“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” (Christopher Hitchens)
What can be asserted without proof…
May 31, 2008 By 36 Comments
A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos
Atheist:
Subscribe through RSS
Follow Patheos on
Faith Channels
Religion Library
Topics
Resources
Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy
I don’t know if you’ve heard this one.
“If we go back to the beginning we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them, and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve their own interests.”
“If ignorance of Nature gave birth to gods, then knowledge of Nature is calculated to destroy them.”
- Baron d’Holbach
I came to your site through StumbleUpon, and I’m glad I did. Like you, I was a genuine, passionate, well-educated, apologetic Christian. The truth broke my heart. You aren’t alone.
Jessica,
Given the opening quote on this post, your quotation of Baron d’Holbach seems rather out of place…
Depends on what ‘dismissed’ means. If he means “reasonable denied” then it is false.
The problem is that religion is also argued without proof, and you can’t use evidence to convince a christian when they didn’t arrive at their conclusions through evidence. This is what makes faith such a scary concept to me.
janet thats an excellent point.
Janet,
I would disagree that religion is argued without proof. I know of several prominant Christians who were previously atheists… who set out to actually disprove Christianity, but instead were so overwhelmed by the incontrovertable evidence that the were forced to embrace the Christian faith instead. C. S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, and Lee Stroebel come to mind.
And do not forget that it takes a great deal of “faith” to believe that there IS no God… that evolution actually produced the complexity of life we see on this planet, and that the entire universe somehow materialized out of nothing. Mind you, there’s no conclusive evidence for any of those things. It takes a lot of faith to look at the minimal set of facts we have available to us and extrapolate such a mathematically improbable course of history.
We all have faith of one kind or another. The question is not if our faith can be “proven” or not, but which faith is most consistent with the facts that we know for sure. To be sure… a faith that is embraced in spite of the facts is indeed a scary thing. But don’t be so hasty to assume that it is only the error of those who embrace faith in a deity.
Ed
Ed
Ed,
Actually it takes no faith to not believe in god, it takes reason. Many Atheists and Evolutionists believe that life is a spectacular form of “Emergence” (complexity arising in a spontaneous, natural manner out of a large number of simple interactions, like the unique crystals of a snowflake due to the properties of water molecules). We don’t REALLY know how the universe began and we don’t claim to, we just don’t believe that an invisible man in the sky created the universe in 7 days and then took a rib from men (who were made from dust) to create women.
And evolution is really just saying that small things started to work together to survive (cells creating animals) and then adapted, physically and mentally, to their environment, is that really so strange?
Also, the men you mentioned were probably absorbed by what most people call “dogma” the mental need of humans to have a sense of belonging, this is especially prevalent in the church, who get most of their converts from people who are just coming out of depression and need something to hold on to (i.e. “Born Agains”).
I would also like to point out that you gave no evidence besides that some Atheists turned Christian.
~Damon
Damon, may I quote you?
You said: “Many Atheists and Evolutionists BELIEVE that life is a spectacular form of “Emergence” (complexity arising in a spontaneous, natural manner out of a large number of simple interactions, like the unique crystals of a snowflake due to the properties of water molecules).” [emphasis mine]
“Faith” is, by definition, “belief.” We believe something that we cannot prove. To believe that the unfathomable complexities of life happened by natural causes and “simple interactions” when the probabilities of such an occurrence is beyond any statistical possibility is nothing but raw and unsupportable faith.
(Proof: DNA is the language of life. It is more complex than any of us yet know. The data contained within it would fill volumes of books. The spontaneous development of such complexity is NOT explainable by ANY known process, simple or otherwise, yet it drives the life processes of every organism that has ever lived.)
I’ll quote you again: “And evolution is really just saying that small things started to work together to survive (cells creating animals) and then adapted, physically and mentally, to their environment, is that really so strange?”
Yes indeed that IS so strange, as it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics… AND the mutation from one animal form to another has NEVER been observed in nature or in the fossil record? (“What can be asserted without proof…”)
You’re telling me that in spite of those incontrovertible facts, that your holding on to your BELIEF in evolution takes no FAITH???
I’m not going to fault you for choosing to believe in evolution if you think the evidence weighs in its favor, but to claim that it takes NO faith to do so is utter intellectual blindness.
The “faith” that undergirds evolutionary belief makes the huge and utterly untestable assumption that the ONLY “causes” that CAN exist are those which we can discern by scientific method and human experience and observation. Obviously, if that assumption is true, then evolution is the only viable explanation for the origin of life.
Creationists don’t make that assumption. Instead, they see the complexities of life and the utter absence of observable transitions between species and conclude that the presence of an outside “cause” is a more credible explanation than natural causes, even if its existence remains untestable.
(please note, I have not quoted one verse from the Bible, nor have I even invoked the idea of “God.” I have only used reason)
My claim that it takes a great deal of faith to believe in evolution still stands.
Ed
No it doesn’t. Does it take faith to disbelieve in Santa Claus? Zeus?
Modern evolutionary synthesis requires no faith… or anyway, a comparatively tiny amount, since there is a lot of evidence for evolution and virtually none for the God hypothesis. (“Overwhelmed by controvertible evidence”? Really?! Is that just a simple lie? What evidence?)
Religion is, in fact, embraced in spite of the facts. The facts say that supernatural things are either actually nonexistent or effectively nonexistent, which is sort of redundant.
*incontrovertible
rA,
You said, “Does it take faith to disbelieve in Santa Claus? Zeus?”
That question reveals that you do not understand at all the nature of this debate.
The belief in evolution is much more than simply a denial that God (or Santa Claus) exists. It is an active attempt to explain the greatest mystery of the universe:” how did we — and all life — come to be?”
I quote you again…”The facts say that supernatural things are either actually nonexistent or effectively nonexistent, which is sort of redundant.”
Facts can say NOTHING about that which is “supernatural” for the very reason that “facts” are those things which are discernible within the “natural” realm. We have absolutely no mechanism for testing the supernatural for existence or non-existence.
What you have actually done is made an assumption that the supernatural does not exist. Assumptions can never be considered “facts.”
Ed
No, the beginning of life is called abiogenesis, and modern evolutionary synthesis has nothing to do with it. The theory of gravity doesn’t explain how life began, either.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820
rA…
2 points…
1. I did not say, “the beginning of life,” I said, “how we — and all life — came to be.” I spoke not of merely a point in time, but the entire full development of all life on earth. That IS what evolution attempts to explain.
2. You quoted Thomas Jefferson, I will quote the Apostle Paul.
“what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.” — The Apostle Paul, letter to the Romans, A.D 58.
Who are we to believe? Tom or Paul?
Seems to me that Paul is saying that there IS evidence for those things which Tom admits “may indeed be.”
In my opinion, evolution is an attempt to explain away the evidence that is just as clear as Paul said it is. The only reason someone rejects that evidence is because they really WANT there to be no God. That’s a pretty poor way to arrive at truth, though.
Ed
Ed,
Seeing as how Paul PROBABLY also thought that the Earth was flat and everything revolved around it, I’m going with Tom.
Also, Belief and Faith are two different things, Belief is something that may have facts supporting it, like I believe that an apple is usually red. Faith is just that, Faith. I can have Faith in someone despite all evidence to the contrary (hence, taking a leap of faith) Your claim that it takes a great deal of faith to believe in evolution has been knocked down. :)
In retort to your assumption that it is very strange for animals to work together, I say that it is fact incredibly common, many animals (birds, wolves, lions, bugs, etc.) work together in many different ways, the most common form of this is a pack of animals, many animals working together to achieve the same goal. What cells do is the same idea, but on a much smaller scale (cells forming together to make larger animals, then changing with time in order to become more efficient at surviving)
Also, there are many cases of evolutionary bones, just not as many as there could be seeing as how 95% of the Earth’s animals are extinct. We have found many fossils showing the evolutionary links between birds and flying lizards like pterodactyls, as well as some showing different evolutionary phases of fish, mammals evolutionary fossils are very hard to find as they are often categorized as completely different species due to large changes. Many of the very small evolutionary changes are incredibly hard to see and sometimes categorized as odd birth defects (i.e. a slightly longer finger). In other words, we have the bones, but the trouble lies in putting them in order.
Next, do you honestly think that instead of using science based on real, visible explanations, we should go back to assuming that milk spoils because of goblins? That Helios pulls the sun across the sky in his golden chariot? No? Then what makes you believe that other supernatural like God, Allah, or Vishnu are plausable? In the words of Epicurus “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” If God has created the world, then why does he not govern it? Unless you are a Deist your God is supposedly still here, and obviously doing a piss-poor job of governing.
I also do not appreciate that you (not so) subtly laced your response with insults to my intelligence and trust that you will not stoop so low in the future.
~Damon
Yes, I will also go with Jefferson. I am about as confident in Paul of Tarsus as I am of Mohammed, or Gautama Buddha, or Joseph Smith Jr., when he says that impossible things are possible. The Bible is fiction.
rA,
You made a rather bold statement… and it is actually testable.
“The Bible is fiction.”
I dare you to put that hypothesis to the test!
You should be able to find archeological evidence that the Bible is in error.
You should be able to find something in the Bible that is contrary to testable scientific fact.
You should be able to find plenty of evidence for your hypothesis… if it’s true.
Apply all the scientific method you want to it. Prove to yourself and everyone else that it’s really “fiction.”
Be advised, however, that you’re not the first to attempt it, and I’m quite sure you won’t be the last. But if you are “successful”… you will most assuredly be the very first!
So, go ahead… I dare you. It could make you famous! You would be THE guy who finally debunked the Bible.
And no, I’m not kidding at all… this is a serious challenge.
Ed
Here is a pretty good summary of why a global flood is totally impossible. One example, out of hundreds or thousands, of things the Bible says that can’t be so.
The Bible repeatedly says the world is flat, that it doesn’t move.
It says headaches and epilepsy are caused by demons.
“Miracles” are, by definition, impossible. Mammals can’t be born of a virgin, humans can’t walk on water, and so on.
The Bible says all sorts of things that contradict reality. I think you are mistaken in your impression that I stand alone in calling the Bible a collection of Bronze Age fairy tales written by anonymous, random, semi-literate desert nomads. There is no evidence to the contrary, and the burden of proof is not on the skeptic.
reply fail
superstitious! don’t forget superstitious
rA,
Obviously, you can’t tell the difference between a natural claim in Scripture and a supernatural one. You also are evidently unable or unwilling to recognize or acknowledge your bias and presuppositions.
Let me show you what I mean:
You said, “Here is a pretty good summary of why a global flood is totally impossible…”
Here, you assume that the topography of the current earth is indeed the topography of the prehistoric earth. The evidence to the contrary abounds. For example, even on mountaintops we see evidence of sea life fossils. And many of the highest mountains are made up entirely of sedimentary strata. That means that somehow, even those mountains were under water as some time. Doesn’t that suggest that at some time in the past, they were NOT as high as they are today? Sure, a global flood is impossible with today’s topography and water supply, but that sure doesn’t mean that the earth always looked like it does today. Plate tectonics are usually given as the mechanism that drove the mountains skyward… this is a clear admission that the mountains were not always as high as they are today. There are many, many geological features on earth that can only be adequately explained by a global flood.
You said, “The Bible repeatedly says the world is flat, that it doesn’t move.”
Two points:
1. show me ONE place where the Bible claims that the earth is flat!
2. Common experiential terminology does not constitute a scientific declaration. Even today, when we really do know the truth, we say, “I watched the sun come up this morning.” We see that same terminology in the Bible.
You said, “‘Miracles’ are, by definition, impossible. Mammals can’t be born of a virgin, humans can’t walk on water, and so on.”
The Bible never claims that any of those things are natural or normal. But it does record them happening. When it does, it attributes the unnatural event to supernatural intervention. You can only declare them as false because you have — by your own words — declared them as “impossible.” And true enough, if there is nothing beyond our physical realm, then you are correct. But that is an assumption, it is not fact. Assumptions are not proof of anything. The Bible clearly assumes the presence of the spirit realm, and it speaks of the interaction between the spirit realm as a reality. That reality is, by nature, unprovable, since we can only prove what occurs solely within the physical realm.
I never claimed that the Bible was provable. You claimed that the Bible was fiction. In point of fact, you made the positive claim, so the burden of proof is on you to point to an actual factual error. You still have not done so.
My claim is that nowhere is the Bible contrary to scientific fact. You only need to point to one error in the Bible to demonstrate that my claim is in error.
Ed
“For example, even on mountaintops we see evidence of sea life fossils. And many of the highest mountains are made up entirely of sedimentary strata”
That’s easily (and observably) explained by plate-tectonics. There are sea minerals atop mountains, because those mountains were once sea-floor. A great flood would NOT explain the mineral make-up of mountains, because it would not acount for the huge lengths of time required to deposit enough detritus to form limestone rocks.
“There are many, many geological features on earth that can only be adequately explained by a global flood.”
That is complete and total nonsense. Tell me what you believe those features are, and I will endeavour to explain them for you. In your own time.
“1. show me ONE place where the Bible claims that the earth is flat!”
You’re right, that is a modern myth. The originating cultures of the OT certainly did believe in a flat Earth, but it’s certainly not a NT assertion.
“You said, “‘Miracles’ are, by definition, impossible. Mammals can’t be born of a virgin, humans can’t walk on water, and so on.”
The Bible never claims that any of those things are natural or normal. But it does record them happening.”
To fudge a quote, there are no proven, recorded, undeniable examples of nature ever going astray from its normal path. THere are billions upon billions of proven, recorded, undeniable examples of people lying.
Argument from disproof fail.
Damon…
Let me first apologize for saying anything that came off as insulting. That was not my intent.
Belief vs. Faith.
The “faith” that you describe is not my faith. My definition of faith is exactly as I gave it. To believe in something that I cannot prove.
Truth faith is NEVER in contradiction with facts. You yourself may believe that my faith is in contradiction with the facts, but I can say with absolute confidence that MY faith is not in contradiction with one single scientific FACT. It may be in contradiction with the prevailing interpretation of those facts, but it does not contradict any of facts themselves.
By contrast, I see in evolution a great deal of contradiction with known scientific facts.
Regarding the supposed “transitional” forms you mentioned… you forget that the real similarity between two species is not at all in its physical features, but in its DNA. Bird DNA is not reptilian and vice versa. Just because a reptile flies like a bird does not mean that they are similar in their DNA.
The “transitional” forms you think you are observing may indeed not be different species at all. Consider the dog. If all the dogs in the world were extinct and we had nothing but the fossil record of all the different breeds, one could easily and mistakenly assume that the chihuahua was the “early” dog and that the species reached its pinnacle of evolution in the Great Dane. Such great diversity in dogs exists completely within a single DNA makeup. Indeed, it would be genetically possible to cross a chihuahua with a Great Dane and have a dog that shared characteristics of both breeds… but it would still be fully a dog.
As you said, 95% of all animals are extinct. Yet the assumption is that different skeletal remains reflect transitions between species rather than simply the very kind of diversity we can observe not just in dogs, but also in countless other animal species.
In other words… changes in the length of a finger is completely to be expected as a variance within a species. It does not and cannot product a change to the fundamental structure of DNA…and only THAT kind of change can cause one species to become another.
Yet this is exactly what Evolution teaches that happened. I simply do NOT have that kind of faith. In fact, that is precisely the kind of faith you described above. You believe it in spite of clear scientific evidence that evolution is impossible. But if you cast out the notion that anything exists outside of what you can see and test, then Evolution — as weak a theory as it is — is the best option available to you.
For the record, I am all FOR true science. By that I mean that we examine the natural world carefully and accurately, that we interpret the facts carefully and without bias (Evolutionary teaching has its own bias… and a very strong one at that). It means that we interpret the facts according to what they lead us to, not in order to only support our own pre-understanding.
And since you raised the concept of a god… I’ll address your words.
Regarding your statements about the god you think is doing such a poor job… be aware that the God who is does not answer to you or any other man. And the last chapter has not been written yet.
The reason that He allows evil to continue is exactly the same reason that He allows a man like yourself to speak so disrespectfully about Him without striking you down here and now. It’s the very same reason He does not strike me down for my own failure to respond to Him as He deserves. It is because He gave us all a free will to choose right or wrong. If He gave us that opportunity, but then “overruled” every time you or I ever do something contrary to what He would desire, then the gift of choice would not be a genuine gift at all.
He also has this amazing ability to turn something horrifically wicked into something astoundingly beautiful. This was most clearly displayed in His taking the crucifixion of His own Son Jesus Christ and allowing His suffering to become the substitution for the wrath that you and I genuinely deserve. He could have stopped the tragic murder, but instead He turned it into the opportunity for forgiveness of sins against Him… including all those you listed.
That’s all the “preaching” I’ll do.
One last thing… beware of the “straw man” approach to dealing with those of us who side with the Creation theory instead of the Evolution theory… not one of your characterizations of what I believe has even come close to what I believe. Honestly, I too could and would shoot down the straw man you’ve set up.
Ed
“reply fail”
Yeah, it usually fails in the old posts.
rA, don’t forget Jonas’s tale :-)
The Koran says Mohammad flew up to heaven on a winged horse, and that Jews and Christians are enemies of God. I presume you think the Koran is fiction. Muslims think the Bible is fiction. If you were raised in Saudi Arabia instead of America, you’d agree, and vice versa for them. Why do you accept the Bible’s supernatural claims, and not the Vedas? The Agamas? The Iliad?
According to the Bible, the Earth has corners and an end:
Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)
Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)
Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)
Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
The Earth doesn’t move, according to the Bible:
Psalm 104:5
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
According to the Bible, the Earth has edges:
“that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)”
“He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. (From the NIV Bible, Job 37:3)”
“for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (From the NIV Bible, Job 28:24)”
“Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea. (From the NIV Bible, Job 11:9)”
According to the often quoted Isaiah 40:22, the sky is like a tent:
“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)”
The quote Custador is looking for:
— Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
Ed,
I’m going to go against your claim that DNA cannot change because, sorry to be a hypocrite, it is incredibly stupid. NO two animals DNA are exactly alike, you are talking as if all the animals in a species have the exact same DNA, this is false as they have different and unique DNAs just as you and I do.
This is where Survival Of The Fittest comes into play, the ones that SURVIVE (i.e. don’t get eaten or killed in some other way) live on to reproduce, causing the desirable traits that made them not get eaten to be passed on to their decendents, strengthening their species as a whole, this went on a lot seeing as many creatures have very short life spans. So their traits that allowed them to gather food and avoid predators were passed on, and slowly they changed through this again and again until they developed a way to get their needs as easily as possible.
A good example of this is humans, our ancestors (monkeys) needed a way to defend themselves and get food. Seeing as how we have nothing phisically dangerous like extremely sharp teeth, we used our advantage (thumbs) to use rocks and other objects as weapons (like how some birds use theirs beaks to smash nuts against hard objects to open them). After a while, because this didn’t work very well, we slowly realized that to put them together or changing them can make them become deadlier, perhaps by sharpening them to make a crude knife or using a primitive form of rope to attach them to a stick and make a hammer, as time went on, we slowly got better at this and using our skills of communication (which many animals have, though ours is better than most), created methods for this like using harder materials like bronze.
Hence, we moved into the bronze age and started making things for other purposes besides hunting, like making shelter and domesticating animals to make them easier to eat. And then, you know the story from there.
Sorry for the explanation of humans, i kind of got off track there for a while. Anyway though, Survival Of The Fittest and evolution are passing desirable traits down through mating and is perfectly natural for no animals have the same DNA.
~Damon
I will make one final response, since I am not a scientist by profession and I don’t have the time to enter into a debate on this very broad topic with multiple opponents.
First of all, I will say that I’m impressed with the quick response of rA with so many direct Biblical quotations. My response is that the quotations that you’ve given can be understood to fall into one of two categories. They are either simply phenomenal language such as we still use today regarding the “appearance” that the sun “rises” or “sets;” or they are poetic language, which can invoke any sort of linguistic metaphor. In neither case is it an attempt to explain the astronomical phenomenon that we observe in the universe. I know that explanation will seem to be a cop out for most of you, but it is not unreasonable. Therefore, the conclusion that these statements are are scientific errors is not incontrovertible. Nonetheless it was an impressive list.
Custador, I wish I could take the time to lay out for you the claims that you asked. I’m afraid that they are not on the tip of my tongue. They could be found by searching out the foundational scientific facts which undergird “flood geology.”
For me personally, the very fact that just about every inch of land on this earth is covered by incredibly deep layers of sediment is an astounding geological fact that the “primordial ocean” idea simply does not adequately explain. If all that land mass was at some time under water, where was the land mass that had to have been above water to compensate? And since ALL land masses were clearly under water for long enough time that they could accumulate such deep layers of sediment, how could there have possibly been enough time (let alone tremendous geological upheaval) to allow for the all land masses of the earth to have spent their needed time underwater to collect all that sediment? AND… if each land mass had to “take its turn” (since there’s not enough water to cover them all at the same time, right?) Then we should see vastly different “geological columns” on every continent! Yet the geological column is so similar from continent to continent that we can note only slight differences between them! This points clearly to the idea that the global sedimentary layers were laid down *at the same time!* This likewise explains why we find the same sort of fossils in the same layers no matter what continent we find them on.
It is generally accepted by evolutionists that a comet or meteor hit the earth and initiated the extinction of the dinosaurs. I would suggest that the pre-comet/meteor earth was vastly different the one we observe today. It would have to have been. Very likely, it was that comet/meteor that triggered the upheaval that broke open subterranean water stores, set the continents on their course to their present locations, and which, when they ground to a halt, forced the leading edge towards the skies as new mountains, carrying their sediment up with them. Many of the layers were still so soft that hundreds of feet of strata were bent all together rather than broken, for they had not yet turned to stone. This of course, implies that before that catastrophic event, all land mass was much more level than it is today. That would mean that a global flood would not require nearly as much water as it would today with our tall mountains.
I know there’s not a whole lot of strict geological facts in that presentation, but there should be enough there to ponder. As I said, I see the sedimentary layers all over the earth, and I see the signature of a global flood. I think it explains the facts better then a gazillion years of migrating oceans.
My faith… that there is a Creator… is not at all contrary to scientific facts. I would even claim that the belief in a Creator is the most logical conclusion to draw from the observable data available to us. (For the record, that is a claim quite distinct from the claim that the God who is Creator is actually the God of the Bible, but that’s another topic.) That, of course, is my opinion, and you are all entitled to disagree. I do hope, however, that you can tell that my head is not in the sand, scientifically speaking. I love science and the things we can learn about our universe. But what I see there tells me of a powerful God, not random chance. The more I learn, the more amazed I am at the creative artistry of that God.
My point which started all this is that it takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution… not just a Creator. I know that it takes faith to believe in a Creator which I cannot see nor prove exists, but I am completely befuddled that so many of you seem to be unaware of how much raw faith you are exercising to believe in evolution which you also cannot observe or prove.
To Damon… regarding DNA… I did not say that all animals of the same type have the same DNA, I said that different animals have different kinds of DNA. Genes are compatible and sharable within a species only… they have not, are not, and never will be shared *between* species. That was my point.
Ok… nuff said. I suppose that we part ways here all with our original beliefs still intact. I have appreciated the discourse, but I don’t have sufficient time nor training to rebuff every evolutionary argument nor adequately present every Creationist argument. There are plenty of others who do so much better than I.
May we all be more committed to discerning truth than defending our own dogma!
Ed
LOL, ed uses all of the typical arguments you’d EXPECT a theist to use.
LOL, ed uses all of the typical arguments you’d EXPECT a theist to use. xD
Ed and Damon, congratulations. You have engaged in the rarest of pursuits in today’s environment–an extended, logical debate about a topic you are passionately opposed on, without degrading (much) into personal attacks. Well done, and much enjoyed!
At one point I saw the often-used claim that nobody has ever documented one species turning into another. That’s an interesting claim because species change is the result of slow population drift, not a magic poof. So definition matters. Are you saying there’s no fossil record of a magic poof individual whose sole existence was the demarcation between species? Then all should agree on that.
However, evidence of genetic drift is all around us. Dog DNA has been manipulated during human existence, and a chihuahua and great dane would have trouble conceiving offspring–difficult but not impossible. Going further adrift, a horse and a donkey could have offspring, but it would be a sterile mule. Further adrift, two breeds of finches may have 99% of the same DNA, but cannot breed because they are genetically too different. One of the biggest obserations of “Origin of Species” was the recognition of genefit drift.
This is not to say that Darwin was an atheist. He just recognized that we live on a constantly-changing planet, and that the concept of a “master painter” God creating static species needed to be updated to reflect a world that is far more dynamic than even he realized.
The bottom line is, the bible contains scientific guesses from 2,000 years ago (some wrong, some right) and many timeless truths about the nature of humanity that we need now more than ever. Once we admit the difference between facts and truths, we can move past the old evolution discussion toward what broad meaning-of-life and narrower purpose-of-my-life issues that are far more important.
My $.02,
Bob
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. Mark 11:24
If you don’t believe, what can WE do? Only God can help you. If you don’t believe in Him, why would He answer your prayers?
You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:13
Also..no proof? Just listen to testimonies. There’s the proof…..
Ed, you seem to be a little cooky and ill-informed. I hold a degree in anthropology so you just have to have FAITH that I know what I’m talking about when I say that your points are week and the other folks are right on the money. C.S. Lewis? Thermodynamics? Classic strategies of creationists that don’t convince any reasonable, emotionally and mentally stable person. Sincerely, Todd
I spelled weak wrong, sorry. ;~)
It’s ok.
nicole misspelled the word “Bullshit” as “Proof” earlier.
DNA is the language of life! this is ridiculous statement. If it is, how does a DNA, what is the message and who is the sender and the recepietn of such message?
I think you’ve gone off-topic with this slightly; the example you’ve given is a simplification, a statement of facts in language that a lay-person can understand. It’s not inaccurate per se, it’s just very dumbed-down.
That’s not the same thing at all as blandly asserting the existence of an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnicognoscent, omnibenevolent, creator deity with no further evidence than “because that’s how I was raised”.