptions) like global warming, common cold cures, and what killed the dinosaurs, and question how we can confidently say that we understand (without argument) that evolution definitely created everything. I think truly scientific people understand their ignorance.

    MG

    ReplyDelete
  53. MG, science doesn't try to disprove God, or the bible.
    Science observes reality.
    And you like almost every other creationist/IDer are confusing evolution and abiogenesis.

    Nothing in the bible has been proven scientifically to be true. The Great Flood, A Young Earth,
    the Exodus, even Jesus' existance as a historical figure.
    No proof, in fact, there is nothing, to the point that the only plausible conclusion is that the bible is full of a bunch of man made stories.
    ID was destroyed by Ken Miller, a Catholic and believer in God.
    Get over it. Nothing about ID is valid.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Dave--

    I'm new, found this blog through yahoo.

    I'm puzzled as to why embracing evolution would unwind the whole 'truth' of the Bible. Science has challenged the Bible's view of the natural order of things before and eventually religious views became reconciled with that. Few christians still argue for a geocentric universe, for example. This did not unwind the truths in the bible. nor does evolution. That is a standard you and others have set. You can unset that standard.

    You state that the bible is an accurate historical record. Very loosely, this is the case. So, for example, the bible mentions Jericho and there really was a jericho. But there is no evidence of Joshua or the walls of jericho tumbling down. The evidence suggests that jericho slowly crumbled and at the time that would have been the time of joshua, jericho may not even have been inhabited. There are many examples, the gospel writers are often incorrect in their discriptions of palestinian geography. or even in the political and religious forces that were supposedly contemporary with Jesus.

    You can accept all these errors without abandoning your faith in the god or gods of the bible. You would have to abandon your belief that the bible is the "word of god" in the sense that god wrote it and approved everything in it. That is true. But you don't have to believe in that in order to believe in the judeo-christian god (whichever one of them it is that you believe in).

    I'm grog225 but i can't remember by user info on blogger. also volcano god jahve on yahoo.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Grog, you can keep going as anonymous, but it is good to sign at the bottom of your post Grog, or you can go to the blogger site and put in your blogger ID and try to retrieve your password, or you can just register again, you don't need a blog to go along with it.

    ReplyDelete