|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 02/16/2008 : 14:03:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
Well, i would defiantly say that i don't think that saying that God did something is wrong per say. |
It's a question of interpretation. If God really was the Prime Mover, the guy that bought about our existence, then saying that God did something doesn't really answer any question. God would always be "guilty by association".
| There are things that even science cannot explain. |
Not at the moment, true.
For example, we cannot explain gravity. We know that it works. We have some pretty fancy "theories" about how it acts. The "theory" of gravity guides us in our daily work.
When you use the word "theory" as you did in your post, what does that mean to you? Why do you put the quotation-marks around it? I you like for you to think about it for a while, and then tell me why. I'm asking you to do this because this is something that is important: It is about how we communicate with each other. I will continue this train of thought when I have your response.
| Now to try and use God as your own personal crutch anytime someone brings up something you cant explain, then there is a problem. |
I'm glad that you realise this is a problem. In fact, way too many Christians in America do so. Recent insurgence of religion into politics, and more importantly policymaking on science education, proves that.
Using "God did it" too often only shows the people to be ignorant. Take lightning and thunder for example. Long ago people ascribed it to God or "the gods". But as science progressed, we learnt the truth: There is a materialistic cause.
This previously accepted truths that "God did it" has been supplanted by mundane explanations.
When you look at something "impossible" in biology, like the emergence of the first life, the first bacteria, you are committing the same mistake: Assuming that there cannot be an explanation outside God. When so many other extraordinary things have been found to have natural explanation, why discount the possibility that life from non-life could also have a natural explanation?
To say that God must have done it, and then stop looking for answers is nothing but lazy. Intellectual laziness.
| And in my opinion i think that evolutionists are a little guilty of this at times themselves. Only what they do is come up with a "theory" as to how this problem might have been solved through nature. |
Again, your use of 'quote' theory 'end-quote' is addressed above.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
BlueCollarScientist
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 01:25:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
Most of the guys i talk to and derive my questions from, are of the variety that do believe monkeys are proof of evolution |
Ummm, I believe monkeys are proof of evolution. Or more precisely, I believe they constitute evidence of evolution. I think the resemblance between this and this is pretty obvious. My choices in interpreting this are either to believe that an Intelligent Designer/Creator was not very creative and couldn't make two monkeys who are supposedly completely unrelated to one another look different; or to believe that these monkeys who look so similar must be related in some way.
Of course, by thinking that the monkeys must be related in some way, I'm generating testable predictions: these monkeys should share their biochemistry; they should share most of their genes; they should be composed of very similar cell types (more similar to each other than to, say, crayfish cells); they should be conceived, born, and mature in similar ways; they should have similar habitats; they should have similar behaviors; etc. Of course these predictions all turn out to be true as well. So there's a lot of supporting evidence for what I believe.
| and that science has answered every possible question involved with the debate(even though they couldn't give a single example). |
Everyone can see that the reason scientists do science is because they know that not all possible questions have been answered. The wonder that scientists experience and the journey of discovery they embark upon requires that not all the answers be in yet.
On the other hand, intelligent design creationists claim that all the answers have been found. That's not only arrogant, it is obviously wrong.
| But any ways I hope this doesn't anger any one but I don't think science could even begin to "prove" that God exists or doesn't. |
I think it is fortunate for your assertion that God never appeared before a scientist like John James Audubon.
The prospect of god getting his backside peppered with buckshot aside, if god can be said to have any objective properties, science should be able to run a test on them. One objective property that believers often claim of god is that he answers prayer, and specifically that he changes the physical world in response to the requests of believers. Science has tested that a number of times, and it turns out prayer has no effect. This is a bit of evidence that argues against god's existence - or at least that people who make claims for god don't know what they are talking about.
| Christians should tell you that God is beyond understanding. |
In the bible, god is depicted as being quite understandable to those he appeared to and spoken to.
| I was shocked when a good friend of mine didn't even know that the old testament said that slavery was ok. |
Hate to break it to you, but the New Testament seems to think slavery is OK too.
| I guess the main point is that a lot of people on both sides of the ideological fence are ignorant of their own beliefs as well as the beliefs of their neighbor's. |
It isn't ideology that leads me to accept evolution. I accept it because it is supported by overwhelming, independently verifiable evidence.
I reject creationism not because of ideology, but because creationist claims are (a) obviously wrong at fundamental, factual levels; and to a much lesser extent because those claims and the people making them are (b) morally depraved.
Evolution is accepted by people subscribing to a wide range of ideologies. Liberals, conservatives, pacifists, war hawks, communists, capitalists, and more all accept evolution, even though they can agree on little else.
Creationism (and especially intelligent design creationism) is widely accepted by only two kinds of ideologues - radical Christians, and radical Muslims.
Evolution is the foundation of all biological knowledge, and of almost all knowledge in several related disciplines - genetics, paleontology, geology, medicine, and more. Everyone who has eased the suffering of a sick person over the last century or more has done so with tools that evolution reveals and explains. Everyone who has cured a disease has done the same. Everyone who has truly, concretely improved the lot of humans in this world with any biology-related discipline has drawn upon the knowledge revealed with the incredibly powerful toolset called evolution.
The evolution deniers contribute nothing, and openly say they seek to replace all of this progress with something more ideologically acceptable.
It is pretty obvious where the ideologues are on this issue. |
http://bluecollarscientist.com/ |
|
|
|
andrew19
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 19:42:45 [Permalink]
|
| I would like to ask a simple question! What evidence, short of God coming out of the sky, and saying " hi", would it take for you to believe that God exists? I cant debate with you the finer points of biology. I am not learned enough to even begin to challenge the information you propose. I am working on fixing that but i am only 19. So that leaves me with few options. One, to do what I have done above and ask you simple questions with the sole purpose of learning. And two, give answers where and when I can. Now Theory: Is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the physical world. I feel that sometimes though, the word theory is used to make people assume that substantial evidence exists to support the purposed idea, even though the evidence is faulty are even completely falsified. Piltdown, or Archyopteryx for example. Both of these proven hoaxes were at one point in time used as proof for the theory of Macro evolution. Granted Piltdown man was short lived in that respect. What are your thoughts in respect to this. God bless and thanks for your time :D |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 20:11:07 [Permalink]
|
andrew asked:
| What evidence, short of God coming out of the sky, and saying " hi", would it take for you to believe that God exists? |
Even that would fall short. He/she/it would have to prove their claim. Of course, if it is omnipotent that shouldn't present much of a challenge.
| I cant debate with you the finer points of biology. I am not learned enough to even begin to challenge the information you propose. I am working on fixing that but i am only 19. |
Then:
| Now Theory: Is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the physical world. I feel that sometimes though, the word theory is used to make people assume that substantial evidence exists to support the purposed idea, even though the evidence is faulty are even completely falsified. Piltdown, or Archyopteryx for example. Both of these proven hoaxes were at one point in time used as proof for the theory of Macro evolution. |
You obviously don't understand the basic language either. Let me see if I can help you there.
An explanation of "theory".
Another link for you on "theory".
Now, you should put "pildown hoax" into a google search and try to learn a bit about it. It was a deliberate hoax, and it was uncovered by... scientific investigation! Imagine that.
Archaeopteryx(I hope) is what you were talking about there? What hoax has been associated with this particular specimen?
Archaeopteryx IS a fine example of a transitional fossil. The only hoax is the creationist claim that it is "just" a bird.
If you are really interesteed in learning, then do it. You don't need a college degree to grasp the basics of evolution. Click this link for some basics, in plain language.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 21:14:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
I would like to ask a simple question! What evidence, short of God coming out of the sky, and saying " hi", would it take for you to believe that God exists? |
See, there's your problem. With evidence in hand, there would be no need for belief. Evidence turns belief into knowledge. But God requires faith for salvation. Those who know God exists are denied free will. Like Satan, for example. Satan knows God exists. Satan has no need for faith or even mere belief.| I cant debate with you the finer points of biology. I am not learned enough to even begin to challenge the information you propose. I am working on fixing that but i am only 19. So that leaves me with few options. One, to do what I have done above and ask you simple questions with the sole purpose of learning. And two, give answers where and when I can. Now Theory: Is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the physical world. I feel that sometimes though, the word theory is used to make people assume that substantial evidence exists to support the purposed idea, even though the evidence is faulty are even completely falsified. Piltdown, or Archyopteryx for example. Both of these proven hoaxes were at one point in time used as proof for the theory of Macro evolution. Granted Piltdown man was short lived in that respect. What are your thoughts in respect to this. God bless and thanks for your time :D |
Aside from the facts that Dude has provided, no single piece of evidence is ever used as "proof" of a theory. For every "faulty" or "falsified" bit of evidence the creationists parade around, there are 1,000 bits of evidence in support of evolutionary theory that they cannot impeach. And even - as Dude pointed out - most of the "faulty" stuff exists only in the creationists' heads.
Please also note that no "creation scientist" was able to demonstrate that Piltdown was a hoax. It took actual scientists using actual science to do that. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 23:11:55 [Permalink]
|
Andrew 19.....
You ask:| I would like to ask a simple question! What evidence, short of God coming out of the sky, and saying " hi", would it take for you to believe that God exists? |
Andrew you will receive many different answers to this question from different folks. I would like to give you mine.
I am 79 years old and I have pondered this question off and on for most of my adult life. No one at this board gives a shit about that, nor should you, except for the possibility that many, many years of an open and inquiring mind may be better than a handful!
I have discussed the Theist Theory with many people over the years. It won't be too long until I have the Final, True Answer - at my death. Or not, if, as I suspect, there is no answer because the question itself is bogus.
I am highly educated. I have a PhD in Clinical Psychology (I have never been licensed or practiced, although my degree qualifies me in most states) In college I studied Electrical Engineering for two years before switching to Experimental Psychology, then later to Clinical. My undergraduate minor was in Philosophy--which I highly recommend as useful if you are going into any of the Humanities in College!
Or, if you want to pull off a dog and pony show on a Skeptic's Forum!
My only point here in telling you this is to indicate that I have a fairly heavy academic background which certainly structures my theological opinions and thinking. Again, nobody cares nor should you! Mine is not necessarily better than an opinion which is not formed by academic training; but it is probably different in some respects. Education is essential for those wishing to pursue any of many, many disciplines. It is a luxury for all others! I am fortunate to have had the luxury! I have found that it has little relevance to making money!
In addition to significant shaping by academic training, I have studied many ancient and contemporary religious persuasions over the years, particularly with reference to the forming a personal opinion of God, spirituality, and the unanswerable questions of existence. Buddhism is the only one of these structured religions that remotely appeals to me! Remotely! I am in no way a Buddhist!
I firmly arrived at a position of middle agnosticism a number of years ago. I was fortunate in not having been brought up in a religious faith, I was a tabla rasa as a child! Consequently, I had no emotionally instilled religious predelictions to shed!
I am an agnostic for the simplest of reasons. God can neither be proved or disproved. I am of the perhaps naive´ opinion that many things can be proved and a few things can be disproved. It is my considered opinion that God is neither. It would require many pages to completely explain and document my reasoning as to this, suffice to say I have seriously thought it through!
Now, belatedly, to your question. God saying hi!, would not begin to suffice! For me, to accept and believe in God, he, she, it must speak, appear, communicate, and demonstrate to me and many others - under conditions that are completely verifiable after the fact, such as audio, video, anecdotal first hand observation by large numbers - at least thousands - of people of all stripes, but including a significant number - hundreds - of committed agnostic or atheistic scientists.
God must speak and be recorded, be seen on TV by millions and be video recorded, must be physically present and visible in some form by many, many eyes including fiercely skeptical atheistic scientists, he must engage in discourse and answer questions for hours, and she must demonstrate that it is God by doing the impossible, as requested, time after time!
He must do all of this to persuade me to chuck my carefully-arrived-at doubts and accept Him, Her, or It as existing. Following this, he must persuade me to follow her teachings, provided that It has confirmed the existence of Free Will in the question and Answer segment of the Program for the Proof of the Deity!
An alternative, and much simpler procedure, would be for God to be tested by James Randi as to His claims. If Randi awarded Her the million dollars, I would pay It's income tax! That would prove to be a good investment, and I do know a little bit about investment! |
|
|
|
BlueCollarScientist
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 10:35:46 [Permalink]
|
| Piltdown, or Archyopteryx for example. Both of these proven hoaxes were at one point in time used as proof for the theory of Macro evolution. Granted Piltdown man was short lived in that respect. |
As others have said, Archaeopteryx is not a hoax. It is a fossil bird with primitive characteristics. It is known from ten complete body fossils, a bunch of partial fossils, and from one probable feather fossil. The earliest discovery was made in 1860; the most recent was from 1997, with a privately-owned fossil being described in 2005 (I'm not sure when that one was discovered). A fragmentary fossil was found in 2004. So this bird has been found over the course of almost 150 years by many teams of paleontologists. There is no "proof," and not even any evidence to support, your claim that all these fossils are hoaxes and all their discoverers are hoaxers. Some of the discovery teams ran into hundreds of people per fossil. It makes no sense to think that anyone could get that many people to agree on such a complicated lie, and forge not only the fossil, but photographic and video of its discovery, and the results of chemical tests on the rock, and etc, etc, etc - especially when they had no motive.
Two laymen (actually, they were an astronomer and a physicist, but neither of them knew anything beyond a lay understanding about paleontology - so for this purpose, they were laymen), both noted for holding a number of strange beliefs even in their own fields of expertise, questioned the authenticity of only two of the fossils in 1985. At the time there were at least six complete fossils that had been discovered. Their startling "discovery" that the two fossils were "frauds" was based on their ignorance about lithification. They offered two contradictory motives for the supposed "fraud," neither of which made any sense given who they claimed perpetrated the fraud - for example, they proposed that a well known anti-evolutionist anatomist of the 19th century forged the fossils to manufacture support for evolution (seriously!).
The papers setting out the case for fabrication were considered so lacking in credibility that they couldn't get them published in any of the major scientific journals, so instead they published them in a magazine about photography. Once they appeared, they were extensively and convincingly debunked by numerous scientists - in this case, scientists who were working in their own fields and not in a specialized field they knew nothing about.
Today, Archaeopteryx is accepted as the most primitive known bird fossil ever found. There's simply no argument about this among scientists - the evidence is simply overwhelming that these fossils are real.
Second of all, and as others have pointed out, Piltdown Man is known to be a hoax because a scientist - a paleoanthropologist, to be specific - investigated the specimen. The skull was then investigated by several other scientists who supported his conclusions.
The Piltdown "skull" was first reported by Charles Dawson, a lawyer, not a scientist. He was an amateur archaeologist, and a number of his "finds" have been detected as forgeries by scientists. He appears to have been motivated by a desire to gain notoriety.
I'm not sure why you think some nonsense promoted by a lawyer, known for forging all kinds of archaeological "finds," and revealed as a forger by a scientist, constitutes proof that science is questionable.
Someone should point out that it is quite possible to believe in god without making stuff up about Archaeopteryx and the Piltdown hoax. Millions of good people who believe in god also accept reality on these two subjects, as well as many others. I find it very puzzling when supposedly believing people feel a need to lie, or repeat lies, in order to justify their belief in a god that commands them not to lie. |
http://bluecollarscientist.com/ |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
andrew19
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 16:34:12 [Permalink]
|
I would like to reply to ricky first. In that, i am in no means trying to be rude. I simply have not had the time in years to become properly acquainted with the subjects and information with which i am provided with as answers. Would you rather me make a statement on something in ignorance? I may ask questions based on faulty information, but how else is one to learn the truth?? I know what i believe. I ask these questions to better acquaint myself with this subject matter. Which is why in past posts i have said,and truly meant, that i appreciate the answers i am given. Even tho i may disagree on whether or not it points to a creator or macro evolution. I have personal experiences with my God and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that He exists. You are welcome to disagree, that is your prerogative, and i will not intrude upon that. I am also well aware that piltdown was found by scientists to be a hoax. And as for the archaeopteryx I was incorrect in labeling it a hoax. After googling the creatures name, the inquiry into the fossils authenticity i found, had been dismantled apparently. Again i will disagree on whether this creature is an example of evolution or not. I will leave you with this thought. Is mainstream science today, in our education system, and general public TRULY objective. The theory of evolution is still just that, a theory. Thanks for you time and God bless you!  |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 16:48:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
Is mainstream science today, in our education system, and general public TRULY objective. The theory of evolution is still just that, a theory. Thanks for you time and God bless you! |
Did you...? Yes. Yes you did. Hi, andrew19. I've been following this thread, but haven't jumped in. However, you've invoked the "just a theory" argument, which is one of the most tired of the utterly misleading Creationist arguments out there.
We can say unequivocally that evolution is a fact. Life on earth has changed over time. This is unequivocal. There are creatures now that didn't exist in the past, and there were creatures in the past that don't exist now. The question is, how did this change happen. Darwin proposed a theory for that. His theory has undergone modifications over time in light of new evidence, but it nevertheless remains an incredibly robust theory that has held up for decades despite intense, rigorous study. Indeed, it's probably the most tested theory modern science has ever come up with, and to date it stands as the best explanation for the fact of evolution there is.
In fact, it's so compelling that the best theologically-driven opponents can do is agree in things like common descent, but posit that instead of naturalistic causes, this "evolution" was all driven by an unknown god named Yahweh "designer" who acted via magic unknown means.
Not very scientific. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 17:04:53 [Permalink]
|
Ricky.....
| You can only use your age as a crutch when you're old. |
Thanks for that, Rick! As I reach out from my wheelchair for any kind of support, it is comforting to be able to use my antiquity as a rationale for what would otherwise be embarassing stupidity. Bless you, my son! |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 02/20/2008 17:09:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 17:32:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
I have personal experiences with my God and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that He exists. |
So much for Heaven. Too bad you have no faith.| The theory of evolution is still just that, a theory. |
As has already been noted (twice, if I'm not mistaken), such statements speak only to the apalling state of your knowledge of science. If you're here to learn, that's fine, but you've just made a statement based upon ignorance - something you said you'd rather not do.
I also get the feeling that you're of the opinion that there is either God or evolution, but there can't be both. If that's the case, how did you arrive at such a conclusion? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/20/2008 : 18:50:57 [Permalink]
|
Evolution....
Creationists have a bad habit of never really digging into the science, Archaeopteryx being a prime example. They only look far enough to find something to atttack, yet present no science of their own that would be acceptable to anyone researching the subject.
Here's one that I have put forth on several forums and recieved nothing but blather in return.
Mammal-Like Reptiles
As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).
To anyone who might want to learn a bit about the science, this is a good place to go, because it discusses some of the very ancient ancestors of ourselves.
This is Dimitrodon, a Pelycosaur of the Permian. The Pelycosaurs were unique in having two different types of teeth and their inner ears were mammalian, an early transitional between, as stated, Mammalia and Reptilia. When these roamed the earth, there were no mammals, which didn't appear in the fossil record until well into the Triassic. No Dinosaurs, either; only their forebears.
Dimitrodon was not in our linage, dying out during the Pemian/Triassic Extinction, an event that made the death of the dinosaurs look like a minor traffic accident in the comparison. It was some of the survivors that at last evolved into mammals.
Check it out, it's very interesting. And then we can talk about the Devonian Bunny..... 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 19:50:30 [Permalink]
|
andrew asked:
| Would you rather me make a statement on something in ignorance? I may ask questions based on faulty information, but how else is one to learn the truth?? |
Then:
| The theory of evolution is still just that, a theory. |
Andrew.... You want us to grant you status as someone just asking questions to expand your own knowledge, then you assert that tired old bit of ignorance about scientific theories?
You clearly didn't open either of the links I posted for you that explain the use of the word "theory". Scroll up, do it now. Read them. Seriously.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 20:45:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by andrew19
Well, i would defiantly say that i don't think that saying that God did something is wrong per say.
|
Sorry for the late chime in, it's been one of those couple of weeks. When explaining empirical data, it's bad. When explaining a spiritual transformation or statement of faith, it's good.
There are things that even science cannot explain.
|
You make the common mistake of attributing science as a destination instead of a journey. There is a lot of stuff that science doesn't currently explain. This is why scientists still have jobs.
Therefor shouldn't that make science be a little less adverse to the Idea of intelligent influence in creation????
|
Specious reasoning here. Science has been presented ID. It has found the concept unscientific and unverifiable. It depends on the existance of a being that is unmeasurable and undefinable.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Conservative Christian :D
