Epistemological justification for origins theories

[Athexx]

This thread is a retry of molo's thread "Why do you believe in evolution or creation?" (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=118257).

In that thread, I think people were really beginning to seriously ask questions and listen to each other about what the topic was meant to be, but unfortunately this was only after swaths of slightly off topic discussion and some attempts at humorous lines, understandably instigated by the not-quite-so-serious poll.

I think it's worth a second try and a continuation of the conversation that was growing out of the discussion, but I'd like to try to keep this more on topic and more regulated. So let's lay a few ground rules here:

1. Anyone posting should initially state what they believe on origins and give a brief description of why they hold those beliefs. Possibilities include: authority of external sources, personal observations, cultural influences, as an inference from other more deeply held beliefs, etc. Short remarks such as "SCIENCE!" or "I just have faith" are generally not too constructive: please state what scientific theories specifically you think support your point, or what you have faith in and what that faith is based on.

2. Do not discuss anything that you do NOT believe in unless you are doing so in direct reply to someone who has previously posted, or you are talking about it in the context of what you may have once believed in the past. For instance, if you do not believe in creationism and never have, do not also state your views on how ridiculous you think it is, but rather if someone who believes in creationism has posted then you may direct inquiries, in a respectful manner towards that person.

3. When responding directly to a person, you may ask questions that attempt to clarify what they believe or justify their belief from their own perspective. For instance, if someone believes that the earth is 4.5 billion years old because of radioactive dating, do not ask them to prove it from the Qu'ran. However if they are known to be a Muslim as well, you may ask them to demonstrate how they reconcile any conflicts you may see in believing in both the Qu'ran and their stated belief, or ask them how they might decide how to interpret the Qu'ran in specific instances.

4. You may ask for sources for specific points someone has made, but after having a chance to respond, please do not debate the source. You may state that you don't think a certain source is reliable in response but leave it at that and let it go please - debating the source would be too tangential to the discussion.

5. Please do not bring up any of the following topics unless they are being seriously used for analogical purposes, and not just a throwaway comment intended to deride someone else: the Flying Spaghetti Monster, religiously charged "issue" questions such as abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research, historical atrocities and people that may or may not have been affected by religion or the lack of it, such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Crusades, etc.


-----------------------------

To start this off then, let me re-state my own beliefs, commonly called Young Earth Creationism. I am a Christian who believes the Bible is historically accurate when it speaks of historical matters and therefore I believe the world was created roughly 6000 years ago as a paradise, but was subjected to decay and frustration due to our sin in Adam.

The basis for my belief is faith: to be specific, I have confidence foremost in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and the accuracy of what was recorded about him, and therefore I believe that he is God and on his authority I accept the Bible we have today as a reliable authority both on matters spiritual as well as physical. Given that, I look at the beginning of Genesis, and I find that although I can accept some amount of figurative intent in the writing, I cannot dismiss the idea that it is meant to be largely historical in essence and that for its meaning to have truth it must necessarily be in conflict with secular theories of the origins of our universe. I find that although this entails some difficulties, I simply recognize that where scientific theories that explain certain observable phenomena cannot be reconciled with what I know to be true through my faith in the Bible, there simply must be an alternative explanation that does account for what we can observe.

Note that when I said above that the basis for my beliefs is faith, that does not mean that it is completely arbitrary or blind, which I find is a common misconception. I use the word "faith" as akin to "trust:" trust in the authority of Jesus and the Bible, which is built on many factors.

As for cultural bias, which was mentioned in the previous thread, I have often wondered how much of what I think is merely a product of my culture and upbringing. Of course just because something is such a product does not make it necessarily untrue, since if what I believe is true, I certainly intend to pass on those truths to my children. I was not born in America; I was born in Sri Lanka, a country that is predominately Buddhist, although my family was Christian. Both my parents believed in evolution, and I went to public schools and never even thought to find a conflict between my Christianity and the scientific theories that I was convinced of even before I completely understood them. It was close to when I graduated from college that I began to make the switch to creationism, and for the reasons I detailed above, not for scientific reasons.

[The5thElephant]

I believe there are no supernatural or spiritual forces in any way within this universe. I believe that all observable phenomena can be explained rationally through scientific methods. I do not have a belief in how the universe was created (as in what caused the Big bang) since there is no evidence to answer this question. However I do believe that something caused the Big Bang, whether this is an intelligent entity or a simple physical event outside of the universe, who knows. If it is an intelligent entity, I would lean towards it being drastically different from the deity described by any human religion and probably cares little for us. It being an intelligent entity does not make for intelligent design though, perhaps they just created a computer that runs various physical equations through a universe simulator and sees which one works. Evolution and all that are still the simple random processes they have always been.


Athexx - You haven't really cleared up my confusion over why you take the Bible as authority over the numerous other religious texts based on actual historical events.

I am sure many of the events in the Bible took place, but I just look at the spiritual/supernatural parts as metaphor for a moral code, not as truth. I do believe there was a very influential man named Jesus, I do not believe that he sacrificed himself for our sins or came back from the dead.

I look at other religious texts in this same way. There is absolutely no way to choose one as more valid than another unless one is clearly not based on any history whatsoever. But the history that matches up with the bible is purely sensical and not supernatural whatsoever.

Of course just because something is such a product [of my culture] does not make it necessarily untrue, since if what I believe is true, I certainly intend to pass on those truths to my children.

Can you back this up? How is your moral code more valid than someone else who follows a Muslim moral code? Sure it may work better for you in this society, but it is not more correct or universally true.

Why do you not simply believe in a deity and throw out the blind faith in a book? If I was religious I would be far more comfortable with just being a deist and not having some arbitrary religious organization (Which has greatly twisted the original teachings) tell me how to live my life.

[iamme]

I believe in a four and a half billion year old earth in a 14 billion year old universe and that all things existing are the result of natural and random processes without any creator/designer/magician/higher power. I base my "beliefs" on science and evidence, and take comfort in the fact that I can know how things are, instead of taking a 1-step answer.

Athexx: How do you not let young earth theory interfere with science?

[Athexx]

That's a very broad question, iamme. What do you mean by "interfere"? I will attempt to respond on a purely abstract level and if you would like to see one or two specific examples detailed briefly, you're welcome to ask, but I would request that you would not ask me to account for every possible discrepancy you might name in this thread for the sake of staying on topic.

I think you might agree that there is merit in keeping an arbitrary theory based on purely empirical results separate from theories which are based on written authority. So I attempt to do so, but at the same time there is much overlap. Yet, I think you might say that I in fact do let my theories interfere with science, because I believe that science is a tool by which I can inductively evaluate new theories from what I already know to be true. In that aspect, I view having a starting point of the authority of scripture to be a plus, because the naturalist claims to start with only the foundational assumptions necessary to reason (such as, what we observe with our senses to be an accurate depiction of what happened in the physical reality around us), but my foundational assumptions before I factor in scientific theories are much more comprehensive. Thus, I have a much stronger system by which to conduct future reasoning.

[iamme]

I meant it to be philosophical and abstract. Though I do not necessarily agree with your methodology, I appreciate your answer.

[Moe]

Moving to the study. Please adhere to the advanced discussion rules, as well as the ones set forth in the first post.

[The5thElephant]

I believe that science is a tool by which I can inductively evaluate new theories from what I already know to be true. In that aspect, I view having a starting point of the authority of scripture to be a plus, because the naturalist claims to start with only the foundational assumptions necessary to reason (such as, what we observe with our senses to be an accurate depiction of what happened in the physical reality around us), but my foundational assumptions before I factor in scientific theories are much more comprehensive. Thus, I have a much stronger system by which to conduct future reasoning.

By definition this is not science. Science is only science when it has that one claim that you mentioned the naturalist has. Otherwise the scientific method has been broken, and any and all conclusions thereafter are not scientific or more valid because of it.

How can this be a "stronger system" if your basic assumptions have no proof or foundation for validity? You call it comprehensive, could you explain how that aids in the scientific search? I can come up with a whole bunch of mumbo-jumbo and call it comprehensive yet it doesn't mean that any further rationalization from that point is logical. Certainly the Bible has some historical validity that makes it not mumbo-jumbo, but the historical validity is vague and has nothing to do with the moral, philosophical, or cosmological claims made within.

Thus my question boils down to is maintaining your faith a matter of comfort, or in your opinion a rational and valid stance due to some reasoning?

[tyrion]

Science is by definition the process of elimination by disproof. A hypothesis is proposed to explain a phenomena observed within the universe. It is tested by means of experimentation and is either refuted or not.

There is never proof, only the lack of empirical disproof. where a number of possible explanations exist to explain a given phenomena, the simplest is taken as true until there is reason to suggest otherwise (ie the theory does not fit the observed data).

Part of the reason for the lack of understanding between scientific and religious camps with regard to creation lies therein, with a lack of understanding as to the role of science in the search for truth. Science merely asks HOW and not WHY. More importantly it serves only to ask HOW things happen WITHIN the observational framework that is the universe we live in. Therefore science does not and can never address questions relating to why the universe came to be, merely the means by which it developed from the instant of "creation" (I use that word loosely). The reasons for this should be self evident, science relies on cause and effect to be a viable proposition, which is in itself a rule of the universe in which it operates. Outside of that universe there is no reason to assume any such connection between events as we understand them thus no reason to apply any validity to the scientific technique.

As to the question of evolution, enormous swathes of both logical argument and empirical evidence to my mind make the case so thoroughly closed that it seems absurd that there is discussion as to whether it happened. The point at which there becomes a valid dispute is in the fallacy that accepting the evidence of natural selection as a process eliminates God as the cause. It does not for reasons outlined above. Science goes back to the big bang and no further, further than this there is only faith.

Darwin accepted this and was surprised that his writings met with such opposition. He was actually ordained as a catholic priest, a role he continued to actively pursue throughout his life. He saw no contradiction between a catholic belief system and a theory of natural selection and frankly neither do I. I am by no means a practising Christian but am well enough versed in both scripture and evolutionary theory to argue that the two can complement each other well if approached with an open mind and a wiollingness to understand their respective roles and limitations.

Supposing for the sake of argument that we accept that God (in whatever form) created the universe, then he did so in such a way that life could be supported within that universe. This is self evident in that we are here to have this debate. In other words the rules by which our world operates allow for us to exist here. God had to create us SOMEHOW. That means had to operate within the rules of reality for no more complicated reason than life came into a universe where the rules were already in play. What more elegant and beautiful means could any God have chosen to place life within his creation than to have written such an outcome into the very fabric of reality?

I argue that rather than there being a discrepancy between Christian beliefs and evolution there is no greater testament to the wisdom of a creator than the subtlety and foresight that would be involved in such a feat. Nor is there any better available explanation as to how He would have actually created us.

[Unk]

I am an atheist and believe that all Gods and other supernatural phenomena are inventions of the human race, both accidental and intentional. Hence, I also believe that the universe was formed and currently exists without any input from supernatural powers or beings.

I accept the standard theories of the formation of the universe, the solar system, the planet Earth and the evolution of life upon Earth. Although these theories are by no means complete - there is still much speculation regarding planet formation and the beginning of the universe itself - I accept them as being generally good descriptions of the universe's history. I believe - both personally and "professionally" as a trainee scientist - that further refinements to these theories will not entail supernatural phenomena.

My question goes to Athexx. The means by which scientists have found the age of the Earth and the Universe rely upon very fundamental physics and geometry. Assuming a young Earth/universe these fundamentals must be false contrary to all observations and theoretical predictions. How do you reconcile this with a young Earth?

If you wish to address this scientifically point-by-point I can put forward more precise arguments on what changes would have taken place.

[Jeremiah]

I am also a young earth creationist, and a Christian. The evidence for creationism, both scientific and historical, was convincing for me. I do not feel that evolution must be false in order for Christianity to be true, but I do believe that it is false.

I chose Christianity rather than other religions, because while many other religions point to the truth, only one delivers it in full (at least in my opinion).

[The5thElephant]

Jeremiah, why do you believe that Christianity delivers the truth in full while others don't? Couldn't that just be a result of the society that you grew up in? Would you be Christian if you were born into a muslim or jewish family? How about Buddhist?

[Moe]

I am also a young earth creationist, and a Christian. The evidence for creationism, both scientific and historical, was convincing for me. I do not feel that evolution must be false in order for Christianity to be true, but I do believe that it is false.

Back up your claims please. What scientific evidence is there for a young earth?

[El Russo]

As a philosopher, I was taught one thing that has stuck with more than anything else - that if a theory in some respect pricks one's intuition then there is almost certainly something amiss with said theory (although this doesn't always mean that the entire theory is faulty).

When it comes to the formation and understanding of the universe I have many more questions when it comes to intelligent design, ie; a god, than I do for scientific explanations, although I do have reservations over the Big Bang theory as it happens.

These include;

If we were all made by a god then why are we as a race so prone to disagree as to its identity?

Objectively, what makes one religion superior to another, and therefore if one is wrong can't all be wrong?

Despite plausible deniablity, the odds dictate (due to the sheer size of the universe) that there is life on other planets - how does this dictate our religious beliefs if we're not the only ones to have them?

I have other objections concerned with the nature of God, but they are quite convaluted...


On the contrary, evolution is not something that I intuitively disagree with, at all, it is an astonishingly logical and simple explanation of life on this planet. However, the one thing it does not explain is sentience; at what point did humanity discover self-awareness?

My final point though, is that the human race is very egotistical (to the point of self-mutilation); we (often vainly) like to believe we're superior to everything else (although nature often says otherwise). It seems to me that the easiest way to prove this is to attach ourselves to the idea that the most powerful being imaginable (by definition) created us, and everything around us, and made us the masters of our world.

What notion could possibly appeal to us more than the idea that we're "God's children" even though we're just made of the same atoms as everything else, inhabiting a part of the universe too small to measure.

[Athexx]

First to respond directly to questions posed to me:

The5thElephant:
Athexx - You haven't really cleared up my confusion over why you take the Bible as authority over the numerous other religious texts based on actual historical events.
There are many reasons, and as I say it ultimately is faith or trust in its accuracy based on the confidence I have gained in considering it as historical and spiritual source. Specifically defending the historical reliability is beyond the scope of this discussion, but some reasons include the seeming impossibility of the resurrection to be faked or made up in the first century Roman world, the clarity of its message toward my own life and relationships with other people, the story of Christianity's followers throughout history (of course not always perfect, but in many ways impressive), and its archaeological consistency (not that I am naive enough to think that there is no compelling counterevidence, but that such as I have seen can have alternative explanations as well). The only real contender for another religion to come close to being able to make some of those claims is Islam, and I find it lacking in some of the above reasons still.

By definition this is not science. Science is only science when it has that one claim that you mentioned the naturalist has. Otherwise the scientific method has been broken, and any and all conclusions thereafter are not scientific or more valid because of it.

I didn't say it was, nor does it matter to me if you don't consider such results invalid. In fact I would not expect you to do so, however I will continue to hold to that methodology. I might remind you that most scientists from before Darwin were creationists, yet no one dismisses their results on the basis of their creationist assumptions. Isaac Newton for instance, defended the date of roughly 4000 B.C. for the creation of the world against people who even in his time were seeking to say the earth was older on the basis of non-Biblical historical sources such as Egyptian manuscripts that claimed to trace their dynasties for longer than that. And there have been plenty of scientists since Darwin's time who have been creationists as well but whose results are accepted regularly by scientists who do not agree with their creationist assumptions but are able to find common ground nevertheless.

How can this be a "stronger system" if your basic assumptions have no proof or foundation for validity?
It's stronger not in accessibility but in depth. Something that has been attempted to argue in the past on these forums is that the assumptions of naturalism such as the accuracy of observation cannot be proved either. I will not go into that argument, but suffice to say that given two sets of unprovable starting assumptions, one of which may be the empty set if you want to think of naturalism as that, the set that is by itself makes more propositional claims is naturally going to be a stronger base for inductive and deductive reasoning than the set that claims less. Of course the stronger one is also more likely to be internally inconsistent, but that is a risk I take of course.

Thus my question boils down to is maintaining your faith a matter of comfort, or in your opinion a rational and valid stance due to some reasoning?
I would have to say that both are true. I would be lying if I claimed that rejecting my paradigm would be uncomfortable and anyone who claims otherwise for themselves is either self-deluded or rather irrational. I use "paradigm" instead of faith to avoid contesting whether atheists have faith in certain propositions, because no one can deny they have a certain paradigm of reality that could theoretically be rejected in favor of another. So yes, maintaining my faith is in one sense comforting, but in another sense it is of course discomforting because my faith tells me that I am a sinner and I am not right with God on my own. And yet I also am convinced that there is rational basis to my faith and that to reject it for purely emotional reasons would in fact be profoundly irrational for me unless I were to reconcile the difficulties I would have with no longer holding the historical and moral truths I consider now to be true.

Tyrion:

Might I remind you that you did not explicitly state what you believe and why, although I think I gather the gist of it from the content of your post. I would still prefer to have that stated openly though so that I might have the chance to ask you questions about what you believe rather than just responding to questions you may have.

In particular, you seem to be arguing that there is no disagreement between Christian beliefs and the historical paradigm associated with evolution (by that I include the Big Bang, stellar evolution, the chemical origins of the first cell, and the common ancestry of all life). I would disagree, since I believe my historical paradigm (divine creation a few thousand years ago, followed by the fall and evolution taking place since then from the original kinds God made) is in sharp disagreement with the former but I base my beliefs from scripture. Given your lack of statement of beliefs about yourself, I am interested in knowing if you are a Christian yourself or not - I certainly have met Christians who share your attitude. But if you were a Christian as well, how would you reconcile the portions of scripture that do not agree with your assessment of what Christian doctrine is? Have you in fact read the Bible yourself or are you basing your perception of non-disagreement on what other Christian leaders have said?

Furthermore, I find your historical facts to be invalid. Charles Darwin was never Catholic; he was raised Anglican and had indeed studied at Cambridge to become an Anglican priest but was in fact never actually ordained. Also, with regard to your claim that Darwin saw no contradiction between Christian beliefs and his theories, consider the following quote from Darwin, published in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin:


"During these two years [footnote:Oct. 1836 to Jan. 1839.] I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,—is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament? This appeared to me utterly incredible.

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;— by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me.

"But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.

"Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument from design in Nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the 'Variation of Domesticated Animals and Plants,'* and the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered.

Link to the entire text published online (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1452.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=1)

That looks to me exactly like Darwin's orthodox beliefs as he was younger, albeit compromised by his influence by Lyell on the age of the earth and his lack of considering a personal God, which slowly faded due to his scientific theories over time. Note that he specifically rebuts the "Intelligent Design" argument for the existence of God.

Unk:
If you wish to address this scientifically point-by-point I can put forward more precise arguments on what changes would have taken place.

Unk, please see the guidelines I posted above. While in the past in various threads on these boards I have attempted to answer different scientific points brought up by this discussion, I would like to limit that here. As I posted above, my reason for belief is not scientific, therefore if you wanted to talk about why I believe in creationism, please talk about theology. I think I have given sufficient response above in my response to iamme to the question of how I reconcile my views with science. However it seems that Jeremiah does have a more evidential reason for believing in creation, so perhaps you might direct that more at him. I still request that this thread does NOT turn into a debate on various scientific theories though, since I don't believe there is much to gain in terms of coming to understand each other from that.

Now to ask a few questions from others:

Jeremiah, I am interested more in your beliefs, especially since we seem to share the same conclusions about origins, but reached it from very different perspectives. For me the scientific evidence is not at all conclusive one way or another and if I were to defer to scientific evidence alone, I would NOT believe in Young Earth Creationism because I would consider it rather arrogant to reject vast swaths of scientific theories that most people more qualified than myself accept on their own authority, if there were no idealogical difference there. Rather, I believe what I do because I recognize an authority that they do not and that is the source of my difference. Would you say that the Bible and its teachings had nothing to do with why you reject evolution? Or would you say you included theological evidence on an equal level with material evidence as to questions of the age of the earth? How did you balance the two areas of thought specifically?

El Russo, I wonder what it is you mean by "pricks one's intuition." And I also wonder what you think of non-intuitive results of many mathematical or scientific theories. To take an elementary example, some people strongly reject the idea that the repeating decimal number 0.9999... is equal to 1. Yet within the standard decimal system, the equivalence is in fact true, as is the fact that every rational number that has a decimal representation that terminates also has an equivalent representation that does not terminate. To some people I have encountered, no amount of mathematical proof has been sufficient to dissuade them of their intuitive notion that no number should have more than one decimal representation. What do you think is going on here? The theory is completely sound in this case, but I think this is what you mean when you say "pricks their intuition." Can you intuitively think something to be wrong, even after seeing evidence or proof to the contrary, and still have your intuition deceive you?

[TheDividedGod]

In a philosophical sense, intuition is the very manifold by which we unify concepts and objects.

in that sense, it is impossible for your intuition to decieve you, since all the knowledge contained therein is entirely a priori.

Personally, i'm more concerned with the philosphical justification for God's existence than a scientific or theological one. Science has a habit of doing everything in it's power to consistently prove itself wrong, and despite how you might feel (athexx, i thought it was maintained at the beginning of this thread that "i just have faith" is not an acceptable answer, yet this is largely what you claim in your first paragraph above) christianity has not maintained a collection of accurate canonical texts. Rather, over the years the holy scriptures have been re-written again, and again, translated into many different languages and altered to suit the political needs of the powerful and wealthy autocrats and clergy of the times. Indeed, how would you explain buddhist or even Hindu texts that clearly state a much longer timeline for the existence of the earth and the creation of the universe as we percieve it? Scriptures like the Vedas and the buddhist Pali Canon/Tipitaka are examples of a very select few religious texts that HAVE been preserved accurately and faithfully over the years. Can ANYONE deny that these religions have not only been with humanity for much longer, but have more accurate historical merit? How could you possibly claim that Christianity has more merit as a belief system based on historical accuracy? I think it is a subject very much relevant to the discussion, since the main point of argument between the two camps always seems to center on the massive timeline discrepancy between creationism and evolution.

But again, the ultimate problem with organized religion crops up: all religions claim to have sole ownership over the one true divine revelation.

Which religion is the "right" one?

I believe in evolution - it happens, it's documented, it fits with every ecological theory of adaptation that we've ever thought up, end of story - but this doesn't mean i don't believe in God. I certainly have no faith in organized religion - the horrific crimes commited under the shelthering umbrella of religious righteousness speak for themselves - but i would be a fool to deny the existence of paradox simply because it is paradoxical. God exists just as much as infinity "exists". God is as real as any other thought i can think up.

Also, it's important to remember that mathematical tricks do not translate to epistemology. The "standard decimal system" is just that - a system, a frame of context in which we more or less arbitrarily decide upon what seem to be the most rational rules and operations. In one sense, since the hypothetical 0.9 repeating signifies infinity, yes it also equates (not equals) one.

However, the "one" that it equates to is not really neccessarily another number within our closed decimal system of mathematics. rather, the concepts that are being linked are that of infinity and wholeness, unity, or totality. This is what the oneness represents, and its the same reason the greeks didn't have a figure to represent zero.

There is no "nothing". look around you, obviously there is "some-thing". There IS multiplicity in our empirical universe, and so we must start with unidivided one, not zero, in order to count the parts of the whole.

Let us take a different tack, and assume simply that 0.9 repeating IS completely equatable and equal to one in every sense.

Thus we have created a paradox, a signifier that represents two opposite sides of the same conceptual representation.

Let us then ask the begging question - God, being omnipotent and omnipresent and the creator and ultimate essence of everything, is therefore a signifier on his own representing the totality of the universe.

Is God, then, also not-God? If he represents the totality of everything in the universe, even as a signifier, he would have to represent the antithesis to his nature also. Notwithstanding this paradox, there is also the matter of God's innate perfection and (according to original sin) Man's innate imperfection. If God is perfect, he can create only perfect things. How is it then that man sinned? If the creation of free will would lead to sin, why would God not prevent this, or prevent the circumstances for sin from ever occurring? Fughtermore, how could God, being perfect in every way, have any relateable knowledge of or to the imperfect world of man? If god represents/exists within only the purest conceptual good, really, only pure perfect conceptual understanding, how can we maintain that he has any knowledge at all regarding the lower-order nature of human language symbols and signifiers? Such things would be utterly meaningless and without substance or possibility of knowledge to a being (a being who is both in a state of Being and Non-Being) who exists on a pure conceptual level. There are also the related issues as to whether or not God follows the rules of natural law that he himself would have set down when creating the universe - this raises a whole SLEW of new questions and paradoxes.

I'm not trying to say that a paradox like the nature of god or duality or trying to observe systems makes the referential material and ideas inherently worthless, far from it. I recognize the inherent meaning within the tension of binaries - quite literally, i believe it is through paradox that our awareness is able to interact with asny sort of stimulus and, more importantly, assign context and meaning to it.

These issues, in my mind, are much more difficult ground to tread than historical arguments about the validity of creation versu....i don't know, carbon dating? common sense? .....yeah, carbon dating.

Personally.....i'm with the carbon dating process. Ever since I was young, i've thought that the idea that the entire universe, with it's unimaginably massive scope, was only 6000 years old, was a bit ludicrous, to say the least.

As for the "epistemology" part of this whole discussion.......well........

I've never met anyone foolish enough to try and argue a theory of knowledge or how we attain knowledge derived entirely from some divine entity (or just the concept of a divine entity).

[Athexx]

Hi TheDividedGod,

Great post. To answer your query about my using faith to justify my beliefs, I have attempted in my posts to provide justification for my faith, not rely on faith as an excuse. That was the intent of my rule in the first post of the thread. To respond to some of your claims, I am highly interested in your assertion that the Hindu and Buddhist texts have more historical reliability than the Christian scriptures. Could you please provide your sources for this? Personally I have not read more than a few excerpts from a few sources and so I defer to your knowledge on these matters. I would definitely be interested in reading some of these for myself in full. However the following assertion you make I find to be very inaccurate:

Rather, over the years the holy scriptures have been re-written again, and again, translated into many different languages and altered to suit the political needs of the powerful and wealthy autocrats and clergy of the times. If you would like to assert that, please provide a source for what you are referring to. We have thousands of Greek copies of New Testament books which differ only very insignificantly and every main translation of the New Testament I am aware of uses these original language copies as their source, so I hardly see how your assertion holds water. See here (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html) for a Christian article with sources sympathetic to my view, if you want a more scholarly source see F.F. Bruce's "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?"

But anyway, to stay back on track, I find your philosophical argument about God interesting. You say that "God is as real as any other thought i can think up." - does this mean that your God is then "real" in the same sense that pink unicorns are "real," in a conceptual sense but not otherwise? In any case, by what reason do you insist that God be Omnipotent and Omnipresent, and Creator? You are clearly not basing your perception of God from any divine revelation, as I do, so I ask: why do you believe that your concept of God has the attributes he does?

I have heard the discourse of considering an entity that has the perfections of all attributes, and that since the perfection of existence is to exist, such an entity must then exist. On those grounds maybe you are arguing that God has Omnipotence and Omnipresence, but what attribute's perfection necessitates that this being be creator?

Also, I see no reason for you to consider any questions related to sin given your concept of a perfect God. If sin is not perfect, and you demand that a perfect God only create things that are perfect (something that does not seem necessary to me but I will grant it) then by definition we are sinless as well. On what grounds do you think that we are in fact sinners?

Personally I do not believe in such an entity, of course, but that is because I accept the divine revelation entailed in the Bible about his own attributes, none of which entails the philosophical perfections you are arguing about.

By the way, you yourself state that mathematical "tricks" do not translate to epistemology, yet you go on to make much more out of it than I did - I was just using it as an example that I have encountered that many people will firmly hold on to something despite proof to the contrary when their intuition says otherwise. And 0.9 repeating does not signify infinity, it is precisely equal, yes, equal, to 1.

[TheDividedGod]

Urgh.

........I'm sorry man, but there are SO many logical fallacies in your last post here that I don't think i'm going to continue this. I have neither the time nor the inclination to make myself look like an asshole by "correcting" you on such ephemeral metaphysical concepts that are, by nature, open to broad-ranging interpretations.


.......Frankly, I'm still wondering what exactly epistemology (the theory of knowledge or how our awareness "discovers" knowledge) has to do with the debate between creationism and the physical sciences.

*leaves the discussion to those with the time to engage in semantics*

[tyrion]

Okay, I seem to be following a few somewhat inflamed posts here, which by and large I sympathise with in content if not the passion.

Leaving aside the beliefs of Darwin (which after all I raised as an aside and no more, but thank you Athexx for the insights you offer).

My initial post was actually written under less than ideal circumstances so I apologise for the pompous and possibly vague tone in which I presented what case I did. You ask for my beliefs in extended and clear form so at the risk of yet again offending whichever mods choose to read my postings here comes the pseudo biographical version.

Basically I was raised in a strictly evangelical (as opposed to evangelist) household and my father was (and still is) a practising preacher. Note the obvious distinction made with priesthood. I was baptised as an adult according to the beliefs of the particular branch of christianity within which I was raised. In short the belief system was fairly cosmopolitan in that the church accepted christianity as being a unified whole with only peripheral distinctions between churches. One God, one creator, one purpose to humanity being the glorification of that God.

My own personal doubts began on moral grounds wherein throughout my teenage years I began to question the behaviour and sincerity of the congregation. I also felt very strongly that on certain issues fundamental christianity spoke of a God of love but in practise delivered a message of hate. In particular in relation to sexuality wherein the message seemed to be that it was ok to be homosexual so long as you refused to act on that fact or publicly acknowledge it beyond what effectively amounted to informal confession and ecumenical "treatment" for want of a better phrase.

As a heterosexual whose social circle included many openly gay people whose actions seemed far more in fitting with the ideals of love and peace preached by the church than it's own members I found it difficult to reconcile my position. I suspect in retrospect that this was where I began to doubt the veracity of what I had been taught as my own moral compass leaned towards the applied morality based on experience rather than the theoretical morality based on teachings. I found it very difficult to judge people whose actions sat with their stated beliefs when I was supposed to agree with people whose actions often differed very far from otherwise very similar stated positions. In short I found a great deal of hypocrisy in the church and my experiences of christianity in other settings since has tended to confirm my earlier suspicions. This in itself is no reason to reject a faith, but it began the rot which quickly and (presumably) permanently set in.

Thus from the viewpoint of religion as a moral statement of intent I am certainly not a christian. However, doubts about the moral behaviour of a religion's proponents do not in any way alter the truth or falsehood of that religion as an explanation of the universe, which christianity in whatever form does attempt to do. And therein lies the rub.

You ask people to fall onto what I percieve to be a slightly artificial distinction between religion and science. Where religion serves to act as a moral code then quite frankly I feel that humanity should be at a stage wherein we can find our own way, taking responsibility for our own behaviours rather than what I see as a somewhat childish reliance on an abstract father figure for justification. However as an explanation for our place in the universe and how we came to be I am somwhat more open to religion. I am not a practising christian in any conventional sense, nor would I value christianity above any of the many other very similar religions competing for my faith. Nonetheless I feel that science has limitations as outlines clumsily in my earlier post.

Human development surely cannot be explained in complete ignorance of the available data, nor can an unsubstantiated historical text (I refer here to the bible in particular but feel free to replace with any other religious text you care) really be taken as a valid guide to the age of the earth when virtually every imaginable piece of physical evidence sits in direct opposition.

Despite all of the above however I do not feel that evolution offers a complete story, and that although all of the evidence suggests it did happen, is happening and not only will but MUST continue to happen, that this is only the means and not the cause.
There is always a place for God and whether people accept or reject such a concept is ultimately personal choice. You cannot prove or disprove His existence for the simple reason that the very process of arguing proof is a subset of the world He did or did not create.

Thus I would summarise my position by saying that I can see no alternative to evolution as the best fit for the evidence as to HOW we came into being. However it does not follow that God is disproved and the two can sit fairly comfortably side by side, even serving to complement each other. One is a question of science, the other faith and confusing the difference has led to many an unfounded rift.

[naradaman]

I was born and raised a Hare Krishna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_krishna), or as you you might recognize them, those guys in dresses that dance around in the street once a year. Heh. Ask reki in Melbourne, he might have seen them. Or, you might have heard about the unfortunate court case a few years back about sexual abuse in a couple of Hare Krishna schools in India. There's bad eggs in every religion I suppose.

I'm not practising actively nowadays, you might compare me to a Christian that doesn't go to Mass every sunday. I've retained a few of their core ideals though, like vegetarianism, and I've discarded some. I still like to consider myself religious.

Unlike many other Hare Krishna devotees, who believe in a Vedic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veda) creation, I believe in evolution. It's a case of having the most evidence.

(The Veda is a primary Hindu scripture, this religions has close ties with Hinduism)

So what's religion for if I don't practise and I don't believe in creation? I enjoy being a part of the Hare Krishna community for the most part. Here's a few reasons why:



The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISCKON) does alot of charity work. Some of it is promoting the religion, handing out books etc, but they also give out meals for free. (not charity but anyway ->) They have community run restaurants providing cheap meals, too.
Everything is up for discussion in the community. This includes scripture interpretation. This is something I feel is lacking in some religions, though not all by no means (Judaism is a good example).
The Veda has many interesting ideas about society, people, the human brain, the soul, life the universe and everything. I certainly don't agree with them all but I respect the Veda as a good 'starting point' for a religion.
I like being a good person. Karma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma) is a core belief in this religion. The emperical evidence junkies will call bullshit about it but I don't care whether it's true or not. I find it's a good rule of thumb to keep me from being a jerk. I know religion is hardly needed to be a good person but it helps me.
Knowledge is prized within the community. The pursuit of knowledge and understanding is a noble endeavour and I respect that alot.
The jury is still out on the soul and reincarnation, in my mind. Emperically speaking, they don't exist, along with Karma, deitys and higher planes of being. If I believe in one supernatural thing I may as well believe in every supernatural thing, you may say.

Well, the reason I do let stuff like Karma affect me is because I like it's influence. I don't let it influence me other than in the ways I allow it. It's a faith of convenience I suppose, I'm using it to do something for me.I don't think believing in the soul or reincrnation would bring me anything that I don't already have.

Note: Karma is traditionally tied in with the sould and reincarnation, they're one complete package. I've constrained the scope of my belief to this life, for now.

Now, rip my post to shreds!

edit: I did a little elaboration
edit again: re worded part that could be misinterpreted

[Starfisher]

TheDividedGod: Do not post here again unless you are willing to engage in the debate as set up by the original poster. Your last post was very rude, and goes against the spirit of the Study.

[a_Necron_Lord01]

I believe in God the Scientist. I am a Deist, so my interpretation of God is somewhat more vague than most religious people. In fact I do not even call myself religious, I call myself spiritual.

I believe that in the beginning, the Universe was without form and void, and then God spoke. With that the Universe came into existance in what is generally regarded by scientists as "The Big Bang".

Whether God did any actual manipulation on a genetic level I cannot say for sure. I suppose that in a perfect God scenario, God would have not needed to, since everything would essentially have been set in motion through His creation of the Universe.

I do not believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I have seen and I have touched dinosaur bones. All the science I have read says the Earth is a lot older, and I have no real reason to doubt it.

To believe in evolution I need only look at my pet parrot and compare him to those same dinosaur bones and the obvious comparison is there. The same with myself and a monkey.

On my background and origin of beliefs:

I was raised Lutheran, though we never attended church. My family was always spiritual though. My grandmother often quoted Jesus, among her favorites was the one where he talks about people using the wilderness as a temple.

I myself expanded my studies of other religions and found that all religions, in general, have something good and positive to offer. So rather than choose a specific version of God and a specific religion to accompany that view, I choose to believe in God as an abstractions and hybrid of all these things.

[Jeremiah]

5th Elephant: Couldn't that just be a result of the society that you grew up in? Would you be Christian if you were born into a muslim or jewish family? How about Buddhist?

My understanding of Buddhism is that it was a corruption of Hinduism, so I'd probably go for Hinduism before Buddhism. My own take on "salvation" is that we are held accountable for what we knowingly disobey. Those who have never heard of Christ cannot be expected to believe in him. And I'm certain that God will take that into account.

Judaism is filled with numerous prophecies that point towards the then-coming Messiah (Jesus). Judaism is completely valid as a belief, and Christianity springs from it as the next step.

Islam, and pardon my political incorrectness, is basically a revamped Judeo-Christianity.


Moe:Back up your claims please. What scientific evidence is there for a young earth?


I wasn't trying to persude anyone, only stating what I believe. Much of what I believe depends on a static universe, rather than a dynamic one, and I'm not as versed in those theories as I would like to be. My belief in a young earth comes more from the bible and the human fossil record (which I see as coinciding, see other thread for initial details).


Athexx: For me the scientific evidence is not at all conclusive one way or another and if I were to defer to scientific evidence alone, I would NOT believe in Young Earth Creationism because I would consider it rather arrogant to reject vast swaths of scientific theories that most people more qualified than myself accept on their own authority, if there were no idealogical difference there.


As stated before, the scientific evidence I've come across has more to do with "recent" human evolution, and the lack of a necessity of and old earth. But there's an interesting book entitled Bones of Contention, by Marvin Lubenow, and is probably the only creationist book I'd recommend.


Athexx:Would you say that the Bible and its teachings had nothing to do with why you reject evolution?


Hard to say. I was raised in a Christian home, attended a Christian school that taught creationism. Even though I wasn't a Christian, myself, the classes stuck with me.


Athexx:Or would you say you included theological evidence on an equal level with material evidence as to questions of the age of the earth?


There's definitely a theological component that takes me from "All was intelligently designed, in a shorter period of time" to "The earth was created in six days." There is almost a universal, collective acknowledgement of a world-wide flood in the folklores of the world, so I might arrive at that one on my own. Again, hard to say.

Necron Lord1:I believe that in the beginning, the Universe was without form and void, and then God spoke. With that the Universe came into existance in what is generally regarded by scientists as "The Big Bang".


Vague as that might be, most mystics of any religion would agree with that, from Christian, Judaic, Islamic, or (I believe)Hindu. The book "Why Religion Matters" spent a great deal of time on such a statement.

[naradaman]

My understanding of Buddhism is that it was a corruption of Hinduism, so I'd probably go for Hinduism before Buddhism.Disagree. It has been influenced by Hinduism no doubt but to call it a corruption is a huge cop out. Buddhists don't hold a belief in any deity, whereas Hindus believe in many. The core beliefs of both religions vary quite alot, as you might expect when one religion follows a sacred scripture and the other the teachings of a seperate prophet-figure, with some downright disagreements. Notable example, here are the four noble pursuits recognized by Hinduism:

kāma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama_%28Purusharthas%29) (desire for sensual pleasure)
artha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artha) (acquisition of worldly possessions or money)
dharma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma) (observance of religious duties)
mokṣha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha) (liberation achieved through God-realization)
As is more well known though, Buddhists shun desire as a cause of suffering. This contradicts the first two pursuits entirely.

These links will help when commenting on these religions, Jermeiah:
Hinduism on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism)
Buddhism on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budism)

Islam I know less about. What I do know though is that it is a very complex religion, to dumb it down like that is probably a misinterpretation.

[Moe]

I wasn't trying to persude anyone, only stating what I believe.

When you claim something, you'll have to back it up. Those are the rules. If you say that you did something "because of all the scientific evidence", then you'll have to show some of that scientific evidence.

[Unk]

Damn quick delete button...

Jerimiah - How do you reconcile the mountains of scientific evidence against a young Earth/universe with your "scientific" beliefs?

[NT78stonewobble]

Hmm, allways a touchy and dangerous area of discussion.

Religion and personal beliefs.

Now I won't get into a heated debate involving links to science reports of hundreds of pages or page 67 of the bible because honestly I can't be "arsed" to go that deep into it.

Instead I will only give my 25 øre of my own personal beliefs and why they work for me.

For ease I have broken my views into three parts: Society, The Individual and Science.

--------------------Society--------------------

As I have been maturing I have grown increasingly weary of any system (either politically, religiously or morally) that judges people and basically tells them how to live their lives.

Moving on from this I came to the conclusion that eg:

A democracy is the logical way for a society to function fullfilling the needs of the majority.

A legal code is both logical and necessary as basic rules on how people are to interact and behave towards each others.

Now, granted the bible has its morale values and our present day legal code is mostly based on this.

However I find the biblical moral values are based on the society they were written in and thus not necessarily applicable today.

So in any society I see eg. politics and laws as a necessary foundation for the inter human relations. It is based on part logic, part be to others as you want them to be towards you morality.

It doesn't need a judging god, book, philosophy or religion per say.

--------------------The Individual--------------------

So this point of view on the society only leaves religion applicable for the individual as guidelines for their own life.

I know that any psycological theories could never ever be used to describe 100 % any human thought process.

Personally though these thesis'es give somewhat accurate results and explanations on human behaviour and in the future they will only get better.

So I'd rather base my life around knowing how I (me brains) work than eg: a book telling me not to be attracted to men even though I am.

I am straight but I can see the dilemma, both there but also eg. in question with abortion and so on.

In my humble oppinion the above conundrum will only lead to broken down people in one way or the other.

So for religion for the individual I can accept it, as long as people take what they need for them to:

Function in the best possible way. Both in terms or morally "goodness" but also mentally and physically.

--------------------Science--------------------

In My Humble Oppinion (important) I can't in any way understand how you can believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Don't take it personally but to me its like saying that red is really blue or like hearing a colourblind describing the world.

Right now I was wondering that if the bible had said: "He flew" would people then be argumenting that gravity doesn't exist or is that too obvious?

On a whole, I personally believe in "science" as eg: theories of evolution gives a rational explanation of why the different animal / plant species look and act like they do.

It makes sence...

Like the fact that with gravity my piece of bread with marmelade ended up on the floor and not floating into my mouth on its own devices.

And that thermodynamics explain why the coffee in my cup is getting colder by the the minute.

In these to me obvious cases I can't in any see why you would disregard a scientific theory that works (more or less) in favour of qoutes in a book written before pen (or real books by the way) was invented.

I know there are some things that science cannot explain but it is either a matter or time before there is a suitable theory developed or its something that we will just have to accept as unanswearable.

Eg. Is there life on other planets? To get a 100 % accurate answer you would physically have to visit every single planet in the universe and then use an electonmicroscope on every single particle on them to be sure.

I can get by with less...

And in the end it kind of depends. Do you really need an explanation for inexplainable? As in life after death?

Personally I don't need it. I can wonder but I don't need some arbitrary explanation for my life and the universe at large...

PS: Sorry for any inconsistency. It was mostly just thoughts at random and not the best thought out post. Also sorry for my english. It isn't my native tongue and I don't really write anything this long anymore.

PPS: The danger of science is letting it become religion in the way that you believe so much in a theory that you cannot accept a newer and more accurate theory.

PPPS: The dangers of religion is priests (popes and imam's) telling you what to believe instead of you figuring it out for your self. It's textbook mindcontrol, and basically all about power. Don't tell me your local minister doens't get a little buzz going by being the one with all the answers. Even if it's with good intentions.

[tyrion]

In My Humble Oppinion (important) I can't in any way understand how you can believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Don't take it personally but to me its like saying that red is really blue or like hearing a colourblind describing the world.


Agreed to a point, certainly young earth theories are far from being in line with the available facts. Of course this only questions the AGE of the planet and not who went about creating it.

PPS: The danger of science is letting it become religion in the way that you believe so much in a theory that you cannot accept a newer and more accurate theory.

PPPS: The dangers of religion is priests (popes and imam's) telling you what to believe instead of you figuring it out for your self. It's textbook mindcontrol, and basically all about power. Don't tell me your local minister doens't get a little buzz going by being the one with all the answers. Even if it's with good intentions.

It goes further than this I'm afraid, equally dangerous is letting religion become a substitue for science, so that belief overrules evidence. Each has their place and those places do not in fact overlap. Dispute only occurs where that is not fully understood and many a prolonged in depth debate has failed because people argue using the tenets of one against those of the other.

Science explains how the world works, religion why. One can be proved (or more correctly disproved) whereas the other relies purely on faith. Neither is truly more valid so long as the nature and purpose of each is understood.

However I share many of your feelings about organised religion (as opposed to personal faith). The reality often has little to do with beliefs and ideals and more to do with status, power and influence.

[NT78stonewobble]

As far as I know there is no known scientific fact or theory that disproves the possibility of god.

That said. I can accept you believe in an all powerfull god that eg. initiated the big bang but any intervention since then I find highly unlikely.

It's the more or less ignorance of "sciencefact" that I find disturbing.

Deviating from that only leads to "My god is bigger than your god" over to "If I blow myself up and 10 infidels I get to heaven with 30 virgins" or "Abortion is murder so I'll blow up this darn clinique with murderers in it".

/me ends and apologizes for his religious rant...

@Tyrion, well we think kinda similar on the subject. One slight disagreement though.

That science only explains how the world works and religion why. IMHO science gives some why's too...

Offcourse a question like what is the meaning with life on earth and human intelligence is hard to answer for science so perhaps its the question thats wrong and not the lack of an apparent answer?

[TheDividedGod]

I'm sorry starfisher, but I think you've misinterpreted my last post.

Let me make it clear.

Informing someone that their statement contains a logical fallacy is not "rude".

Rude would be to continue an argument about faith by trying to nail down an absolutist definition of an infinitely changing metaphysical concept, and tell everyone that doesn't agree with it that they are wrong. metaphysical concepts, as I said above, are by nature open to broad-ranging interpretation, and thus arguing about the nature of god and related religious issues like original sin.. All i've done is try my best to back out of the argument with dignity intact by attempting to re-focus the discussion on the validity of the topic itself. I don't appreciate the unfounded warning, as i have not broken any rules and all of my posts have been on topic, and I did not intend to word the post as some sort of subtle jab. I envy those with the time to engage in semantics.

Athexx, i hope I didn't offend you with the post. Was not my intention - I was just exhausted (as I usually am every night these days). It's clear that you are a person of intelligence and you can obviously articulate yourself well in writing - it's for these reasons that I don't want to argue with you over questions of faith, as i agree that god and evolution can exist quite comfortably together.

@Tyrion - I agree. Organized religion is supremely dangerous, yet personal faith or spirituality or SOME way of catering to the needs of the soul is almost neccessary.

[Moe]

TheDividedGod, either you're in, or you're out. You posted that you would leave the discussion, that doesn't mean that you come back to have the last word. Either you participate, or you don't.

[TheDividedGod]

My apologies then. My only purpose was clarification, not "getting the last word in."

[NT78stonewobble]

I just wanted to share an episode that furthered my oppinion on organised religion and the motives behind it.

My grandmother has for a number of years had a distant friend that was a member of jehovas vitnesses. They had as far as I remember worked the same place some years before.

This friend would once in a while stop by (rarely once a year perhaps) for a cup of coffee and a bit of gossip and offcourse gartered with a bit of jehovas vitness "propaganda" that never in all those years was heeded by my grandmother (who isn't very religious).

My grandmother accepted this slight religious interest because it wasn't very imposing on her.

Now 4 years ago my grandfather died rather suddenly and then suddenly my grandmothers friend shows up with a friend and allmost physically pushes themselves into her appartment uninvited under citing that they wanted to help in these hard days.

Theres no doubt in my mind that they had read the obituaries and seen my grandmother as an easy victim. Old of age and in sorrow...

What is more disturbing is perhaps that these people wanted to do this probably with good intentions, but what is good for one person is not necessarily good for the next.

I for one don't think that these people could have comforted my grandmother better than our family did during that time.

[munkyfunk]

I believe there is a higher power involved in the creation of things, whether the 'big bang' was his way of doing things or not I don't know. I'm not by any means qualified to serious level in science nor am i particularly well learned in faith, my belief stems from a very simple observation that I've been thinkin of for years now. Say the big bang created the universe, fine where did it come from? two large clouds of gas drifting through the universe that collide react and explode, ok fine where did they come from? as i said my scientific knowledge isn't vast but surely if you keep asking where these things came from and go far back enough you must reach a point where there was nothing, and then there was something, and that you can't explain with science, not to any degree that would satisfy me. certainly not the most technical theory put forward here, but its been on my mind for years so i though I'd throw it in here and see what happens.

[The5thElephant]

munkyfunk - The concept of something having a beginning and an end is quite human and does not have to apply to the universe. What we label as the beginning and end of something is usually just the rearrangement of that object into something else. If I take my computer and blow it up, it does not end, its atoms are just rearranged rather violently. The concept of the computer ends, but nothing has actually been created or destroyed (a very important law of thermodynamics).

Now apply this to the universe. Just because we see things as beginning and ending does not mean that these are universal values that apply to everything. Thus who says the universe has to have had some absolute beginning? Personally I happen to think the evidence is quite good for the Big Bang theory, but I too believe there was likely something before that. Whether it would be comprehensible to us or not is unknowable, but I personally like to believe that it was just some other form of physical existence which led up the the Big Bang. Perhaps it goes in cycles? Just a long chain of big bang and then entropy, then big bang, then entropy.

There are a number of theories, but it is a fallacy to assume that a beginning is required.

Remember that to search for an objective truth one must remove as many subjective assumptions one has as possible. Often some of these subjective assumptions may seem to make a lot of sense, but when you really analyze them they are just concepts we have created because they are useful to our daily lives. Like the concept of beginning and end.

[Jeremiah]

Naradaman:It has been influenced by Hinduism no doubt but to call it a corruption is a huge cop out.
That's what I get for trusting Encarta, I suppose. I really meant no disrespect. I was under the impression that the Buddhists built off the Hindus much like the Romans revamped the Greek mythologies.


Unk: How do you reconcile the mountains of scientific evidence against a young Earth/universe with your "scientific" beliefs?

Very carefully. :P Besides the various dating methods, what evidence is there against a young earth? The fossil record is either incomplete (a possibility) or it is shorter than expected (also a possibility). Most data can be interpreted either way.


The 5th Elephant:There are a number of theories, but it is a fallacy to assume that a beginning is required.


Fair warning: I'm taking notes in case anyone asks me where God came from.

[naradaman]

That's what I get for trusting Encarta, I suppose. I really meant no disrespect. I was under the impression that the Buddhists built off the Hindus much like the Romans revamped the Greek mythologies.Yeah, sorry for jumping down your throat a little there too.Very carefully. :P Besides the various dating methods, what evidence is there against a young earth? The fossil record is either incomplete (a possibility) or it is shorter than expected (also a possibility). Most data can be interpreted either way.It's a pretty logical bunch here on the Relicboards, this argument usually doesn't appease. You may hear the word empiricism throw around here and it's in direct conflict to what you're saying. Because you say you have scientific beliefs and yet scientific theory is founded upon emperical evidence. There's a problem here.

[Moe]

Very carefully. :P Besides the various dating methods, what evidence is there against a young earth? The fossil record is either incomplete (a possibility) or it is shorter than expected (also a possibility). Most data can be interpreted either way.

That's not true. Show me data that can be interpreted either way please.
The various dating methods go a long way in disproving the young earth notion. You can't simply dismiss them like that. They have been proven to work, they have been tested over and over again.

Gaps in the fossil records don't change the age of the earth - even if we were to screw up the timeline a little it won't change the overall age.

There are also things like the fact that we can see stars that are more than 6,000 light years away - clearly this is only possible if they existed more than 6,000 years ago. The temperature and size of our own sun indicates that it is a couple billion years old.

I could go on, but all of the above data indicates that the young earth notion is simply wrong. They are obtained through completely different methods, based on completely different theories, so even if you were to prove that carbon dating didn't work (which it does, old paintings have been accurately dated for example), there are tons of other methods you can use to figure out how old stuff is.

The only way that the earth is 6,000 years old is if every single scientific theory we have today is wrong, which is rather unlikely considering that all of our modern technology is based on those very same theories. Relativity can be measured, without it GPS wouldn't work. Carbon dating works, the regular decay of elements is used in a lot of applications from medicine to nuclear power plants.

If you are going to cite scientific evidence I suggest you actually go through the trouble and do some research yourself. You will find that "most of the data can be interpreted either way" is simply incorrect.

I'm not saying that your belief in god is wrong or anything, because frankly it's not my place to say so. I'm trying to point out that contrary to what you said your beliefs are not founded on scientific evidence.

[NT78stonewobble]

IMHO the point is that science basically tells you that the eg. the bible is not to be taken literally on everything.

It is a book.

Its old and written by people who didnt have the understanding of the world around as we do now.

The new testament eg. tells about the wise man (presumably son of god but lots of people claim that, even humanity as a whole due to adam/eve) Jesus. But none of the actual writings in the new testament has actually been written by jesus. They are not necessarily first hand accounts of what actually happened.

You can't apply 2000 year old "wisdom" on present day dilemmas.

Cancer today is a disease. Not because you got the evil eye or is being punished by god. It may be a punishment for smoking or living unhealthy but god certainly doesn't have the finger in your tumor.

Universal concepts as love or how to act to your fellow man. Here you can apply the essence of the bible.

.....

Christianity works much better this way too. :)

And you then don't have to wonder why god made the earth look like a 4.6 billion year old world and then write it down as only 6000 years old.

If there is a god he isn't in dealing with used cars too ?!?

[Moe]

You can't apply 2000 year old "wisdom" on present day dilemmas.

That's not always true, some things are applicable. I think the keyphrase here is "all of them".

[The5thElephant]

Very carefully. :P Besides the various dating methods, what evidence is there against a young earth? The fossil record is either incomplete (a possibility) or it is shorter than expected (also a possibility). Most data can be interpreted either way.

The data is not being interpreted one way or the other here. There is a fundamental difference in the stance on the data that most scientists take, and the stance that young earth "scientists" take.

Regular scientists are looking at this data with no assumptions or hopes for it turning out a specific way. They take the data, analyze it, compare it, test it, and come to a conclusion. This conclusion was that the Earth is approx. 4.57 billion years old.

Young earth scientists are looking at this data with a humongous and unfounded assumption, and they are trying to match the data to that. That is not science. That is biased speculation. I don't see why it is so difficult to accept that the Earth is quite old, and that part of the bible isn't meant to be taken literally. Every religion has some fantastical creation story, people like having them, it makes for good story telling around the fire in your cave.

[tyrion]

Lovely little thing most people forget is part of the scientific technique, it's known as Ocham's Razor. It has other names, but I like that one.

It sounds strange at first but with a little thought it makes perfect sense. Basically the idea is that when presented with a set of data, of which there is an abundance under discussion here, you take the simplest explanation which fits the facts as being true until someone can prove otherwise. So where there are two possible explanations you shave away the one which adds extra new ideas and use the one which requires the fewest nebulous and unfounded ideas to explain what we see.

How is this relevent? Well simply put Jereniah is partially conrrect where he says that the data COULD be interpreted as showing a much shorter lifespan for the earth than we have been led to believe by other evidence. We COULD argue that maybe God did this to confuse us or test our faith. If we WANTED to.

However if we were to do this then we would not be applying the scientific technique properly. The simplest explanation for the majority of the data is a 4.something billion year old earth, with a fossil record scattered over the planet which we have managed with our impoverished archeological resources to only partially uncover.

Whe you start adding concepts to a theory that simply aren't needed to explain the data then you may as well eliminate the data altogether. You're simply making things up and the fact that part of your creation (no pun intended) might happen to not disagree with PART of the available evidence is neither here nor there. What you are doing is not science, it is religion masquerading as such and doing so in an arena it has no place commenting on.

As someone with a scientific mind set I've endeavoured to be as unbiased as possible throughout this thread, accepting that religion has a very valid place in people's lives and in postulating answers to to questions such as "why?" as opposed to "how?". I'd like to think I've tried to understand the concepts behind that religion as fully as possible out of respect for people's beliefs.

I would request Jeremiah that if you would use science as a debating tool that you should show the same respect in return and try to understand this fundamental aspect of a tool which has served to improve all our lives and understanding every bit as much as has religion.

[The5thElephant]

Well said, tyrion. :up:

[Jeremiah]

Moe:That's not true. Show me data that can be interpreted either way please.

Fair enough. Please be patient with my while I figure out how to answer people's questions here. A lot of people don't like long lists of information, so I tend to avoid it. But here goes:

Several times in the last century, Mount Ngauruhoe, a volcano, has erupted. 2,500 times since European occupation in fact. Thousands of people have witnessed these, and many have kept written, detailed records. In 1975 (I believe) thirteen samples were taken from all over the mountain for radiometric dating. Eye witness accounts would date the various samples between 25 and 50-something years old, but radiometric dating put some of the at "less than 270,000 years" which makes sense geologically. No problem there. Five or six of the thirteen were dated from 1 million to 3.5 million years old, with a margin of error of 20%.

Radiocarbon dating was limited to about 40,000 years because the equipment used could only measure down to 1% of C14, until 1980, when improvements with ion beam accelerator/mass spectrometer increased the range to .001% or 90,000 years. Since then, no formerly biological material has been found with that low a measurement, meaning that the earth can be no more than 40,000 years old.

The earth's rotation consistently decreases in speed every year (technically, every second, though not measureable). If the yearly decrease is reversed to calculate the speed one million years ago, the earth would have become a disk (Terry Pratchett fans applaud.)

The electromagnetic rings around the earth decrease in intensity every year as well. Using the same principle, one million years ago, the radiation from those rings would have produced enough heat to liquify the earth.

Moe:There are also things like the fact that we can see stars that are more than 6,000 light years away - clearly this is only possible if they existed more than 6,000 years ago. The temperature and size of our own sun indicates that it is a couple billion years old.

There's a theory be proposed by an athiest astrophysicist that explains this. I'm lacking in the intellectual skills to relay it, but I can give you the link. The website is creationist, they guy they're quoting is not.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

Stonewobble:the bible is not to be taken literally on everything.
I agree.

Thanks for your patience.

[tyrion]

The earth's rotation consistently decreases in speed every year (technically, every second, though not measureable). If the yearly decrease is reversed to calculate the speed one million years ago, the earth would have become a disk (Terry Pratchett fans applaud.)

Can you back this up with some form of data? And is that data based on some astrophysical knowledge of the earth's previous behaviour or is it merely an extrapolation of current trends?

I will confess ignorance here (which very occasionally does happen)

[NT78stonewobble]

Several times in the last century, Mount Ngauruhoe, a volcano, has erupted. 2,500 times since European occupation in fact. Thousands of people have witnessed these, and many have kept written, detailed records. In 1975 (I believe) thirteen samples were taken from all over the mountain for radiometric dating. Eye witness accounts would date the various samples between 25 and 50-something years old, but radiometric dating put some of the at "less than 270,000 years" which makes sense geologically. No problem there. Five or six of the thirteen were dated from 1 million to 3.5 million years old, with a margin of error of 20%.

Well vulcanology is weird. Some rocks are "new" and some rocks are old.

Magma (thereby being "new" rock") pushing itself through the earths crust and then erupting can easily push around the pieces of perhaps billions of years old rock that was in its way. Thus the rock dating for that area becomes somewhat of a mess.

Just displacement of normal sediment layers a few meters deep will show things that are older than eg. 6000 years.



Regarding carbon dating: That argument is moot since you assume that organic matter can exist for allmost 90.000 years. It can't. It dissolves and gets "fossilized". Meaning the organic matter gets filled out sediments. I'n a rock, that if it carries dinosaur bones, are millions of years old.


The earth's rotation consistently decreases in speed every year (technically, every second, though not measureable). If the yearly decrease is reversed to calculate the speed one million years ago, the earth would have become a disk (Terry Pratchett fans applaud.)

I find this calculation very hard to believe. Yes, the earth rotates slower and slower and so does the moon. It is predicted (with the calculation I heard) they will stop rotating and be locked face to face. However this is calculation shows the scale of, as far as i remember -> Millions or billions of years.

There is also the unknown factor of when the earth eg. got the moon. The earth might have existed for many millions of years before and that moon creating episode might have upset earths rotation so that any attempt to measure back from present day (without accounting for eg. a sudden creation of the moon) will lead to very awkward numbers.


The electromagnetic rings around the earth decrease in intensity every year as well. Using the same principle, one million years ago, the radiation from those rings would have produced enough heat to liquify the earth.

Actually the earth was more or less liquid in form. Billions of years ago. The van allen belts themselves are fields of electromagnetism and not necessarily radioactive on their own. The radiation comes from the collision of the solar wind (which is fluctuating) and the van allen belts.

More or less the only place today where rock is kept liquid by radioactive decay is the earths core. I don't remember if there are any time estimates based on that :)

Edit: Perhaps most of the earth is still liquid, based on mass that is? So a liquid earth is not unnatural.

Regarding the universe at large:

It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem. The interesting thing about this cosmology is that it is based upon mathematics and physics totally accepted by all cosmologists (general relativity), and it accepts (along with virtually all physicists) that there has been expansion in the past (though not from some imaginary tiny point). It requires no ‘massaging’—the results ‘fall out’ so long as one abandons the arbitrary starting point which the big bangers use (the unbounded cosmos idea, which could be called ‘what the experts don’t tell you about the “big bang”’).

It sounds really really great if it wasn't for the fact that it's an imaginary answer to an imaginary problem. The problem being that the observed universe does not conform to the biblical description of an only 6000 year old earth.

Using logic on the observed expanding universe you come to the conclusion that the entire universe comes from a single singularity (or what ever big bang is called today). And expanded VERY rapidly and then slower and perhaps now again faster.

The big bang itself is supported by the evenly universe background radiation.

There have been theories of there being not only one big bang but that new "universe" was created all the time but there are no observations supporting this.

Also they mention the guy as: "Creationist physicist Dr Russell Humphreys"

[Moe]

I'm just going to pick two examples here:
It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem.

I have actually measured time dilation in atmospheric muons myself. It exists. It is true. GPS satellites actually have to correct for time dilation in order to find your position with any accuracy.


he electromagnetic rings around the earth decrease in intensity every year as well. Using the same principle, one million years ago, the radiation from those rings would have produced enough heat to liquify the earth.

This is not true. Anyone who knows a bit of physics can tell you that the enormous energies required to liquify the earth simply cannot be achieved by the EM field which is incidentally generated by the Earth itself. I don't know where you are getting all of this stuff from, but those aren't scientific facts. Whoever wrote this was either trying to mislead people, or he lacked the most basic understanding of physics.

I realize that we're slowly drifting off-topic here. However what I'm trying to point out is that certain people (and this is being done by all sides) tell outright lies and purposefully misinterpret data in order to convince those who lack a deeper understanding of those subjects that the other side is illogical and full of contradictions.

It is a bit unsettling to me that people do this, but even more unsettling that people base their beliefs on it. I can understand that everyone has different beliefs, but I'm having trouble figuring out how someone can go against all the facts and simply ignore them. I'm not trying to disprove the existance of a higher being, because frankly that's impossible. There are many things science can't answer, and you can't disprove things like "there is a soul".

But basing your belief in God on false data like the data you cited earlier is - at least to me - like basing your belief in God on someone saying "the earth is made of snow", or "stuff falls up, not down".

[NT78stonewobble]

but I'm having trouble figuring out how someone can go against all the facts and simply ignore them.

Unsettling indeed. In My Humble Oppinion and no offence meant on people in here but:

If you can first of all ignore a multitude of evidences, facts and logic. Cutting through that on just faith then "faith" can make you do anything.

If it overrides any other logic thinking and inhibitions then you do end up with people disregarding other peoples lives because they are infidels or 14 year old girls receiving an abortion.

[The5thElephant]

It's because they don't take into account any empirical evidence that disagrees with their conclusion. They gather what evidence that when put together works towards their initial assumption of a young earth. If you had some other initial assumption I am sure another grouping of evidence could point towards that. But if you take ALL the evidence, those assumptions will be shown to be patently false.

[Unk]

he electromagnetic rings around the earth decrease in intensity every year as well. Using the same principle, one million years ago, the radiation from those rings would have produced enough heat to liquify the earth.
Evidence from rock magnetisation over the last few million years shows that the Earth's magnetic field fades and then changes polarity periodically. We are currently due for one of these shifts, which beside pissing off a lot of homing pigeons means that the magnetic field should be fading.

Radiocarbon dating was limited to about 40,000 years because the equipment used could only measure down to 1% of C14, until 1980, when improvements with ion beam accelerator/mass spectrometer increased the range to .001% or 90,000 years. Since then, no formerly biological material has been found with that low a measurement, meaning that the earth can be no more than 40,000 years old.
How does this prove that the Earth did not exist beyond the forty thousand year mark? Also, how do you explain fossilised remains dated using different methods at millions of years old?

Every theory that I have seen put forward by a creationist either fails or would have side effects that are not observed. This is not really surprising since creation "science" completely disregards the scientific method by trying to fit observed fact to a fairy tale with no scientific grounding whatsoever.

Therefore I would say that belief in the Judaeo-Christian creation story for scientific reasons is misguided. The evidence (both empirical and theoretical) simply does not support it.

[Jeremiah]

Moe:But basing your belief in God on false data like the data you cited earlier is - at least to me - like basing your belief in God on someone saying "the earth is made of snow", or "stuff falls up, not down".

Just to clarify, I don't base my beliefs in God off of scientific evidence, I based my creationist ideas off of scientific evidence. I could have easily become a Christian/theistic evolutionist.


stonewobble:Magma (thereby being "new" rock") pushing itself through the earths crust and then erupting can easily push around the pieces of perhaps billions of years old rock that was in its way.

Except that they dating methods have to do with when the magma cooled into stone, not what is in it.

I can only list facts, as whole systems won't exactly fit onto a page. Nor do I feel like typing them. Nor do I expect you to believe it on my say-so. I simply hope that you don't assume I discount everything I don't like just because I'm a creationist. Gould, for example, made a very good case for how the theory of evolution doesn't contradict the law of entropy. It took him half a book to do it (taking into account the counter-arguments), so when discussing it amongst creationist friends, I have a hard time relaying it in such a short period. The same applies here.

[NT78stonewobble]

Not all rocks melt at the same time when in lava which itself is molten rock.

Which is why you can have a mixture of ages in the same pile of rock/dried up lava.


1. So 5 million year old rock. Deposited on vulcano slope.

2. Vulcano erupts.

3. Lava flows and catches 5 million year old rock.

4. Lava dries with 5 million year old rock inside, on top or where ever.

With any kind of logic you can't base any kind of young earth theory on scientific evidence.

[Jeremiah]

1. So 5 million year old rock. Deposited on vulcano slope....
4. Lava dries with 5 million year old rock inside, on top or where ever.


Assuming that's what happened. But explanations are not proof.

[NT78stonewobble]

Several times in the last century, Mount Ngauruhoe, a volcano, has erupted. 2,500 times since European occupation in fact. Thousands of people have witnessed these, and many have kept written, detailed records. In 1975 (I believe) thirteen samples were taken from all over the mountain for radiometric dating. Eye witness accounts would date the various samples between 25 and 50-something years old, but radiometric dating put some of the at "less than 270,000 years" which makes sense geologically. No problem there. Five or six of the thirteen were dated from 1 million to 3.5 million years old, with a margin of error of 20%.

Ah yes but you were stating this as though there was some kind of problem with the varying datings?

I'm saying that there isn't necessarily a problem, though I did not at any time get the point in why you mentioned it? The volcano story.

[Moe]

I based my creationist ideas off of scientific evidence. I could have easily become a Christian/theistic evolutionist.

I'm interested in knowing why you became a creationist rather than the theistic evolutionist. So far none of the points you made actually had anything to do with science.

[Athexx]

I'd be highly interested in hearing this as well. Sorry, I've been too busy to post for the last couple days so I haven't had much of a chance to respond. But it looks like we are getting too bogged down into the specific scientific arguments. I'd like to step back a little.


The data is not being interpreted one way or the other here. There is a fundamental difference in the stance on the data that most scientists take, and the stance that young earth "scientists" take.

Regular scientists are looking at this data with no assumptions or hopes for it turning out a specific way. They take the data, analyze it, compare it, test it, and come to a conclusion. This conclusion was that the Earth is approx. 4.57 billion years old.

Young earth scientists are looking at this data with a humongous and unfounded assumption, and they are trying to match the data to that. That is not science. That is biased speculation.
I agree with you, to a point. I agree that Young Earth scientists have a much larger bias, although I don't think anyone can honestly say that regular scientists have NONE. They certainly do not have such a strong commitment to the biases they hold as the young earthers typically do, but usually when they are forming theories they already have some form of hypothesis in mind - either one that conforms to existing theories they have heard of, or one that goes against it based on their own speculation. We usually hear about the latter kind, because this sort of thing tends to form the basis for new models and theories, but the former is at least as frequent.

And it's a straw man to say that our assumption is unfounded - to you, it's unfounded, yes, because you don't believe in the Christian religion in general. To someone who already has confidence in the scriptures based on their perceived reliability for specific reasons, then maybe you disagree with those reasons, but you cannot argue that these people pull the assumption out of thin air and that is totally "unfounded".

I don't see why it is so difficult to accept that the Earth is quite old, and that part of the bible isn't meant to be taken literally. Every religion has some fantastical creation story, people like having them, it makes for good story telling around the fire in your cave.

I can't speak for Jeremiah, but the reason for me is because that compromises the theology of the Bible. The messages of the Bible are centered in its history. For instance, if Jesus was not historically resurrected, there is not sufficient reason to believe that he was really and truly God, and furthermore that we Christians have the hope of resurrection in the future. Jesus established the doctrine of resurrection by actually doing it. Similarly, if the exodus from Egypt was not an actual historical event, then the Jewish Passover has no historical root and the meaning of the crucifixion of Jesus is diminished to a aberration in God's interactions with humans rather than the focal point. Finally with the creation, if God created a world of death and suffering before the rebellion of Adam and Eve, then death is not the consequence of sin and there was no reason Jesus had to die for us. If the natural order of things now is the way God wanted things for us all along, Jesus should have just established an earthly kingdom, which is what many of the Jews were wanting.

This is in contrast to all the other creation stories I have read, where the creation story has little to say about present events. There is no historical root tracing these stories from the first people described to the people today, and in some cases I have seen the language of the story itself indicates that educated peoples of the time would have known full well that the story was not actually true history. No such thing is found with the account in Genesis, which takes great care to establish the physical locations and genealogies to people who were living during the time it was written, which clearly indicates that it was not meant to be taken as a just-so story or a fabricated tale.

Your reference to creation stories being a good story to tell "around the fire in your cave" by the way betrays your own assumptions of the evolutionary worldview, including religious evolution. For of course I believe that knowledge of God was given from the beginning to Adam and Eve and passed down and lost over time through various peoples who rejected his authority. I also believe, as the common belief was until a few centuries ago, that people who lived ages ago were more strong, intelligent, healthy, and capable in general than people are today, due to their being closer to the original creation that has deteriorated. It is only in the past two to three centuries that the modern idea of progress has changed this perception to that of people getting better over the ages. Hence, I don't believe in the sort of "caveman" lifestyle as being any more prevalent at any point in history as it is today, where peoples still live in caves in some places, and there are hunter-gatherer societies in existence even now. People were originally civilized and were capable of technological achievement, but injustice, war, and oppression, as well as natural disasters would often force people to live more primitive lives in order to survive in the conditions imposed on them, just as they do today. Sometimes when that would happen for a generation or more, some of these peoples might lose their knowledge of how to live in any other form of society, and so became entrenched in their new primitive lives.

[Starfisher]

Where did their technological achievement go? There is a clear technological progression shown through archaeology all over the world. Presuming your statements are accurate, and that humans after the creation were more intelligent and more capable than today, why don't they appear to have left anything of note behind?

This is why we have to ask you why you believe what you do. Empricism is based on minimal assumptions, so when confronted with the wall of assumptions that makes up faith, I'm perpetually at a loss for where to even being a conversation. There's no point in talking about history or science when our basic foundations are so different.

[Athexx]

Sure there is; I read historical and scientific books all the time written by people who don't share my assumptions, and I gain new insights as a result. Not only do I frequently add to my own understanding of the world according to my own assumptions by filtering what I read down, I also gain by the intellectual exercise of rejecting my assumptions to see where it leads. Of course I have seen that there is generally more of a reluctance for people to reciprocate: people who believe in evolution are typically less likely to abandon their evolutionary perspective even for the intellectual exercise.

Starfisher if you are going to assert that all technological achievement has been strictly increasing throughout history then you are going to have to qualify that. I frankly don't believe that and have read of numerous occasions where things were discovered and then forgotten, or invented and then fallen into disuse. For example no one doubts that civilization took a step back in Europe after the Roman Empire crumbled and that advances that were once common began falling into disrepair. These regresses are explained for exactly the reasons I mentioned: wars, injustices, natural events, etc. Now of course I am not saying that technological achievement has been strictly downward either; I would agree that the sum total of human knowledge has increased on average throughout history, but those increases only have served to offset the decreases we have experienced in many other ways, such as intellectually. We only have experienced so much change and technological growth in the past few centuries because (1) we are building on the knowledge handed down to us, (2) there are more people now setting their attention to doing it, and (3) the mechanisms for distribution and change are in place more so now than ever before.

[Unk]

Athexx - What it comes down to is that you want the Jesus story to be true. Whether by culture or personal choice you want to believe in a life after death, salvation and all that. The only way it can be true is if the context of the story - the Bible - is true. Therefore the Bible must be absolutely, literally true, and science (and every other religion for that matter) be damned!

It's not up to me to dictate your beliefs, however (and this goes for everyone who reads it) I believe it will be worth examing your justifications for whatever you believe in.

[The5thElephant]

Athexx - I'm sorry but I don't put any validity behind the argument that "scientists make assumptions too!". Of course they make assumptions, they are human, our entire experience is based on numerous assumptions that we make all the time. But the assumptions they make when it comes to science are as minimal as possible, and don't contain anything along the lines of "we assume there is no God so let's interpret the evidence that way". They have no personal interest vested in these discoveries besides their own enjoyment and livelihood, so they want the research to be as accurate as possible.

There are assumptions on both sides, but scientists' assumptions are insignificant next to yours. Especially since they don't even share a topic (no scientific assumptions about God).

I really feel like Athexx and Jeremiah are holding back because somewhere in their heads they realize that they are going to have a very hard time actually arguing any of their beliefs based on any scientific evidence. It just doesn't work. Sorry. I am not discounting your arguments off-hand, they are just clearly not science and thus have no inherent value except to yourself.

[Starfisher]

Athexx: Sorry, I should have better qualified what I meant. There is a clear archaeological record of human technology dating back tens of thousands of years. If humans back before the fall (or right after) were more intelligent, more capable and lived longer than they did today, why were they making crude weapons out of bones?

As you move forward in time, the overall average "level" of technology grows greater everywhere. You cite the fall of the Roman Empire as an example of a situation where technology regressed, but this is only true in some areas of science - no one in Europe undertook super-massive engineering projects to glorify the rich, but in most other fields you see a perfectly unbroken continuation of innovation and invention. In fact, the late Roman Emperors actively repressed innovations that threatened their status, so when the system gradually wore away, people were free to pursue their various inventions.

Of course I have seen that there is generally more of a reluctance for people to reciprocate: people who believe in evolution are typically less likely to abandon their evolutionary perspective even for the intellectual exercise.
I wish I could find the circles of fundamentalist intelligentsia that you seem to have discovered, because the vast majority of young earth creationists I have run into favored the "ignorance is strength" approach to debate. But our subjective experiences aside, this point furthers my contention that we must resolve our epistemological differences if we are to have any meaningful conversation on what immediately follows. Rejection of assumptions doesn't matter unless the ones you replace them with are similiar or equivalent to the other side's, and since you have made fairly clear that you will simply revert to your previous assumptions at the end of the day, why bother trying to make a point?

It might be useful to exchange information or to narrowly discuss some topic. For example, I'm sure you and I could have a perfectly productive conversation about computer games, if the topic ever came up. However, we're talking about origins. You can reject your assumptions to talk to me if you wish, but then we'll just be agreeing with each other. Similiarly, I could make your assumptions and end up in the same situation. While we almost certainly can never resolve our differences in fundamental belief, we almost certainly can gain a better understanding of why we choose to hold those beliefs, or how we justify them to ourselves.

The reason this so often seems like an assault on Biblical faith is because Biblical faith has a lot more to explain that simple empiricism. You might solve some philosphical quandry by postulating "Biblical God", but then you cause a whole host of other issues, as evidenced by the divide between real science and creationist pseudo-science.

Your initial position, as laid out in your first post, is based on your belief that Jesus was the son of God, died and was ressurrected. This validates the Bible, which teaches that the Earth is young. Is that an accurate portrayal of your position? If so, would you mind explaining how you arrive at your founding belief that Jesus was the son of God, died and was ressurrected? If not, then let's make sure I understand exactly what you're trying to say before I respond to it.

For the record, my own personal belief is more utiliatarian:

Existance exists.
I exist within that existance.
I perceive some subset of reality.

[The5thElephant]

Starfisher - Do you consider yourself a solipsist to any degree? That can both work and disagree with your statement of beliefs depending on who is reading it. I personally agree with your statements, yet I cannot deny the validity of the solipsist's standpoint.


Jeremiah - I think I can simplify the problem with your form of "science" into a sentence.

Scientists attempt to match an explanation to the evidence, you are attempting to match evidence to an explanation.

It is inherently different, and the scientists method is logically sound while yours requires a leap of logic (or a leap of faith if you wish to call it that).

[Starfisher]

Well, given that the solipsist stance is almost diametrically opposed to mine, no, I would not say I was a solipsist. Our first assumption/statment are exact opposites - somthing exists versus nothing exists. Also, solipsism rests on the assumption that there is no link between the mental and physical realms - that is to say, your thoughts are not connected to the physical world at all, and everything you experience is a trick of your concious or unconcious mind.

I would argue that it simply doesn't matter. A mind is something, and if it is capable of generating a perfectly consistent reality then huzzah, there's your reality. However, solipsism seems ridiculously flawed - where does a solipsist come from, if he or she is the only thing that exists? Why, or more importantly how, does a solipsist generate such a wide variety of experiences to keep themselves occupied during their magical existance?

The simliar flaw in my reasoning is that I more or less show existance to exist, but do not state where it came from. Fair enough, but I'm making far less assumptions and creating far fewer questions by merely positing existance. From that, I can discover why, at least to a high degree of certainty, there is variety in experience or why and how I exist. A solipsist more or less answers everything with, "I dunno, my mind is making it up."

[Jeremiah]

I really feel like Athexx and Jeremiah are holding back because somewhere in their heads they realize that they are going to have a very hard time actually arguing any of their beliefs based on any scientific evidence.

Evolution and intelligent design are systems, not individual facts. I can only list facts, as I've said before, because a system simply won't fit on the page, nor do I pretend to be able to answer every question a person has to ask me. Facts alone, are easy to rebut. I'm away from my own computer at the moment, but I'll try to reply later from home with something more substantial.

Scientists attempt to match an explanation to the evidence, you are attempting to match evidence to an explanation.

Scientists claim to match an explanation to evidence, but it's simply not true. No scientist sets out with a blank slate and no agenda. Even Einstein (I'll get the quote later) realized that he was guilty of this. For example, there are no significant morphological differences between ancient humans like Neanderthal and modern humans, but Neanderthals were classified as a separate species because...well, they must be, they're older. Dragons fitting the description of dinosaurs have been recorded throughout the centuries, but they can't be dinosaurs...dinosaurs were dead long before man.

If humans back before the fall (or right after) were more intelligent, more capable and lived longer than they did today, why were they making crude weapons out of bones?

If I tossed you naked, in the jungle, what could you come up with? Our technology is cumulative, built on the technology of today. Julius Ceasar's technology was far behind ours, but he was as human as you or I.

[The5thElephant]

Starfisher - My view of solipsism is a bit more abstract than what you are talking about. For me it is simply the fact that one cannot know that reality is truly there since all we have to judge it by is our one subjective experience. It makes no claims, just postulates an interesting yet useless point. Most solipsists I know accept that reality most likely exists, and that it doesn't matter anyway.

Evolution and intelligent design are systems, not individual facts. I can only list facts, as I've said before, because a system simply won't fit on the page, nor do I pretend to be able to answer every question a person has to ask me. Facts alone, are easy to rebut.

The system won't fit on the page? Yet the system of evolution can fit on the page. Certainly it is simplified, but the concept is simple anyway. Same thing for the age of the Earth. You are taking random tidbits of science, deciding you don't like them and searching for some scraps of evidence (scraps compared to the massive amount of evidence saying otherwise, sometimes the SAME evidence) that say otherwise or can be interpreted otherwise.

Don't give excuses for not having a coherent set of beliefs, actually examine your ideas and realize that you are finding fault with ideas that really don't clash with your personal beliefs in any great way. And if it really does clash with your beliefs to an unacceptable degree, don't let that blind you to the fact that the argument against these ideas (very old earth, etc.) is incredibly weak and flimsy.

Like I said before, matching evidence to an explanation. Who cares what other scientists are doing, THAT is not science.

I find it very unlikely and hard to believe that all scientists who postulate theories you disagree with are determined to hide the truth about dragons and neanderthals.

[Jeremiah]

The system won't fit on the page? Yet the system of evolution can fit on the page.
My apologies. I meant that neither will.

You are taking random tidbits of science, deciding you don't like them...
That's simply not true. When I find facts, I accept them. My problem with evolution isn't that I don't like it, it's that I don't think it's factual. I'll get to that in a bit.

This is why I believe that evolution is a belief that fits itself around facts, and not the other way around.

Creationism states that every species of animal and plant was created in kind, all of a sudden, without any precursor forms of life, and though there may be great variability within a species, no new species ever result. This has been an accurate assessment of the belief for as long as the creation story has been believed. It has changed little, if at all, in known history, even after science began to observe life.

Evolution states that one species becomes another over time, as various advantages and disadvantages appear. No living thing exists that does not stem from a similar previously existing form.

The fossil record has turned up hundreds of thousands of species that, morphologically, are fully developed in their design. Darwin predicted the discovery of many transitional forms, but after over one-hundred and fifty years of searching, paleontologists have turned up (and this is a generous estimate) few, if any. Even those fossils which might be called transitional by some bear fully completed features, such as the archaeoptryx’s fully formed feathers. Instead, we find creatures with no precursors, as we might suspect to find if species were created instantaneously and fully designed.

Evolution can explain this fact away, but to do so is to assume that evolution is true, ignore the obvious (that there are no pre-existing forms), and interpret fossil evidence in light of it.

Sussman, Stern and Rose stated: "The morphological similarity of [H. erectus] and [H. sapien] supports their assignment to the same taxon but for the large discrepancy in their ages." In other words, if they had not assumed that skeletons of H. erectus and H. sapien needed to be different, they would have admitted that they were the same. A creationist, looking at two identical skeletons, despite their age, would have come to the conclusion that they were identical.

The Rhodesian man was found buried in ice, and at the time, was neither fossilized or mineralized. His age was assumed to be 11,000 years old. When his tools and clothing contradicted the Out of Africa model, his age was changed to 300,000 years for no other reason than, since the OoA model must be true, he must be older.

Historical records place a race called either the Anakim or Rephaim in what would later become Isreal. Various middle-eastern texts, Judaic and non-, support the idea that they were larger than the average man, and stronger. In the exact location, 49 Neanderthals were found buried. The Neanderthal skeleton is also identical to those of the aborigine tribes of Tazmania.

The religious’ historical beliefs existed before they became Creationists, and did not change afterward. What they find in nature, taken at face value, supports what they believe. Evolution must take what they find in nature and call them dots, which of course, need to be connected.

Later.

[Starfisher]

The "transitional form" argument is an interesting one. Given a gap between two species, the creationist claims that such a gap can only be explained by life springing into being fully formed, as it were. When a fossil is presented that bridges the gap, the creationist responds that there are now two gaps that must be filled, since this or that feature is appears to require creating instead of evolving.

This continues forever, until some point in which the creationist will claim that there is not, in fact, any difference between the two specimens and scientists have simply incorrectly classified their fossil.

The typically line of response is to provide the references and examples of the numerous transitional fossils, but this, unfortunately, will prove futile, because creationist definitions for "kind", "species" and "transitional form" differ wildly from creationist to creationist. I'd like to experiment with a new method of debunking this particular claim, leaving the rest for later.

Please define, if you will, what a "kind" is. From what I've been able to discern, a kind is an entirely subjective human classification, like "dog", requiring a "I'll know it when I see it" approach to taxonomy. This is far too imprecise for an argument that attempts to be scientific, so, if you please, an objective definition of kind.

Also, please define "species", as you believe it to apply to the world. This should resolve the fundamental discrepancy in indentifying what would constitute a transitional form.

Using the two definitions above, please lay out an example of what a transitional form would look like. For you to be able to tell what a transitional form isn't, you must have some idea of what it is.

Once we have these three definitions, I believe we can resolve this one point.

As for the rest. Another favorite tactic of both creationists attacking evolution, atheists attacking religion and really, just about anyone attacking anything they don't fully understand, is the scattershot approach. The attacker hurls a collection of disconnected statements that are impossible to address in one, coherent argument, thereby gaining the appearance of superiority in an argument, despite the lack of any concrete position. It also tends to cloak the unverifiability of any of the individual claims, since it is typically too much work to actually research every single point.

I admit to having used it in the past, but it is generally not a good way of making a point. For example, in attempting to find the source of your claim that Homo Erectus and Homo Sapien would be "the same" species if not for their age difference, I could not find any claim by Sussman, Stern and Rose that they should be the same species. I was able to find various sites pointing out the reasons why they are classed differently, none of which have to do with age of fossils (difference in brain size, difference in femur size, etc).

Upon lookiung into the Rhodesian Man, I discovered that it was found in 1921, so the assumption that it was a mere 11,000 years old was made using a 1921 body of knowledge, which would be incomplete compared to that which we use today. I could find no reference to it being redated based on the artifacts found with it - rather, it appears to have been redated based on the size of its skull.

I can't see the thrust of the Neaderthal/Anakim connection, and since I'm getting a bit tired I'll just leave that alone.

None of this creates a coherent argument, and none of it can be well answered due to the relative obscurity of the claims being made and the lack of a citation for them. What, precisely, are you trying to prove with these statements?

It all comes back to the epistemology: you claim that simply looking at the world supports young earth creationism, but this is simply false. If the evidence available in the world strongly supported young earth creationism, then you would be able to form a coherent theory on the subject, and you would be able to easily disprove evolution. This has not happened, precisely because the only way the evidence in the world supports creationism is if you assume creationism before looking at the world. You will never conclude that the Earth is six thousand years old by starting out with a minimal empiricist foundation and building upwards, because there is just too much out there that shows it is far older.

Your foundational assumptions generate your argument, not the evidence you present. That is why we must discuss those assumptions, and define our terms. Without doing so, we will never be able to even have a conversation on topics such as evolution, because we will be looking at the world through two totally different sets of glasses.

[NT78stonewobble]

I can't speak for Jeremiah, but the reason for me is because that compromises the theology of the Bible. The messages of the Bible are centered in its history. For instance, if Jesus was not historically resurrected, there is not sufficient reason to believe that he was really and truly God, and furthermore that we Christians have the hope of resurrection in the future. Jesus established the doctrine of resurrection by actually doing it. Similarly, if the exodus from Egypt was not an actual historical event, then the Jewish Passover has no historical root and the meaning of the crucifixion of Jesus is diminished to a aberration in God's interactions with humans rather than the focal point. Finally with the creation, if God created a world of death and suffering before the rebellion of Adam and Eve, then death is not the consequence of sin and there was no reason Jesus had to die for us. If the natural order of things now is the way God wanted things for us all along, Jesus should have just established an earthly kingdom, which is what many of the Jews were wanting.

So basically any evidence that disproves a young earth or proves definately evolotion invalidates the basis of your entire religion?

[Atomic Chicken]

My quirky creation beliefs in a simple format - I'm a deist, dualist, science loving Christian who firmly rejects Creationism and Intellegent Design but also has thrown scientific 'belief' (actually, science substituting as religion, i.e. I don't believe in or worshipping a monkey wrench) out with that too.

On Science:

Simply put, science is how and why the world works based on empirical evidence and subject to observations.

It is a tool for natural comprehension.

How was the world created?

The current theory holds the Big Bang produced a major explosion that even vaporized atoms, which cooled in a massive gas that eventually evolved via a nebula into the first protostars. Those stars then died, becoming a nebula with a supernova and giving birth to the cycle once again.

This is supposedly how our Solar system was formed, the Earth being made of leftover stardust, given with plenty of time condensed to the point it could support life that eventually went from simplistic bacteria to the upright walking higher primate known as Homo Sapiens sapiens, which is the only survivor of it's bipedal hominid family and became the unwitting masters of this planet as a result of their oversized brain.

That is my scientific explanation for the creation of the world.

So how does God or Religion fit into this?

For me, it doesn't and it shouldn't.

In fact trying to insert God or any other divine being into said concept holds little or no merit simply because we cannot prove their existence based on scientific principles and conflicts with said scriptures of faith.

Do you use a test tube to determine the chemical make up of God?

Ain't possible for something that we can't measure.

Or a Bible to explain the dynamics of DNA reproduction?

Hell no!

Creationism does not fit with scientific concepts, and vice versa. For me, the reliance on scripture to explain our scientific origins is a liability.

On religion:

Now why do I still profess belief in a God and organized faith?

Well, science is not a religion. I kind of get annoyed when people tell me to believe in the glories of science when I can comprehend it already, but I don't believe.

Does science explain meaning? No.

Does it tell me the purpose of life? No.

Why don't I believe in the man with the white lab coat?

He's not a friggn' priest. He's a damn scientist and that's what he does.

I profess belief in God and his son Christ, who saved man from Sin (according to us Christians that is).

So do I believe in the Creation as laid down in the Bible?

Yes and No. It's all up to interpretation.

But how I interpret differs from others and comes down to a level of personal belief. My views don't correspond with my neighboring Mormons, or Protestants and I don't expect them to anyways. I come from a mode of thought where many parts of Genesis are to be held as allegory, as opposed to the strict belief in it.

Perhaps it could've meant something else all together., ultimately, we aren't the folks who wrote it.

My belief does not clash with my scientific views, especially when they're two different fields of ideas. I don't use the Bible to explain science, nor do I expect the Bible to be explained by science.

[tyrion]

Jeremiah, Starfisher is about as correct in my view as it is possible to be, you seem to have an awful lot of intelligence, and a clear ability to present a case and express your opinions. Unfortunately where we are all looking at this differently is in how we define science. You refer to scientific "facts", yet science is not facts but a process.

A scientist (I'm idealising here, I realise that in the real world scientists are people with agendas) in the true sense is presented with a phenomena which has gone unexplained. He then puts forward a series of hypotheses which MAY explain it. From there on in he tests each using empirical tests, in other words he creates situations whereby one result can only disprove the hypothesis and the opposite leaces open the possibility it MAY be true. Once he has eliminated every possibility he can hopefully only one will be left, which is then accepted as truth until there is reason to believe otherwise. In other words he keeps a completely open mind and lets the evidence define his position.

What you are calling science is slightly but fundamentally different and whilst far more benign and clearly used with much better intentions could be compared in principle to the pseudo science employed by the Nazis to prove their superiority.

Basically in both cases someone is setting off with an idea they beileve in and trying to prove its truth, coming up with a list of facts that support your position. Even where you are willing to listen to other ideas you are doing so with the clear preconception that they are wrong and that by listening you are looking for the flaw you can show them.

This is not a personal attack as you seem to be both intelligent and well meaning, merely misguided as to the meaning of the word science

[The5thElephant]

Wonder Chicken - But why do you choose Christianity over the numerous other religions? It is neither the majority, nor shown to be more valid than any others. The Bible certainly has some general historical truth, but there has been no evidence to demonstrate that anything that happened in the Bible was actually true in the sense of had something to do with god. Jesus may certainly have existed, but that does not mean he actually was the son of god or was resurrected.

It confuses me so much, is it just comfort/family/upbringing or do you have a specific reason for being a Christian?

What do you think about all those Greeks who believed in their pantheon of gods as much as you believe in your god, yet now we look at those gods as myths? Christianity is no more valid.

[Jeremiah]

Starfisher:The "transitional form" argument is an interesting one. Given a gap between two species, the creationist claims that such a gap can only be explained by life springing into being fully formed, as it were. When a fossil is presented that bridges the gap, the creationist responds that there are now two gaps that must be filled, since this or that feature is appears to require creating instead of evolving.

Some might. My problem with supposed transitional forms is that they are fully functioning and complete. An article in a Discover Special Issue gave a list of what transitional feathers would look like if they were ever found. It was an excellent article, and if transitional feathers are ever found, I wouldn't be surprised to find the the article was dead on. But no such item has ever been found. Scientists have found hair, and they've found feathers, but they've never found the necessary branching hairs. The problem of irreducible complexity comes into play here. A mouse trap has three parts that must work together to catch mice. If you're missing a part, you don't catch two-thirds of the mice; you catch none.

Starfisher:Please define, if you will, what a "kind" is. From what I've been able to discern, a kind is an entirely subjective human classification, like "dog", requiring a "I'll know it when I see it" approach to taxonomy. This is far too imprecise for an argument that attempts to be scientific, so, if you please, an objective definition of kind.


I define "kind" as an animal that can functionally breed with another animal, or is not prohibited by a non-genetic reason. No adequate definition of "species" really exists, anymore. It used to be synonmous with "kind," until it was discovered that coyotes and wolves, zebras and donkeys, dolphins and false killer whales were interfertile (is that the correct term?) The finches on Galapagos Island, for example, were thought to be different species that had specified beyond interfertility, but after twenty-five years on the islands, a group of scientists discovered that, during rainy seasons, the birds mate across previously established species lines. In Darwin's day, it was thought that a greyhound could not breed with a bulldog, which we now know isn't true. Darwin came to the correct conclusions given his data, but his data was wrong.

I can't see the thrust of the Neaderthal/Anakim connection, and since I'm getting a bit tired I'll just leave that alone.


Just a suggestion that the Neanderthals found in Isreal coincide with a morphologically different race that has been historically suspected of living there. I'm suggesting that maybe the neanderthal persisted until the last 4,000 years or so. It have been discovered that the woolly mammoth survived in isolation until 3,750 years ago, so why not?


tyrion:He then puts forward a series of hypotheses which MAY explain it. From there on in he tests each using empirical tests, in other words he creates situations whereby one result can only disprove the hypothesis and the opposite leaces open the possibility it MAY be true. Once he has eliminated every possibility he can hopefully only one will be left, which is then accepted as truth until there is reason to believe otherwise. In other words he keeps a completely open mind and lets the evidence define his position.



I agree completely about keeping an open mind. The idea of a theocracy scares me probably as much as it scares you. The chances of my beliefs falling in perfect line with any one religion ordained by any state are small. I'm a bit on the outskirts of Christian theology as it is. I have no problem teaching evolution, I just don't want it taught to the exclusion of everything else. My family (minus my father) has had a four-generation tradition of reading Darwin's Origin of the Species... Gould and Sagan have sold me on some of their concepts, or at least their counter-arguments against ID. David Quammen and whoever it was that wrote Beak of the Finch have also done a great job. I simply don't believe that we can grow as a culture by censoring (as some might call it) some things entirely. And I would say the same to a Christian who wanted to prohibit the reading of Harry Potter or Stephen King or Clockwork Orange.

[Atomic Chicken]

Wonder Chicken - But why do you choose Christianity over the numerous other religions? It is neither the majority, nor shown to be more valid than any others. The Bible certainly has some general historical truth, but there has been no evidence to demonstrate that anything that happened in the Bible was actually true in the sense of had something to do with god. Jesus may certainly have existed, but that does not mean he actually was the son of god or was resurrected.

It confuses me so much, is it just comfort/family/upbringing or do you have a specific reason for being a Christian?

What do you think about all those Greeks who believed in their pantheon of gods as much as you believe in your god, yet now we look at those gods as myths? Christianity is no more valid.

A normal Theist would say to take on faith, I simply take it because in all actuallity I have no way of proving or disproving.

It remains unknown.

In a sense you could say it's a love of the unknown, but more importantly, it works for me, and I see something in it that I don't see in others. It's not a desire nor whim, but as if something felt complete and I could draw forth meaning from it.

I can say that my search for meaning is complete. However, I can't be sure for others if they've found the wholeness I speak of in Christianity like I have.

[tyrion]

I don't propose censoring ideas from education at all, merely placing them in the correct concept. My argument throughout this thread has not been that creationism is wrong per se, simply that it is a belief which has no real bearing on science and vica versa. Where people place faith in a hypothesis, or look for evidence to support a religious belief they are confusing two very different and (to my mind) logically discrete ways of thinking.

This does not mean they are incompatible, just the opposite, it in fact opens up many forms of middle ground where both can be accepted for the value they offer. Placing them in such a way that the two ideas face off a rivals (as many do) shows a lack of comprehension of either.

What I would argue therefore is that rather than being taught as two alternative theories of human origins, the false connection between the two should be dropped. The value of a scientific theory should be measured against other scientific theories, in a science class. Religious beliefs should similarly be compared with other systems of faith, in a Religious Education class. The two however should not be compared against each other any more than English Language should be compared with History as being somehow rival ideas.

I suspect in a sense 5thelephant and I are talking about the same general idea from two dirfferent angles here, but put simply I would put a clear line between science and faith as the two are cery simply different things.

[Inst]

I believe in a scientific view of human origins, because using science to explain the physical world generally has more utility than using religion.

Basically, belief in Christ won't give you a power-fist, but belief in the scientific method will give you a chainsaw, penicillin, and electronics.

[The5thElephant]

You don't even need to believe in the scientific method. It STILL will give you those things. Because it has nothing to do with humans. It is simply something used by humans that is objectively true. Religion is used by humans and is subjectively true.

Jeremiah - ID is not an alternative or other theory that can be taught along side of evolution. I do believe it may be mentioned in class, but not as valid. It just is not science. It isn't even really a coherent non-scientific theory. It is basically just an abstract concept that explains some discrepancies in the incomplete evidence for evolution. One must realize that we have barely scratched the surface of the fossil record.

There is no such thing as a transitional form! There are no stepping stones in evolution where you have a functional animal and then some transition time until the next functional step. All species are transitional because there was something different before them and something different after them. The fossils we have found are not like chapters in the book of species. They are random pages with no more significance than any other page. So we don't have a full book yet? We will get there, don't blame us for not being able to recover every fossil instantly.

[Jeremiah]

The two however should not be compared against each other any more than English Language should be compared with History as being somehow rival ideas.

No, I agree. Science and religion are two separate tasks of study. But there have been scientific studies into intelligent design. If (hypothetically) a deity did create the universe, then that would be a fact whether a thousand religions formed around it or not. And you could teach the scientific portion of that without drawing an theological implications other than a diety exists. I certainly don't suggest teaching the birth, death, and resurrectionin of Jesus Christ in science class or anything like that.

All species are transitional because there was something different before them and something different after them.
Only if you start out with the assumption that evolution happened. If you start out with no assumptions, you have millions of fully functioning species with no half-developed, half-usable traits. Like I said, evolution turns facts into dots and assumes a line where there might not be one.


The fossils we have found are not like chapters in the book of species. They are random pages with no more significance than any other page.

But we find thousands of one fossil, hundreds of another, millions (in the case of invertebrates) in yet another. But we don't find one definite transitional fossil.


We will get there, don't blame us for not being able to recover every fossil instantly.

You have faith in the existence of transitional fossils, something that is not seen nor felt nor touched? You trust that these transitional fossils will appear one day, to prove evolution true. Not to be facetious, but that sounds more like a religion than science. And that's fine. Nothing wrong with having a religion. Just call it what it is.

In Origin, Charles Darwin wrote that the fossil record was incomplete, but given enough time, scientists would discover them. That was in 1859 or so, right? Sometime over the last 147 years we should have started finding some. Recently, there was an article published stating that our best bet for these fossils (the author was speaking mainly of pre-Cambrian transitionals, I believe) might be on the moon, from shrapnel that flew out of our atmosphere during an asteroid strike. It seems the religious aren't the only ones looking to the Heavens for our origin.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5410577

[Mac_Bug]

I wonder whether you could explain to me why we are able to look up in the sky and detect things thousands of light years away. Or even better, when was it that Earth managed to separate itself into continents, according to the theory of tectonic plates? If Earth did not exist over ten thosuand years ago, and I'm guessing you would be at a loss to explain them as natural phenomenons, would you then be forced to conclude, according to your starting assumption, that God made the Earth to look like it was old?

Even if we are to accept that the Earth is only however many years old, I'm also wondering then how you could scientifically explain the process of fossilization. I've always been taught that approximately 65 million years ago dinosaurs walked the Earth, but if you were to reject my suggestion that God made the Earth with a fabricated history, then surely it must mean that dinosaurs ruled the Earth once upon a time gven their size and abundance. If this were the case, then what happened to them? Why were they left out of Noah's Ark? Can you imagine what dinosaurs would do to our current eco system?

Should we be looking for fossilized human remains? After searching for them for the past 147 years, how come we haven't found one yet?

[NT78stonewobble]

Well AFAIK there are plenty of "transitional" fossils to choose from?

We have a pretty clear view of eg:

Human evolution from monkey to you know.

Modern mammals (elephants, sloths, monkeys and so on).

The evolution of long living banana flies documented in experiments.

Evolution of bacteria?

Even the evolution of dinosaurs and other long extinct species can be witnessed in fossils.

Additionally if evolotion is totally wrong howcome there are now:

Domesticated cows.

Dogs as opposed to woolves.

Corn ???

[The5thElephant]

Mac, stonewobble, you fail to realize that Jeremiah is not talking about evidence for evolution at all, he is just holding on as hard as he can to evidence against evolution. The fact that the evidence for far outweighs the evidence against doesn't seem to matter to him.

Jeremiah - I could take any current theory and apply your methods of attack to it and I would be as successful. I accept that evolution is not yet a fully figured out theory, but at the same time, I am rational enough to realize that it has to happen and that the evidence points towards that. Perhaps our model of evolution is a little innaccurate, perhaps it isn't, but either way evolution DOES happen.

Perhaps you can stop bringing up evidence that other people have figured out to be against evolution, and start arguing yourself against the logic of evolution. Argue against natural selection. Argue against the changes seen in fruit flies within only a few generations.

[tyrion]

How exactly does one conduct a scientific study into intelligent design? How can science prove the existence of God? I'm doing the philosophical equivalent of suspension of disbelief now, but if such a thing can be done without violating some very basic tenets of the scientific technique I'd like to hear about it.

Bear in mind that natural selection routinely occurs under something approaching lab conditions. We just call it artificial selection when we breed animals and plants for specific purposes. We can observe it happen in nature within a couple of generations when we see change in the background environment for any number of species of camouflaged moths. Evolution irrevocably does work at least to an extent, this is as established a fact as science can ever produce This is not a matter of belief but rigorously tested evidence.


There's always the chance that some other process drove the origins of life, but nothing has been out forward here that could be tested empirically. I just wonder how science which follows the rules inherent to our universe in order to be a valid process can prove/disprove the means by which the universe came into existence. Sounds like an outside context problem to me....

[Jeremiah]

I wonder whether you could explain to me why we are able to look up in the sky and detect things thousands of light years away.

I'm not an astrophysicist, so the best I can do is refer you here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/405.asp

Catastrophism. If the world, at any time, was completely flooded, as evidenced by geological and archaeological surveys of the Black Sea suggest, it would be a simple (not really simple) matter to move tectonic plates.


I'm also wondering then how you could scientifically explain the process of fossilization.


Fossils can be formed in a manner of months if submerged in mineral rich water, mud or volcanic ash. Additionally, non-fossilized remains of T. Rex and giant ground sloth have also been found.

If this were the case, then what happened to them? Why were they left out of Noah's Ark? Can you imagine what dinosaurs would do to our current eco system?

You've almost answered your own question. After a global flood, the climate world-wide would be drastically different. Dinosaurs, along with other mammalian megafauna, might only persist for another few thousand years.

Should we be looking for fossilized human remains? After searching for them for the past 147 years, how come we haven't found one yet?

I believe you're mistaken. Not only have the Neanderthal and Erectus been reclassified (by evolutionist anthropologists) as subspecies of Homo Sapien (human) we've also found modern-looking humans, fossilized, between layers of Neanderthals. Some "modern" human fossils have actually been dated older than many Neanderthal.

Stonewobble, you are mistaken about having a clear view of human evolution from monkeys. All hominid fossils have fallen clearly into either wholly human or wholly ape catagories. Many are unaware of this because of the Time Life progression of man artwork. What most people do not realize is that the poster was originally featured in a book with the accompanying disclaimer that the various stages of evolution shown are artist extrapolations, and not based on any fossil finds. Addressing the fruitflies, yes, there have been mutations, but scientists have never produced anything other than a mutated fruit fly. Furthermore, evolution has nothing to do with domesticated cows or wolves vs. dogs. Or corn. That's selective breeding, not evolution. Dogs can still breed with wolves, cows with their ancestor stock.

I could take any current theory and apply your methods of attack to it and I would be as successful. I accept that evolution is not yet a fully figured out theory, but at the same time, I am rational enough to realize that it has to happen and that the evidence points towards that. Perhaps our model of evolution is a little innaccurate, perhaps it isn't, but either way evolution DOES happen.

How do you know it happens? Have you seen it happen? Have scientists recorded it? Like I said, evolution requires transitional fossils. There are none. Intelligent design requires fully functional organs. There are millions. Most of which require hundreds of parts to work simulateously, which means they would have had to evolved within a generation, all at once. You're assuming that somewhere out there, the evidence for evolution exists, because it has to. You say you're rational enough to know it happens. How?

Argue against natural selection.

Why? I believe in natural selection. It's an observable phenomenon. Dog breeders (thank you, Stonewobble), farmers, botanists, entymologists, and molecular biologists have watched it happen. But after years and years of study, all those mutated fruit flies are still producing more mutated fruit flies. I'm waiting for a frog.

How exactly does one conduct a scientific study into intelligent design?

A couple years ago, there was a molecular biologist that published a book called Darwin's Black Box. It's about irreducible complexity. Some biological features, such as flagella, require hundreds of moving parts. Every part has to be present and functioning in order for the organism to survive. If you have a mousetrap (three parts) which is missing one part, you don't catch two-thirds of the mice, you catch none.

How can science prove the existence of God?

Science can suggest design, which points to a designer, but God is outside of reality. Outside of our measurable sphere. We can see the effects of the wind, but not the wind itself. Motions doesn't prove that their are currents of air racing around the atmosphere, but it points to it.

There's always the chance that some other process drove the origins of life, but nothing has been out forward here that could be tested empirically.

If (hypothetically) a god did create the world, the evidence might be non-existant, however, it would remain a fact, even if unknown. No matter how many religions build themselves around the deity, it doesn't invalidate what happened.

[Moe]

Jeremiah that site you keep linking to is full of factual errors. I can't speak for the anthropological parts, because my knowledge of that subject is rather limited, but the parts dealing with physics make no sense.

Incidentally, the complexity argument is actually one against "creationism". People always cite the human eye as an example of a very complex organism that had to have been designed and created, yet the eye is so far from perfect any creator should be ashamed of himself for not being able to shape the cornea correctly.

[BigFish]

As a religious member of this board, I'd like to say that, in my opinion, it is an insult to God not to accept the theory of evolution. It is much more elegant than intelligent design, which is a crude throwback to ignorance. The world is one of God's greatest creations. Science, the study of this creation should be held in high esteem. We know through the faculties God has given to us, our senses, our intelligence, our ability to rationalize and employ logic, that life arose in the form we see today through evolution. Denying such is an attack on human intelligence and indirectly an attack on the elegance of God's great design.This was quoted by another memeber of the board, its not what I personally believe but it is an opinion that hasn't been raised in this thread yet and should hopefully provoke discussion.

I believe in evolution just because nobody has proposed anything better to me yet! It fits all the evidence but it doesnt automatically invalidate the existance of a god?

If the world, at any time, was completely flooded, as evidenced by geological and archaeological surveys of the Black Sea suggest, it would be a simple (not really simple) matter to move tectonic plates.Could you link to the evidence for this?

Additionally, non-fossilized remains of T. Rex and giant ground sloth have also been found.I very doubt that they have found non-fossilised remains of a TRex, biological tissues decay after a few million years even if preserved ideally. The giant sloth is relativly recent so that is a possibility.

Like I said, evolution requires transitional fossils.There is no such thing as a transitional form! One species does not overnight become another, Dogs didnt suddenly grow into Dolphins leaving a few poor, misshapen Dogphins to be fossilised. Rather evolution is a very gradual process, one species (or a part of one species) very gradually becomes a little more different over time until they become either physically, environmentally or behaviorally incompatible with their original form. This species gradually becomes another, then another and by the end of it you have something new. You could even say that all fossils, all species are transitional forms between one species and the next
Anyhow, for an example of a 'transitional form', how about the rear legs on whales?

Some biological features, such as flagella, require hundreds of moving parts. Every part has to be present and functioning in order for the organism to survive. It started off with a very simple flaggella and over time it became more complex. One single flaggella developed a hinge, then a basel section, then muscles, etc untill it started becoming more complex, then interdependancys arose between the different componants. There may be examples of cells who lack a working flaggella as they are missing an integral componant but these would die quickly as they couldnt feed or escape from predators.
Think of a car (bad example I know), a modern car cant work without a componant or two but we know the car 'evolved' from older cars, from steam engines, from horse and carts, from sledges with no moving parts. Each generation added to the complexity.

[NT78stonewobble]

Catastrophism. If the world, at any time, was completely flooded, as evidenced by geological and archaeological surveys of the Black Sea suggest, it would be a simple (not really simple) matter to move tectonic plates.

Current movement rates of tectonic plates suggest a millions of year old earth for it to look like it does today. AFAIK the geological and achaeological surveys of the black sea you talk about only hints at a local catastophic flooding that might have been the inspiration for the biblical flood. It does not hint at a global flooding.

I believe you're mistaken. Not only have the Neanderthal and Erectus been reclassified (by evolutionist anthropologists) as subspecies of Homo Sapien (human) we've also found modern-looking humans, fossilized, between layers of Neanderthals. Some "modern" human fossils have actually been dated older than many Neanderthal.

It's quite old knowledge that man and neanderthal was living at the same time. Man is not sposed to come from the neanderthals. Neanderthals was a dead end. So was probably many other hominids or whatever we can call them. Other than that this statement only says the following "our knowledge is incomplete".

Addressing the fruitflies, yes, there have been mutations, but scientists have never produced anything other than a mutated fruit fly. Furthermore, evolution has nothing to do with domesticated cows or wolves vs. dogs. Or corn. That's selective breeding, not evolution. Dogs can still breed with wolves, cows with their ancestor stock.

Why? I believe in natural selection. It's an observable phenomenon. Dog breeders (thank you, Stonewobble), farmers, botanists, entymologists, and molecular biologists have watched it happen. But after years and years of study, all those mutated fruit flies are still producing more mutated fruit flies. I'm waiting for a frog.

Ah yes, but you acknowledge changes in DNA. And if you can change one thing you change the rest... (bear in mind how much dna is actually shared between eg. monkeys and man).

Additionally how do you then explain:

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

Or the fact that there eg: Ancient viruses embedded in human DNA.

Or that bacteria exists in our bowels and that our digestion would function very poorly without them? And these bacteria are very nearly related to ones outside?

Surely intelligent design or any kind of instant creation would have created humans with their own cells capable of handling that?

[Unk]

A couple years ago, there was a molecular biologist that published a book called Darwin's Black Box. It's about irreducible complexity. Some biological features, such as flagella, require hundreds of moving parts. Every part has to be present and functioning in order for the organism to survive. If you have a mousetrap (three parts) which is missing one part, you don't catch two-thirds of the mice, you catch none.
This old chestnut? If I remember correctly that one was pretty conclusively disproved back in one of the Intelligent Design courtcases in America.

I'm not an astrophysicist, so the best I can do is refer you here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/405.asp
This would have the required effect in a few directions, but not across the whole sky I believe. Also, the changing gravitational field as would produce tidal forces which would have disrupted large scale structures such as galaxies or superclusters and perhaps even have noticeable effects on nearby stars.

[The5thElephant]

Irreducible complexity is not a valid argument for ID. Firstly because in the past millions and millions of years of evolution there was plenty of time for things to get complex. Hell look at our universe, thats damn complex too. We just apply this special value to life so all of a sudden its somehow different than the everything else in the universe.

Secondly there are numerous possible ways in which complex organs such as eyes could have developed with small changes and have been useful at each stage. For example it starts with a patch of light sensitive cells. This allows the creature a sense of day/night, light/shadow, etc. This becomes concave allowing the creature to sense light/dark in a direction. So on and so forth.

Lastly, the eye is not "intelligently" designed at all. There are a number of simple ways in which it could have been far better. And I personally believe it is silly to think that God designed us imperfectly so we could all have something to debate about (same thing as saying God planted the fossils and screwed with the carbon and accelerated the light coming from stars millions of light years away).

EDIT: Just saw an article in the BBC about a significant DNA fragment of a neanderthal who lived around 38,000 years ago. Perhaps this will lead to more information regarding the debate over when these people existed.

BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6146908.stm)

[Jeremiah]

Could you link to the evidence for [Noah's flood]?

I don't have a link, but there's a book called Before the Flood, by Ian Wilson. The books adopts a near-global flood view, leaving only the highest peaks for habitation and escape.

I very doubt that they have found non-fossilised remains of a TRex, biological tissues decay after a few million years even if preserved ideally.

Discover Magazine ran several articles on it back in 2000: http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/features/dinosaur-dna/ The point I was trying to make was that the bones weren't 50 million years old, because they decay faster than that.

Anyhow, for an example of a 'transitional form', how about the rear legs on whales?

They're still complete legs. That's my point.

It started off with a very simple flaggella and over time it became more complex. One single flaggella developed a hinge, then a basel section, then muscles, etc untill it started becoming more complex, then interdependancys arose between the different componants.
We're talking hundreds of parts. If even only a third of them are necessary for minimal motion, that's still a hair over a hundred. When you get down to fifty or so parts, you don't get a half-speed microorganism, you get a stationary one.

It's quite old knowledge that man and neanderthal was living at the same time. Man is not sposed to come from the neanderthals. Neanderthals was a dead end.
I wasn't trying to prove that they weren't. I'm just stating, in response to another post, that human fossils do exist and not in small numbers.


Ah yes, but you acknowledge changes in DNA. And if you can change one thing you change the rest...

Only to a degree.

(bear in mind how much dna is actually shared between eg. monkeys and man).
That's not actually true. The originator of that claim doctored the numbers 20% or 30%, which is only 10% more than we share with plants. The method he used went something like this: This DNA here is the "code" for the monkey's tail. Since men do not have tails, we can't consider that part of the percentage.

Or that bacteria exists in our bowels and that our digestion would function very poorly without them? And these bacteria are very nearly related to ones outside?

I have no problem saying that the bacteria in our bodies is decended from other types that existed outside. There are strains of bacteria that can only live in beer. But it's a variation of bacteria, not a whole new form of life.

If I remember correctly that one was pretty conclusively disproved back in one of the Intelligent Design courtcases in America.
The "disproving" consisted of: This is an argument for ID, ID means there's a god, a god = religion, religion is different than science, therefore it can't be true.

Firstly because in the past millions and millions of years of evolution there was plenty of time for things to get complex.

"Irreducible" means exactly that. No matter how much time given, no number of mathematical odds will defeat it.

For example it starts with a patch of light sensitive cells. This allows the creature a sense of day/night, light/shadow, etc. This becomes concave allowing the creature to sense light/dark in a direction. So on and so forth.

And through all science's biological studies, and for all the data we've gleaned from dna, no mechanism has ever been found that could produce such a change. And the step between cell and light-sensitive cell is also an interesting one.

And I personally believe it is silly to think that God designed us imperfectly so we could all have something to debate about
Who is to say that at one time, our sight wasn't better? Who is to say that the eye wasn't "perfect" at one point nearer creation?

Just saw an article in the BBC about a significant DNA fragment of a neanderthal who lived around 38,000 years ago. Perhaps this will lead to more information regarding the debate over when these people existed.
I doubt it. There are thousands of Neanderthal fossils in museums and private collections already.

[NT78stonewobble]

Actually the whales legs are degenerating. You CAN call them full legs but in reality they are not being used and are as such not legs.

You refer to human fossils. Imho fossilization is the replacement of organic matter with sediments inside a rock. The neanderthal / modern man bones were found in a cave as bones.

That's not actually true. The originator of that claim doctored the numbers 20% or 30%, which is only 10% more than we share with plants. The method he used went something like this: This DNA here is the "code" for the monkey's tail. Since men do not have tails, we can't consider that part of the percentage.

Actually man has a "tail" you know. The tail bone? Another degenerating part of body like the little toe? Any way my point was the fact that a lot of dna is still shared, to the point where eg: you wanna conduct medicine experiments on monkeys as they are so similar to us.

And through all science's biological studies, and for all the data we've gleaned from dna, no mechanism has ever been found that could produce such a change. And the step between cell and light-sensitive cell is also an interesting one.

Yet you support the idea that you can change DNA to produce changes in eg: skin colour, size, fertility and aggression. Alike in man or dogs :P ...

Additionally radiation or uv lights can produces damages to DNA. Theres your mutation. Theres your change.

Also your point about soft tissue in the T-rex find is also kind of moot. It might expand our knowledge on how long organic tissue might survive as per the discoverers own oppionion on the subject. Or as others have said it might be a contamination or a hoax.

[Moe]

Irreducible complexity is not a scientific argument, it makes no sense. Who is to say that the flagella were always used for movement?

And if you say that our eyes used to be perfect, does that mean that they evolved into a less perfect form over the years? Wouldn't that include, dare I say it, evolution?

The "disproving" consisted of: This is an argument for ID, ID means there's a god, a god = religion, religion is different than science, therefore it can't be true.

No. The disproving went like this: ID is not a scientific theory. It doesn't meet the requirements for being a scientific theory. It's a philosophical and theological argument, but not science. There are plenty of philosophical aspects to science, just look at quantum physics for example. The problem is that ID has nothing to do with science.

[The5thElephant]

Jeremiah you have to work harder than this if you want us to take your points with any seriousness.

You just throw out these one liners to random quotes from our posts and then reference us to books written by creationist scientists. Even that link for the T-Rex thing stated that this in no way showed that the Earth is not as old as we think it is, and it is more likely that we simply have found a specific and rare situation where some cells were well preserved. If all these fossils are only a few thousand years old where are the hundreds of other tissue samples we should be finding?

You accept that DNA can mutate over generations yet say that for some reason it will suddenly stop when it reaches the point of speciation? Does God come in and stop it? I mean come on, think about your arguments for a few more minutes before posting them.

Why would our eyes get worse over time? You accept natural selection, that just wouldn't happen.

No mechanism has been found that can produce a change? What? We know that DNA can mutate....THERE is your change.

I would have to do the research, but I wouldn't be surprised if the difference between a light-sensitive cell and a regular cell isn't that significant. I'm not talking about cells like we have in our retina, these would be far simpler.

I kind of want you to step back and summarize your argument for us, because I feel we have all been lost in the mire of proving/disproving interpretations of evidence.

Lay out in a few simple steps why you believe the Earth is a few thousand years old and not millions. Don't complain that it won't fit here because that in itself is an indicator of a bad argument, the theory for an old Earth can easily fit in one post so pretend you are racing Occam's razor here.

We are all rational people, attempting to look at this situation objectively and logically. We aren't all ravenous to disprove the existence of God or of ID because disproving those things is impossible. You have to wonder why so many rational people, doing their best to not be biased, looking at the same evidence as you, come to a completely different conclusion in a far FAR greater majority. Us and most of the scientific world.

[tyrion]

This was quoted by another memeber of the board, its not what I personally believe but it is an opinion that hasn't been raised in this thread yet and should hopefully provoke discussion.

I believe in evolution just because nobody has proposed anything better to me yet! It fits all the evidence but it doesnt automatically invalidate the existance of a god?



Yes it has, right from the very beginning it has been my very argument, I'm just not religious. :bigwave:

Jeremiah, irreducible complexity has long been shown to be a flawed argument, I'm not going to add to the lynch mob by shredding it yet again except to say that when I asked you "how does one conduct a study into intelligent design?" I hoped for something fresher and, well, better than that.

No fruit flies have been observed evolving into frogs for the simple reason that natural selection happens over evolutionary timeframes. It is made up of a series of small mutations and the occasional catastrophic jump, none of which could be said as being distinct enough to classify an offspring as being a seperate species from it's parents. It's the culmination of those changes over time that become something new.

Neanderthal man has not been reclassified as a subspecies of sapiens by the way unless you have access to information newer than mine. Unless there has been some pretty spectacular evidence come to light recently than has passed by my notice (which is possible but doubtful) the best picture we have is that sapiens and neanderthal lived side by side with neanderthals being driven out as they could not compete for food on the increasingly sparse plains. Strength and stealth served them in the forests but as those forests died out hunting bcame a more long ranged affair wherein stamina and spatial awareness (hence intelligence...) became the deciding factors.

I really am finding it difficult to join in the communal assault on your increasingly precarious position here as it is seeming almost viciously unfair when you are so outnumbered and no one seems to be inclined to support you, but you are grasping at straws where the evidence suggests that maybe you need to think about your position. Sorry!

[BigFish]

Discover Magazine ran several articles on it back in 2000: http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-...s/dinosaur-dna/ The point I was trying to make was that the bones weren't 50 million years old, because they decay faster than that.Now thats interesting! I will have to read up about that more before I would like to comment on it. Even so, I think the evidence for fossils being vary, very old still outweighs the evidence for them being young. To my mind at least.

They're still complete legs. That's my point. But tiny, useless and pointless (in fact I think they are missing some bones as well but I cant find a cite so wouldnt like to say for sure). Why do they have them? Why would god create a whale with legs?
Also the fossil record shows that these legs have been shrinking throughout time.

We're talking hundreds of parts. If even only a third of them are necessary for minimal motion, that's still a hair over a hundred. When you get down to fifty or so parts, you don't get a half-speed microorganism, you get a stationary one.Yes. These stationary ones would be at adisadvantage and would die young and not show up much in biological samples. Human beings are far more complex than bacteria and some of then survive with bits missing or disfunctional.

That's not actually true. The originator of that claim doctored the numbers 20% or 30%, which is only 10% more than we share with plants. The method he used went something like this: This DNA here is the "code" for the monkey's tail. Since men do not have tails, we can't consider that part of the percentage. People can be born with tails... people can be born with hair all over, all people are born with an appendix (a structure normally only seen in rabbits I think), all kinds of things are encoded in our DNA that is never normally expressed. A large proportion of our DNA is junk, bits of code that were introduced by viruses or just accrued over time.

I have no problem saying that the bacteria in our bodies is decended from other types that existed outside. There are strains of bacteria that can only live in beer. But it's a variation of bacteria, not a whole new form of life.True, but eventually one strain of bacteria might become so different from its outside cousins that they could no longer interact/breed? Then what?

The "disproving" consisted of: This is an argument for ID, ID means there's a god, a god = religion, religion is different than science, therefore it can't be true. I think its more to do with ID being rubbish than anything else, it is riddled with contradictions, logic holes and missunderstandings. If man was designed intelligently, why do we have appendixs - a small organ that is completely useless to us yet can kill us? Why do we have the blood vessels for our eyes in front of the light sensitive cells when it would make sence to have them behind? Why do we have the spine we do bearing in mind it is so prone to damage in the role it fulfills? Why do whales have legs? The list goes on... I'm sorry, but ID is the philoshopical equivilant of the bacteria with the defective flagella, the poor malformed thing can only flop around making noise untill it dies away.

And through all science's biological studies, and for all the data we've gleaned from dna, no mechanism has ever been found that could produce such a change. And the step between cell and light-sensitive cell is also an interesting one. I'm a biologist, there is a clear sequence of development from a single light sensitive cell to the eye we have today that can be followed in severel different species lines. Some of the exact details are a little cloudy at the moment but that does not mean it isnt true, only that more work needs to be done!

Who is to say that at one time, our sight wasn't better? Who is to say that the eye wasn't "perfect" at one point nearer creation? Why would god create a creature only to let it degenerate? The alternative is that gods creation is imperfect, therefore god is imperfect.

Just saw an article in the BBC about a significant DNA fragment of a neanderthal who lived around 38,000 years ago. Perhaps this will lead to more information regarding the debate over when these people existed.
I doubt it. There are thousands of Neanderthal fossils in museums and private collections already.You doubt the existance of the DNA fragment? If so that kinda invalidates your TRex DNA point? Or have I missunderstould this statement?

[The5thElephant]

I think he meant he doubts it will add any useful information. And hopefully we can get away from this pointless omnislashing soon. No one is going to get anywhere this way.

I still want Jeremiah to summarize his belief in a young earth in a few simple points as I said before.

[tyrion]

What happened to Athexx?

[Jeremiah]

No. The disproving went like this: ID is not a scientific theory. It doesn't meet the requirements for being a scientific theory. It's a philosophical and theological argument, but not science. There are plenty of philosophical aspects to science, just look at quantum physics for example. The problem is that ID has nothing to do with science.

Very well. But that doesn't address whether something is true or not, only whether it can be scientifically verified. Carl Sagan compared religion to a weightless, invisible dragon. You can't prove it's there, but it might be.

Actually man has a "tail" you know. The tail bone? Another degenerating part of body like the little toe?

It resembles a tail, but it's purpose is to have something to anchor our sphincter muscles to.

You accept that DNA can mutate over generations yet say that for some reason it will suddenly stop when it reaches the point of speciation? Does God come in and stop it? I mean come on, think about your arguments for a few more minutes before posting them.

Thanks for that vote of confidence. I can walk to the end of my street in about three minutes. That's a matter of time and distance. According to the logic you provided, one could rationalize that, given enough time, I could walk to the moon.

Why would our eyes get worse over time? You accept natural selection, that just wouldn't happen.

Three hundred years ago, there was no such thing as Down Syndrome or Parkinsons. Now there is. Our environment contributes to our health as a species. If there was some way not to be effected by the environment, that would be a great plus to those who possessed it, but there is not.

Lay out in a few simple steps why you believe the Earth is a few thousand years old and not millions. Don't complain that it won't fit here because that in itself is an indicator of a bad argument, the theory for an old Earth can easily fit in one post so pretend you are racing Occam's razor here.

I'll do my best. 1) Historically, it appears that the species of various ages overlapped for lengthy periods of time. 2) Fossil evidence, for the greatest part, suggests that species arrive on the scene in a set form with a tendence to drift relatively little. 3) Without various dating methods, the argument for old earth is thin. Most of these dating methods only work when the date is in question. Carbon-dating or radiometric dating an object with a known date always turns up different than expected. Why do we trust the results of something if it only works when we can't know if it's working?

You have to wonder why so many rational people, doing their best to not be biased, looking at the same evidence as you, come to a completely different conclusion in a far FAR greater majority. Us and most of the scientific world.

In a pro-evolutionist book entitled Science Friction, the author gives statistics to the contrary for the point of illustrating that people will believe anything.

Neanderthal man has not been reclassified as a subspecies of sapiens by the way unless you have access to information newer than mine.

My info was dated (I believe) 1999 and 2000. There were several articles published by evolutionists concerning the morphology of the Neanderthal. Apparently, his braincase is within the borders of modern man's. Additionally, it was shown that the Tasmanian aboriginies are skeletally identical to Neanderthals.

Unless there has been some pretty spectacular evidence come to light recently than has passed by my notice (which is possible but doubtful) the best picture we have is that sapiens and neanderthal lived side by side with neanderthals being driven out as they could not compete for food on the increasingly sparse plains.

Jordi Auguste published a textbook entitled Mammoths, Sabertooths and Hominids, which explained that fossil evidence in Africa showed that in a particular area, Modern man and Neanderthal had overlapping burial grounds. There was a layer of N. then a layer of H. Sapien, then another substantial layer of N. and another of H. Sapien.

Even so, I think the evidence for fossils being vary, very old still outweighs the evidence for them being young.

I'm curious. Why, when you thought I was mistake, were you so certain that such a find could not exist, because it would contradict know phenomenon, yet when it was shown that such a find does exist, it presents no contradiction?

True, but eventually one strain of bacteria might become so different from its outside cousins that they could no longer interact/breed? Then what?
Interesting what-if? There are many reasons why two groups within one species couldn't interbreed. There's the problem of size or shape (think Great Dane and Yorkshire Terrier), there's geography, there's inherited reproductive deficiencies, there's chromosomes, and finally there's DNA. The first four have been witnessed, but not the last.

Some of the exact details are a little cloudy at the moment but that does not mean it isnt true, only that more work needs to be done!


This is sort of what I meant earlier when I said that evolution treats data as dots which need to be connected. I hear this alot (paraphrasing of course): Evidence will prove that evolution is true, if not, more research is needed so that it does.

Why would god create a creature only to let it degenerate? The alternative is that gods creation is imperfect, therefore god is imperfect.


Not really. You're assuming conclusions about a deity that you cannot know. From a Christian point of view, man was made a steward of the earth, and given the free will to do as he chooses. Our choices affect the world around us. Our mistakes are the price for our choice to choose.

You doubt the existance of the DNA fragment? If so that kinda invalidates your TRex DNA point? Or have I missunderstould this statement?
Misunderstood it. I doubt the significance of the find. Thousands of Neanderthals have been found. Hundreds in Isreal and Iraq, alone. One more fragment isn't going to make a difference, I don't think.

And hopefully we can get away from this pointless omnislashing soon. No one is going to get anywhere this way.

Very true. I'm not out to convince anyone. I simply don't like being labelled as one who subscribes to "The Bible says it, that settles it." Whether you agree with my interpretation of evidence or not, there it is. What do you suggest?

Good Lord, that's a long post. Sorry about that.

[Tiberius Nero]

Very well. But that doesn't address whether something is true or not, only whether it can be scientifically verified. Carl Sagan compared religion to a weightless, invisible dragon. You can't prove it's there, but it might be.

Rational discussion must follow the rules of Logic. By these rules the burden of proof is on the positive proclamation not the other way round; if you want to bring some new element to a discussion, you have to show that it would somehow be logically relevant. Postulating invisible weightless dragons is only twisting the rules of logical discourse; they might be there, but they are outside the scope of rational discussion. The Truth is a very ambitious and unatainable goal, the best you can hope for is a discussion of observations that follows some agreed upon rules of Logic. That is why discussing dogma in a rational way with people who do not accept the very basic premises of the dogma in question is futile. If philosophers discussed dogma applying rules of Logic to their discussion in the past, it was because they unquestioningly accepted the very basic premises of this sort of discussion. In modern times those premises are not granted any more outside strictly religious groups.

In short there can be no discussion between people not sharing the same very basic premises, this is why arguments like this always end up with one side calling for the other to disprove something which by the rules of Logic they do not need to disprove.

[Mac_Bug]

Thanks for that vote of confidence. I can walk to the end of my street in about three minutes. That's a matter of time and distance. According to the logic you provided, one could rationalize that, given enough time, I could walk to the moon.

What exactly does not having a road leading to the Moon, an atmosphere, life span etc correspond to in his logic? There exists clear and universally recognizable reasons for why you cannot possibly 'walk' to the Moon (humans btw have walked ON the moon, despite not having walked TO the moon), I eagerly await your explaination for how this same sort of 'logic' applies back to our original case.

[BigFish]

@ Jermiah
Im curious to know what you make of these 2 articles;
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025464.600-first-fossil-of-fish-that-crawled-onto-land-discovered.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/04/teeth.birds/

Anyhow, another long, quote filled post coming up, sorry. I'll try and keep this one snappy!

It resembles a tail, but it's purpose is to have something to anchor our sphincter muscles to.True, but there have been cases of people being born with an actual tail as well. I'm looking for a cite, the best I can manage is this: (possibly NSFW). http://www.dimaggio.org/Archive/tails_in_humans.htm
Its a pretty biased site I'm afraid. Anyhow, approx 1/3 of reported human tails have extra bones in them not found in the avarage human being.

I can walk to the end of my street in about three minutes. That's a matter of time and distance. According to the logic you provided, one could rationalize that, given enough time, I could walk to the moon.Given enough time you could walk the required distance, yes!

Three hundred years ago, there was no such thing as Down Syndrome or Parkinsons. Now there is. Our environment contributes to our health as a species. If there was some way not to be effected by the environment, that would be a great plus to those who possessed it, but there is not.300 years ago there was inadequate medical records and procedures. Down syndrome and parkinsons existed but were misdiagnosed and their victims lumped together as simply mad. Its only with recent advances in medical knowledge that these illnesses have been quantified.

How about bird flu and spanish flu, those specific illnesses have only come about recently and that can be traced to changes in their DNA

I'll do my best. 1) Historically, it appears that the species of various ages overlapped for lengthy periods of timeAs happens today? A lengthy period of time to us is nothing on geological time scales.
2) Fossil evidence, for the greatest part, suggests that species arrive on the scene in a set form with a tendence to drift relatively little.Since we have to work with fossils, all we get is a snapshot of a creature, we cant tell from that if its 'drifting' from one form to another. But these snapshots seem to show some kind of progression from the first walking fish to dinosaurs. 3) Without various dating methods, the argument for old earth is thin.Geology, the grand canyon must be hundreds of thousands of years old for the river to have eroded that much rock. The layers of rock visable there must have taken millions of years to deposit. GPS tracking shows that the US and UK are moving appart at a few cm a year, by dividing the width of the Atlantic by this increment it turns out to be millions of years old. The magnetic banding on the atlantic floor corroborates this. Edinburough, a city here, is built round the plug of an extinct volcano, to erode as much as it has the volcano must be several million years old.

In a pro-evolutionist book entitled Science Friction, the author gives statistics to the contrary for the point of illustrating that people will believe anything.True, but that argument can cut both ways.

I'm curious. Why, when you thought I was mistake, were you so certain that such a find could not exist, because it would contradict know phenomenon, yet when it was shown that such a find does exist, it presents no contradiction?I havnt read enough, only that one website, about this find to have an opinion on it yet but I'll get back to you on that! Im am still pretty certain that you couldnt have biological tissue that old, the molecules themselves just wouldnt last millions of years. I dont think you were mistaken, after all you can believe what you want to believe, just that to my mind all the other evidence points to dinosaur fossils being old (C14 dating, the geological evidence, etc) so, for the moment, I find that the most acceptable answer.

Interesting what-if? There are many reasons why two groups within one species couldn't interbreed. There's the problem of size or shape (think Great Dane and Yorkshire Terrier), there's geography, there's inherited reproductive deficiencies, there's chromosomes, and finally there's DNA. The first four have been witnessed, but not the last. Chromosomes are DNA. If we left yorkies and great danes for long enough, they amy become different species, their reproductive incompatabilitys meant their genepools would be isolated from each other and may drift in different directions.

This is sort of what I meant earlier when I said that evolution treats data as dots which need to be connected. I hear this alot (paraphrasing of course): Evidence will prove that evolution is true, if not, more research is needed so that it does.There is evidence for evolution, however sketchy. There is no evidence for god. Anyhow, if I see a few dots in a line, its safe to assume that they can be joined up. If there are some big gaps between the dots, I'll do some research and try and find some more dots, see where they lie in relation to the previous dots.

Not really. You're assuming conclusions about a deity that you cannot know.Exactly, how come so many people claim to know that their diety created the world a few hundred years ago?

Misunderstood it.Oops, sorry.

Very true. I'm not out to convince anyone. I simply don't like being labelled as one who subscribes to "The Bible says it, that settles it." Whether you agree with my interpretation of evidence or not, there it is. What do you suggest?Fair play to you, who-ever is right or wrong you have argued well and have actually tried to substantiate your argument and in a reasonably logical fashion, which is more than most creationists than I've known. Keep up the good work! :)

[SWPIGWANG]

The truth is that the world have been created by a flying magical panda .3 seconds ago, and none of you can ever disprove me! ZOMG I WIN!!

Why is DC better than WA and DOW? Because god created it! Why am I typing this post? Because god created me to do it!


I disagree with creationism and its extentions for one simple epistemological reason. Creationism (of the timeless god to the existing world one) can never be part of the knowledge base.

Knowledge is about knowing the patterns of interaction of observed reality.

You can never "know" creationism because:
1. There by definition NO pattern to outside-context problem (out of universe) creationism.
2. You learn no data about future events from adopting creationism.
3. You can not use historical regression to deduce history.

You can NEVER use science to "prove" creationism, the best you can do is prove a lack of knowledge. The basic assumptions of science assumes an "linked universe" in which every part is related to another accessible part. A "non-accessible outside creater being" violates this is thus an unknowable factor and no research and no evidence could be used to support it.

-------------------------------------------
As for intelligent design, the problem is even simplier:

Where is this designer? Can we see it in the sky or find it in rocks? Is there ever a "designer" artificat dated? Where is this creator acting?

Unless one proscribes to the view that all species are created at the start of time, which does not work at all due to impossible ecology, where is the documentation that someday there was a great lightening happened one day and out of it walked a new species of elephant from nowhere?

Where is this "god-teleporter device" that the intelligent being places new life onto earth? If it has been used, we should have seen the evidence somewhere. Someone should have seen stuff magically appearing out of thin air, or space ships landing to put out new life, or a giant tomb underground opening up to allow new life out. Where is this?

If one can attack evolution by lack of evidence, then intelligent suffers this, except in far worst cases. We can and have observed micro-evolution but we've never observed micro-species teleportation.

If new life is born out of a womb or grow from seeds of a pod, that is pretty much evolution.

*on dating* Why do we trust the results of something if it only works when we can't know if it's working?

Stop using "ID" websites as sources of information.

This post is a self contradiction:
You claim that there is no time due to 3., yet claim species overlapped for lenghty period of time.

But the answer to the question is very simple: Because it is better than CLAIMING IT RANDOMALLY which we know works EVEN WORST!

I can claim the universe is 3 seconds old. God created the universe with everything looking like it is old, and gave me an lifetime of memories, but didn't actually create me 3 seconds ago. You can never disprove me.

To have dating to begin with, one must assume that the universe is not created via discountinous processes. Discountinous meaning "spontaneous existence."

Now if you accept that the universe did not come into being via spontaneous existence, then we can use tradtional method of dating. How long would it take to erode kilometers deep into rock via water? How long would it take for the universe of stars to move to its current location? How long would it take for the moon to accumlate all its craters given known frequency of impacts? How long would it take for the star lights from the distant edges of the universe to each us? How long would it take to form a earth from a random pile of space junk and gases?

Or alternatively, you can say that dating methods all suck, and the universe is 3 seconds old because I say so.

Thanks for that vote of confidence. I can walk to the end of my street in about three minutes. That's a matter of time and distance. According to the logic you provided, one could rationalize that, given enough time, I could walk to the moon.
No, your assertion is this: If I can walk inside my house. I can't walk out the door to the end of my street because it is "outside."

No, you assertion is nonsense strawman that avoids the problem. I could like wise claim that since that I don't know how computers are made, it obviously is teleported in by god from an alternative dimension.

Your claim about this is simple: Species are so different that they can never drift into each other.

But that claim is simply, false because:
Different species all follow the same laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Close species share massive similaries. 96% of genetic material of humans and chimp are shared. Imagine copying a piece of text for billions or trillions of times, and just making only 4% error in all that time.

Now if you are good with probability arguments, you might claim that even though there is only 4% difference, those specific differences are so rare that they are exceedingly unlikely to happen. Well, that is an flawed argument, as for 4% difference in genetic material one would branch out to millions or more different species, and we are just one of the winners. It is like a trillion player lotto game, even if the odds or horrible, someone wins.

It is not like animals we see are energy beings or have 5 heads, 4 eyes and can fire lasers out of eyes. No, they are generally exceeding similar. They are so similar the different species can f*ck each other and generate offspring, like mule is a cross breed of donkey and horse. Plants are worst, they can be crossbred easily.

Consider genetic engineering. With our skills now, it is more like cutting a piece of genes and insert it into another living being. Now try doing it with a computer program and copy and past an binary string from a program and insert into another, or even do it by inserting one piece of text from an random article into another randomly. Obviously it wouldn't work and you'd get jibberish and crashed programs.

But genetic engineering works! The fact that it works means that life is quite closely related to each other. They are so similar that they are more similar then any thing humans designs.

[tyrion]

My info was dated (I believe) 1999 and 2000. There were several articles published by evolutionists concerning the morphology of the Neanderthal. Apparently, his braincase is within the borders of modern man's. Additionally, it was shown that the Tasmanian aboriginies are skeletally identical to Neanderthals.

Jordi Auguste published a textbook entitled Mammoths, Sabertooths and Hominids, which explained that fossil evidence in Africa showed that in a particular area, Modern man and Neanderthal had overlapping burial grounds. There was a layer of N. then a layer of H. Sapien, then another substantial layer of N. and another of H. Sapien.



Marvellous, but how does that answer my question? I asked whether you have some way of showing me Neanderthals had been actually reclassified. I'd like a link to or reference for your articles though about the aboriginal skeletons if you wouldn't mind.

Not really. You're assuming conclusions about a deity that you cannot know. From a Christian point of view, man was made a steward of the earth, and given the free will to do as he chooses. Our choices affect the world around us. Our mistakes are the price for our choice to choose.

So are you by your own admission. Why should a "Christian point of view" be any better than any other starting point gven that we are talking about a deity we "cannot know"?

But yup, top marks for the long post, you certainly do fight your corner!

[The5thElephant]

You're assuming conclusions about a deity that you cannot know. From a Christian point of view, man was made a steward of the earth, and given the free will to do as he chooses. Our choices affect the world around us. Our mistakes are the price for our choice to choose.

A couple things here since I think this is really the crux of the problem with our argument. If your deity's book had said that he created the Earth 4 million years ago (Still way off from what most scientists claim, but quite different than just a few thousand) then you would be presenting us with evidence pointing towards that number and I am very sure you would have managed to find some. Given a large enough data set one can find evidence pointing towards just about anything.

A little off topic for the second thing. From the Christian point of view God knows whether you will be going to hell or to heaven, if your choices are what determines where you go and someone already knows your final destination, then you do not actually have free will.

[Starfisher]

Jeremiah: Please show me a land mammal, reptile, amphibian or bird that does not have four legs and a tail. Every single one has those basic features, though things like snakes and birds have had them morph around quite a bit. Your argument is that all species are too different to have come from one ancestor, except that all large animals share the same basic structure, just stretched and squashed appropriately.

Also, as a general thread warning, stop omnislashing. One of the rules of the study is that you have to form a coherent argument; quoting tiny sections of a post and then responding with a short blurb is not a coherant argument.

[Jeremiah]

My apologies to all, I've been away from my computer for a while, because my wife was having our first baby. I had hoped that the conversation would have reached some kind of conclusion before then, but I was wrong. I've learned more than I guessed and explained less than I would have liked to. I'm going to try and answer a few of these, but I may not have time to come back with anything else. Try not to cry.

Postulating invisible weightless dragons is only twisting the rules of logical discourse; they might be there, but they are outside the scope of rational discussion. The Truth is a very ambitious and unatainable goal, the best you can hope for is a discussion of observations that follows some agreed upon rules of Logic.
Fair enough.

What exactly does not having a road leading to the Moon, an atmosphere, life span etc correspond to in his logic? There exists clear and universally recognizable reasons for why you cannot possibly 'walk' to the Moon (humans btw have walked ON the moon, despite not having walked TO the moon), I eagerly await your explaination for how this same sort of 'logic' applies back to our original case.
Basically, I'm saying that just because you can prove something happens in micro, doesn't mean that you can extend that logic indefinitely. To me, saying that since we see little changes, big changes of a certain kind must be possible, would be similar to the Flat Earth Society pointing to the Salt Plains as "microflat."

Geology, the grand canyon must be hundreds of thousands of years old for the river to have eroded that much rock.

If the GC were millions of years old, the cavern walls would be sloped, not vertical, because of the erosion.


No, your assertion is this: If I can walk inside my house. I can't walk out the door to the end of my street because it is "outside."

Sort of. If you call the exit door "speciation." Being able to walk does not mean you can produce a key. I'm suggesting that there's a gap that the process cannot bridge.


But yup, top marks for the long post, you certainly do fight your corner!

Alas, not for much longer, I fear. These long posts are time consuming and I cannot justify taking a whole hour of my new baby daughter's time for my pleasure in debating you fine folks.


If your deity's book had said that he created the Earth 4 million years ago (Still way off from what most scientists claim, but quite different than just a few thousand) then you would be presenting us with evidence pointing towards that number and I am very sure you would have managed to find some.

That depends. There are several what-if's in play.
1. If my deity's book said the world was 4 million years old, A. I might not believe the book, B. might defend the book, or C. might come to a comprimise. My book indirectly says the world is approximately 6,000 years old and was, at one time, flooded completely. It would not matter to me if I found out that it was 14,000 years old. Nor would it shake my faith too terribly much to find out that evolution did happen. I certainly believe it's possible that the whole world (mountain tops and all) wasn't covered by a flood.


From the Christian point of view God knows whether you will be going to hell or to heaven, if your choices are what determines where you go and someone already knows your final destination, then you do not actually have free will.

Because it's off topic, I may e-mail you about that one. That's more along the lines of what I generally debate.

Your argument is that all species are too different to have come from one ancestor, except that all large animals share the same basic structure, just stretched and squashed appropriately.

Basically, what I was saying was that evolution can make all sorts of changes, like wings or echolocation, but never manages to change the number of vertebrate in the neck or the number of eyes in a face. Not really an argument, I guess, it just seems very unlikely to me.

Anyway, if I don't return, thanks for the stimulating conversation.

[The5thElephant]

Starfisher I don't think he understood what you meant by Omnislashing.

[tyrion]

Congratulations on the birth of your baby daughter Jeremiah. I think I speak for us all when I wish you all the joys that parenthood can bring, hopefully with fewer sleepless nights than we've been getting! (Our boy is nine months old)

[NT78stonewobble]

Congratulations Jeremiah and to your family. Best of wishes from here :).

Regarding the omnislashing: I don't think its too bad and when there like multiple different arguments thrown around this way of referring to them is better than getting lost in a long continious post. IMHO

[Mac_Bug]

I don't think you understand what DNA really is. The most common abstract level has us thinking it as four different LETTERS of the alphabet, A T G C, and our DNA, or the human genome, or whatever you want to call it, is LITERALLY a textbook consisting of these four letters. When people say chimps are only 4% different than us, that's really the kind of things they mean. This point has already been brought up, but when you replicate something like this a bazillion times and introduce copying errors, something will give.

Want proof? If I start with a simple DNA sequence, and then start tackling on letters in the order that our DNA appears, then I will end up with humans. Yes, monkey with a typewriter coming up with Shakespeare.

[under_score]

I'm going to have a try at posting here, so here goes.
Roll two dice... what do you get?
Two sixes... sometimes
a 1 and a 4... sometimes
Now sit around and roll two dice forever and one day maybe even within the hour you will get a 1 and a 4.
Now i will give you a billion dice and an unlimited amount of time. We are looking for a very special combination, but i'm not going to list it here as it would be 'to long', it would take 'too long'. As humans we don't have enough time or patience to sit around rolling one billion dice.
Why do we get bored of it?
Because we have brains we are sentinent we need to be entertained. Do gases get bored? Do universes get bored? Do molecules smashing against each other get bored?
No
This worked on a timescale we can't comprehend but eventually the universe is created. By dust and atoms and a whole lot of chance.
Nothing sentinent is involved.
By now there's a universe clouds of dust are pulled together by the gravity of a star (i don't know how planets are formed but i have a vague idea)
We have a planet. Lets call it earth. Now on any other combination of billions of dice earth would be featurless, flat, lifeless.
But not on this combination on this combination we got LUCKY
Ours is a very special planet with a whole lot of chance and not a single sentinent being watching over us.

[The5thElephant]

BusterWounds - Many creationists/IDs use that argument for themselves actually. They say that the chances of life not having formed are so high that the fact that life did form shows that someone must have cheated probability (that someone being the intelligent designer, creator, whatever).

However they of course do not take into account the fact that there are absolutely billions of light years of open space where life did not develop, so it follows the probability theory just fine. Of course thinking creatures are going to think that thinking creatures are special, because they are thinking creatures!

We give life this high value when it really is just another physical phenomenon in the universe, no more special than a black hole, galaxy, cloud of gas, electromagnetic radiation, etc. These are all complex phenomenon which require specific environments to exist, just like life. Life requires more specific environments than many other phenomenon, but so do black holes.

[Unk]

Never mind the probability, the fact is that if life didn't involve we wouldn't be asking those questions in the first place.

[under_score]

i don't see how ID's and creationists can hijack that argument for their own uses as probability implies that it was chance, Can we comprehend nothingness?
NO
Trying to understand the luck/ chance involved is like trying to comprehend that.
P.S. Which one is intelligent design; a moral question or a scientific question?

[Eboli]

An important thing when considering probability as it applies to evolution is that if a person doesn't believe something is possible then they'll never believe that probability is even applicable.

To put it simply. When a creationist says "Life coming about on its own is just not possible." They're not saying impossible in the sense of rolling a billion sixes in a row, which is possible and could/will happen. They're saying it's impossible in the way that rolling a 7 on a 6 sided die is.

[under_score]

that's a very good point. So which side of the fence do you sit on?
P.S. if you haven't managed to figure out im pro-evolution.
Furthermore the statement that it is impossible on its own doesn't stand up and denies ID's or creationisms place as a science because science wants proof and proof denies faith.





EDIT after Eboli's post
Ok. it's a very complex issue
i posed the question about wether it's scientific/moral question because last night this kind of thing was brought up on newsnight RE. Teaching ID in schools

[Eboli]

My beliefs are complicated but I do believe in Evolution, and I'm not religious.

[The5thElephant]

I pose this question to both sides of this issue, even though you may not agree with the idea of the question in the first place.

I feel that given enough time it is inevitable that through globalization and general improvements of education that religious belief and faith is going to drop significantly. My question is how long do you think it will take before religion is no longer considered the major power and force in the world that it is today? Will that happen at all? Should it happen (I guess this last question is more for the non-religious since I think few religious people think religion should die out or shrink significantly)?

[under_score]

In response to the last question No, it will not shrink out and die merely dwindle or change. One of the main reasons for my atheism (sorry can't spell today) is that i can't accept that religions can change i.e. from the old british PAGAN gods to christanity (or any religion). I think religion is a type of dependence an urge too feel needed and as globalization common sense and the power of science expand religion will shrink but always people need something to lean on to put faith on. always will children have invisible friends and so also always will man have god

[The5thElephant]

Humans will likely retain spirituality, but that does not necessitate religion. Globalization of cultural ideas and thus religions will mean that more and more children are exposed at younger ages to more than just their parent's religion. These children are going to have a harder time understanding why their parent's religion is right while all these other religions that their friends online and around them have are wrong. They will question that belief and in my experience they often reject it moving on to searching out a religion that personally feels right, or just maintaining spiritual belief in a god or creator or whatever, without the defining factor of one religion.

However this will only happen when children are exposed to these other cultures, not adults. Adults have far stronger biases and are far more set in their beliefs, even though they are often more rational than children. I think we are going to see a radical liberal/secular push as the current older traditionalist generations die out and more broadly experienced/educated generations take their place. However you will see this in first world countries with internet access, etc.

Few generations before ours could have friends all over the world like I do just because of the internet. I can discuss philosophy with someone from another continent, this gives me some semblance of cultural relativism whether I like it or not (I like it, many people don't). Relativism and religious belief just don't work well together.

[BigFish]

Should religion be allowed to dwindle and die? Whether its true or not it provides a lot of people with support, comfort, inspiration and purpose in life. A lot of the teachings are also as morol today as anytime before. There is also the the cultural heritage that could be lost if religion does die away.

But then again, how do you preserve something as ephemeral as a religion?

[The5thElephant]

Well as adaptive creatures, I believe we will come to rely on other things for personal comfort, inspiration or purpose. There are plenty of people who are perfectly comfortable without religion or even spirituality (my being one of them), and I believe that most people can be like that if they are not religious from an early age (or rather they are exposed to more choice instead of just blindly following their family's religion).

A lot of the teachings are incredibly immoral (subjective opinion of course) as well, and certainly the fact that something inadvertently causes war, suffering and persecution should outweigh the cultural heritage aspect.

[tyrion]

A negative and somewhat dispiriting thought is the considerable evidence that we have an inbuilt tendency towards tribalism. Religion is not by that mindset a cause for ignorance and division per se, merely one of many possible masks that intolerance can wear. See nationalism, football hooliganism, racism, even hatred based on philosophical positions.....

Just my way of adding a little gloom to the day.

I'd point out again for those joining this thread partway through that there are many middle grounds that could be put forward as to human origins, the most notable being that evolution and creationism are not necessarily at odds. In fact many would argue (myself included) that there is a sound philosophical basis for the standpoint that they CANNOT be at odds. Nor in fact can they even be cast in the same light without violating some basic assumptions of our understading of the world. One is a scientific hypothesis about the means by which life came into being, the other is a faith in some greater being guiding to a greater or lesser degree the universe we live in. The existence of such a being does not invalidate evolutionary theories, nor does evidence that supports such theories cast doubt on the existence of a God.

The two operate in seperate arenas of thought, one working within the established laws of cause and effect necessary for scientific endeavour, the other outside of those laws as the creative force which defined them.

Confusing this and pitching them as being in some sense "rivals" (as many conservatively minded folks on both "sides" do) actually shows as much ignorance as does religious intolerance.

[The5thElephant]

tyrion - You are absolutely right, but it isn't so simple as just stepping back and saying "Okay these ideas can work together let's all get along". True ID scientists (as in actual scientists who have done research in the field of biology yet agree with ID) agree that evolution is an existing phenomenon and is inescapable (most people who support ID online often don't even realize that "their" scientists are okay with evolution). Where they disagree is that this process was not partially influenced or directed to achieve such a high level of complexity.

There is actual basis for discussion and argument here, it is often missed though through ignorance of the actual topic being discussed from both sides.

[Octopus Rex]

I think it's important not to underestimate how far a deity will be outside of our comprehension.

For example: I asked a christian friend of mine to describe heaven. He said you can't it's just too good! It's unimaginable. I asked "surely you'd adjust to it and get complacent/bored like you get used to any comforts in real life". He responded "it's better than that, a person just can't understand it, it's not like anything you've ever experienced".

So my point is that evolution would be part of an intelligent design...it's that intelligent! Anything that we mortal humans can figure out by looking at and theorising would be child's play for a (the?) deity to create. If we can know it, then a higher being can certianly know it infinitely more so! The world could have been created with humans in mind, but much later when the world was ready for them (i.e. variety of life and temperate climate etc., use your imagination!)

Bear in mind that there may well be a limit to our intelligence or possible understanding even given all the facts. Human arrogance is a common misstep.

For the record.....I'm not a creationist or anything. I'm playing devil's advocate here. Not a fan of religion in any way at all and do not practice any form of worship etc. That does not mean I am not a very moral person though (but that's another debate)....

[The5thElephant]

Octopus - But the actual coherent ID argument against evolution is not that "ITS EVOLUTION OMG!" but rather that evolution is a phenomenon that could not have lead to the complex organisms we see today on its own. It actually has nothing to do with a designer or not. It has more to do with the argument over evolution's validity on the macro-scale.

Anyone who even does the slightest research can understand that evolution DOES happen on a small scale. That is inescapable. But ID people argue that either speciation does not occur on a large scale, OR that speciation does occur but it is governed and influenced by an intelligent designer.

For example one of the top ID scientists believes that evolution may have taken place all the way back from single cell organisms, but that the initial cell was created by an intelligent designer since he does not believe that the primordial soup of amino acids and goop could have turned into a cell or cell precursor.

[Octopus Rex]

For example one of the top ID scientists believes that evolution may have taken place all the way back from single cell organisms, but that the initial cell was created by an intelligent designer since he does not believe that the primordial soup of amino acids and goop could have turned into a cell or cell precursor.
That's exactly what I meant.

So my point is that evolution would be part of an intelligent design...it's that intelligent!

Overly-simplistic analogy to demonstrate the point: If I set up a huge line of dominoes and a knock the first one over then I can predict that the last one will also fall. A creator could set up a vastly more complicated one or could influence it along the way with a goal in mind. (But where do those dominoes and laws of physics come from?0

I was actually trying to back your point up and validate the views of ID scinetists, 5th, guess I failed huh?

Moving on. I think Organised Religion will slowly die out. It is doing so as we speak, although I cannot back this up with empirical evidence. France has made steps towards this in schools, though, for example.

I agree that spirituality and tribalism will not be lost. Though I think these will combine in the form of organised religion less & less often. Again, no hard facts, but I think easier access to information and knowledge of other faiths has changed things (compare this period to the dark ages). Personal beliefs will become more important; a lot of people tend to have their own variety of a certain type of religion already: eg "I agree with this and most other sutff, but not that...or that...and I still eat pork/non-halal (when I'm drunk)". That's okay, we're all human.

There are more and more sub churches forming (I've never heard of young earth creationists before) and this will continue and diversification will broaden until there's simply hundreds and hundreds of different faiths overlapping with none particularly dominant. These will not be hugely organised religions any longer and will not wield the power they once did (is that the real issue here 5thElephant?). No idea how long this might take.

This is what my intuition tells me, my Vibes as a Rastafarian friend taught me, something I always listen to.

Overall: I am not certain that there is no 'magic' in the world. There are things beyond our ken, so I'm not certain of very much, but I definitely don't believe in creator spirit. It's just too convenient.

[tyrion]

5th Elephant; Personally I prefer the idea that the fundamental rules have been written in such a way as to allow evolution to happen. Somehow the whole idea of some designer actively playing a role in the process just seems less...elegant, and whilst elegance cannot substitute for proof it would just seem to be the one glaring exception to the rule.

I'm not a creationist by any stretch but I do feel that were there some creating force then every other aspect of his creation has been made in such a manner that the whole system feeds into itself, flowing from one stage to the next. Somehow it just seems to follow that evolution should be somehow already THERE, written implicitly into way the world works. Not a coherent argument by any stretch, just a personal preference.

[The5thElephant]

I definitely don't believe in creator spirit. It's just too convenient.

I prefer to call it "too Human". The best argument against religion is psychology, not pure hard science. Humans need comfort and concepts that they can understand (but...but...something can't come from nothing!!!11oneone!), a creator fits both of these. Not the mention the fact that "creation" itself is an entirely human concept which does not actually exist in the universe (laws of thermodynamics anyone?). Even further, all personalities applied to this creator are so blatantly human its almost laughable.

Somehow it just seems to follow that evolution should be somehow already THERE, written implicitly into way the world works.

Evolution isn't a thing. It doesn't "exist" per se. Rather it is just our name for a series of events leading to change. In other words you could call EVERYTHING evolution. Nobody denies that things change, they just get very uncomfortable when you tell them that way back in the day they were monkeys so they want to deny THAT change and are just fine with all the rest. Not very logically coherent is it? So to make it sound better (and we are guilty of this on both sides) we have made evolution into this THING that either is there or isn't. Like some kind of bizarre driving force or energy.

My concept of a creator if such a thing exists cares no more for humans and or any kind of life than any other part of its creation. We are just matter and void and so is everything else. If the creator has the capability for such a thing as "caring" then it probably just thinks of us as a curious outcome to these laws that it created, the same way it would think of a black hole or galaxy.

A child rubs his hands on a cookie and then leaves it somewhere and billions of bacteria grow on it. He is just as much a creator. Those weird bacteria are all down there chanting though: "Oh great flagellum in the sky! We thank thee for thine divine creation of such bountiful cookieness!" But that kid is already pooping his diapers and crying for mommy back home.

[tyrion]

The part people are most uncomfortable with I feel is the thought that they are somehow debased or degraded by the association with what they percieve to be lesser animals. You make a good point wherein you say evolution simply means "change". People often don't see that evolution and natural selection are in fact two seperate concepts. Whereas evolution is a word that could equally be applied to geological processes natural selection is a well defined process that occurs to reproducing genetic data. By that argument natural selection could be described as a "thing" in that it exists as a clearly distinct process as opposed to simply reflecting the passage of time.

Species evolve and this was in fact accepted long prior to Darwin, in fact his own grandfather had been instrumental in arguing that evolution occurs, but setting that case in stone required a process, a means by which evolution occured. This is where Darwin's natural selection came in (and the picture was made clearer later when something of genetics became known). We knew things changed over time but natural selection showed us how such a thing could be possible. This is what i mean when I talk about evolution being "there". I mean that the very nature of our universe smoehow has the ground rules laid in such that that sometime, somewhere, the odds would play out in such a way that life would form simply because circumstances made it inevitable.

Note I'm not arguing that there is a God and nor am I arguing that this is what any such God would do, merely expressing a feeling that this framework is far more in fitting with our observations of the universe than is some rather clumsy intervention in prehistory, wherein a creator came along, threw together a few amino acids and said "oila! there is the beginning if life, it's up to you now!"

Off topic slightly but if we're honest no one really in this day and age could deny the truth of evolution on anything approaching logical grounds, a fact that has been borne out throughout this thread wherein clearly intelligent and well informed people have tried and frankly failed.
However people are still ultimately human and part of human nature is a sense of pride, a feeling that we are somehow "above" the rest of nature. It's remarkable how many religious traditions place us, if not as masters, at least as stewards of the rest of creation, something that I feel reflects something deep in the human psyche.

Showing that we aren't in some sense seperate from the rest of the world knocks away a comfortable safety blanket people have. It undermines some of the very things they take for granted about their own place in the world and makes them question these things in ways they are very reluctant to do. This is why people insist on debating the issue so forcefully. Not because they have just cause for doubt, but because by their very nature of their own weaknesses they feel insulted by it.

[The5thElephant]

I guess what I am trying to say beyond the whole "evolution is uncomfortable" thing is that from as objective a standpoint as possible the entire reason we are having this argument is that we apply this special value to life over any other thing which exists in the universe. Very few religious people complain about theories for how black holes come into existence because black holes do not pertain to our personal values and beliefs, yet those theories are based on the same science and logic and "natural selection" as evolution.

It just feels so blatantly obvious how human these problems with evolution are. If ID is supposed to be a logically coherent argument, then why don't they ever apply their logic against evolution to everything else it could be applied to?

[BigFish]

Not the mention the fact that "creation" itself is an entirely human concept which does not actually exist in the universe (laws of thermodynamics anyone?).
What about the big bang? One could take this as the firmist possible evidence that god exists. In the begining there was nothing, which, for no reason, exploded. Everything that followed could just be god seeing what happened.

[The5thElephant]

The big bang is not "creation" nor a "beginning". It is simply a point at which the universe was so hot and dense that we cannot look any further past it and our laws of physics do not apply any further. It does not mean that there was nothing before, or that nothing "exists" outside of the universe (for example the brane theory, or multi-dimensional theories in general).

In fact "big bang" is a misnomer. It should be called the Big Cool Down since it wasn't really an explosion, just a rapid expansion and drop in density and temperature. It is totally possible that the universe has always existed infinitely into the past and possibly into the future. The concept of something not having a beginning is uncomfortable to humans, but can you name a single thing in this universe that has begun? Everything is just change from one form of matter and energy into another, nothing is created.

[BigFish]

It does not mean that there was nothing before, or that nothing "exists" outside of the universe. And yet you are sure there is no such thing as a god?

Pretty shakey arguement I know but I'm trying to illustrate a point.

One could also argue that everything in this universe was created, with the laws of physics congealing out of the 'big cool down'. As you said, before that the universe was so hot and dense that reality melted and the previous physical laws broke down. The set of immutable laws and theorys we have now may be completely different from what came before whatever caused the 'big cool down' and unique...

but we will probobly never know, lol.

[The5thElephant]

Well that's exactly it. We cannot know. So why postulate these blatantly human creations and pose them as true?

It is possible that god exists, but (to bring up this old thing) it is also possible that invisible pink unicorns exist, we just cant prove it.

I am taking that even further by saying the entire idea of "creation" is human, thus I dismiss the idea of a creator.

Don't give me the response that the entirety of science is human and thus just as dismissable since science is a concept that has arisen from as objective as possible observations of the universe around us and has nothing to do with what we feel is right or what makes us comfortable. Clearly this method is somewhat successful since our entire civilization is based upon the technology we have created from this science, and this science is true no matter where we go which cannot be said of human concepts of god, spirituality and creation.

[BigFish]

Well that's exactly it. We cannot know. So why postulate these blatantly human creations and pose them as true?Why dismiss them as untrue? Infact, since we cant know, why are we arguing? lol

[The5thElephant]

Because those who do postulate them as true then go on to say that science is not true and is an equivalent theory which should be taught to our children, which undermines the validity of science as a whole.

[Moe]

Because as Jeremiah has demonstrated, ID is based on a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with science. Data is misinterpreted, and people make it seem like there's actual scientific evidence for ID and against evolution, which there isn't.

You can't really disprove creationism. If you accept the bible as absolute truth, and god as an omnipotent being, then you can debunk any scientific explanation by saying "god makes you think that". The same of course holds true if you replace "god" with "dancing pink unicorn" or "flying spaghetti monster".

ID, on the other hand, calls itself a science. As such, it can be disproved by using the scientific method. The fact that the supporters of ID make claims that are simply wrong (see the earth's magnetic field thing for example) in order to convince people is a strong indication in itself that this theory is absolute scientific nonsense.

[tyrion]

Why dismiss them as untrue? Infact, since we cant know, why are we arguing? lol

Besause of my little friend I mentioned earlier, Ocham's Razor. Unless there's a good (ie empirical) reason to include a concept within a theoretical framework you leave it out. That way you aren't just making up random things because you want them to be there.

Arguably the same assertion could be made about my otherwise subjective argument that God is unlikely to have intervened in the evolutionary process because where there is no need to complicate an hypothesis, good science dictates you don't.

[Bnonn]

Don't give me the response that the entirety of science is human and thus just as dismissable since science is a concept that has arisen from as objective as possible observations of the universe around us and has nothing to do with what we feel is right or what makes us comfortable. Clearly this method is somewhat successful since our entire civilization is based upon the technology we have created from this science, and this science is true no matter where we go which cannot be said of human concepts of god, spirituality and creation.
I'm curious, Heff: if I asked you to justify the emphasized statements in the quote above, how would you go about doing so? To make my question clearer, let me elaborate:

Firstly, regarding your assertion that, "science is a concept that has arisen from as objective as possible observations of the universe [...] and has nothing to do with what we feel is right"--- Since you cannot use empiricism to verify your belief that a physical world outside your mind even exists (since this would be to beg the question), how can you justify your statement that science is in any way objective? What I mean is, how can you know (knowledge being justified, true belief) that the universe exists in any objective sense at all, rather than merely as your own subjective experience? And, if you cannot know this, then how can you claim that objective observation is possible at all, and that science is based on it? I'm also interested in what you believe the term "objective as possible" means. Either something is objective, or it is subjective. This is a binary relationship, so I'm curious about how you see matters of degree being involved.

Secondly, regarding your belief that "science is true no matter where we go": how do you know this? Have you been everywhere, and verified the accuracy of your statement? I would like to know how you know that the future will be like the past, how you know that an experiment will yield the same result when conducted at different locations, how you know that one event can cause another event, rather than merely being correlated with it, and (coming full circle) how you know that this correlation is invariable. Remember that knowledge (ie, knowing) entails justification, and not merely true belief. You may believe these things, and they may be true; but I am interested not in what you merely believe, but in what you claim to know.

I am interested, obviously, because you (and others) are making all sorts of claims to knowledge, based on scientific inquiry. You claim to disbelieve the Bible because of scientific evidence proving that it is not inerrant; and since proof entails knowledge, it is only fair that I ask you to explain your claim to it. The scientific method itself is based on empiricism and inductive reasoning, neither of which are able to provide justification for beliefs resulting from them without a metaphysic and epistemology to work from. But you yourself claimed earlier in this thread that Athexx's selection of Christian metaphysics and epistemology invalidates his approach as being scientific, stating that by definition "science is only science when it has that one claim that you mentioned the naturalist has [such as, what we observe with our senses to be an accurate depiction of what happened in the physical reality around us]. Otherwise the scientific method has been broken, and any and all conclusions thereafter are not scientific or more valid because of it."

Since, as I have shown, the naturalist's assumptions are self-refuting without a sound epistemology and metaphysic upon which to base them, are you then saying that science, by definition, cannot produce knowledge? If this is so, then Athexx's approach to empirical investigation is clearly superior to yours.

In other words, you claim that science's strength is its lack of philosophical presuppositions. But since philosophical presuppositions are prerequisites to knowledge, this cannot be the case. Further, if we look more closely we will find that science does indeed hold certain presuppositions, and we will also discover that they are demonstrably false and non-rational. We can perhaps do that later.

Given what I've said so far, how would you respond to my request that you justify your claims to knowledge? Ie, how would you refute the argument I have given that believing anything on the basis of scientific inquiry is irrational?

Regards,
Bnonn

[Starfisher]

What I mean is, how can you know (knowledge being justified, true belief) that the universe exists in any objective sense at all, rather than merely as your own subjective experience?In the spirit of discussion, how do Christians? How do you justify your belief in the Bible without appealing to the Bible itself? Also, why is it that only people who are generally opposed to you in these debates get nicknames? Athexx gets no such vaguely condescending honor? ;P

Existance exists, since taking the opposite position is self-refuting. I exist, because my mind is here (pick your test). I perceive existance or a subset of it, because if I did not perceive existance I would not be perceiving anything, which is again, clearly false - even if I am a brain in a vat or a solipsist, I am perceiving something. Therefore, I am perceiving some subset of existance - some subset of the universe.

Where you draw the lines on that subset are going to be somewhat arbitrary, since you can make various arguments of equal validity to put those lines in one place or another. But you cannot deny that I, right now, am perceiving existance in some form or another. Empiricism is the next step, allowing us to reach best-possible explanations for what we perceive within that existance.

And when you look at the world empirically, a literal reading of the bible becomes impossible to take seriously.

[Bnonn]

How do you justify your belief in the Bible without appealing to the Bible itself?
The proposition "the Bible is the word of God" is the first principle of the Christian worldview. The Bible itself is self-affirming and internally consistent, and is thereby self-justifying. Since it affirms a valid metaphysic, upon which a sound epistemology can be built, my claims to knowledge are entirely justified.

But you cannot deny that I, right now, am perceiving existance in some form or another.
Actually, I can. If I adopt your empirical worldview, then the only thing I can know is that I exist, and that I perceive a universe which includes you. I cannot know what you are, or that you are perceiving existence in any form (let alone the same form that I perceive); and I equally cannot know that I am communicating with you.

[Trinity]

I am not convinced the bible is internally consitent; even if it were, should that surprise anyone after the millenia of trimming and pruning to make it so?

[Starfisher]

The proposition "the Bible is the word of God" is the first principle of the Christian worldview.How do you justify a random book being the word of god?

Actually, I can. If I adopt your empirical worldview, then the only thing I can know is that I exist, and that I perceive a universe which includes you. I cannot know what you are, or that you are perceiving existence in any form (let alone the same form that I perceive); and I equally cannot know that I am communicating with you.I hadn't gotten to empiricism yet. You are still in the middle of my pre-empiricism foundation - whether or not my experiences are valid ways of reaching truth or not, it is impossible to refute that I am experiencing something. If I am experiencing something I am therefore experiencing some subset of the universe. I can then apply empiricism to that subset of the universe in order to generate explanations of what I experience based on making as few assumptions as possible.

[Bnonn]

Trinity, I submit that an internal critique of the Bible may be beyond the scope of this topic, but I would still be happy to examine one or two examples of supposed inconsistencies. Allegations of trimming and pruning, however, will require evidence. In every instance I have seen of this claim being made, it has never, ever been substantiated, because all the textual evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion. This simply confirms the biblical teaching that unbelievers are irrational: after all, it is hardly rational to believe that the Bible has been modified many times when all the evidence points to the contrary. Most people seem to believe this fantasy purely on the basis of the fact that they have assumed its truth initially, and continued to assume it for so long that they have forgotten that they never had any reason other than prejudice to believe it in the first place.

Starfisher, since the proposition "the Bible is the word of God" is taken as axiomatic in the Christian worldview, it not only does not need to be justified, but it in fact cannot be justified. If there were some way to judge this statement, it would not be the first principle; some other principle would be being assumed prior to it, so as to evaluate it.

it is impossible to refute that I am experiencing something.
It is impossible for you to refute this. However, it is also impossible for you to know that anyone else experiences anything at all, including me; and so, similarly, if I adopt your worldview, it is impossible for me to know that you are experiencing something. This makes communication impossible, among other things.

If I am experiencing something I am therefore experiencing some subset of the universe.
You have slipped the universe in there very subtly; so subtly that perhaps you have not even realized the obvious: you're assuming its existence without justification. All you can know is that if you are experiencing something, you are therefore experiencing something. You cannot know that your experience is a subset of anything, since your experience is the only thing you can know exists. Anything further is speculation.

[Starfisher]

So your first principle pre-supposes a God and affirms, based on no logical reasoning, or really, any reasoning whatsoever, that the Bible is his inerrant word. Your first principle has two unjustifed metaphysical assumptions.

My first principle affirms that existance exists. No assumptions. Completely justified.

You have slipped the universe in there very subtly, but you are still assuming its existence without justification. All you can know is that if you are experiencing something, you are therefore experiencing something. You cannot know that your experience is a subset of anything, since your experience is the only thing you can know exists. Anything further is speculation.My apologies. I thought it was evident that "existance" and "universe" were synonomous - and they are. Existance ecnompasses all that exists, which is typically what universe is taken to mean.

I know my experiences are a subset of existance, because a subset can be anything up to and including the full set - no, I don't know if I'm experiencing a fraction or the whole, but that is irrelevant. A subset is enough, and covers the possibility that I am experiencing all there is to experience.

I don't know what this communication point is all about - communication is not impossible given this worldview. Not knowing how or if other people exist or are experiencing is irrelevant - I have shown that I am experiencing a subset of existance, and one of those experiences is talking to other people. How is that not communicating?

[Bnonn]

Starfisher, a first principle does not presuppose anything; if it did, it would not be first. The existence of God is entailed as a necessary condition of the Christian first principle, since it is included within that principle; but this is not the same as starting with a belief in God, and then assuming that the Bible is his word.

I know my experiences are a subset of existance, because a subset can be anything up to and including the full set - no, I don't know if I'm experiencing a fraction or the whole, but that is irrelevant. A subset is enough, and covers the possibility that I am experiencing all there is to experience.
Using the term "subset" is misleading, however, because it implies a superset of greater magnitude. Since all you are able to know is that you exist and perceive existence, you have no justification for thinking that such a superset exists. Which simply demonstrates the hopelessness of your position: with the first principle you have chosen, you are unable to even know whether or not other things exist externally to yourself. A first principle, to be useful, must contain enough self-justifying information to formulate a working metaphysic and epistemology. Your first principle contains the information "I exist and perceive" and nothing more. It is therefore useless.

As regards communication: since communication entails an exchange of information between yourself and someone else, and since you have no way of knowing that other people even exist, nor that they can perceive you, understand your attempts to communicate, process them, or attempt reciprocal communication themselves, communication is not only impossible given your first principle, but is in fact a meaningless concept.

[Starfisher]

Starfisher, a first principle does not presuppose anything; if it did, it would not be first.Indeed. Then why is it that your first principle is clearly assuming God to exist, which to everyone else looks a whole lot like a pre-supposition? And what's this about self-justifying first principles? The Christian God is not self-justifying as a concept. You claim that internal consistency is enough to be self-justifying - if I were to write an alternative to the Bible that was perfeclty self-consistent, it would be self-justifying and interchangeable with the Bible in your first principle. Clearly your first principle is not a valid first principle, because it contains implicit assumptions.

Using the term "subset" is misleading, however, because it implies a superset of greater magnitude. No, it's perfectly accurate. I cannot be held to your strange notions of set theory - if I define a set U to be all existance, and I say that I perceive a subset of U, I am saying that I perceive some amount of U up to and including all of it. I'm not assuming any super-set of U, I'm simply saying that I do not know how much of the set I am perceiving - I just know that I am perceiving some amount of it.

My first principle is not useless. It creates a valid basis for which to conduct my empirical endeavors - I exist and I perceive existance, so therefore I can build catalouges of experiences to identify patterns in that existance that have predictive power.

I have to admit I laughed at your communication statement. It doesn't matter if I know they exist or not - that's irrelevant to their actual existance, and irrelevant to their ability to communicate. Why does me knowing if they exist or are simply simulacra created by my mind matter in the least?

[Bonnet]

Bnonn, you are arguing a self defeating argument. For the Christian god to exist you are presuming there is some sort of existence, which you are arguing that fisher can not assume.

[Bnonn]

Starfisher, my first principle doesn't assume that God exists; it includes within itself the proposition that God exists. Every single proposition within the Bible, including the propositions that God exists, and that the Bible is his word, are necessarily entailed within the Christian first principle. Ie, every single one of these propositions is axiomatic within the Christian worldview.

if I define a set U to be all existance, and I say that I perceive a subset of U, I am saying that I perceive some amount of U up to and including all of it.
The only knowledge of existence available to you in the first place is your perception. So, while you may suppose that U entails more than your perception, you have no justification for doing so. The idea that existence may encompass more than your perception is pure speculation. Just so we're clear.

I exist and I perceive existance, so therefore I can build catalouges of experiences to identify patterns in that existance that have predictive power.
No you cannot. Again, you are ignoring justification. You have knowledge of your experiences, and you may identify patterns in what you have already perceived, but they have no predictive power because prediction presupposes uniformity. You may believe that the future will always resemble the past, and that actions cause reactions, but you do not know this without a great deal more information than your first principle is able to provide. Therefore, while you may assume that the patterns you have recognized give you the ability to predict events within your perception, you have no actual justification for thinking this. Therefore, any claim of knowledge based on these unjustified assumptions is false and irrational.

Similarly with communication. Since, by definition, communication entails an exchange between parties, and since you have no justification for even believing in the existence of parties not yourself, communication within your worldview is an irrational concept. I am not saying that it doesn't seem rational; I am focusing purely on justification. And, with the first principle "I exist and perceive", you cannot justify even the basic idea of communication.

Bonnet, I am not saying that Fisher cannot assume that there is existence. I have already affirmed that it is valid to claim justified true belief about the fact of existence. Fisher's problem is in justifying his beliefs about the extent and nature of that existence. The Christian does not have such a problem, since the Bible contains the propositions required to validate the idea of existence, and describe its extent and nature.

[Starfisher]

Heh, I apologize for how long it's taken for this answer, and I have to go to sleep after this post is done, so we'll have to adjourn till tomorrow. Suffice it to say that I remembered my Hume, and kicked myself for diving into another one of these debates.

Axiomatic. You are aware that axioms are nothing more than assumptions, and so you are aware that you are assuming the entire Bible plus Christian God to be true. You must therefore be able to understand my amusement when I'm told that an implicit assumption of uniformity is the downfall of my system of knowledge, while your assumption of God plus a book are fine and dandy.

It's funny and sad that it comes to this. I always assumed that you had some other reason for turning Christian, some train of thought or justification that I could at least attempt an intellectual understanding of. But now I realize that no, I cannot. You are not making an argument that is any more justified than any other set of assumptions, and you either cannot or have chosen not to articulate how you came to these beliefs, so I can't even make the attempt. The stuff you're putting out at the end of the tunnel just doesn't add up.

If you want to explain how you managed to accept all your axioms, I'd be interested in hearing it. But, as I should have realized before I started, it's impossible to go anywhere by arguing about them after the fact.

Good night.

edit: Oh, as a point of interest, I'm wondering why you're making such a big deal about the assumption of uniformity. You are just as incapable of making a valid, justified prediction as I am, because God could change the rules at any time he desires. You admitted as much in a previous evolution thread, but the upshot is that the system I created and the system you are defending are equivalent in their ability to predict the future - both rely on cataloging past experience to generate patterns to use for prediction, and both cannot say with 100% certainty how the 101st trial will turn out regardless of the perfect accuracy in predictiong the first 100.

Just so we're clear ;)

[Bonnet]

Bnonn:
Your first statement relies on the proposition that god exists, as you freely admit. So the language of logic if we define:
A: God exists.
B: The bible is the work of god.
Then (A http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/matimp.gif B ) http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/therefor.gif (~Ahttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/syncon.gif~B )

So if you can not justify the existence of god you can not justify your own system of beliefs.

[BigFish]

The Bible itself is self-affirming and internally consistent, and is thereby self-justifying.Erm... Where did Cain and Able's wives come from? In my version of the Bible it kinda glosses over that part. Prove to me the Bible is correct.

Allegations of trimming and pruning, however, will require evidence. In every instance I have seen of this claim being made, it has never, ever been substantiated, because all the textual evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion.How come there are so many different interpretations of the Bible? Surley they cant all be 100% right? Aside from that, we have different branches of Christianity (Catholosism, Protistantism, Mormonism, Quaker, Puritan, the list goes on), and different religions based of some of the same texts (Judaism includes the old testament, Jesus is mentioned in the Kohran (sp?)), are they also correct even though worship based on different versions of the same story?

The assumption of Mary to heaven has only been part of the Catholic faith for 80odd years, before that it was Catholic doctrine that she just died.

There are about 20 testaments of apostles and other figures from the time of Christ, including the recently discovered testament of Judas. Only 4-5 are part of the Bible. Who decided they were to be part of the holy texts? And why were the others not included?

Can you prove to me that the Bible has not been altered in the last 6-7000 years?

[tyrion]

Bnonn, you state that the only evidence available is one's perception, which is true, but I'm unsure as to where you expect that line of argument to lead. The very same logic is at the basis of the scientific technique to be sure, "cognito ergo sum" yet all that leads onto is the now oft repeated (within this thread) observation that science cannot extend beyond it's own realm, thta of the observable and measurable. Thus science and religion must by necessity act as two seperate arenas of thought.

You then go on to argue that observable patterns cannot lead to knowledge. This is true only in a purely theoretical sense, argued from a position of isolation from reality. Science has given us many wonders, one of which you are using this very moment to read my post. The ability to create new technology relies on the practical validity of observed patterns and processes. You will no doubt counter that just because the pattern has worked a million times it does not follow that it will continue to work. This is true but already accepted in the scientific technique in that no hypothesis is ever proven true other than the null.

Science does not assume, it postulates. It then goes on to critically question the propositions put forward on the basis of empirical evidence, ie evidence stemming from the best use of our perceptual abilities.

We are imperfect beings operating within a narrow portion of reality, but this is the best tool we have in any search for truth. If we discard that we are left with nothing, including the ability to have this very conversation, drive to work, see at night with light bulbs......

As for questioning the validity of information exchange, ok, it follows from there that the bible (as a form of communication between parties) is as suspect as any other.

Again, we can only work from what we observe to be true. Failing that there really is no way forward at all, and replacing the (possibly invalid) evidence afforded by empiricism and discussion with unvalidated beliefs allows for everyone to define reality as they see fit.

[Tiresias]

I thought the whole point of faith was that it didn't require, or indeed work without epistemological evidence? What good is a leap of faith if one knows one will not fall, and how then is faith at all consequential?

[tyrion]

I assume tiresias that your post was aimed at me, I might be mistaken on that score so apologies if that is the case. I do not question the validity of faith per se, merely argue that faith is not a substitute for empiricism. Where the validity of such is questioned, which it appears that Bnonn is doing, then I point out that the two are both valid in different arenas for different purposes.

Faith serves as a guide for behaviour and offers explanations for things outside of science's playing field, such as the existence of God. Science is part of the search for truth within the bounds of the universe we inhabit, which seems (to the best of our ability to ascertain) to follow a well defined set of laws. Within that universe it would be most foolish to question the validity of observation in favour of unsubstantiated belief. There is implicit acknowledgement in all of the above that faith becomes valid where science is not, however I disagree with him as to precisely where that line lies.

Faith cannot be used as an alternative to science where it comes to defining the reality we inhabit. This is not to say that it has no value, merely that as a tool science has proven itself to be far more efficacious. Admittedly I MIGHT just somehow be imagining everything and everyone other than myself, but the best evidence i have available suggests I live in a world which can be mapped and defined by human ingenuity. Therefore the onus of proof lies on Bnonn to convince otherwise.... arguing there is some room for doubt does not lead onto a valid dispute of the use of empiricism.

[Tiresias]

no it wasn't aimed at you and I agree with you that faith cannot replace empiricism, I'm not a christian myself. It was aimed at Bnonn who seems to think that he knows for sure God exists, and I'm not sure that's faith at all.

[Trinity]

Throwing aside the fact Bnonn does not hold himself to the same level of justification as everyone else... if he holds "justified true belief" to be foundational to his argument why does he not offer a counter to the Gettier problems? If he can't counter them he would be no more epistemically justified than the heathens.

The simple truth of the matter is if Bnonn cannot justify his first priciple he fails. His only offer to this is that he is not required to justify his first principle. Seems rather self-serving.

[Bnonn]

Erm... Where did Cain and Able's wives come from? In my version of the Bible it kinda glosses over that part. Prove to me the Bible is correct.

Big Fish, because something is not mentioned explicitly in the Bible does not mean the Bible fails to be internally consistent. This tired argument is no more 'proof' of inconsistency than one which says 'My version of the Bible glosses over what happened in most of Jesus' childhood, so it's inconsistent'. (And yet sadly, I've actually had someone postulate that as a serious argument). Cain and Abel would have married their sisters--it is recorded that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters, but the latter were not mentioned by name in accordance with Hebraic patrilinear thought. As incest was not forbidden until the time of Moses, this was not against God's law; and as Adam and Eve were created 'very good', Christian scientists assume that the DNA of their children was unflawed enough to allow for sibling marriage without creating problems for the next generation. By Moses' time, it is postulated that inbreeding problems were beginning to occur, hence the restriction; but we don't really know why it was ultimately outlawed.




How come there are so many different interpretations of the Bible? Surley they cant all be 100% right? Aside from that, we have different branches of Christianity (Catholosism, Protistantism, Mormonism, Quaker, Puritan, the list goes on), and different religions based of some of the same texts (Judaism includes the old testament, Jesus is mentioned in the Kohran (sp?)), are they also correct even though worship based on different versions of the same story?

You seem to be assuming that the Bible is incorrect simply because there are different interpretations of it. This is slightly staggering. As an ex-English and film major, I can't remember a single text we studied (book or film) which was not host to several, usually competing, interpretations. Shakespeare's 'The Taming of the Shrew' alone has 400-odd years of theory under its belt, and you'd probably be surprised at all the different theories surrounding it and what it's supposed to mean. Does this mean that the actual work is inconsistent or somehow flawed? No; it means it is complex and subtle. We only studied 'good' texts at Uni for precisely that reason; 'See Spot Run' probably wouldn't have many interpretations, but then, it isn't as rewarding or brilliant a text as, say, the theory-laden 'Grapes of Wrath'. Rather than invalidating a text, competing theories point to its complexity and importance.

Of course, not all interpretations of the Bible (or any other text) are created equal. The queer reading of 'The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde', for example, is based on an almost goofily deliberate misreading of some very slight textual data, in order to support a political agenda. Conforming to neither hermeneutics nor respectable textual analysis, it is a bad interpretation. Likewise, the Catholic doctrine of the assumption of Mary (which, as you noticed, is a recent one) is based not on Biblical evidence--in fact, it is directly contradicted by Biblical teachings on sin, death and mortality--but on a political agenda to increase Mary's importance in the Catholic faith.

Any Biblical interpretation must be judged in a scholarly fashion, not unlike any other interpretation. Unfortunately today's intellectual climate is one in which absolute truth is passe, and 'finding a voice' is key; hence, bizarre and unlikely interpretations are as 'valid' as conventional ones, and more likely to be greeted with success in the field. This is a large part of my disillusionment with university, incidentally; being taught that how you interpret something doesn't matter, even if it goes against authorial intent and the text itself, as long as the point is made clearly, boldly and with a 'voice'. /rant

The formation of the canon is more in Bnonn's line of expertise than mine, so I'll leave that to him. But yes; it can easily be proven that the Bible has not been altered since its writing. No other text has been so carefully and meticulously preserved throughout the generations. We have documents ranging from the ancient to the medieval to the invention of the printing press and beyond, and the rate of accuracy compared, say, with Homer's 'Iliad' or any other ancient text, is stunning. Both Jewish scribes and medieval monks, entrusted with reproducing and preserving the Word, had a very profound reverence for the texts they transcribed. Some would wash themselves ritually before writing the word 'Lord'; some would count the letters of a book and make sure the middle letter was the same in all copies; some were only allowed to write a single letter before checking back to the original document; some would destroy a whole page if they made a signle mistake, rather than just crossing it out. In short, the Bible was preserved by professional, fanatical geeks. Where differences occur between manuscript to manuscript (and there are heaps of manuscripts, especially since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which further confirmed the authenticity of the reproduced manuscripts), they are minute; a misplaced comma, a misspelled word, occasionally a line written twice by accident.

Frankly, the accuracy of the transmitted Bible is a settled issue, except by those conspiracy-theorists who insist on the possibility of error just to be obnoxious, without any textual or archaeological evidence. Would these people be so mistrustful of Homer's Iliad? Or would they happily use the text we have today, confident that it's what was originally written and has not been tampered with for political reasons--despite having far, far less textual evidence than the Bible? If you're going to go all devastatingly skeptic, please be consistent. That's all.

Trinity, Bnonn's point was that a first principle by definition cannot be justified; not just his, but anybody's. What a first principle does have to do is provide a valid epistemological and metaphysical framework. Bnonn's can; none of the others mentioned in this thread have demonstrated this thus far.

Um. Also, this was written by Smokering who forgot to log out and log in again, not by Bnonn. :p

[Mac_Bug]

Just how do you determine something to be self justified and internally consistent before you found something that is self jutsifed and internally consistent to base this judgement upon?

[tyrion]

Any Biblical interpretation must be judged in a scholarly fashion, not unlike any other interpretation. Unfortunately today's intellectual climate is one in which absolute truth is passe, and 'finding a voice' is key; hence, bizarre and unlikely interpretations are as 'valid' as conventional ones, and more likely to be greeted with success in the field. This is a large part of my disillusionment with university, incidentally; being taught that how you interpret something doesn't matter, even if it goes against authorial intent and the text itself, as long as the point is made clearly, boldly and with a 'voice'. /rant



"Absolute truth" defined as? Surely you are merely taking your own preconception of your truth and then complaining that people disagree? How is your version of absolute truth valid based as it is on a religious text rather than any form of evidence?

Absolute truth is what science is there to find, religion is a system of faith. As such it can only be taken as a first principle in any argument if all parties already agree on it's truth. Why should your reading be labelled "absolute" whereas others are foolish? More to the point why should anyone who lacks your own personla faith take the bible as even potentially being a source of truth. Frankly that is bordering on offensiveness it is that ignorant. Time has been given on this thread from the very beginning to people with many views, all of whom have tried to do so respectfully. You however have simply decided what is true and seem angry that others choose not to fall into line.

The point here is simple. Faith does not require evidence, but in the face of such it should always give way. Faith is personal, not a given piece of absolute truth.

Incidentally, I may be missing the point somewhat here, but you appear to be referring to yourself in the third person throughout your post. Do you perhaps have another username you use?

[Smokering]

No, I'm Smokering, Bnonn's wife; I forgot to log out as his name and log back in as mine, that's all. I did point it out in an edit of my post, but probably after you started replying. Sorry about that.

I can't really answer your objections until you clarify what you mean by faith. I suspect we define it very differently.

I take 'absolute truth' to mean 'laws stemming from the nature of God, such as the laws of logic and morality, which are consequently eternal and immutable'. Something like that, I've never formulated it before and reserve my rights to backtrack. :) So yes, my conception of absolute truth does stem from religion. I would be curious to know how anyone else defines it; claiming not to believe in absolute truth in any form is self-refuting, as that very statement presupposes logic, which is by definition absolute.

Your statement 'Absolute truth is what science is there to find' has left me going 'Huh?'. Please elaborate? Are you stating that absolute truth exists, but can only be sought by scientific (ie. empirical, dealing with matter) means, not by religious (philosophical, dealing with metaphysics) means? If so, do you consider absolute truth to be some kind of theory about matter? I'm really not sure what you mean, so clarification would be helpful; thank you.

[tyrion]

Hello Smokering. I define faith loosely as being a belief in some system or truth that cannot be proven. Fairly closely to how any major dictionary would in fact. Not therefore a basis for "absolute truth" which can be used as a given in any logical discussion.

Valid for religious and personal reasons, by all means, but not a given which can be stated as being beyond dispute when in discussion with those who do not share your faith, or have their own. Any religious text, be it the bible, the koran etc, serves as a cultural phenomena, each as valid as the next from an outside perspective.

Insofar as this thread refers to human origins, not universal ones my argument is that the scope of any investigation simply does not stretch far enough into prehistory to make such a proposition relevant. Faith is not particularly germaine to any argument relating to the validity of evolution because a scientific framework can only be disputed by a coherent empirical critiscism. Faith cannot be used to dispute an objectively described process, no more than science could be used to investigate the existence of God. If humans evolved and how they did so are questions for objective analysis of the available evidence, not ones that can be merely dismissed from a religious perspective.

As for my "dismissal" of logic, I feel that my own posts are distinctly logical in tone. Certainly I see nothing logical about assuming some form of morality as being a basic truth written into the universe. Rather I apply (as I keep repeating throughout this thread) that very basic axiom of logic, Ocham's Razor, wherein anything for which there is no direct evidence should be removed from a theory, because otherwise we are simply making things up.

Nonetheless I would also point out that even logic must play second fiddle to empirical evidence where such is available. Many have made logical arguments based in incomplete data which have been taken as given. Flat Earth theorists still cling to some to this day. Logic is only helpful where arguments given are based on complete and correct assumptions. In your case the "absolute truth" of the bible is very far from satisfying these criteria.

[Smokering]

Okay. Thanks for defining.

The use of the term 'faith' to refer to an unprovable belief (implicitly opposed to reason) is not a Biblical one, but came into use culturally through Kierkegaard's writings on Abraham, in which he first postulated the idea of a 'leap of faith' based on no rational evidence. The term faith, used in the Biblical sense, does not mean this at all; it rather refers to an absolute belief or trust based on rational evidence. This sense is still occasionally used today, ie. 'I have faith the operation will be a complete success', meaning 'I believe based on the medical evidence and likelihood that the operation will be a complete success'. The other meaning has dominated culture for a while now, so it's not surprising that you use it; but when the word appears in a Biblical context, it is important to realise that the meaning is not how today's dictionaries would define it (any more than the Biblical word translated 'love' means what 'love' means in a modern context).

It is not true that 'a scientific framework can only be disputed by a coherent empirical critiscism'. The framework itself can be questioned on epistemological grounds. How do you know that the framework itself provides you with knowledge? Unless you have a metaphysic and epistemology to justify this belief, then it is nothing but faith by your definition--a belief in a system that cannot be proven.

Also, perhaps I have not been following who said what in this thread carefully enough, but what exactly is your position on logic? Do you consider logical laws to be absolute?

[tyrion]

If science does not provide us with knowledge, how is it that the discovery of electricity (and it's subsequent investigation) have led to your being able to use the device through which your a communicating with me? Your argument boils down to "you never know, it may all be an illusion", in which case you are making use of that illusion every time you turn on a lightbulb. And there is a very valid logical train of thought which justifies that stance.

It is true that we might simply be fooling ourselves, that in fact mabe there is just me in the universe and I simply imagine everyone and everything else. But every single thing I see or feel suggests otherwise and that is all any of us can go on. To dismiss that requires that something else be put forward in it's place, otherwise all any of us can do is make the best of what we have. That is what science is at core, people saying "ok, this is what I percieve so let's work out from there as carefully as possible trying not to make stuff up as we go". There is always the possibility that we are wrong, but the same could always be applied to anything with which you replace it.

Until you can show me more than baseline doubt (which by definition applies to anything) that science is valid in practise then I'm afraid to say that it can only be taken as the best method we have of establishing the truth. I see no good reason to dismiss it simply on the basis of what amounts to a personal preference. This is not faith, merely recourse to the best evidence available, that of observably verifiable outcomes.

Thank you for clearing up how you define faith, but bear in mind the biblical version of faith you use is somewhat different to that in common (and bluntly semantically correct) usage. Thus the majority of people on this forum are likely to have interpreted your post in much the same way I did, causing confusion.

[Smokering]

Your post begs the question. So what if I'm 'making use of' an illusion when I turn on a lightbulb? It's still an illusion. Everything single thing you see or feel might also be an illusion, so the fact that it 'suggests' otherwise means absolutely nothing. Your position is one of despair: 'We have no idea about anything, but in order to avoid confronting that fact, we will catalogue and systemise our illusions'. This is the 'best method we have of establishing the truth'? You have yet to establish the 'we'! You have no logical grounds for believing anyone else actually exists, including scientists! This isn't a 'personal preference'; this is a matter of logic. Science without a foundational epistemology is not 'the best method we have; is is no method at all. You're not seeming to grasp this. Your answer boils down to 'Well hey, it works'--which you cannot logically prove to be true. In fact, the logical response to foundationless empiricism is suicide or insanity; if you really believe that everything may be an illusion, you should be pretty darn upset about it!

The Christian, on the other hand, is able to make use of science logically, because his epistemology and metaphysic provide a framework in which matter exists, order and logic exist, God causes all things originally and continually, and thus (because of the logic and order inherent in God's nature) the future can reasonably be assumed to be like the past. So in fact, Christians have a reason to believe that the computer is not an illusion. You don't, by your own admission.

Also, just to be a picky English student, your definition of faith is no more 'semantically correct' than mine. I know confusion is inevitable, and that most people will not be aware of the differences between Biblical and colloquial terms; unfortunately, 'faith' is the word the Bible uses, so I can't very well substitute it with anything else. I can't think of another word that describes the Biblical meaning of the word, anyway. It's pesky, but the best I can do is point out the different meanings as they occur. Unless everyone on the boards wants to study the Biblical lexicon, that's the way it has to be; but I'll try to be more careful in future.

[Bnonn]

Starfisher, I am not assuming the entire Bible plus the Christian God. Assuming the entire Bible is to assume the Christian God. The Bible is the word of God. You may be amused at using this as a first principle, and you may still feel as if your first principle is perfectly adequate, but as I have shown, it is not. Using biblical metaphysics as a basis for an epistemology, the Christian is able to justify what he knows to be true: that is, he is able to come to knowledge. You don't even have a metaphysic which can be deduced from your first principle, let alone an epistemology, and since both of these are prerequisites to knowing anything, you cannot even enter the intellectual ring. In other words, since I can justify my claims to knowledge through faith (faith being justified true belief in God (http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2006/12/on-logic-mind-of-christ.html)), but you cannot justify your claims to knowledge through science, I am in an infinitely superior epistemic position. It would be utterly irrational for me to accept your unjustified beliefs over my justified ones.

But you seem to have failed to grasp the importance of knowledge, as opposed to belief. Allow me to point out that it is actually irrational for you to believe almost everything that you do believe. Whether you feel that the Bible is a sensible first principle; whether you "get" why I would believe it; whether you think your own system of belief is better---this is irrelevant to the problem that you face. And there is no possible way for me to convince you of the truth of Scripture anyway, because this is revealed through the Holy Spirit, which you have not received, and thus you do not and cannot discern spiritual truths (1 Cor 2:10-16). The fact that you presuppose the falsehood of this fact from the get-go doesn't actually make it false; on the contrary, it ironically proves its truth.

Regarding the uniformity of nature and the usefulness of induction, allow me to quote myself rather than re-typing something I have already covered comprehensively enough elsewhere: (http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2006/12/on-science-part-4-science-and.html)

But the Christian is not inconsistent in using induction or empiricism. Unlike the secular scientist, the Christian is completely justified in believing that the future will be like the past; that one event which scientists call "cause" and another event which they call "effect" will always be correlated (though we know better than to think that they are truly causal); that these events occur in a physical universe which actually exists; and that we are able to come to knowledge of this physical universe. This is because the Christian view of science is founded in biblical metaphysics, which affirm all these things.
Feel free to refer to the link above for a more complete explication.

Your first statement relies on the proposition that god exists, as you freely admit.
No, my first statement includes the proposition that God exists. "The Bible is the word of God" is self-affirming, in that it includes within itself all the propositions of the Bible, including the proposition "the Bible is the word of God" (see 2 Tim 3:16; if it didn't it would not be self-affirming, and then your objection would be valid).

tyrion, I have already answered you in answering Starfisher. Empiricism is a great deal more impotent than you realize. It is not valid for any of the things you're using it for. It cannot justify any useful knowledge, and so any knowledge claims it makes are invalid. You seem to be under the mistaken apprehension that empiricism is still useful for something in a rational sense, such that it can compete with biblical foundationalism. But it can't. You're also mistaken to think that I cannot consider the Bible accurate and true; since I have a valid metaphysic and epistemology to work with, I can justify my knoweldge (ie, I can know that I know). The same does not apply to you. You can only consider the Bible suspect inasmuch as you accept your own empirical worldview; and, if you are consistent, you will treat everything as suspect and never claim to know anything at all. The problem does not apply to the Christian, however, since he denies that he even comes to know about the Bible through empirical means. To think that physical events cause immaterial knowledge is simply irrational. Of course, the consistent empiricist will ironically deny the existence of physical things at all, since all he can be certain of is his own mind, which is non-physical. But the Christian affirms that on the occasion of the physical event of reading the Bible, God imparts immaterial knowledge of it directly to his immaterial mind. Thus, physical and mental events are not causally connected, but merely divinely correlated.

As I mentioned to Starfisher above, and as Smokering has already hinted, faith is justified true belief in the existence of God. Thus, it is only by faith that we can actually know anything at all (since God is the source of all things and all knowledge). The colloquial use of the word "faith" does not apply in a discussion with a Christian, since this is not the way in which the Bible itself uses the word. Refer to the link I gave Starfisher for a more detailed discussion of this.

Trinity, the Gettier problem only applies in a situation where there is no objective revelation of truth. Since the Bible is the word of God, it is necessarily true to the exclusion of all other possibilities. Obviously, any attempt to arrive at certain knowledge of truth requires a declaration of truth which is objective and universal in scope, since a particular, finite person could never claim to know anything without relying on induction, which is a logical fallacy. So without revelation from God any attempt at knowledge-acquisition is simply impossible.

[tyrion]

No, I cannot absolutely prove anything to be true, but neither can you. No scientist worth his salt would make the mistake of trying. All we can do is eliminate what shows itself to be false.

You state that I cannot justify my position but you can, yet you simply make no visible attempt to do so except to say that something is true because you state it is. Your source for this is the bible, which you inform us is true, without any justification other than basically saying "it is".

I would not attempt to use the scientific technique to attack your beliefs, but nor do I accept that faith has any place in science. Science is the process of defining the observable processes that operate within the universe. Religion is a system for offering suggestions for processes which occur outside of that framework.

Smokering, I understand your point that all knowledge requires a framework, but simply creating one and declaring it to be true does not fit the bill by any stretch. Your framework is no more valid than any other religion, nor is it any more valid than empiricism. If there is fundamental doubt over the scientific framework then that doubt must by necessity apply to any other. You simply can't base an argument on stating your own belief to be absolute truth and expect others to take it for granted. Doing so simply eliminates the very foundations for any quest for knowledge in the first place, the acknowledgement that we don't already know.

Note again I am not attacking your religion, merely poionting out that you cannot simply take your own beliefs as a fundamental truth which in some sense justifies anything which follows from them.

You state there is no justification for my empiricism and that "hey it works" is insufficient. However pleaes clarify how you would replace it. I have a system for which there is credible evidence which is open to theoretical doubt. You seem to offer a system which simply denies the possibility of doubt because you percieve it to be somehow self evident and absolute, and the best support you can offer is that the bible states it to be true. The bible however is no more immune to doubt than any other written word.

Incidentally if everything is potentially an illusion (which I have granted, NOT put forward) then the question must be asked who you are talking to other than yourself?

[Smokering]

Your framework is no more valid than any other religion
I understand your point, but it seems to be coming from the perspective that all religions are created equal. They are not. My Biblical framework is at least internally consistent, and provides a totalising metaphysic and epistemological basis for knowledge. Empiricism it not internally consistent, and is unable in and of itself to define or acquire knowledge; therefore, the Biblical framework *is* more valid. If there is another religious framework which equals or betters the Biblical one, show it to me.

Until then, you have no grounds for declaring the Biblical framework to be false, as you are by your own admission unable to know anything. If it is false, tell me by what standard it is false? The ball's in your court.

[Starfisher]

Your set of axioms is not well defined, Bnonn. I can derive contradictions from the Bible because it has been translated several times and was never intended as a document to derive logic from - you can, of course, rationalize or argue linguistics about any one contradiction, but that's the point. Neither of us can be correct without using other axioms, which you have not stated, in the analysis. Your "first principle" is awash in unstated axioms which you do not address.

As a demonstration, please explain how the two differing Genesis stories are not a contradiction.

And for a more specific contradiction:

1 Kings 16 - In the 26th year of Asa's rule, Elah, son of Baasha, becomes king of Israel, because Baasha is dead.

2 Chronicles 16 - In the 36th year of Asa's rule, Baasha, king of Israel, does stuff.

If you take the Bible as axiomatic, this must not be a contradiction - Elah cannot become king if Baasha still is king ten years later, Baasha cannot be dead in the 26th year if he is alive in the 36th year - so there must be some explanation you can offer.

[Smokering]

Starfisher: Please explain first how Genesis 1 and 2 *are* a contradiction.

[tyrion]

Smokering, please reread my last post, it was mid edit when you replied. In particular note the emphasis on "not attacking your religion". Had you read my earlier posts you would realise that I have at no point declared the bible false, in fact I have suggested on a number of occasions scope for accepting it's value in many arenas.

[Bnonn]

We've been through how the two differing Genesis stories do not contradict, Starfisher. Only the most deliberately ignorant or obtuse people think that they do. Neither has the Bible been translated many times; at least, not in the sense you appear to mean (in the sense of having many English translations, this is hardly to its detriment). You are simply making unvalidated assumptions about the textual state of Scripture, exposing your ignorance.

Further, since the only axioms required to justify knowledge are ones which establish a valid metaphysic and epistemology, and since I don't have to start with Genesis when evaluating biblical propositions, you are entirely wrong. The Bible contains all the propositions needed to affirm truth. And as far as demolishing non-Christian worldviews, one hardly needs anything for that, since they are plainly self-refuting and cannot stand by themselves anyway.

[Starfisher]

Oh, didn't realize you people were active. Please read the edited version.

Also, what's this about not having to start with Genesis? I'm not saying that you have to start with Genesis, only that for the Bible to be axiomatic it cannot be possible to derive a contradiction from it. You neatly sidestepped my first attempt to demonstrate your powers of rationalization, and I eagerly await your next display.

[Bnonn]

Copyist error is hardly a basis for assuming a contradiction, Starfisher.

[tyrion]

I agree that copyist error is no basis for contradiction. However, it is the undisputed basis of Chinese whispers.

[Mac_Bug]

but how can you have the absolute truth if you admit that there are errors in the bible?

[Eboli]

Furthermore, how can one know what the difference between a copyist error and the "truth" is? In Starfisher's example above, which one is the truth Chronicles or Kings or perhaps neither?

[Bnonn]

There are insignificant errors in the inherited manuscripts; there were no errors in the autographs. Since the length of a king's reign is entirely irrelevant to the justification of knowledge, I'm not certain I see the relevance in spending time on this question.

[Starfisher]

Copyist error is hardly a basis for assuming a contradiction, Starfisher.Prove it is a copyist error.

[Smokering]

You state there is no justification for my empiricism and that "hey it works" is insufficient. However pleaes clarify how you would replace it. I have a system for which there is credible evidence which is open to theoretical doubt.

I have clarified how I would replace it; by a Biblical first principle which entails a complete, internally consistent and logical epistemology and metaphysic upon which to base all knowledge.

And no; you do not have a a system for which there is credible evidence. According to your worldview everything may be an illusion, and cannot be proven to be real; you have yourself admitted that you cannot know if I, the computer or any other scientist is real. 'Credible'? I hardly think so. You are in fact in the precise intellectual position of Cypher in the Matrix. Aware that his world is an illusion, he neither falls into despair (which would be logical) nor accepts an alternate reality which makes more sense (which would be smart), but decides instead to embrace the false information of his senses.

Given that you have no epistemological or metaphysic (man, I'm getting tired of typing those words!) basis for truth, it is somewhat ironic that you then question the truth of the Bible. If you believe it to false, according to what standard of objective, absolute truth do you base this belief?

[Bnonn]

Starfisher, the burden of proof does not fall on me in the sense you suppose. Since my foundation for knowledge is that the Bible is the word of God, it is logically necessary that any apparent errors were not in the original manuscripts, and are due to human fallibility. That is, since these errors do not affect using the Bible as a foundation for knowledge, and since the Bible is the foundation for knowledge, I have justification for inferring that errors are inherited, rather than inherent.

You, on the other hand, cannot even prove that there is a Bible, let alone claim to know its contents. Until you have established a working metaphysic and epistemology, there is no need for me to answer any of your questions which presuppose these things. You cannot prove anything about the Bible at all; so let's start with your failures, rather than jumping the gun and pretending as if you have a foundation on which to stand in critiquing Scripture.

[Mac_Bug]

Are you two suggestng that illusions are incapable of appearing self evident and internally consistent?

[Starfisher]

Brilliant. Bravo. You might wonder why no one bothers to discuss this sort of thing with you anymore, but it's mostly your complete and utter evasion of any direct question which you know you cannot answer.

Please explain why I cannot simply write my own version of the Bible laying out any non-contradictory foundation for knowledge that I so desire.

[Smokering]

To get needlessly evidential, but just to be picky, there's another alternative to 'copyist's error' for the alleged Kings/Chronicles discrepancy. I quote:

The numbers may refer to the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years after the division of the United Kingdom (which would have been Asa’s fifteenth and sixteenth years), rather than the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years of Asa’s reign (Thiele, 1951, p. 59). The Hebrew word for “reign” (malkuwth) also can mean “kingdom.” In fact, 51 out of the 91 times this word appears in the King James Version of the Old Testament it is translated “kingdom” (cf. 2 Chronicles 1:1; 11:17; 20:30; Nehemiah 9:35; etc.). In their commentary on 2 Chronicles, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown favored this explanation saying, “The best Biblical critics are agreed in considering this date to be calculated from the separation of the kingdoms, and coincident with the 16th year of Asa’s reign” (1997). [The number 16 is obtained by subtracting the reigns of Rehoboam (17 years) and Abijah (3 years) from the 36 years mentioned in 2 Chronicles 16:1.]

Brilliant. Bravo. You might wonder why no one bothers to discuss this sort of thing with you anymore, but it's mostly your complete and utter evasion of any direct question which you know you cannot answer.

You might wonder why we bother to discuss this sort of thing with you at all, when you have no basis for knowledge. Get evidential on me when you've shown me that pesky epistemology and metaphysic *you* keep avoiding; until then, don't dare to pretend you have the intellectual high ground.

[Starfisher]

I'm not pretending to have intellectual high ground. I'm pointing out why no one in their right mind would have a discussion with you.

The Bible is the word of God.
The Bible is not inerrant.
The Bible is errant.
(contradiction)
Contradiction resolved by saying that the Bible cannot be inerrant, and therefore there's some human error.

How is it the word of God if it contains human error?

Please explain why I cannot simply write my own version of the Bible laying out any non-contradictory foundation for knowledge that I so desire.

[Eboli]

Here's one from Genesis

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

In the first Chapter God Creates the Beasts then Adam. In the second the order is reversed. Is this a copyist error too? Which is the correct order? Or is the order of creation insignificant as well?


And who is the "our" in Genesis 1:26?

[Smokering]

Eboli: The correct translation for Genesis 2:19 is 'had formed'; and the 'our' in Genesis 1:26 refers to dialogue between the Trinity, as far as I know. But why are you asking these questions? Have you some absolute standard of truth and falsehood to which you can refer, to make your claims of errancy?

Starfisher: The explanation I gave as to the alleged Kings-Chronicles contradiction is a better one, I think; but Bnonn is correct in saying that only the autographs of Scripture are considered inspired and inerrant, technically. We simply have so many very good copies that the possibilities of error are slight.

You could certainly try to write a version of the Bible; it's been done before. Do tell me what first principle, metaphysic and epistemology you will use to convince yourself that you are actually writing a book, and not just having the illusion of writing a book? If you write the letter A, what absolute law will you invoke to assure yourself that you have written A and not not-A?

Now please answer my question, which you've been avoiding for pages. Upon what basis for knowledge are you having this discussion?

[tyrion]

The problem we are facing here is not about religion per se, nor is it about origins theories (despite what it says on the title of the thread). What we are in fact increasingly seeing here is a question over the validity of an adamantly held belief which is not open to discussion.

Where a mind is closed there is little point in raising points for discussion because that person already "knows". Ultimately this is a shame because in my experience everyone has something new to learn and we all have something new to offer. That is not to say that there is no such thing as truth, merely that we are very small creatures with limited viewpoints who can only ever have a small part of the picture. It is only when the parts share those viewpoints that the gestalt becomes wiser.

All I can say is that at least in the case of arguments made against me, I bothered to read my opposite's earlier posts and had developed some form of perspective on their position. It seems clear from the comments made in my direction that the same courtesy was not extended in return. Unsurprising from someone whose homepage states that all non christians are self evidently feeble minded, cruel and mentally deficient.

Personally I thought humility, love and understanding were ideals of the Christian faith, and that the meek would inherit.

[Smokering]

tyrion: The Christian knows that he knows. The non-Christian cannot; or if he can, nobody in this thread (indeed, nobody I have ever read or spoken to) has logically pointed out how. How then is it arrogance for the Christian to claim a superior intellectual position? Without knowing that you can know anything, all your last post says is mere opinion; which, when discussing fact, is worth precisely nothing. I do not say this to be unkind, however personally you wish to take my comments; I say it to be logical. If you disagree, defend yourself with logic rather than telling me not to be mean; it would be a lot more convincing.

It's ironic that non-Christians, who claim to fnd Christianity illogical, consistently respond to attacks on their own illogical position by saying 'That's not fair, you're Christians so you're meant to be nice'. If your hold such an intellectual fortress, get over it and explain logically why we're wrong.

[Eboli]

If that is the correct translation then I withdraw the point. I don't see however how "our" can refer to the Trinity if the Trinity is (to my knowledge) a Christian concept while Genesis was written centuries before by a Jewish person.

[SquidDNA]

Smokering, I'm late to the party perhaps, but consider that Jesus was begotten ~1 A.D. and the Holy Spirit is not anthropomorphic. If Jesus didn't exist as part of the Trinity during the events of Genesis and man doesn't look like fire (or birds, or birds made of fire), how does your interpretation of 1:26 make any sense?

[Starfisher]

My system of knowledge? Yours. I temporarily adopted a Christian worldview in order to see if I could derive a contradiction from it. It appeared I had but apparently "the bible is the first principle" was not an accurate statement, or not a complete one.

Your first principle appears to be a very large set of axioms, if the entire Bible can be taken as axiomatic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to imply that every line in the Bible is an axiom... but only the lines in the first Bible, or, in the first copy of each of the individual texts, which no longer exist. If that's the case you'll have to forgive me. I need some more time to get my head around that one.

But, well, I suppose if I was writing a document that could then be used in an argument such as this, I would start with something like:

"The Universe is eternal."

Seems like a good first line. Since I can take that as axiomatic, I might continue with:

"The Universe is governed by a set of laws that have been and always will be uniform."

Great! Another nice axiom.

"Within the Universe, entities may arise according to the laws of the Universe that are capable of observing the Universe."

Hmm. This is actually kind of fun. I just realized I could do a query replace on the Bible and substitute out all references to God with references to an unintelligent force which displayed the same behaviors. Would the Bible still constitute a valid first principle?

[tyrion]

I maintain no intellectual fortress, merely the willingness to learn. You keep using the word logic, then failing to actually make any logical arguments. You simply keep stating that you "know the truth" without any recourse to actual debate or evidence. Anyone could make the same claim and it would be equally senseless. You state all I give is opinion, yet your "absolute truth" consists of stating that your position is true and therefore everyone should accept whatever it is you are trying to say.

I do not ask for you to be nice, merely to accept that there is always room to consider the possibility you may be wrong. Failure to do so is a closed mind, which is what I referred to.

You cannot base an argument on "this is true" simply because you believe it to be so. That is no foundation for logical debate nor is it any way to establish grounds for discourse. It is in fact the mark of a mind which cannot see beyond it's own preconceptions. I speak here as a scientist with a religious background. Science and religion are two seperate entities operating in differing arenas. Science is a process by which we define real world phenomena, religion a system of belief as to why those phenomena came into being.

Incidentally, with view to the actual purpose of the thread, what actually is your stance? Unless I'm mistaken, this thread is about human origins and despite your stance seeming obvious I'm not sure you've actually made it explicit. Also, when this thread was opened one of the initial postulates was that simply shouting "science" or "religion" was insufficient as a justification of a position. This is not simply to side step any issues but to bring what is left of this discussion back into something that the majority of readers would recognise as actual discourse.

[Smokering]

Eboli: Many aspects of Biblical theology were developed over the course of the entire Bible; fr example, Old Testament understandings of the afterlife were somewhat more rudimentary than New Testament understandings, as more information was revealed in later books. (It's important to notice that the earlier understandings did not *contradict* the later ones; they were just less complete... kinda like a Death Star, but not very much). The concept of the Trinity was les understood in the Old Testament because Christ had not come, so the exact nature of the prophesied Messiah was not known. Some thought he would be a human king, come to save the Jews from Roman occupation! Nevertheless, the concept was there in its early forms. I've heard it argued that 'Let there be light' in fact refers to the begetting of Christ in a metaphorical sense, as well as the physical creation of light; which would bring all three members of the Trinity together in the first few verses of Genesis! But ask Bnonn about that, he knows more about it.

In any case, the Jewish writer (probably Moses) who wrote Genesis was operating under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who knew exactly what to put in His word--even concepts which would not be fully understood or revealed until centuries later. It is similar to Psalm 22, penned by David and containing prophetic reference to the Messiah. Until Jesus died in a suspiciously similar manner to David's Psalm (He quoted it in fact on the Cross, something I only found out recently--incredibly cool, when you think about it), it is unlikely any Jews even suspected a Messianic reference in it. But it was there all the same, waiting to be revealed.

Squid: Important distinction. Jesus was not begotten at 1ish AD; He was incarnated then. Before He existed in human form, He was part of the Trinity. John's Gospel, in fact, declares that through Christ, everything was and continues to be created. So Jesus was playing a pivotal role in the Trinity as early as Genesis 1. Whether He created everything Himself, as was thus the 'God' mentioned in Genesis 1, or whether God the Father created everything through the Son, I don't know.

I'm not sure how the form of the Trinity has any relevance. It's not like God only communicates when He is in human form. Could the members of the Trinity not have talked to each other in any manifestation, or lack of it, that they preferred?

tyrion, Starfisher: I will ask you again. Upon what basis for knowledge are you having this discussion?

[tyrion]

It appears that you will only accept one basis, and refuse to listen to anything that is said from any other point of view.

My stance, which I keep repeating apparently ad nauseum, is that religion and science cannot be in conflict, religion approaches questions of why, science of how. The discussion is simple, what do people believe to be the origins of humanity and on what basis? I answered that question in broad strokes on the first two pages. I cannot deny the evidence for natural selection as a process, but lack any specific faith with which to assess questions of why the process was initiated or by whom. Nonethless I have stated on many occasions now that I do not attack religion. I have simply acted to maintain the distinction outlined above.

You on the other hand have not put anything forward for discussion that I can see. You ask me how I justify my attack on your position, yet in all truth I don't actually know what your position is. How do you believe we came to be here?

I say again, something being in the bible is insufficient gruionds to state it as some form of truth. That does not mean I am attacking christianity, merely ramming home the message that personal belief does not equal proof.

[Starfisher]

You have satisfactorily demonstrated that you will accept no answer to that question except, "a Christian one", so there's really no need to answer. Yet you have not demonstrated the consistency of your own position - your first principle remains murky. At present I think it is "The entire original Bible", meaning that everything in the original texts of the Bible is axiomatic in your worldview. Is that true?

[Smokering]

tyrion: I more jumped into the middle of this thread because I was interested in discussing empiricism. As for the original question, my position should be obvious to me. I believe in the creation of the world as described in the Bible. The exact age of the earth is impossible to determine Biblically; it's usually counted by geneaology, but this is an unreliable method as the Hebrew words usually translated to imply a father/son relationship can actually mean more of a paternal figure/descendants relationship. It is also known that some evil generations were 'skipped' in Genesis, deliberately, in accordance with Hebrew honour/shame thinking. So using geneaology to determine the age of the earth is flawed; however, the Biblical record certainly does not allow for millions of years. Genesis 1 records the 'formless and void' earth in a manner which could possibly suggest it was created before the six days of Creation (in which God separated the waters, populated the earth etc). However, I haven't studied this matter in depth.

My principal reason for believing in Creation is presuppositional, as should be amply obvious by now; but it is further supported by the fact that secular science has no logical foundation for belief, thus rendering empiricism null and void; and that anthropological accounts corroborate many facts as laid out in Genesis; for example, the Flood and dinosaur-human coexistence.

Starfisher: Yes, although obviously some portions of the Bible are more useful than others. For example, Genesis 5:25 is less helpful in constructing a worldview than, say, 1 John 1. But all the parts of the Bible must be viewed in context; one cannot divorce a single text from its surroundings and expect to interpret or use it correctly.

I accept no answer to my question except 'a Christian one' because so far, it is the only logical one with which I have been presented. Present me with something else which meets the criteria, and I will listen.

tyrion: You still haven't really answered my question. I'm not asking you about your stance on the question on the first page; I'm asking about your epistemology, ie. how you can know you can know. In other words, what reason do you have to believe that I exist, that we are communicating, that grass is green, the world spherical or so forth?

[Mac_Bug]

On what basis did you determine that Christianity is the only logical one? In other words, before you were aware of God and the Bible, how are you able to come to comprehend and understand anything when you were say, in tyrion's situation?

[Smokering]

Mac_Bug: I was coverted when I was very young; four or five; and I can't remember ever having not believed in God. So I can't really answer your question.

What I assume you're getting at, is that it is impossible for a non-Christian to become a Christian by rational means, as he has no basis for rationality to begin with. This is a good point, but the Biblical worldview accounts for it.

According to Biblical philosophy, all knowledge is given directly by God. Even a non-Christian receives his knowledge from God; as sense experience and empiricism are demonstrably unable to produce knowledge, this is the only way anyone can receive knowledge. Yet under a Biblical worldview God's knowledge is not divorced from sense experience or empiricism. Indeed, to a Christian both of these things make sense. God is a God of order and logic, so that He would always make an apple taste like an apple, or cause a rolled bowling ball to move, is unsurprising. Throughout the Bible God's direct control over physical events and human knowledge are affirmed, as well as His occasional violating of the rules of nature He set forth (for example, when turning into wine or walking on water).
You might ask why, if God imparts all knowledge, He would impart thoughts into a non-believer's mind which would keep him in unbelief. The answer is that God predestines those for salvation whom He chooses; and He has chosen to let some perish in unbelief. However, in mercy He has chosen to save some for Himself; and by regenerating their minds with the Holy Spirit, has imparted spiritual knowledge which allows them to properly understand and accept the Bible. It follows then that a non-Christian *cannot* of himself accept the Bible, as spiritual truths are spiritually discerned. The Bible even states that the Word is 'foolishness to those who are perishing'--1 Cor 1:18.

So, there it is. I know it's not a popular answer, but it is the Biblical one and I may as well clarify it for you. I have to start work now, but I'll check in again later if I can.

[Bnonn]

Mac, you are confusing temporal and logical priority. Since the Christian worldview affirms that what people believe about their senses (that they operate basically reliably) is true, the Christian has no problem in acknowledging that, even before he came to faith, he was able to read the Bible. Of course, he understands that the physical event and the mental knowledge were correlated by God, and not by some impossible and irrational relationship as empiricism might suppose; but this isn't hugely important to your question.

However, the Christian also knows that, before adopting the biblical epistemology, he had no justification for believing his senses. So, although your question poses no problem to a believer of the Bible, it does pose a very great problem to you. How are you able to comprehend and understand anything?

My stance, which I keep repeating apparently ad nauseum, is that religion and science cannot be in conflict, religion approaches questions of why, science of how.
But this is the very issue at hand: we have just spent the last dozen or more posts showing that science is incapable of doing what you claim (if it is, answer the question I just put to Mac_Bug). Therefore, your stance is unjustified and irrational.

[BigFish]

The answer is that God predestines those for salvation whom He chooses; and He has chosen to let some perish in unbelief. However, in mercy He has chosen to save some for Himself.Then why do you even continue this discussion (such as it has become) as some of us are clearly fucked from the outset.

And you*/god then has the cheek to claim god is merciful?

This is my reason for believing that the bible is wrong. God has either been misrepresented or he is an utter asshole.

*I'm not clear from your text weather that is your thinking or paraphrasing from the bible. Either way, take this statment as you will, its not meant to be an insult but it would be very easy to take it as one! lol

[Smokering]

BigFish, not being God, I don't know which of you will be saved before you die. It's none of my business; my business is to do as God commanded and point out the illogic of unbelieving thought.

If God has been misrepresented outside the Bible, that is no reason to reject the Bible. If you don't think God is a very nice guy, that is also no reason to reject it. Truth is not dependent on being palatable; I don't reject gravity just because it sometimes hurts.

Furthermore, if you're judging God, by what standard of morality are you judging Him?

[Bonnet]

Bnonn:
Running with that we once again define:
A: God exists.
B: The bible is the work of god.
Using predicate logic:
AB http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/therefor.gif ((¬A http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/matimp.gif ¬(BA)) http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/therefor.gif http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/necessit.gifA↔http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/possibil.gifB )


In short because A contains B, it is necessary for A to be true for AB to be a possibility. Hence you must be able to prove A or you have no more foundation than fisher.

[BigFish]

Ok, but by your same logic, doesnt that mean that god might arbitrarily send you to to hell despite reading the bible? What is the point in obeying gods will if, well, it doesnt matter!

the illogic of unbelieving thought. I cant even respond to that one, your iron hard conviction makes it impossible to discuss... damn! I was going to use the word 'logically' here. oh well, lol.


Anyhow, this argument is getting a little to theological for me, I shall retire to a safe distance for a bit.

[Bnonn]

bonnet, you are doing basically the same thing that Mac was doing, although in a more complex way: confusing temporal and logical priority. In the issue of epistemology, what is important is the first principle "the Bible is the word of God". It is from this principle that we justify knowledge, including the knowledge "God exists", which is obviously a metaphysical prerequisite for the epistemological foundation. Hope this makes sense.

BigFish, we've already covered that God is orderly and logical (hence, the Christian's valid belief in the uniformity of nature). He is also truthful, and has promised that those who trust in the saving work of Christ will be saved. Therefore, the Christian has every assurance of salvation.

Regarding the illogic of unbelieving thought, Smokering is referring to the lack of rational justification for its claims to knowledge. We have spent a great deal of time explicating this: showing that, although you believe things, you cannot know that they are true. Therefore, to consider them to be knowledge is illogical. This, of course, is only one aspect of the illogic of unbelieving thought: others include the affirming of inconsistent ideas such as belief in a causation between physical and non-physical events; a disbelief in non-physical events altogether; and, obviously, the belief that non-Christian worldviews are logical and rational while the Christian worldview is not.

[Starfisher]

I take it then that you simply accept the circularity of the Bible being 'self-affirming' as necessary and not a problem?

[Bnonn]

Any epistemology entails circularity, since any epistemology must be built on a first principle which cannot itself be evaluated for truth. If it could be evaluated, this evaluation would be done according to some other presupposed principles, which would themselves become the first principles.

[Starfisher]

So how do you arrive at the conclusion that one first principle is more valid than any other? Does that not entail presupposing some other principle to use as your evaluation metric?

[Bnonn]

A first principle must be useful. As I've shown, yours is not. The Christian one is. Further, since the Christian first principle justifies claims to knowledge, and since it excludes any other competing worldview as part of its set of axiomatic propositions, Christianity is therefore necessarily true.

[BigFish]

Truth is not dependent on being palatable; I don't reject gravity just because it sometimes hurts.I dont reject gravity. My poor blinded sences have built a pretty reliable picture of how it operates (remarkably similer, I would wager, to the way it works to you lucky enlightened souls) which allows me live with it, and even use it to my advantage. Gravity can be tested and even quantified, although this is made up as I dont have the advantage of god to reveal the deepest secrets of its working for me. Gravity doesnt randomly/arbitrarily crush people into paste or fling them off into space. Gravity works the same for all people in the same way. Gravity is not dependant on say, reading the Mail rather than the Mirror

that God is orderly and logical... but randomly sends people to hell? And leaves his 'word' open to miss-interpretation and ambiguity?

He is also truthful, and has promised that those who trust in the saving work of Christ will be saved. Therefore, the Christian has every assurance of salvation.So what your saying is Ghandi, nice guy, preached pacifism and good will to all men, kind to animals, going to hell for reading the wrong book. Vlad the impaler, genocidal nutjob, killed thousands but a devout christian, laughing it up in heaven now, probobly torturing angels?

If he is so orderly and logical, why does he let people stray from the true path, why let these other religions spring up? Why not just come down and prove to us all that he exists? In fact, if humans judgement (as in the final judgement) is pre-destined, why have humans exist at all?

Regarding the illogic of unbelieving thought, Smokering is referring to the lack of rational justification for its claims to knowledge. We have spent a great deal of time explicating this: showing that, although you believe things, you cannot know that they are true. Therefore, to consider them to be knowledge is illogical.What is this symantic clap trap? You have spent page after page saying you are right because the bible is right and the bible is right because you are right and that everybody else is clearly wrong because they happen question the world around them. God gave us free will, or the illusion that we have free will and you condescend us for this? Isnt that an attack on gods work?

Again, apologys if any of this sounds like an insult, Its really not ment to be but I cant seem to get my ideas accross any other way than bluntly, gah.

[Starfisher]

You are presupposing that a first principle must be useful. You are further presupposing some definition of useful.

Which means that your first principle would therefore have to be "first principles must be useful", which obviously doesn't work.

[Trinity]

He is also truthful, and has promised that those who trust in the saving work of Christ will be saved.

You are being deceitful with that statement. You have contended on many occasions that only the elect are imbued and able to trust in the saving grace of Christ.

[Bnonn]

Trinity, I am not being deceitful. Only the elect will trust in the saving work of Christ, and thus be saved.

Starfisher, I think you are confused. If we wish to justify knowledge, then obviously we need to be able to justify knowledge. This entails having a first principle for our epistemology which is able to do this. You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty avoiding category errors.

BigFish, none of your questions are really on topic, and all of them are relying on many faulty assumptions about standards of morality and proof which are entirely without basis. I would recommend that you educate yourself further before continuing, since to answer your questions would require us to correct a great many errors on your part which you ought not to be making in a conversation such as this. See my series On Strawmen (http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2006/11/doctrines-of-straw-building-on-rock.html) for a good starting point.

[Starfisher]

...

So your first principle for your epistemology is "the bible is the word of God". You apparently have arrived at that first principle by applying some metric. How do you arrive at that metric without an epistemology?

[Smokering]

BigFish: Well, no, actually. You don't know for certain that gravity works for you. You think it does, but that may just be an illusion. You think it works for other people in the same way it works for you, but in fact they and gravity itself may just be illusions also. It seems obvious that gravity exists, and works, and is consistent; but *you* have no reason to believe this. The Christian does, for the reasons Bnonn and I have stated earlier.

As for the God-is-evil-because-He-sends-people-to-hell line, you're still judging God against some standard of morality you have yet to define. I'll answer when I have more time (working now), but in the meantime can you please justify your moral indignation by some absolute, objective moral standard? Otherwise it again comes down to just opinion, which is worth zero in terms of logical debate.

[Trinity]

Bnonn, that answer is as self-serving as your first principle. Your first response implied an act by the individual alone would render them saved when in fact the only act required is that of God. A lie by omission if you will.

[BigFish]

Smokering: Well, no, actually. You don't know for certain that god exists for you. You think he does, but that may just be an illusion. You think he works for other people in the same way he works for you, but in fact they and god himself may just be illusions also. It seems obvious that god exists, and works, and is consistent; but *you* have no reason to believe this.

By declaring other peoples perceptions invalid illusions, you torpedo your own argument. Whos to say your perception of the world isnt clouded by the illusion that god exists?

Gravity works for me. Things fall down around me. I fall down. I speak to other people, both christian and not, they too have reported things falling down. If i asked you to pick something off your desk and drop it, it would fall down. I have reason to believe this as I see it every day, I can test it right now, lots of scientific work has gone into validating it. It is a testable, fundemental, unalterable fact of life. This is my reason for believing in it. I have faith in gravity. If it is an illusion it is a consistant one and I wont loose any sleep over weather I am percieving it correctly.

As for the morol indignation... yeah. Must think before posting so these arguments dont come round and bite me in the ass. Im not indignant that god may be an arbitrary force, more indignant that people worship and pray and devote their lives to something that doesnt care.

Bnonn: You didnt actually answer any of the questions I posed. Please dont accuse me of being ignorant when you have persistantly tried to justify the argument "I am right because I am right" without providing any evidence, or indeed logical precess short of semantics and wordplay, and, more often than not, relied on evasion to get round some issues. I would like to debate with you on equal terms but it is becomming clear that debate just wont happen. I have found your arguments elightening however, although probobly not in the way you intended.

I dont understand the thought processes that you have to go on to tell people they are wrong-headed if they have, for instance, seen things fall down and that somehow your gravity is speciel, or your belief in something makes gravity special, or that my disbelief in something makes my gravity wrong. I dont understand it at all. And I cant argue whith what I dont understand so I shal withdraw from this discussion for the time being (properly this time!).

[Bnonn]

Trinity, what I wrote automatically assumed the total sovereignty of God, and thus did not explicitly state it. I apologize if this was confusing; it is simply that I am extremely accustomed to working within this framework, and therefore tend to presuppose it without thinking to restate it each time (just as the Bible does). Anything I write ought to be understood within the context of the fact that God causes all things: both initially, and continually. Thus, human actions themselves are completely caused by God.

Again, it is quite correct to say that those who trust in the saving work of Christ will be saved. Nothing in this statement suggests human sovereignty or the ability of man to save himself in any way. You have to read it in.

Starfisher, you are still confusing logical and temporal priority. Please go back and read what I said about category error again. I have already explained very adequately that an epistemology does not need to (and obviously cannot) precede knowledge in time, but that it must precede knowledge in the logical justification thereof. This only highlights your problem (that is, a lack of a workable epistemology); not mine.

BigFish, how is it that you have still failed to understand that the Christian epistemology starts with the proposition "the Bible is the word of God", and all the propositions this entails? Since we have shown that the Christian epistemology can justify knowledge, since it is founded upon a workable metaphysic and is supported by rational, self-affirming propositions in the Bible, Smokering is quite justified in her claim to know that God exists. You seem to be pretending that Smokering is forced to use the same unworkable metaphysic and epistemology which you yourself believe, but this is not the case.

Further, Christians do not say that other people's perceptions are illusory or invalid. Again, we have been careful to affirm that they are valid. The problem you have is not that your perceptions are faulty, but that you cannot justify your belief that they are not!

If i asked you to pick something off your desk and drop it, it would fall down. I have reason to believe this as I see it every day
What reason do you have to believe that it will happen again though, even if we grant that it has happened in the past within your perceived universe? Again, I am looking for a rational justification! Saying that it will happen again because it has happened in the past only makes sense if you are already assuming that the future is always like the past. This would commit the fallacy of assuming the consequent, because you are presupposing the very thing you are trying to prove!

As regards debate on "equal terms": how could this possibly happen when debate presupposes knowledge, and the very point you are currently trying to wiggle your way out of is that you don't have any?

[Starfisher]

Why is logical justification necessary? I can declare any inconsistent and random system that I like - based on what do you say that inconsistency is bad?

I'm looking to see the why behind your why. You are saying that these things must be done, yet I see no reasoning as to why the must be done, only what appears to be an unthinking assertion.

[Bnonn]

This is a basic question of rationality, Starfisher. To believe what is inconsistent is irrational. To believe that A can be non-A at the same time and in the same sense is irrational. Even the non-Christian can know that much. But, if you wish to assert that rationality is not necessary, that the law of noncontradiction is false, and so on, go for your life. I can then choose whether to demonstrate the obvious self-refuting nature of your claims, or to just leave you in a position of argumentative impotence.

[Noble]

Well, no, actually. You don't know for certain that gravity works for you. You think it does, but that may just be an illusion. You think it works for other people in the same way it works for you, but in fact they and gravity itself may just be illusions also. It seems obvious that gravity exists, and works, and is consistent; but *you* have no reason to believe this. The Christian does, for the reasons Bnonn and I have stated earlier.

In order to have any kind of idea about the universe we live in, and in order to postulate on any subject at all, we must assume that we exist not only in an objective universe, but that our perceptions of that universe are accurate. Without this assumption, the Bible, and God's word would lose credibility even for Christians. I believe that if you drop something it will fall. I have seen this interaction countless times before, and have seen the same result every time. Because of this, I will go under the assumption that things fall. I am not saying that it is impossible for something to "fall up", I am saying that it is extremely unlikely, and it would be foolish for me to believe in such a thing.

Your "Word of God" has been molested by every man or women who has written it down. Inevitably there have been transcription errors, and more likely pen holders who had ulterior motives. If the Bible really is the absolute end all word of God, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama are in hell, and we should still stone our children for disrespecting their parents.

[Bnonn]

I am not saying that it is impossible for something to "fall up", I am saying that it is extremely unlikely, and it would be foolish for me to believe in such a thing.
You haven't considered the situation carefully enough. Likelihood is just a colloquial way of talking about probability. Since probability is a function of the number of observed occurrences divided by the number of possible occurrences, and since the number of possible occurrences is infinite, you are in fact completely wrong. It is not extremely unlikely that something might not fall down the next time you test it, but in fact (despite what you intuitively assume), it is infinitely likely. The only rational position for you is to believe that the future will never be like the past, because as far as you know there is a zero probability of it with no mitigating factors.

As regards stoning our children, you betray your ignorance of Scripture. The law has passed away, because Christ was its fulfillment.

[molo]

This is a basic question of rationality, Starfisher. To believe what is inconsistent is irrational. To believe that A can be non-A at the same time and in the same sense is irrational.So, you (or, at least, Smokering - you're conceptually identical) are saying that the bible can be the word of god and infallible, and fallible because people reproduce it. A, and not-A. At the same time.


That's pretty deep.


Even the non-Christian can know that much.Also, if you're trying to convince people, dialing back the condescension will help a fucking ton. I don't know anyone of worth who will agree with someone who is constantly belittling them.

[Starfisher]

I can then choose whether to demonstrate the obvious self-refuting nature of your claims, or to just leave you in a position of argumentative impotence.Of course, you would have to assume some system of logic in order to make that proof.

Your ability to argue does not convey truth. People were quite capable of arguing about the humors, with perfectly consistent and valid deductions from the premises. I want to know what your actual first assumption is. It appears now to be that logic is valid. Is that accurate?

[Noble]

and since the number of possible occurrences is infinite

That statement would only be true in an infinitely spacious universe, on an infinte timeline. This is not a proven fact.

In any case, even if it is infinitely likely, it is then also infintely unlikely. Therefor it is just as likely that the Bible in it's entirety is a facsimilie generated by Lucifer himself to decieve all Christians.

As regards stoning our children, you betray your ignorance of Scripture. The law has passed away, because Christ was its fulfillment.

I am by no means a theologian, and am quite ignorant of scripture. But if the laws of leviticus no longer hold true, and have "passed away" then why recite them and memorize them as the word of god? I am not trying to be caustic, I am merely asking for clarification on this subject.

[Bnonn]

Your argument is spurious, molo. Your first sentence and your second don't correlate. The original biblical manuscripts are not their reproductions (ie, A is not non-A). Therefore, the original Bible can be inerrant, while the reproductions can be errant (although, let's be clear, in insignificant ways). So the Bible can be both inerrant, and errant, but not at the same time and in the same sense. So the law of noncontradiction has not been violated.

Also, if you're trying to convince people, dialing back the condescension will help a fucking ton. I don't know anyone of worth who will agree with someone who is constantly belittling them.
I am not belittling except in the sense of pointing out the lack of rational justification that the non-Christian has for believing most anything. Your implication that one ought to disagree with someone who one finds offensive in some way, despite the logic of their argument, is itself irrational. It suggests that you are unable to engage with their argument itself. Perhaps you ought to read my article regarding ad hominem (http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2006/12/regarding-ad-hominem.html).

[Smokering]

nObI3: You're right that to have knowledge, we must be able to trust our perceptions and rely on an orderly universe which exists objectively. Christians agree with this! Taking Bnonn's first principle, a Christian has no problem at all believing this, because the Bible describes the very thing you mentioned: a universe with order, in which we can trust our senses. It is the secular thinker who has trouble with the concept of an objective universe, because he has no logical way of knowing it exists outside his own mind. You think you have seen gravity in operation, but do you have any logical reason for doing so? We have already established in this thread that sense experience and empiricism are of themselves entirely useless for gaining knowledge.

Provide me with evidence that the Bible has been 'molested by every man or women (sic) who has written it down'. I've addressed this very topic before, in this very thread, so it is a tired and baseless accusation unless you give me the proof.

Yes, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama are in hell. So what? Again, do you have an objective moral standard against which God is being 'evil' in sending them to hell? Or in what metaphysic of your own is salvation works-based? That's not a Biblical concept. As for stoning children, you are merely demonstrating the same error again (morally judging Scripture against a moral absolute you do not possess), as well as confusing civil and moral law.

[molo]

Your argument is spurious, molo. Your first sentence and your second don't correlate. The original biblical manuscripts are not their reproductions (ie, A is not non-A). Therefore, the original Bible can be inerrant, while the reproductions can be errant (although, let's be clear, in insignificant ways). So the Bible can be both inerrant, and errant, but not at the same time and in the same sense. So the law of noncontradiction has not been violated. But which bible are you basing your metaphysical foundations on? The original, inerrant one? Not many of those lying around.

[SquidDNA]

I'd like to remind people that they are required to remain civil here. Insulting one another's logic in the manner so far done is acceptable (I am rational, you are not rational, etc), given the nature of the discussion, but leave it at that.

[Noble]

It is the secular thinker who has trouble with the concept of an objective universe, because he has no logical way of knowing it exists outside his own mind. You think you have seen gravity in operation, but do you have any logical reason for doing so? We have already established in this thread that sense experience and empiricism are of themselves entirely useless for gaining knowledge.

All of your arguments are based on your own personal observations of a book you hold to be the word of God. My arguments are based on my observations of the world around me. While I cannot explain everything in the world around me, I can make educated guesses, and reasonable predictions.

If my observations of existence are invalid. Your observations of the word of god are equally invalid. The fallibility, and ambiguity of human language dissuades me from believing that anything written in a book can be the one true word of God. This very discussion shows how inaccurate language is, and how easily one word, let alone one sentence or one book, can mean many many different things. God's law would have to be exact, and flawless, otherwise God would be fallible, and therefore not God at all. Such a law cannot be expressed with human language.



Provide me with evidence that the Bible has been 'molested by every man or women (sic) who has written it down'. I've addressed this very topic before, in this very thread, so it is a tired and baseless accusation unless you give me the proof.

I cede this point, as I have no evidence on hand to prove it.

Yes, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama are in hell. So what? Again, do you have an objective moral standard against which God is being 'evil' in sending them to hell? Or in what metaphysic of your own is salvation works-based? That's not a Biblical concept. As for stoning children, you are merely demonstrating the same error again (morally judging Scripture against a moral absolute you do not possess), as well as confusing civil and moral law.

What If I were to use the morale absolute of Christ? Did he not advocate leading a life of non violence. Is Christ not a part of the holy trinity, and therefore not a part of God himself? It seems to me that God was, is and will be (according to the bible) very violent.

[Smokering]

molo, we've already adequately covered the issue of errancy. It is irrelevant to the proposition that the Bible is the word of God, since any modern English translation will provide sufficient basis for establishing the epistemology and metaphysic we need; and, thereby, for working backward to evaluate the textual situation of Scripture.

If my observations of existence are invalid. Your observations of the word of god are equally invalid.
We will explain this again only once. The Christian does not base his knowledge on observation at all; he bases it on the work of God. You are trying to force the Christian to adopt your unbiblical epistemology. Please stop. Please also stop claiming to make educated guesses and reasonable predictions when the opposite has already been proved.

The claim that human language is an insufficient vehicle for God's word is also unjustified without a basis for knowledge (and is also obviously untrue; I recommend Francis Schaeffer's The God Who Is There, section 3, chapter 2, for a detailed and concise discussion of this).

As far as Christ's moral example goes, it is entirely consistent with the rest of biblical teaching. Look up C S Lewis' popular argument "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" for more information. You will not find any inconsistency between the moral character of Christ, and the moral character of YHWH in the Old Testament. Indeed, the vast majority of Christ's recorded words concern sin and hell.

We have quite adequately demonstrated that no one here is justified in claiming knowledge of any kind (particularly scientific knowledge). We have now devoted a generous amount of time to answering questions and objections, most of which presupposed the very thing we have proved you do not have: justified true belief. We have explained and re-explained the basic reasoning involved with epistemic inquiry, justifying the biblical position and refuting the non-biblical worldviews you have offered.

The Bible commands you to repent of your foolish beliefs (Psalm 14:1, Acts 17:30); and we have shown them to be foolish. It commands you to believe in God; the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). It commands you to forsake your sin, and to trust in the work of Jesus Christ, so that you may be saved. For whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God (John 3:18).

We have faithfully and accurately defended the truth of Scripture, in accordance with Christ's command. We have refuted your non-biblical positions. Our arguments stand for themselves; you have not refuted them. The Bible commands us to say nothing further, except to leave you now with its command to repent and believe.

Regards,
Bnonn and Smokering

[Noble]

The Christian does not base his knowledge on observation at all; he bases it on the work of God.

Wrong. The Christian does infact base his knowledge on the observation of the words contained in the Bible. When you read, you are observing those words. The only exception to this, would be if god communicated such word to you directly. Are you then contending that God speaks directly to you, as I am now? Is such an honor not researved for prophets such as Moses?

[Starfisher]

Wow. I am doomed to never know your first assumption, aren't I? Please don't let this become Quixotic.

[Noble]

If this discussion is over, I would just like to say that regardless of anyones perspective, I feel like I have learned alot about the way other people view the world, and feel like I am better for it.

Thank you for a challenging and stimulating discussion.

[SquidDNA]

Bnonn and Smokering, please cease referring to previously discussed arguments without actually discussing them. While citing your claims is good practice, one doesn't drop references in conversation as if other people are supposed to accept them. A casual review of the thread will demonstrate you've been doing it throughout.

Also, I do not think anyone on the thread has conceded to being a fool, so stop referring to people's beliefs as foolish. Thank you.

[Bonnet]

you are doing basically the same thing that Mac was doing, although in a more complex way: confusing temporal and logical priority. In the issue of epistemology, what is important is the first principle "the Bible is the word of God". It is from this principle that we justify knowledge, including the knowledge "God exists", which is obviously a metaphysical prerequisite for the epistemological foundation. Hope this makes sense.
emphasis my own

In that case we can do the following (which is actually simpler):
A: God exists.
B: The bible is the work of god.
Using predicate logic:
(B http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/matimp.gif A) http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/therefor.gif (¬B http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/matimp.gif ¬A)


Another manner is to look at the truth table of B http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/matimp.gif A:

B A B http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/matimp.gif A

T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

As you can see for the statement to be true, B must be true. Hence you have to prove the truth value of B.


Since you have stated that you can not prove B with anything other than a metaphysical assumption your point of view is no more valid than any other.

[Trinity]

You are trying to force the Christian to adopt your unbiblical epistemology.

Your first principle doesn't even meet your own level of epistemic scepticism and the stated requirement for certainty of the justified true belief. Really all you have constructed with all your philosophical arguments is self serving, self referential faith.

The de iure question is always linked to the de facto question. You have a truth you will not and cannot justify, ostensibly because as a first principle it is not justifiable. How convenient. More likely it is becauase the first principle is not warranted. The truth as you see it only relates to your own epistemology and metaphysic as clearly offered in the above statement.

That you both present your arguments with such militant smugness is neither justified nor supported by your own religious doctrine.

Enjoy your honeymoon.

[Mac_Bug]

I think the problem in Bnonn's argument is that his basis is inherently CONTRADICTORY, and as such, he may derive ANYTHING FROM IT AS HE PLEASES, and thus, in such a framework, it is capable of explaining EVERYTHING, including self justification.

[molo]

Mac and bonnet pretty much summed it up, which makes the declaration of victory all the more hilarious.

I think this was their honeymoon.

[Noble]

The question posed by Starfisher still stands. Suppose I am not a secular thinker (which I am) and that I instead believe in the teachings of Zeus, king of the gods. What makes that assumption any less valid than the first assumption that the Bible is the Word of God? My first assumption is that we live in an objective universe, which we perceive accurately. The Christians first assumption (so far as I can tell) is that the Bible is the Word of God. My point is that both assumptions are equally arbitrary, and equally unverifiable.




Many questions have gone completely unanswered.

But if the laws of leviticus no longer hold true, and have "passed away" then why recite them and memorize them as the word of god?

I would really like an answer to this.

The claim that human language is an insufficient vehicle for God's word is also unjustified without a basis for knowledge (and is also obviously untrue; I recommend Francis Schaeffer's The God Who Is There, section 3, chapter 2, for a detailed and concise discussion of this).


Let's look at one of Gods simpelest commands. "Thou shalt not kill". If foreign bacteria is introduced into your body, your white blood cells will actively seek out, and destroy that bacteria, killing it. Would that be considered mortal sin? By the strictest definitions, this commandment would render human life impossible if we were to adhere to it. This is only one, in a multitude of innacuracies that can be pointed out in "Gods Word". In fact, eating any food at all could be considered mortal sin, since killing is not limited to animal life, but plant life as well.

Edit: If anyone knows where I can find a copy of "The god who is there" I would be fascinated to read it. PM me.

[Atomic Chicken]

Let's look at one of Gods simpelest commands. "Thou shalt not kill". If foreign bacteria is introduced into your body, your white blood cells will actively seek out, and destroy that bacteria, killing it. Would that be considered mortal sin? By the strictest definitions, this commandment would render human life impossible if we were to adhere to it. This is only one, in a multitude of innacuracies that can be pointed out in "Gods Word". In fact, eating any food at all could be considered mortal sin, since killing is not limited to animal life, but plant life as well.

This sounds like a redress of the omnicient and omnipotent God seeking to destroy evil argument.

I thought that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" meant not killing your fellow hominid homo sapiens sapiens, because the way you imply it is quite simple: It applies to everything.

I guess then God's law applies to everything else that isn't human or within the human experience.

Meh.

Supposedly the Ten Commandments are applied to humans and human society, no where does it explicitly state that these effects work in nature (to my understanding and interpretation), which is indeed a separate beast.

But what basis do you draw this faulty conclusion from?

[Noble]

But what basis do you draw this faulty conclusion from?

I am by no means saying that this is how I or anyone else interprets or should interpret the commandment. I am trying to illustrate the fallibility of language, and how even a word like "kill" which has a very direct meaning, can be construed and interpreted in many different ways.

[Atomic Chicken]

Fallibility aside, where does it say in the Bible and similar sacred text that you "Shalt not kill" Nature?

[Trinity]

"Thou shalt not kill" should actualy read "thou shalt not murder".

[Noble]

Fallibility aside, where does it say in the Bible and similar sacred text that you "Shalt not kill" Nature?

You are missing my point. The commandment does not read "Thou shalt not murder" or "Thou shalt not kill people". It reads "Thou shalt not kill". The fact is that human language is given to misinterpretation, especially for those who are ignorant of the sea of intricacies involved with a language; this is especially true for English. If I take "Thou shalt not kill" as the absolute word of god, by the strictest definition, I should not kill anything at all.

An infallible being, such as god would have to communicate its ideas with such a complexity, as to never be misunderstood or misinterpreted. This is demonstrated by the idea that God sent his son Christ Jesus as the temporal incarnation of the Logos, or the divine word of god (correct me if I am wrong on this point, I am basing this on Wikipedia's article on Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ)). If god could communicate with human language such a messenger would not have been necessary, God would speak directly to all men, and all men would be his faithful servants.

Taking Fallibility aside, removes my words form their context.

[molo]

That whole kill/murder thing (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html) is debatable, and it depends who you listen to. Protip: both are valid translations, with caveats.

[tyrion]

I return to find things have carried on much as before, with about as much progress being made. Our friends have departed in suitably dramatic style and presumably will not return until they recieve instruction to the contrary.

I feel that something important has come to light throughout this debate, in that given a starting point that lacks any foundation no degree of logical progression will be valid or helpful. A closed mind is immunized against argument, a sad fact that has been at the root of many wars.

[Bonnet]

Actually the point I was making is that the assumption there is a god is no more or less a valid starting principle for a system of beliefs than any other because all such suppositions are currently logically improvable. Hence after we assume an initial condition the only requirement for a system to be sound is self consistency; whether or not he Christian one is is an argument I would rather avoid.

[BigFish]

My 2C on the whole "Thou shalt not kill/murder" debate:

I would worry less about the semantics of the kill/murder portion of the translation and worry more about that fact that (if the bible is correct of course) a few pages both before and after god issues this proclomation, he then orders several wars, the displacement of several nations and genocide of several smaller tribes.... :(






...as well as the extinction of an unfortunate mollusk genus (amonites)!

[Noble]

I really think the main point I was trying to make got glossed over. It doesn't matter what the true meaning of the commandment is. The very fact that the commandment is open to interpretation indicates that God cannot possibly be specific enough in his word when using any known form of communication.





Actually the point I was making is that the assumption there is a god is no more or less a valid starting principle for a system of beliefs than any other because all such suppositions are currently logically improvable. Hence after we assume an initial condition the only requirement for a system to be sound is self consistency; whether or not he Christian one is is an argument I would rather avoid.

That is the very point that either of the two creationists failed to contend.

Edit: Think of the amonites! Wont someone please think of the amonites!

[Smokering]

n0bl3: The fact that the text of Exodus 20 should read 'You shall not murder' is exemplified by the fact that God clearly permits, and even commands, certain kinds of killing. Capital punishment and wars, under Israelite law, were commanded at various times by God. As for the Ammonites, (for whom you're expressing a good deal of concern for someone who does not believe in absolute morality), God created them and was sovereign over them. He had a perfect right to order them killed; and let's not forget, God ended up killing the Israelites who killed them, too. In fact... news flash... everybody dies. If you're going to be consistent, get angry at God for letting *anybody* die--the 80-year-old with Alzheimer's, the 20-year-old debutante, the month-old baby, the man in a war or the man with the gun to his own head. I'm not sure why the decision of a sovereign deity to let an Ammonite die in war is any less cataclysmic, morally speaking, than to let an old lady who nobody likes die in bed. One just has more emotional impact... but we're all trying to be logical little bunnies here, aren't we? Be logical: complain about death in general.

Actually the point I was making is that the assumption there is a god is no more or less a valid starting principle for a system of beliefs than any other because all such suppositions are currently logically improvable. Hence after we assume an initial condition the only requirement for a system to be sound is self consistency; whether or not he Christian one is is an argument I would rather avoid

A first principle is by definition, logically unprovable; yes. But not all first principles are created equal, because self-consistency is not in fact the only requirement. A first principle ALSO has to contain enough information to formulate an epistemology (a theory of knowing how we can know) and metaphyic (a theory about the nature of reality). At this point, the debate becomes evidential.

So, for example, the first principle 'I think, therefore I am' is not self-contradictory, so it passes the first test. However, it does not contain enough information to tell us anything about the nature of reality (metaphysic), so it fails the test. You can't assume from 'I think therefore I am' that matter exists, or that other humans exist, etc. So it is not a sound first principle; it is not useful.

The first principle 'Knowledge is gained through empirical means' does not even pass the first test; it is self-contradictory, because that statement cannot be verified by empirical means. So again, not a sound first principle.

The first principle 'The Bible is the word of God' contains (this is important) as part of the principle, all the axioms to be found in the Bible. In other words, you can't really understand what the first principle entails until you've read the Bible. It is not simply a claim about the divinity of Scripture; it is a very, very long first principle (Bible-length!) which involves statements about the nature of man, matter, reality, thought, philosophy and so on. Whether or not you believe the Bible, you must grant (if you have read it) that it doescontain enough information to formulate an epistemology and metaphysic, and that therefore, irrespective of your personal beliefs, it is a sound first principle.

Many of you have been frustrated, I think, because you've wanted to know why another first principle, similiar to the Christian one, couldn't be equally valid, and Bnonn and I hadn't told you. On my part, anyway, this was a miscommunication; the answer is that you can't ask that question as a theoretical, it must be specific. As the criteria for a sound first principle are partly evidential, postulating that there might be another sound first principle, or that you could write your own Bible, aren't much help. Show me the first principle and all the literature or information that may be entailed within it, and we can go from there.

Someone did mention Zeus. I don't think the way the first principle was formulated contained enough information to be sound in the original post, but if whoever it was wished to reformulate it, we could look at that. I would tend to assume Zeus didn't leave enough textual evidence from which we could form an epistemology and metaphysic; but I'm not really up on Zeus. I know this seems like I'm taking it too seriously, but I'm trying to point out that frivolous examples don't work as an objection; any first principle must contain quite a lot of information, and beliefs in, say, the Big Chicken in the Sky just don't cut it. I hope this clears up some of the confusion.

Edit: Oh yeah, someone wanted to know why we still study Leviticus and memorise it as the word of God, if we no longer follow Levitical laws. Well, as it happens I don't think a lot of people memorise Leviticus, on the grounds that good portions of it are kinda boring. But we still consider it the word of God, because it still *is* the word of God; it just isn't as relevant to us any more. People still learn in school about laws that are no longer laws (breach of promise, for example, or miscegany). The idea is not that we'll get arrested *nowadays* for failing to marry our fiance; it's that at one time we would have, and that was a vital and integral part of our country's history. Maybe not the grandest analogy, but Christians can still learn a lot from the rituals and practices of the Old Testament priests; besides which, God has commanded us to study all Scripture, not just the parts of it which are most directly relevant.

[Mac_Bug]

How about this:

God exists, but the Bible is written by the Devil. <insert your paragraph>