Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,189,880 times
Reputation: 8105
Advertisements
I have no problem with the idea that God created the universe, I've seen evidence of God and "magic" in my personal life, that wouldn't convince the scientific community but is good enough for me. I believe Intelligent Design is valid.
However there's no way the literal Bible version is true. You can easily disprove the Old Testament by the mistakes and contradictions if taken literally, and really it begs to be read literally for the most part. The writers of Genesis weren't consciously creating myths, they are writing down ancient fables they thought were absolute truth.
By the way, one cannot determine how long ago the Creation happened (assuming it did) by counting generations, since the Bible was notorious for skipping parts of one list compared to other lists. For one example I can think of right now, Matthew's "Scheme of 14s" doesn't match up fully with the lists in the Torah. That's why Paul was so annoyed by questions about genealogies.
Then where did we evolve from? Did we just magically appear?
Can you truly test the Big Bang? There may be elements of it that has been tested, but unless you produce the same results from testing it, it's not a fact. I didn't say it wasn't a theory though, I think you need to re-read what I said.
Real simple, what created evolution? Has it been proven? Can we create evolution over again and produce the same results?
You should not accept evolution and talk about it being valid until you address where it started and what it came from, that is at least my thought process. The problem you are going off the assumption that evolution happened and it came from somewhere, while I do not believe it because there is no definitive explanation of it origin. I don't think there ever will be unless we are able to recreate evolution. It hasn't been done, so it's pretty hard to believe it to be a fact. If we as people cannot reproduce it and recreate it, what does that say about our origin? Does it say that evolution didn't happen? Does it say that perhaps a deity created us? Everything is questionable until you have drawn a clear starting point.
I mean you can explain evolution, but then when somebody ask you, well how did we get placed on this earth? How was the earth created, then how do you explain those things?
The thread is specifically about the acceptance of Young Earth Creationism. This argues that bioforms did not evolve over millions of years but were created pretty much as they are now.
The evidence is considered to effectively discredit that belief. We were not there to see the thing happen, but we do see the mechanism - what is called 'Micro -evolution' and the evidence that over millions of years this can change a species so much that it becomes another species.
While the argument about how Life began, the earth began and how the universe began may be as open as you suggest, the evidence for a long process of geological and evolutionary change is very strong.
Thus, quite apart from the origins of life and the Cosmos, the evidence is against a Young Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof
I have no problem with the idea that God created the universe, I've seen evidence of God and "magic" in my personal life, that wouldn't convince the scientific community but is good enough for me. I believe Intelligent Design is valid.
However there's no way the literal Bible version is true. You can easily disprove the Old Testament by the mistakes and contradictions if taken literally, and really it begs to be read literally for the most part. The writers of Genesis weren't consciously creating myths, they are writing down ancient fables they thought were absolute truth.
By the way, one cannot determine how long ago the Creation happened (assuming it did) by counting generations, since the Bible was notorious for skipping parts of one list compared to other lists. For one example I can think of right now, Matthew's "Scheme of 14s" doesn't match up fully with the lists in the Torah. That's why Paul was so annoyed by questions about genealogies.
I honestly don't know. I'd say it's a lot less than a million, or 4 billion, or 14 billion or whatever. I'd have no issue with it being 6k, or 10k, or even 100k. I think it's probably closer to the 10k.
Is a theory the same as a fact? You said evolution is a fact. It is a theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
I don't know, then. Perhaps you should go public and announce that you have uncovered a massive global conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of scientists who are claiming things are factual without using the scientific method. That would fundamentally change the scientific world and cast a pall of doubt over any new findings for decades ...
OR ... it just could be that you're misinformed.
Again there is a difference between a theory and a fact. I would be preaching to the choir telling that scientists. That doesn't make it wrong but it is not definitively right either. You can believe something is right and it not be right. I don't blame scientists for believing something is right, but there is a different between saying something is right and something is a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Here, you're just moving the goal posts around. You don't like the idea of science recreating the Big Bang using mathematical models, so you simply "disqualify" mathematical models and insist that the only way to know for certain is to actually witness the Big Bang.
That's a little like the absurdity of me doubting your existence because I wasn't there to see your birth.
A MODEL, right? Is a model a real thing or a simulation? Why not do a real-life test with no simulation or model?
In science, a model does not provide basis for the scientific method. You can't create a model earth on Mars to test the law of gravity, you need the actual earth. This is not me moving the goal post, this is you picking a straw man's argument. If you have evidence that another big bang happened and another universe was created as a result and this was observed, then you have an argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
No one said it was infallible, but reconsider the context in which this discussion is being had. This is about Young Earth Creationism - and you don't seem all that eager to challenge THAT infallible theory. Why would that be?
Also, no my logic has nothing to do with the "appeal to popularity" fallacy. It has everything to do with evidence. What evidence is there for YEC? None. In fact, in order for YEC to be true, we have to ignore evidence. We have to invent bizarre tales like Satan burying fossils to get around the fact that the overwhelming scientific evidence does not support YEC.
I do not think for a nanosecond that we'll ever wake up to the news that everything we ever knew about geology is wrong - therefore, YEC is back on the table. Sorry, but no. I agree that science is not infallible, but that only means it will need tweaked and adjusted. It doesn't mean that an entire scientific discipline is going to be 100% wrong.
Again, you are trying to wrap your head around my understanding with your logic. I believe in the Bible. I believe the Bible is the 100% truth. That is not something that I can prove to you, but it is my choice to believe what it says. Just like you believe in evolution but you cannot definitely prove what started evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Well, actually, how the brain works isn't really my opinion, but I'll let that one go for now. Again, there is no evidence for a designed purpose so there is no reason to believe there is one.
There is no evidence against it either. There is also no way to prove luck or chance. It's belief. You seem to equate belief to truth. That is fine for yourself, but you should recognize that everyone will not see those things the same way and unless you have concrete, infallible evidence, it's hard to just call something you believe a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
I was fine with all of that - BUT - just because something cannot be proven false doesn't mean we have to accept it as being potentially true. That's part of the critical thinking process. In that sense, even if there is a higher being, that doesn't mean I have to accept YEC as being potentially true or that the Bible (to the exclusion of all other creation myths) has the right of it.
You don't say? That is what I have been saying to you all along. What you don't see is the same thing applies to your point of view as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
This is why there is a lot of redundancy in science - with hundreds, sometimes thousands of people working on and evaluating various scientific propositions. It isn't just one guy in a basement lab telling the world about the Big Bang. The more people conducting the same experiments and coming to the same conclusion, the more likely it is to be the truth. Note - that is NOT the same thing as appealing to popularity.
As for the news, that's not a very good comparison because the news is deliberately biased with some networks leaning left, others leaning right - and considering news is a for-profit endeavor, news outlets will say whatever makes them the most money. Science doesn't work that way.
Again, if it were 100% infallible then it would be considered a fact or a law. Instead it's a theory. Nothing else to really say.
You are adding to what I am saying and missing the point. Of course the news is bias, the point isn't about that, it's about the fact that you have to trust they are telling the truth without seeing what actually happened. But the reality is, just because you believe them, doesn't mean they are telling the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Several things here to deal with.
First of all, you say you'll believe your wife if she says there is traffic because you know your wife and trust her. Does that mean you'll believe everything she says no matter how outlandish the claim? What if your wife knows there is traffic only because she watched the news - and you just said how unreliable the news is, right? But you might not even know she gleaned her traffic info from the news, therefore, you might be trusting in the news as the source of your wife's knowledge. Do you even ask your wife where she got her information? Unless she is omniscient or some kind of clairvoyant, she is getting her information from somewhere ... and likely, that source is *ahem* infallible.
Secondly, what you're essentially doing here is judging the message by the messenger - judging the book by its cover. Because it is a scientist you do not know, then the science itself becomes suspect, which just isn't the way to critically think. That sets YOU up with a bias - a bias against information given to you by people you don't know. And I just demonstrated to you how even people you DO know aren't necessarily any more trustworthy than anyone else. There's a better chance of you being misinformed by a friend or familiy member than there is by a random person - especially if that person is a well-respected scientist.
Thirdly, your last sentence suggests to me that you think your wife is infallible simply because you know her, but scientists (and by default science) is fallible because you don't know them. Why not critique the actual information instead of relying on something as unsubstantiated as the "I don't know you therefore you can't be believed" hypothesis?
Again, you are taking poetic license to what I am saying and adding your own words to it.
If my wife is sitting in the traffic she is speaking of, is that not first hand knowledge? If she tells me, then she is the source at that point and it's my choice to believe her. That doesn't mean she is right, it just means, I CHOOSE to believe her.
Not necessarily judging the messenger. It depends on the situation. Because I know my wife, I trust her observation, but if it's someone else, then I may be inclined to believe a person if they show evidence along with what they say. That is my choice. You can believe who you are want to believe. But again, just because you believe someone doesn't mean they are right. You can believe all the scientists and their theories, but does your belief make it true? You are using the logic that what I believe equate to what is true. That is bad logic.
Do you trust everyone? If you gave me your credit card to hold, would you trust me not to use it? I didn't say all scientists are liars, but no matter who they are, I need to see proof to believe them. Let me ask you this, would you go into a church and believe anything any preacher says? Would you go into those church without the Bible and assume they are always telling the truth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
First, that doesn't mean that, while I wait for the definitive proof, I have to accept every idea as equally plausible. As such, just because science hasn't pinned down the origin of life doesn't mean I have to contend that a religious or superstitious explanation is just as plausible as a naturalistic and scientific explanation.
Secondly, science isn't about a bunch of people getting together, talking about it over coffee, and then telling the world that "this is the way it is." No. What science does - it tests the evidence. Science is actually rather conservative because if someone opens their mouth too early, that scientist can lose all of his/her credibility. It is dangerous for a career to announce something as proven (or even likely) until that piece of information has been thoroughly vetted.
It doesn't matter if they can sometimes be infallible. Most of the time, science is pretty spot-on accurate. And the more we learn, the more we know, and the more we know, the more knowledge we have to bring to bear on current mysteries. Knowledge and science are pyramidal with new knowledge resting on the foundation of old knowledge. Therefore, it becomes less and less likely as time goes on that science is going to make such an egregious mistake as to render entire disciplines null and void. To suggest that YEC is even possible would require just that kind of egregious mistake. It isn't going to happen.
If you choose not to believe in some religious explanation doesn't mean, then that's your business. Why does the fact that I choose not to, bother you so much? Why can't you just accept the fact that I believe something different?
Agreed which is why you will not hear any credible scientist saying that evolution is a fact like you have.
Yes it does matter, because that is your logic against the Bible? If you believe the Bible is fallible then what makes your belief in science any different? I am not someone that thinks the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, but how can you say that it doesn't matter that science can be infallible but then suggest that I shouldn't believe what the Bible says? Now you are contradicting yourself. If you believe science even when it can have flaws, then you should believe the Bible too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
No, I wouldn't say "constantly," and I'd be really curious to know which "theories" have been debunked that 95% of the scientific community agreed with. Sure, I've seen all kinds of theories be debunked, but they were almost always proposed by a few people and the hypothesis itself was frought with controversy. Very few, if any, theories (with the scientific definition of the word) have been utterly "debunked" as you put it.
In addition, just HOW were they debunked? Yeah ... with science. Strange how you'll accept science when it debunks itself, but when it debunks religious mysticism, suddenly science is the most fallible, least reliable thing on the planet. Rest assured that no "theory" has ever been debunked in favor of higher powers, magic, religion, or superstition.
And finally, why don't you count up the number of theories that have been proven true? If you're only going to point to the failures, you're only getting half the picture - and you're being intellectually dishonest. What you're doing is called "comfirmation bias," which is only accepting evidence that proves your pre-conceived conclusion.
It depends on what you define as a theory. We can go back to philosophical times where there wasn't experimentation, scientific method or technology to prove things and that people come up with their own theories of what's right or not. Of course because they lacked the resources that were later obtained, many of the ideas of the world (i.e. the earth is flat) were debunked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Science should always be questioned. That's what makes science reliable - people questioning it, testing it, verifying and re-verifying that a hypothesis actually works. Gee, if only I could say that much about religion and mysticism, maybe we wouldn't even have to deal with such crazy talk as YEC.
I really don't understand why you can believe so strongly that everything was designed for a reason and yet there isn't a shard of evidence for that - and it certainly hasn't been tested and verified. Why don't you hold your own impossible-to-prove belief in a higher power to the same exacting standard to which you hold science?
Christianity should be questioned and is questioned quite often by it's strongest believers and strongest naysayers. The difference is, in my opinion, the naysayers who have been involved with being in church, have not received accurate doctrine which makes them believe things that aren't necessarily true about Christianity.
There isn't evidence against it either. You also believe that evolution happened even though you didn't see the origin of it and you don't know what the origin was. What's the difference? You can believe what you want, but I can't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Yes, and those elements which are true is what makes the Big Bang and evolution the most likely explanations. There is actually evidence pointing to the veracity of the Big Bang and evolution whereas there is no (testable, verifiable) evidence for a higher power. That is why your idea of comparing religious faith with scientific faith doesn't add up. They are NOT equal in any way. You seem to think that following evidence and predicting a conclusion is the same kind of vaccuous and completely unsubstantiated faith required for religious belief in magical deities.
But when was the last time religion, mysticism, superstition, and magic was proven true to the exclusion of science? Can you give me even one example? Then why should I trust a "belief in a higher power" to be true now when it has never been proven true before?
Most likely? But not definitively? Science and Christianity, again, are not mutually exclusive. I recognize that, the belief in my God cannot proven, but understand it is you that is trying to compare the two, not me. You are trying differentiate between the two, not me. I do believe things can be proven scientifically, but I believe in fact and things that have a clear origin. That is as far as science goes. But my faith in God goes before all else, so anything that the word of God says goes before, science if it contradicts the word.
Unsubstantiated faith? Really? If it was substantiated, then how could it be faith??????
Prophecy is all in the Bible. There is much prophecy about the current times, about not even being able to recognize the seasons, earthquakes in diverse places, etc. A higher power is not going to be proven in the way you want it to. If you are looking for someone to point you to where God is and he shows himself, then you will be disappointed. You are trying to base your belief or lack of belief on what you want, but that's not how God operates. If he did, then we wouldn't need faith. It's easy to believe things that are tangible. That is what I believe people like yourself look for. You will only believe something if it is presented in the way you want it, but there is certain evidence of things that relate to God, but it still is a choice to believe that those things came from him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Hmm, are you so certain? Let's say you're walking down the street and notice thick, black smoke coming out of your neighbor's upstairs window. What do you do? Well, if you approached it scientifically, you would postulate that smoke equals fire and therefore you would take the appropriate measures to call the fire department and make a rescue if needs be. But if this scenario was approached using your logic, you would do nothing, paralyzed with skepticism, until you actually saw the flames. Even then, you would have to know precisely where the fire started, what caused it, how long it's been burning, etc. You would demand to know with certainty all of the particulars before deciding to finally take action - and in this case, "action" means accepting what science has to offer without a lot of undue skepticism.
No, that is not the same thing. If I see smoke, the equivalent would be trying to determine what happened at the exact moment the fire started even though I didn't see it. I don't need to know what caused a fire to address it and assess the damage, but that doesn't mean I know the origin. What you are doing is telling me, without seeing how the fire started, that you believe it happened because of electric because of how the flames look, but I am saying that it could be caused by grease, but neither of us can prove it, we can just use the evidence that we see and assume.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
I go by historical precedent. I believe that science will one day figure out all the nuances of the Big Bang, I believe that science will discover the origin of life (they're making a lot of breakthroughs in this field). I just won't be "tricked" into using the same "God of the Gaps" argument that people have been using for tens of thousands of years - and has never, not once, ever proven correct.
As I've said before - why would you bet on a horse that hasn't won a race in over 100,000 years? Because betting on religion and God and magic is doing precisely that. Fact is, one can believe in God and higher powers without having to reject science. I don't even understand the logic of doing so - unless you have a slavish devotion to an ancient holy book.
Now, consider this: IF everything is designed for a reason, as you assert, then why do you suppose science even exists? Why were we given an insatiable curiosity, the brainpower to pursue our curiosity, and a massive universe to be curious about? Do you think God has strewn about all of this fake evidence just to get a big kick out of watching us go down the wrong path? You should be considering the possibility that we are finding out the origins of life and the Big Bang because that's exactly what God wants us to do - that the universe was designed in such a way that we would find out the truth when we were ready to.
But instead, you seem to simply be rejecting science outright until it is proven 100%. It's like turning down a Ferari because it doesn't have a clock. Most of the pieces for evolution and the Big Bang are in place. But like a puzzle, I don't need to fit in the last piece before I can identify the picture.
(And that's my really loooong post for the day. Take care.)
Your second sentence is an example of faith. You have no proof or any reason to believe that it will actually happen, but you are making a choice to believe.
Who said I am rejecting science? All I have said is if evolution happened, prove it's origin and the only way you can do that it is by re-creating it.
Again, you are making a horrible assumption that I do not believe in science. Just because I don't believe everything that scientist presents, doesn't mean I do not believe in science. I don't have a problem with trying to find out the origin of life from scientific perspective, but by doing so, you are making a choice of saying you do not believe the Bible and the book of Genesis. I simply cannot make that decision knowing what I know. If you choose to, then again that's your choice, move on and stop trying to rationalize my thoughts.
Isn't that what we should be doing? Shouldn't we be 100% sure about something? Why should we believe something that can be proven wrong? The existence of God cannot be proven to be a fallacy yet, you don't seem to acknowledge that God exist, so what's the difference? You are making a choice that you do not believe God exist and created earth and humans. I am making a choice that I believe in God and that I do not believe in evolution because there is no way of proving it's origin.
No one was ever wrong about Pluto being a planet. 'Planet' is a subjective classification. The arbitrary definition of 'major planet' was simply changed. There is no objective definition of a planet, merely a (mostly) agreed-upon one. There is an objective definition of a year.
PS - Pluto is still classified as a planet: a minor planet. Your scientific illiteracy is considerable.
There IS some "illiteracy" on display here: Your illiteracy of my literacy AND your "willful illiteracy" to read a statement that deals with both Earth and Pluto, and pretend not to know it was referring to the decades long mass dissemination of the so-called "scientific fact" that Pluto was a planet in the solar system the same as Earth is a planet in the solar system. Lots of info on it available: Why Pluto is No Longer a Planet .
How many illustrations and models of the solar system were made that included Pluto? Millions? Tens of millions? Just like that Ape-to-Man "Progression of Human Evolution" chart I mentioned right after.
But you knew exactly what I meant...you just needed to try to split hairs to avoid what I was actually pointing out.
Gee..."subjective classifications", "arbitrary definitions that simply change" & "no objective definition, merely a (mostly) agreed-upon one". THAT will really help in getting one to "objective proof/facts"!
But then, that's very typical of "science".
Those that participate or are into "science" are a lot like the Fundie Religious in that way...so overcome with delusions of grandeur about it...they get all twisted up, defensive, and indignant when someone notes the myriad ways they are messed up and wrong about the stuff they espouse as "facts".
They are very similar like that...the way they both put out wrong information...and the way they both get all mentally irregular when it is pointed out.
... You can easily disprove the Old Testament by the mistakes and contradictions if taken literally, and really it begs to be read literally for the most part. The writers of Genesis weren't consciously creating myths, they are writing down ancient fables they thought were absolute truth.....
There is no evidence whatsoever that the authors were writing down things they believed to be true. The entire Genesis account is written in a common ancient style that is meant to be taken as a story, a fable, an illuminating illustration of how things came to be, but was never meant to be taken literally. It is the same as Native American fables of creation. They are not literal. They are instead meant to illustrate moral stories. Nothing more than that.
Is a theory the same as a fact? You said evolution is a fact. It is a theory.
Again there is a difference between a theory and a fact. I would be preaching to the choir telling that scientists. That doesn't make it wrong but it is not definitively right either. You can believe something is right and it not be right. I don't blame scientists for believing something is right, but there is a different between saying something is right and something is a fact.
A scientific theory is an explanation of the facts. Evolution is both a fact and a Theory.
"A Scientific Theory is a "well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions."
"In science, a Theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."
The scientific Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for all the observable evidence from the fossil records, from comparative anatomy, taxonomy, from DNA analysis etc. It fits all the observations of genetic changes in populations and diversity of life on earth. It ties together all the facts, and it's predictions remain true. It's is also consistent with other fields of science.
As a scientific theory, the Theory of Evolution could be falsified by evidence that contradicts the Theory. So far, in more than 150 years, that has not happened.
So would you throw any criminal cases out of court where there wasn't anyone actually there to observe the crime committed in real time? Criminals would love you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans
How do you prove he committed the crime then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Are you serious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans
Don't ask me a question, I give you an answer and then you insult me. If you don't want to hear my answer then don't ask.
I asked if your question was serious because I assumed that everyone knew about forensic evidence used in criminal cases.
I asked if your question was serious because I assumed that everyone knew about forensic evidence used in criminal cases.
Again George Zimmerman
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
