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
That’s a pretty straight forward way of describing the outside looking in view of religion.
…and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/04/14/space.hand/index.html
Some of the linked videos were also funny. I was going to email them to Daniel, but might as well list them here.
IF God Disappeared
Love God back – or ELSE!
I am not sure who made me watch this. Was that caused by
The Thing That Made the Things For Which There Is No Known Maker. If it was I would like to thank The Thing That Made the Things For Which There Is No Known Maker.
Thanks – To The Thing That Made the Things For Which There Is No Known Maker
Pretty much anything by either NonStampCollector or Edward Current is guaranteed to be riotous. Actually, I had just posted a link to this video in a topic yesterday. ;)
I thought it was kind of boring actually. It didn’t seem to go anywhere so I stopped watching halfway.
Suddenly I understand! Oh my The Thing That Made the Things For Which There Is No Known Maker!
I wish this was what people really said instead of “god.” That would be quite funny.
Also, the voices in this sounded a bit like the Flight of the Conchord guys which definitely made the video funnier to me.
LOL. I feel like I am 8 years old all over again, asking my father and mother all the why and how questions a kid can ever ask about god and religion. Their answers never made any sense way back then, and they still don’t make any sense today. My father is an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God, btw, but thank goodness the years of brainwashing did not stick. I am free from theism and at peace with my freedom.
Wow two absolutely fucking sweet posts in a row! Props man!
This is a thought I just had. It doesn’t really pertain to this video, but I thought I’d stick it here anyways.
When Christians come to this site and exclaim that they have found God and Jesus, and that they have felt His presence in their heart, and that anyone who hasn’t just isn’t doing it right… it makes me wonder.
Is the requirement for feeling God and Jesus that you’re already a believer? Can you not be an atheist, and then be approached by God? He has done this before, has He not? Why do I already -have- to believe in God and Jesus and live my life according to his (or maybe, the Church?) teachings before I will ever have any evidence of his existence? It just seems weird to me. There -are- recorded instances in the Bible where God approached those who did not know he existed, and made himself known.
What if I was like one of the many regulars here? What if I had faith, but lost it, and never had one of those moments? Does that not seem irresponsible on God’s part? Why did he abandon those who were eagerly and earnestly seeking him, but still present himself to others? Maybe he is not omnipotent.
If He were real, then surely we’d be able to easily tell, and from there we could decide to follow or not. I would imagine that knowing God would be similar to knowing if it was hot or cold outside. If God were real, then denying him would be like wearing shorts in the deep winter, insisting that it is too hot, even as the frostbite takes away your fingers and toes.
It seems like I’m the only one who’s seen part two, so I just wanted to let everyone know that the name they came up with was Brog. Now, let’s all take a moment to give thanks to Almighty Brog.
Just wondering!
Obviously on this blog there are strong feelings against God and His existence. Also feelings against Christians who not being offensive towards you, but just bringing the gospel. It seems that you need indisputable evidence that God exists and that the Bible is true.
Help me out here – where is the evidence that God does not exist, apart from your feelings?
Where is the evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead and redeem us?
Where is the evidence that there is no deity in existence?
Where is the evidence supporting your theory that Jesus etc is just a load of lies and deception.
Waiting……………..
UCBones
Blessings? What an arrogance. I don’t want nor do I need your blessings. That is just a weasle way out of true debate
Just by your saying “I wouldn’t call god a negative” sheds vast amounts of light or your tenable grasp, at best, of rational thought processes.
As far as atoms, we can directly measure them and predict behavior of such entities. I’m surprised you didn’t mention the wind as well.
Show me the citations for your “scientific claims”. Until you do, and until you answer the most basic questions as to evidence (you’ve yet to grasp the idea that a negative can’t be proven) I will not waste time nor effort replying any further to your unsubstantiated claims.
Addendum;
Name one supernatural incident. This can not include Jesus mustering his image in a tortilla.
“This discussion has degenerated and is going personal. We are going in a circle. I respect your views but now you obviously seem to ridicule mine. I have not been offensive to you, but sincere and genuine.
Anyway it was good to talk. Bye”
But denying he is offended..
“On the day that the Lord Jesus returns, in glory and power, EVERY knee will bow, and you will not need anymore proof.”
Then..
“The ball has been left in your court, I have not taken it home.
Mat 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.”
The non-offensive words of a christian who is offended because he is rejected by his “God”.
For he says:
God does not need me to prove He exists, He is more than capable of doing that. I pray that one day He will prove to you that He exists.
this reminds me of this:
For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
Acts 17:22-24
Sounds like early Athiests?
Also, just a thought experiment on irreducible complexity: consider a man-made arch. You examine it and conclude that it could not possibly have been built brick-by-brick; the half-arch would fall over when it got to a certain height. It had to have been planted there fully formed. Then a builder explains how arches are made: a frame and scaffolding is consutrcted around the spot where the arch will go, the arch is built within the frame, and once the keystone is placed, the frame is removed.
An arch appears to be irreducibly complex until you consider the possibility that there were other parts there before, which are not there now.
Hopefully using an analogy that includes human designers does not confuse the issue.
Another also, on intelligent design vs random chance: that is a false choice, those are not the only two options. Evolution is not chance; it is arguably the opposite of chance. Evolution is progressive refinement. Look at the changes man has been able to effect over animal species by artificial selection / selective breeding, in, say, cows. Or dogs. Man’s power and timeframe are feeble compared to the vast, incomprehensible amount of time that nature has had to effect changes. Especially when you consider that artificial selection has mostly been applied to outward appearances, and natural selection affects every cell of an organism, and has much stricter standards.
Carl Sagan’s “cosmic calendar” analogy is startling: if the “Big Bang” happens on January 1st, our solar system doesn’t even form until early September, and all of recorded human history fits into the last ten seconds of December 31st. I find it difficult to conceive of even ten thousand years. What about a million years? Six hundred million years?
Biological evolution is not related to and does not describe the origin of life (abiogenesis), which may indeed be improbable. But the cool part is, however improbable it is, it only had to happen once. And we can dispense with arguments about whether or not it happened, which is actually kind of a big deal, because clearly it did: here we are talking about it.
Doug-
You said:
“What I am concerned about:
You are not remaining open to any change in your thinking. I for one feel that scientific data will point back to the same question ultimately…
Is their a creator? If this is the case, if you agree, then we can proceed. I don’t know any other way to draw conclusions though without addressing the study of “intelligent design”
Ok… you need to understand what science actually is. Science’s domain in the NATURAL world, not the SUPERNATURAL world. Science CANNOT make claims about ANYTHING that is not in the NATURAL world (like God) unless it manifests itself into the NATURAL world.
This is the primary reason ID fails. Saying that the world looks designed is a PHILOSOPHICAL position, not a SCIENTIFIC one. Scientists have NO WAY to falsify such a statement, therefore it is NOT a scientific statement. Further, scientists would have to ACTUALLY observe God him/herself creating in order to make this scientific in any way. Additionally, other scientists would have to be able to REPLICATE those observations.
Please, I urge you to read the following link from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on what SCIENCE actually IS:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
Once we can agree on a definition of science together, perhaps we can move on to the scientific evidence for evolution, okay?
LRA,
are you saying then, you are only interested in discussing the topics of science only?
My intent is to compare Philosophy, Science and the Supernatural to see which one stands up.
For instance what happens when science says “it’s a mystery”, obviuos hole here that nees to be filled, how do we address this?
I am fine with this line of reasoning as long as I can use that “out” when it comes to my responses. Ultimately no one person can have all the answers to the universe. Some that are stoned may claim to, hehe.
I am certain that science does not have all the answers. I am also willing to admit that the Bible is very unclear on many topics, and my responses will be “I don’t know” or thats a grey area for me.
Interesting on the discovery institute relationship. I am sure this will be a helpful resource…
A little about myself,
I am a graphic designer. Director of Media Technology, (just an associates degree) but over 25 years of media and communications experience. I do like to study and grow in my knowledge of how things work. My specialty is web development and I have a sharp team of developers working for me that keep me humble…
Thank you for sharing.
Well, if we’re going to be able to move forward, we first have to agree on the definition of science. Can you read the article I have posted and get back to me on it? If there are points you disagree with, that’s ok, but we must first agree on what science is if we want to have a meaningful conversation!
Read as much as you can, but be sure to read 4.2 on falsification!!! Falsification is one of the primary ideas in science!
:)
You are ALWAYS allowed to say that you don’t know! Nothing wrong with that! You are NEVER allowed to say that you KNOW something that you merely BELIEVE!
(Knowledge has 3 components: is it true? is it justifiable? is it believed? Hence beliefs are not knowledge.)
My First intelligent question to everyone…
What year is it?
Doug– I appreciate you earnestly approaching this subject!
I want to add a disclaimer– just because so-called “intelligent design” calls itself science (which we can prove is not true), this doesn’t mean there is no god. There might be a god, but it is not science’s place to figure that out.
Now, when I argue against religion, I argue against specific points in the religion. This means that I take “holy” writings and I look at them the same way I look at any literature: they may contain philosophical ideas that I agree with or not– especially metaphysical and moral issues.
I reject the Bible on philosophical and empirical grounds. When people argue with me that the Bible is historical (like in Genesis) I point to the scientific evidence against that. When people argue with me that the Bible is morally objective, I point to specific moral lessons in the Bible and show them to be inconsistent logically or else not objective (ie changing over time).
So, perhaps you can tell me where to start? Do you want me to talk about why evolution is correct? Do you want me to address my concerns with changing morality in the Bible? Do you want me to discuss why the god described in the Bible can’t be benevolent?
Lets start with the topic of evolution.
of the species that is
RE: It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
I am trying to find some unit of measure to understand the reasoning for millions of years in this study of macro evolution..do you have a link for this?
Noting a statement on Emergent Properties:
There has been renewed interest in emergence within discussions of the behavior of complex systems and debates over the reconcilability of mental causation, intentionality, or consciousness with physicalism.
Is there current debate and a certain (slippery as they call it) call to attention for the differences between Humans and primates? In other words how do scientists resolve that brain activity in a primate is different than the consciousness of a human being or mental causation of a man?
In other words, how did we get so smart? If we were reduced to the consciousness of apes, at what point in history did we evolve to be this intelligent, human race, capable of running our lives and this world?
And if there was some grand evolution at some point in history, why do we still have apes? How come they are not still evolving today?
Just a few honest questions.
Scattershot reply…
No. No sentience is implied. Not “higher than man”, stricter than man. If you’ll pardon the metaphor, the rules of the game Survival of the Fittest are vastly more exacting than any system man has devised. Furthermore, they are applied to each organism’s internal workings, which is something that man simply cannot do (for example, a breeder of cows can only choose studs by outward appearances and some few rudimentary other criteria; certainly not every organ or every cell of the bull).
I’m not sure I understand this question. Are you aware that homo sapiens are primates? Humans are a species of animal. Humans are unique in that we have developed a written language, which enables all sorts of things that are impossible without the ability to store information outside the body (in the brain or in DNA). But that’s about it.
Do you mean the difference between humans and other apes? What difference, specifically? There are oceans of similarities and droplets of differences.
I strongly recommend reading The Dragons of Eden (Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence) by Carl Sagan for some non-neurologist discussion of the brain. Dr. Sagan is more of a “dreamer” than what scientists generally consider prudent, but it’s a good read. I came away with a vastly better understanding of the brain, and in particular the differences between bird, reptile, mammal, etc brains.
We are basically looking at an evolutionary snapshot. If human civilization lasts for a hundred thousand years, we will still be looking at a snapshot. The time-scale is much, much larger than that. All of human history is, generously, ten thousand years. Biological evolution is something that has taken place of hundreds of million years.
Also, no one thinks humans developed from, say, chimpanzees. The assertion is that we have a common ancestor. Cousins, not grandchildren.
*…taken place over hundreds of millions of years.
In other words, evolution is a process. There was not “some grand evolution at some point in history”. It’s the “at some point” part that is inaccurate. Apes are evolving today. So are humans. So are plants. So is everything. The process is just very, very, very slow.
I guess I am leading into a quote from Darwins Origin of the species here:
Can we wonder, then, that nature’s productions should be far ‘truer’ in character than man’s productions; that they should be infinitely better adapted to the most complex conditions of life, and should plainly bear the stamp of far higher workmanship?
In other words, he believes that the production of said natural things (as he observes) have been developed and certainly adapt better because of something (or someone) much higher than man.
Do I read this correctly?
Wade, I will come back with evidence for old earth and also for similarities between humans and other primates. Just give me a little time, but the evidence is there and it is very convincing.
:) Thanks! You are great to talk to! I appreciate you!
Sorry Doug! This new format is a little out of order, so I’ll do my best to keep up! :)
This is interesting to me…
Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys, at the 1994 International Conference on Creationism (ICC) in Pittsburgh, revealed the details of his new cosmology, which appears to solve the problem of how light can have come from distant stars in a young universe, at the same time presenting a creationist alternative to the ‘big bang’ which incorporates the same observations Ross and others use to insist the ‘big bang’ is ‘proven fact’. This theory has been peer-reviewed by qualified experts. In fact, Dr Ross, though not specially trained in cosmology, was invited to be one of the reviewers pre-publication, but refused to commit himself. He has also refused to debate Dr Humphreys on radio since publication of the new model.
Space forbids a full explanation here, but the main points are as follows.
1. Like ‘big bang’ theory, the Humphreys cosmology accepts that the gravity theory called general relativity is essentially correct (minus some of the accompanying philosophical ‘baggage’), having been experimentally verified numerous times.
2. ‘Big bang’ theory indeed flows naturally from the equations of general relativity, but only if a particular starting assumption is made, one which leading cosmologists admit is totally arbitrary and ideological, namely that the universe is unbounded—that is, having no edge and thus no centre.
3. When this is replaced by the opposite assumption (which, though equally arbitrary, seems more in line with biblical presuppositions), namely that the universe is finite and bounded, the same equations of general relativity produce a radically different result.
4. In such a bounded universe, provided only that one accepts the observations that it has expanded somewhat as God stretched out the heavens (as Scripture affirms [e.g. Isaiah 42:5], though Humphreys is not postulating some tiny starting point as ‘big bangers’ do), it is the experimentally proven time-distorting effects of gravitation which solve the problem for the Bible-believer, and show up the hollowness of the Ross claims. The results indicate, without any ‘twiddling of knobs’ or massaging data, that with the entire universe being made in six ordinary Earth-rotation days, Adam could have looked up on the sixth day at stars actually many millions of light-years away and observed light which actually left those stars—all without having to assume any change in the speed of light (c).
The Humphreys cosmology seems to have finally given a solid answer in principle to this age-old problem.
But what if believers had not had this breakthrough yet, or if (speaking fairly hypothetically, since it has had not only peer review but grudging acknowledgments from some non-Christian general relativists) there should turn out to be some basic error in this new approach? It would still be wrong to assert that there could not be some information which we did not yet have (in contrast to God, who has all information) which would explain why the conclusions of fallible people, not the teachings of the infallible Creator, were at fault.
As 1 Corinthians 8:2 says: ‘And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.’
Good question. Convenience.
Other cultures have different dating systems. According to the traditional Chinese calendar it is the year 4705. The Julian date for April 20th is 2454941. Most countries in the world today use the Gregorian Calendar. It is much easier to talk to each other about the date if we are using the same dating system.
The move from BC/AD to BC/BCE is probably the first step towards a new dating system. The next time something sufficiently cataclysmic happens, we’ll probably have a new Year Zero.
Doug- I will try to answer your questions, but since the thread is bouncing around now, I’m not sure if I’ll get to them all. If I miss something, please ask again!
Let’s start with the age of the earth. Again, religious people (not scientists) are criticizing scientific research without being educated in the field. Hence, their criticisms are easily debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Again, I refer to the talk origins website because it cites the actual scientific literature on this matter. Please let me know if you have doubts about the validity of this professional research.
DOUG!!! I think it will be easier to continue this conversation on one of the new posts, so if you’ll go over to the post “If You Open Your Mind Too Much”, I’ll be there.
:) See you there hopefully!
Oh really? I hadn’t noticed………. okay, maybe I did. :)
Amazing……God only has three fingers.
Matt Groening couldn’t have done any better.
Yeah, they’re Australians.
The Flight Of The Conchord guys are New Zealanders, which automatically makes them ten times better, of course…
outsiders often have trouble telling us apart
D’oh! I’m American, and I have trouble telling certain accents from one another (you’re probably not surprised).
By “them”, wazza clearly means Aussies. ;-)
Well, I’m sure there are ex-atheists out there who can claim that “God” did just that. With a question like that, it’s only a matter of time before converted Christians come here to witness to that effect.
One can not prove a negative. The onus is on the one making an existential claim. I can’t prove the easter bunny doesn’t exist. I can only claim there is insufficient evidence for such.
The same is true for your claim that god is real. Its up to you to provide positive evidence that such a being exists.
So where is your evidence of existence? waiting…….
You are the evidence that God does not exists and that the Bible is false by your reasoning.
Fentwin, don’t hold your breath… ;-)
The question is mine.
Where is your evidence that God does not exist.
ucbones,
you are guilty until proven innocent!
signed,
the scientific skeptic on the ground.
Indeed. ;)
As well, with lines such as “where is the evidence that God does not exist, apart from your feelings?”, I just want to bang my head against a wall.
Feelings? What about cogent, rational thought? With a lack of empirical evidence, I suppose religion does depend on “feelings”.
Oh well.
On the day that the Lord Jesus returns, in glory and power, EVERY knee will bow, and you will not need anymore proof.
Unfortunately then it will be too late. But you will have your proof. But then again this could just be the product of man’s fantasy?
We exist, as you rightly say.
How? Do we have an answer other that what is written in the Bible. Scientific claims are being blown away.
“feelings’ – you claim that Christians make the claim for God on feelings and emotions.
Can you support your claims, or are these just supposition as well, negative reasoning.You say I can’t prove God’s existence so therefore He doesn’t exist.
I have not seen anything to support a theory that God does not exist. In fact I see more evidence that some deity does exist. Shown by the human race seeking a higher authority a object of worship, or do you say that 90% of mankind are delusional?
Cogent rational human thought is fallible and shows. Rational thought decides that millions of people should be slaughtered, etc etc.
G.K Chesteron wrote: ‘once abolish the God and the government becomes the god’
Human authority is fallible. One authority will say one thing while another will agree to something totally different.
“I have not seen anything to support a theory that God does not exist.”
God does not appear to us, talk to us and prove he exists.
Prayers answered at aout the same rate as random chance?
The problem of evil.
But a few facts supporting a theory that god doesn’t exist.
“In fact I see more evidence that some deity does exist. ”
Please provide said evidence.
“do you say that 90% of mankind are delusional?”
Some part of that 90% is delusional. Some part is not very smart. Some part just hasn’t thought about god’s existence very critically. Some part doesn’t actually believe in god but for cultural or personal reasons says they do. etc…
“Rational thought decides that millions of people should be slaughtered”
I would love to see your definition of rational, but even asuming this is true, magical or religious thought can lead to the same result.
Inconclusive and subjective
Waiting……………..
That is not a logical question. Where is your evidence that Santa Claus does not exist? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person questioning it.
Basic philosophy & logic 101 should help; A negative can not be proven.
I’ve never said god/s does/do not exist. I stated that there is no positive empirical evidence to prove that one does. Until I see this evidence I have no rational reason to think there is a god of any type.
The burden of proof is yours. You are making an existential claim. Yet all you can muster is an incredulous sermon filled with unsubstantiated claims;
How do we exist? Through embryology and metabolism (for a short answer). Perhaps you meant to ask “why” do we exist. That is up to the individual to decide.
As well, please list those scientific claims that are “being blown away”
Also you put forth the premise that since so many people believe a certain idea then it must be true, “…or do you say that 90% of mankind are delusional?”
This is a fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. Most American children believe in Santa Claus. They can’t all be wrong can they? Mr. Wells had plenty of people thinking we were being invaded by Martians. Since so many people thought as such then we must have been invaded. Roughly 83% of Indians are Hindu (http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/india/religion.htm). So based on your logic, Hinduism is as true as Christianity.
“Cogent rational human thought is fallible and shows. Rational thought decides that millions of people should be slaughtered, etc etc.”
Can you provide citations for this claim. Yes humans are fallible. At least, in science, when this fallibility is shown we can adjust our view of nature. e.g. terracentric vs. heliocentric solar system, the germ theory of disease, mental illness (as opposed to demon possession).
You are obviously passionate about your beliefs, yet passion does prove truth. Yet all the hosannas in the world as well as thinly veiled threats of eternal damnation do not add up to truth.
I’ll be looking for your positive evidence for the existence of a supernatural caregiver.
“You are obviously passionate about your beliefs, yet passion does prove truth. Yet all the hosannas in the world as well as thinly veiled threats of eternal damnation do not add up to truth.”
Should have been typed “yet passion does not prove truth.”
“You are obviously passionate about your beliefs, yet passion does prove truth. Yet all the hosannas in the world as well as thinly veiled threats of eternal damnation do not add up to truth.”
Should have been typed “but passion does not prove truth.”
@Fentwin
God does not need me to prove He exists, He is more than capable of doing that. I pray that one day He will prove to you that He exists.
A person can claim that an atom exists, but they have never seen one. They believe what is written, but they have no firsthand experience.
I wouldn’t say God is a negative.
cite: cannot provide link now. But the miracle of feeding the five thousand has been recently demonstrated by Christian missionaries. With hardly any food they fed hundreds of people. How can that be explained? Did they do it under their own power? Do you think this might prove the existence of a higher power outside of themselves?
There are more similar instances.
From the dawn of time mankind has always sought some deity to worship. This in itself displays an inner need for a ‘god’ figure. An indication that in man’s make-up there is a need. It does not prove that God exists, but it does prove man’s inner desire. And by historical records it has not been some passing phase or something that only a few people have felt.
“claims that are “being blown away”
The theory of carbon dating is being challenged. Scientists have now stated that they cannot now claim its authenticity. Some have even claimed that the earth could now only be 6,000 years old. Doesn’t that seem to fit with the Genesis theory?
““You are obviously passionate about your beliefs”
Yes, my faith came from outside myself. It is not something I made up. I had given up on God. I did not change my own mind. But then I can only say that.
You are correct; true passion does not prove truth, even secularly, but people’s testimonies and supernatural incidents are a great source of proof. These things are God displaying His authenticity today; as also they can be of occult instances. There is plenty of evidence out there of this. I would say that if you require proof then check out these things. At least they must surely indicate that there is some other power at work.
Blessings
In other words, ucbones, you’re not capable of producing one shred of credible, scientific, empirically verifiable evidence of the existence of your deity. Don’t bother with the mental gymnastics (your analogy concerning the atom is utterly and fractally wrong, as anyone who can google worth a damn or haul their butts to a library or even a lab can verify the existence of atoms) or the scripture mining.
I throw down the gauntlet here and now–in the same way that Eljah did with the prophets of Baal–if your “god” exists, let it reveal itself unequivocally, and indisputably NOW (3:50 eastern standard time) to ALL of humankind.
“God does not exist” is a negative. Negatives can’t be proven.
@Roger
Idk if you read the comments by Eric Kemp on An Evil God? Introduction, but I found that to be a complete dismissal of science. I’m not saying it truly is, of course, cuz that’d be retarded, but it was a good argument that made a lot of sense.
If I remember this Eric Kemp correctly, I found his arguments to be a big old ball of nonsense.
Well, until such time as your “Lord” makes his entrance into this realm of existence, I shall continue to think all your rantings the product of a mythology-addled and deluded person who is neither willing nor capable of producing one whit of empirical evidence.
OKay, that’s your decision. You choose yourself to accept or reject. That’s why God gave you a free will.
Maybe we will meet on that day and you can let me know what you think then.
btw: He already had once made His entrance into our existence, next though it will not be to save but to judge.
Blessings
“Blessings”
Ah yes the christian “fuck you.”
@Bill
Thanks. When I write blessings I write this positively. That indeed God may bless you, even though you do not believe, with His love and make Himself known to you.
It is an expression of love from one human being to another. That God would bless you and save you.
You may not want it, but that is up to God and not me.
I also forgive you for your offensive remark, even though you may not want my forgiveness, either way it is given to you.
Still blessings
Oooh, he forgives you Bill. Aren’t you glad that he’s so magnanimous?
“It is an expression of love from one human being to another.”
This is ridiculous – you don’t know me enough to “love” me.
Save your forgiveness for someone else. I didn’t do anything requiring forgiveness.
Didn’t I tell you, Fentwin? ;-)
I know, I know… :)
I know of a brick wall to which I could be talking.
(thanks for the laugh:)
Additional restriction that may or may not have been intended by Fentwin: said supernatural event must have been verified by an independent source with no stake in the truth or falsehood of the event.
@Fentwin
@Roger
This discussion has degenerated and is going personal. We are going in a circle. I respect your views but now you obviously seem to ridicule mine. I have not been offensive to you, but sincere and genuine.
Anyway it was good to talk. Bye
Additional additional restriction: that event must have happened in the twentieth century. No sneaking a peek into your holy book to trot out that water-into-wine bit.
If not intended it should have been. Thanks. :)
I think the previous restriction disallows events described in the Bible :)
Events from the second or seventeenth century etc are fine with me.
Cool… :-)
Translation: I cannot present one bit of credible evidence that would respond sufficiently to the questions put to me; therefore, I am taking my ball and going home.
The ball has been left in your court, I have not taken it home.
Matt 10:14
Per your link:
In the ocean, great underwater mountains are formed when plates spread away from one another, and melted rock pushes up through the gap.
sounds like something that happened in a great flood…anyways here’s a good reference to start this discussion of “Intelligent design”:
http://www.y-origins.com
Just as DNA has revolutionized criminal forensics, the work of paleontologists has shed new light on human origins. Being an honest man, Charles Darwin made no bones (pardon the pun) about predicting that the forensic fossil evidence would ultimately prove his theory right or wrong.
But just as experts can jump to the wrong conclusion with regard to criminal evidence, so in the world of paleontology, a tooth, jaw, or piece of skull has often created premature headlines of “Missing Link Found.” Paleontologist Michael Boulter summarizes the problem with identifying fossils correctly:
It’s very hard to piece together a few broken bones from a fossilized group of differentially aged primates scattered over a desert or cave floor and to be sure that they come from the same animal….It follows that the reliability of any description that attempts to recognize an actual species cannot be totally objective.1
Boulter is alluding to the fact that, being human, most scientists look at a fossil through the lens of their own presuppositions. For example, those who wanted to make a case for humans descending from apes were quick to jump with joy over the supposed discovery of the “missing link” called Piltdown Man. Featured in the London Times, New York Times, and various science journals, they made it a textbook example of the connection between apes and humans. However, forty years later, in 1953, it was revealed as a fraud.
Frauds like the Piltdown Man are rare, and although objectivity is often lacking, there is actually a wealth of fossil evidence depicting the history of life on our planet.
So in order to see what the forensic evidence says about Darwin’s theory, we need to hear from paleontologists themselves about the evidence they have gathered during the nearly 150 years since he launched his theory. Our starting point is to clearly understand the predictions Darwin made regarding his theory and the fossils that should have resulted.
Many of the scientists in this publication have made comments about the powerful indications of design in our universe. Some have gone so far as to state that new scientific evidence has compelled them to believe in God. Others in this list have adamantly argued against a designer, believing only in a material universe that somehow mysteriously appeared out of nothing. To them, any evidence for a designer is laughed off as “unscientific”.
http://www.y-zine.com/y-originsdevelopment.htm
We believe it is wrong to laugh off evidence, regardless of which way it leads. In Y-Origins magazine, we have laid the evidence out so that the decision a reader makes about our origins is based upon fact rather than prejudice. As Plato believed and taught, “Follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
This seems to have a healthy balance of folks contributing to this article….
No, the “ball” is squarely in your court; you haven’t yet bothered to hit it back over the net (probably because the super magical racquet you claim exists…doesn’t).
It is too easy to form a club and say that those who don’t belong are fools.
Fentwin 4:19
I can quote things too:
And Jesus said unto them, “And whom do you say that I am?”
They replied, “You are the eschatological manifestation of the
ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very self-hood revealed.”
And Jesus replied, “What?”
so seriously, who made the mountains? they are awfully spectacular to have been formed by chance….a cosmic explosion? something that happened several million years ago? Was anyone around several million years ago to prove their formation?
How come nobody mentions the dissproven myths of how rock (as in the grand canyon) was formed over millions of years, apparently the same rock formations that were formed in volcano eruptions (just over a few hours) have been sampled and studied (by non-christian scientists) and they appear to be identical to the grand canyon formations?
Or how the formation of those chasms of earth that is missing falls right into the “proof” of the flood. Water in high quantities, over a period of time can erode the earth and form identical rock formations and embed bones of dead things….
Ooops, there goes that theory.
doug, you’re not making a lick of sense. If I understand what you’re saying…then you seriously need to take an introductory course on geology or earth sciences.
I know my geology is a little rusty. But what about my initial question?
who made the mountains? they are awfully spectacular to have been formed by chance….a cosmic explosion? something that happened several million years ago? Was anyone around several million years ago to prove their formation?
Just because you subjectively regard mountains as “spectacular” is NOT proof of or evidence of the existence of a deity.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+mountains+are+formed
Further, don’t confuse geology with cosmology. At any rate, doug, the question that was put to ucbones and you appear to take up now falls to you: if you have scientific, empirical, incontrovertible evidence of the existence of the entity you call “god,” present it. No dissembling, no proof-texting of biblical texts, no solipsistic nonsense.
Again, doug: Where is your evidence/proof of the existence of a supernatural entity that you claim is “god”? You’re falling off the wagon and presenting a (poor) argument about the creation of the world–in the context of this discussion/challenge, you’re presenting a red herring. Get back to the question and answer it.
Doug- mountains are formed by plate techtonics:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tectonics.html
In fact, you should see how the west coast of Africa lines up with the east coast of South America…
No.
I’m reading that scripture right now (the whole chapter). Can you specify exactly what reminded you of that?
Act 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
Superstitious?
Just that they left one alter open, because they sensed that there was another god but couldn’t quite put their finger on it. Kind of a seek but not find environment.
just a thought.
An interesting thought.
Just posting this under your…whatever, just so you don’t miss it:
Again, doug: Where is your evidence/proof of the existence of a supernatural entity that you claim is “god”? You’re falling off the wagon and presenting a (poor) argument about the creation of the world–in the context of this discussion/challenge, you’re presenting a red herring. Get back to the question and answer it.
You are asking for evidence, this discussion is to resolve the question, is there intelligent design?. If there is, it points to a creator. If there is a creator who is he? If He is the God of the bible and created the universe than He must be supernatural…
This is not a red herring.
Evidence that evolution is certainly false would require an example of an organ (etc) that is irreducably complex, that is it could not possibly have been formed by incremental changes.
NOT THAT YOU CAN’T, not that this is an appeal to authority, but: experts have been trying (and failing) to produce a natural example of irreducible complexity for at least 150 years, potentially longer. It is improbable that you would succeed.
There is no evidence that intelligent design is probable, much less certain. If you disagree, I challenge you to present some. Keep in mind that complexity, awesomeness, etc, are not actually evidence of design; they are evidence of the appearance of design. Appearances can be deceiving. Going by appearances alone, the sun revolves around the earth.
Excuse me Doug. I’m not trying to be mean, but those websites are total crap. They are NOT I repeat NOT scientific websites. Here is the main database for scientific research:
Pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Why don’t you go ahead and look up evolution there. Because there, you’ll find the work of REAL scientists.
LRA
I always appreciate your well reasoned approach to issues here, but you realize directing Doug to actual science is a complete waste of time – right?
Bill, I’m sure you’re right. *sigh*
He is, sadly, a blockhead. And now he’s trying to point to “intelligent design” as a workaround to presenting evidence of his sky-daddy. At this point, all I can do is laugh at his obtuse lunacy.
all right my unbelieving friends, I am willing to put all of my preconceived notions aside (Bible, God, faith)..and look at your scientific data. Because I truly believe that we can have a healthy discussion on this matter.
What I am concerned about:
You are not remaining open to any change in your thinking. I for one feel that scientific data will point back to the same question ultimately…
Is their a creator? If this is the case, if you agree, then we can proceed. I don’t know any other way to draw conclusions though without addressing the study of “intelligent design”.
Looking for some common ground here or this conversation is completely pointless. And I should also mention that I am not afraid to be wrong.
As Plato believed and taught, “Follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
…..
“all right my unbelieving friends, I am willing to put all of my preconceived notions aside (Bible, God, faith)..and look at your scientific data.”
Put aside faith? You can look at scientific evidence and still have faith…
I contend that science and religion are incompatible. They both make claims about the universe. They contradict each other on various points. Their claims about the universe cannot both be true.
It is my experience that people who say that science and religion are compatible are apologizing for religion.
That was maybe a response to something you didn’t actually say, let me try that again…
I define “faith” as believing something despite a lack of evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence.
The scientific method demands its adherents have no faith. Beliefs, hopes, dreams, whatever, but not faith.
So yes, you could “look at scientific evidence and still have faith”, but that faith is a measure of the extent to which you aren’t looking.
again, my goal is to study the data that you recommend and compare this to what I believe to be true.
The same arguments that unbelievers use to disprove the Bible can also be used to disprove the scientific data presented. For instance, I studied (briefly) on The nature of the transition and origins of eukaryotic genes..
where this data admittedly claims:
The nature of this event is one of the greatest mysteries of life’s history.
So there are already discussion points regarding missing data or something not yet proven or “a mystery” something I see in many of the writings on this blog to be a “cop out”
If intelligent design is a bias christian discussion, (which I don’t think it is) than what areas of discussion would you like to pursue? I am open to everyones input.
Realize that the ultimate question “does God exist” cannot be answered without some ounce of faith.
So I am agreeing with you on this point.
But again, if you really want this question answered for yourselves you will need to meet me 1/2 way.
For me, to not have faith, I’d have to be completely convinced that God doesn’t exist. That won’t happen anytime soon, if at all. But I can still look at science objectively. Contrary to poular belief, you can have faith and common sense at the same time.
Maybe I’m not making any sense. Idk. I’m half asleep.
“again, my goal is to study the data that you recommend and compare this to what I believe to be true.”
Then your goal is not to learn the truth. You are saying you already know what is true. If you want to make an honest inquiry into truth, you must accept the possibility that what you believe is not true. I am not saying you must accept that it is not true. Just the possibility. If you think you already do, you don’t. It’s harder than that.
“So there are already discussion points regarding missing data or something not yet proven or “a mystery” something I see in many of the writings on this blog to be a “cop out”"
How is saying that a question is unanswered a cop out? “Unanswered” doesn’t mean “unanswerable” or “never will be answered”. If you don’t know the answer to a question, should you make one up? Are all your other answers to questions invalid because you don’t have an answer for one?
Saying “I can’t explain this, therefore it must be supernatural” is the same as saying “I can’t explain this, therefore I can explain it”. It is open-minded to say you don’t know for sure. It is closed-minded to say you know for sure when you don’t. Can’t.
It is virtually impossible to look at science and not try to relate/compare/contrast it to what you’ve previously learned.
@Niva: Ok. But my response would be the same re: faith; I kind of feel like you only restated what you’ve already said.
Also, consider the parallel: “guilty until proven innocent” vs “belief in God until proven false”.
I am coming from a background of non-christian (or being raised as an un-believer) I wasn’t born a christian as some claim to be. I came to this knowledge later in life. So it’s not hard to position myself in this way (if that makes any sense)
The cop out reference was my understanding of an un-believers response to the Christian when he doesnt have a clear answer. Or uses, “It’s a mystery” as his answer.
He didn’t say “compare it to what I’ve previously learned”, he said “compare it to what I believe to be true”.
Yes, yes, you could make the argument that you believe everything you learn to be true unless it conflicts with something you’ve learned previously or until it’s replaced by something new, but… that’s not what he meant.
Niva, you are stating a basic human fact here. But if everyone comes to the table with an open-mind for either side, I am sure we can discover some new information that was not known prior to our discussion. I can honestly say I am open to new thought and at best, understand the non-believers view of the world.
You have scientific facts that you believe to be true, I have Biblical knowledge and experience with faith that I know to be true. Equal sides, don’t you agree?
It makes perfect sense. But you didn’t believe me when I said that if you think you are already open to the possibility that what you believe is not true, you aren’t.
Just because you were open to the possibility at some point in the past, doesn’t mean you are now. Your comments suggest to me that you are not.
You don’t have to believe me. I have offered little or no evidence that you should.
This conversation is amazingly boring. I guess that’s what I get for not having anything to do on a Friday night. Lol.
I will also say that I am not going to engage with people that insist on name-calling (like blockhead) to get their points across as this is completely juvenile and does not sit well with me.
intelligent conversation between a group of intelligent people.
agreed?
No. I do not agree. My facts can be independently observed and verified. Yours cannot, and therefore do not qualify as facts.
One of the fundamental differences in our worldview is that you think personal experience is an accurate measure of reality, and I think it’s a terrible one.
My beliefs are based on facts. Your beliefs are based on things you or someone else made up. You might not think they are made up. But can you demonstrate otherwise?
Doug, go to my blog. I just set it up, so it’s primitive, but I’m hoping I can actually get people to start posting their stories.
Erm, I do not agree that the sides are equal. I do agree that name-calling is juvenile and usually counterproductive.
The only way as I see to engage any further than is to respect each others positions and not to resort to mudslinging.
There has to be some level of understanding that we all have something to contribute no matter what our IQ’s are.
Everyone can admit to growing in knowledge as they mature. We are the same in this.
“One of the fundamental differences in our worldview is that you think personal experience is an accurate measure of reality, and I think it’s a terrible one.”
If experience isn’t the right way to percieve reality, what is? I don’t think I get exactly what you’re saying.
Rodney,
as an example here. The Bible talks about birds, fish, beasts that walk the earth, etc in Genesis. Do you disagree that they exist?
Is it a myth?
Is it proven that they exist? Of course they do, we just have differences on how they came into existence.
This will be the basis of my posts.
Niva, I don’t have your addie
Click on my icon in “recent posts”.
oh of course, Doh!
Mmm, yeah, I see how you could interpret “experience with a micro-spectrometer” as falling under that definition. But I mean relying on your human senses, and personal experiences, personal events. Yes, you must use your sense of sight to operate a telescope. If you want to really break it down, we don’t perceive reality at all, we perceive data as translated by our sensory organs. But I’m not trying to make any arcane point like that. I mean simply that you cannot rely purely on human perception. Perception alone tells you that the sun revolves around the earth. That water always flows downhill. It tells you that spirit exists because you feel it. It tells you God exists because hey, that’s obvious, who else made these mountains?
Lol. It’s ok. I’ve had plenty of blonde moments. Some of them you’ve probably read.
Woah, woah, woah. Are you saying the Bible is true because it contains depictions of verifiably real plants and animals?
That is a very low bar to set for truth.
@rodney
Ok, then:
Human perception developed science.
Human perception developed math.
Human perception developed everything you claim is a fact.
My perception is just as good as yours.
How was your point supposed convince me of the accuracy of scientific evidence since it was developed by human perception?
Maybe I’m missing the point you were trying to make.
Rodney,
one other thought, don’t “read into” my posts. I did not say this fact makes it biblical truth. I am saying that the Bible certainly has true statements in them, this is also true of all major religious text.
You were making claims (in a broad sweep) that nothing in the Bible is proven…is this accurate?
In other words, can you make the claim that nothing in the Bible is true?
Here’s another example to consider:
People that have physically and clinically died and have shared similar experiences of seeing the “light”, this is something that cannot be ignored because it is “conveniently” human experience. To me (and I really don’t have any bias on this phenomenon) it should be considered for this fact:
How can thousands of people share the same experience of dying and coming back to life, and share this experience without having ever discussed it together?
Human experience does have some relevance in our discussion.
Is it scientific fact?
What about the study of people receiving healed bodies because of prayer or their belief in God. This has been tested and is showing to be a good point of our discussion. Why? Because many of the people studying this phenomenon are non-believers.
thoughts?
@Doug:
“In other words, can you make the claim that nothing in the Bible is true?”
Um, no… but you use other sources to evaluate individual claims. “Assyrians destroyed Babylon”, “Pi is equal to three”, and “Jesus was born of a virgin” are three examples of claims made by the Bible. How do you determine which, if any, are true?
@Niva:
The importance of falsifiability cannot be overstated. That is, in order to qualify as a fact, something must be testable, even just in theory.
“Apples are always blue” can be shown to be false.
“Yahweh is a tripartate godhead comprised by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” cannot.
Also note that I said “human perception alone”.
I realize it sounds like I’m jumping around, but I am too tired to evaluate why it’s not me doing the jumping.
LRA,
Fair enough, and I have been digging into the links that you send. Keeping an open-mind here.
Maybe I am naive, but I still believe there is some reasonable link that ties the natural to the supernatural.
The psychoactive chemical DMT, produced naturally in trace amounts by the human body, perfectly accounts for all common symptoms of “near-death experiences” such as a feeling of euphoria, well-being, seeing a light, and seeing lost “loved ones”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine
For future examples, please keep in mind that my lack of explanation in no way strengthens any case for a supernatural explanation.
Doug (and Niva) I posted below on the definition of science. Perhaps we can start with that and then go to the evidence for evolution.
Science can neither prove NOR disprove the existence of God (unless God manifests him/herself in the natural world). I think it is important that you understand that!!!
Rodney,
“Assyrians destroyed Babylon”, “Pi is equal to three”, and “Jesus was born of a virgin” are three examples of claims made by the Bible. How do you determine which, if any, are true?
Assyrians destroying Babylon can be proven as it is historic fact…same as George Washington was our first president. Same as King Solomon built a temple as the ruins still exists. Plus, the fact that people actually existed during that time and they were able to write.
PI Is equal to three and Jesus’ virgin birth can a point of discussion.
Rodney,
I will entertain posts from wikipedia for discussion but it is not to be taken at anytime as fact. (and believe me I am a web guru), wikipedia offers nothing more than a webspace for people like you and I to post their knowledge of any given subject. Hence it’s a mixed bag of data collected and presented.
So if we are to have an intelligent discussion on what is true, than wikipedia doesnt hold water with me.
“PI Is equal to three and Jesus’ virgin birth can a point of discussion.”
Actually, no, the former is testable and it turns out that is false, pi is equal to 3.14159…(irrational).
But you answered the question about the Assyrans: we evaluate the truth of the Bible’s statements using sources other than the Bible.
Some claims can’t be independently evaluated. That is precisely my criterium for fact.
PS: my intention with the wikipedia link was to show that DMT is not something I made up… that is all… I did not base any arguments on anything in the page…
I have faith because of factual, historical fact. And, I have faith because of life experience. I have faith because God has proven to me time and time again that He exists.
I do not have faith because somebody convinced me to join a club, or a church used guilt tactics to suck me in.
I am certain that you do not want to hear about my eye-witness accounts of any proof that He exists, because you don’t really know me and I could be a pathological nutcase.
So I will stick to the scientific (and pseudoscientific) philosophical and historical evidence when I bring things up to make a case. If I am correct, ALL of the evidence will bring each person to a fork in the road. We can then proceed to hash out the facts and come to some commonality in our quest for “Does God exist”…
sola gratia
guilty of what? what are you even talking about here?
BTW ucbones– they have observed atoms… using an electron microscope.
Maybe they’re really stealthy aliens that run everything and make themselves invisible at certain times just for laughs.
But I thought I left my book right there… ;)
LRA,
thanks for the explanation on science link, did some study this weekend, I think we can agree on all points regarding what makes science science. (ie the difference between pseudoscience and science and falsifiability criteria) Where can we discuss these facts?
Dwade– scroll down to the bottom and I’ll start there!
I get your point, but that wasn’t very convincing.
Me: How did things so complex and perfect just evolve?
Atheist: The Singularity, which expanded over billions of years to what the universe is today.
Me: Where did it come from? It couldn’t just appear out of nothing.
Atheist: We don’t know yet. Scientists haven’t been able to explain it. But science has never failed to answer a question, so we are bound to find out sooner or later.
Me: Right… I’m so convinced. Show me the fossils and explain how carbon dating works, I’ll see if it’s accurate or not for myself.
Atheist: Sure. Anything to keep you from being a mislead, uneducated lump of a lunatic.
Me: Oh goody! I can’t wait! :D
————————————————–
I’ve gone to every single site people have pointed me to. Not yet am I convinced. As of now, I’m studying in depth how evolutionary scientists find evidence, analyze, hypothesize, and conclude so maybe I’ll understand better. I’m also doing the same with historians. Not via internet, but actual libraries.
*gasp!* a CHRISTIAN in a LIBRARY?!?! WITH ***ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC/HISTORICAL BOOKS***?!?!?!. Yes, it happens. A lot actually.
You are confusing (mixing together) two different questions: where did the universe come from? and how did life (etc) on earth come to be the way it is?
It is unreasonable to expect one and the same answer to both questions.
If you are honestly studying evolution, I strongly recommend reading The Origin of Species. It is very readable. Darwin’s target audience was the scientific community, but he very much wanted the subject to be understood by the general public, and put a lot of effort into making that so.
I found the evidence overwhelming. It is a mistake to think it’s only in the fossil record, or only a million years ago. It’s all around.
The above post applies to Niva as well…
:)
No, Doug. I am very interested in both philosophy and science. I have a master’s degree in science and a bachelor’s degree in philosophy!
My intent here is for us to have a meaningful conversation about these things.
I believe we need to discuss what science actually IS if we are to talk about why intelligent design is so very very WRONG. (BTW, one of my professors, Rob Koons, is on the board of the Discovery Institute! Talk about irony!)
Science may say NOW that things are a mystery, but science is a very powerful tool for discovering facts about the universe.
“For instance what happens when science says “it’s a mystery”, obviuos hole here that nees to be filled, how do we address this?”
I honestly, simply do not understand this question.
Why is “I don’t know” a hole?
Why does it need to be filled?
Says who?
Are you suggesting that science must have all the answers, or else it has no answers at all?
When I ask an expert a question, I would rather have them say “I don’t know” than make up an answer that may or may not be true.
In other words, we address the holes by saying “I don’t know”!
Oops! Rodney beat me to it! :)
fair enough, I will read this (this weekend) certainly not all of it, as I have a family to raise too. I am sure we can come to a reasonable conclusion.
And just to clarify… Rob Koons is a PHILOSOPHER not a SCIENTIST!!!
Hi it’s “not so Joe-Christian” here, been out of the loop for a while, LRA gave me some home work on “Science vs Psuedoscience” I am open to discussing the sciences with everyone. (this will include a variation of the sciences, pseudosciences, metaphysical, historic accounts, eye witness accounts, etc) in the search for how everything began. In other words “why is there something and not nothing”….
LRA, where are we going to meet up on this conversation?
one suggestion:
http://www.wildtruth.wordpress.com
or we can keep blasting unreasonablefaith.
suggestions?
2009! :)
AD, correct?
No, CE.
Current Era and Christian era, very interesting, but still both are in line with the death of Christ.
explain
It’s just tradition. The catholic church had power for a long time, and they made the calendars. The Japanese have a new era every time a new emperor starts a new reign. It doesn’t prove anything.
Ok- Evolution happens on two levels– within a particular species (micro level) and above the level of species (macro level).
Most ID people today will admit to micro, but not macro evolution. They claim that there is not evidence for macro-evolution (meaning no evidence that species split off from each other to form new species) and that macroevolution isn’t science! They cite the verses in the bible about animals being made according to their *kind*.
First off, they are absolutely wrong about there not being evidence for macro-evolution. There is a TON of evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
The site to which I have just referred you gives five categories of evidence. The one I know the most about is #4– the molecular evidence from genetics.
Secondly, speciation IS observable (for instance, with dogs):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#speciesselection
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciation_stages
Thirdly, macroevolution IS falsifiable!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#falsifying
Therefore, macroevolution IS science.
I want to stress that the website that I have directed you to uses the scientific literature to back up its claims. If you have doubt of that, then just click on the reference (in blue) and it will take you to the works cited portion of the cite, where you can obtain the actual abstract or article in Pub Med (the biological science database I told you about).
Is it fair to say that micro-evolution happens but macro-evolution still needs more study then?
I don’t see any scientific proof in present day that supports macro-evolution. For instance, a bird (with various species) is still a bird, a dog still a dog, a fish still a fish.
LRA,
I guess I am having trouble with this data supporting macro-evolution as well. As it doesn’t hold up with what is seen. It uses the “millions of years” theory to validate itself. Circular reasoning. Of course nobody was around millions of years ago to verify this theory, so we leave it up to mans reasoning to recognize this as fact.
No, Wade. The concept of species of a kind is an artifact of language. The equine genus (horses) has both horses and donkeys in it. They are speciated, but can breed together to produce a mule.
The millions of years theory is NOT circular. There is geological evidence for the age of the earth… as well as evidence from physics (like light year observations).
But isn’t it true that the mule cannot reproduce (being a result of the horse and donkey), if so, then the species cannot continue. And thus, the fact of evolution doesn’t hold up.
No, the horse and donkey example is PERFECTLY in line with evolution because it DEMONSTRATES speciation so very very well!!!!!!
Sorry, Doug! I’m learning the new format (on the new blog) and trying to keep up!
The Fallacies of Radioactive Dating:
So how can the youngest basalt lava flows in Grand Canyon, whose eruption was possibly witnessed only thousands of years ago, yield the same radioactive rubidium-strontium age of 1.1 billion years as some of the oldest basalt lava flows at the bottom of the Canyon?
Answer: The molten rock that produced the young basalt lava flows came from deep inside the earth, from what geologists call the earth’s mantle; so these lavas have inherited this rubidium-strontium composition from their mantle source. That is, their rubidium-strontium composition has nothing to do with their age, but everything to do with their source!
Everything seems to point back to the same question of source, and timelines…
Question:
If the catholic church is responsible for starting this, and they are no longer in power (as it seems), how come nobody changes the dating system?
same problem here, things keep bouncing around on me, my eyes are getting weary….good conversation, I like the feedback…learning quite a bit tonight.
Doug- I’ll be over on the “If you open your mind too much” post! Hope to see you there!