Reading Philosophy

In my philosophy class, one of the first things they told us was not to use God as a counterargument, the reason being that anything can be explained by God. God did this, god did that. Unfortunately, it is disputable whether God even exists. The belief in god is apparently based on faith, not fact.

So to sum up all inexplicable arguments into being some sort of extension of God's almighty work is naive at best. I'm not saying it isn't true, though if the point is to uncover the truth, it takes us nowhere.

It is something like explaining why the sky is blue by saying that the purple pumpkin eaters made it that way. This should beg the question, "Who the heck are purple pumpkin eaters and why did they make the sky blue?" It is introducing an unexplainable variable in the formula. Just like in mathematics, you cannot solve a series of equations by substituting one unknown for another, you cannot factor in God into any argument.

I'm not saying any of the netalive community is guilty of this. On the contrary, most people I've spoken with here have been very open-minded in such discussion, and are aware of this idea. Though, some of my colleagues in school would argue that God does exist and that He can be used to explain unexplainable phenomenon.

Find me an indisputable claim that God exists and I will allow you to win the argument. You would certainly deserve to win if you managed to do something like that. Probably our argument would be the least of your concerns as the media would be swarming you like flies on a piece of rancid meat.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

This post was edited by Hawkeye on Mar 28, 2005.

A most interesting and useful point. I think this problem of explaining things away with God stems from several things. Namely, a desire for an easy answer (one that may very well be true, but we don't know for sure), and also a confusion between the purposes of theology and science.

First of these, as I said, is the desire for an easy answer. It is much easier to say that God created the sun (though he may have) than it is to say that interacting atoms eventually fused together to create a massive body of light and fire which nuclear fusion sustains for billions of years until it collapses and destroys all the nearby terrestrial bodies. This is where science becomes useful--it allows us to comprehend just how something works, leaving us to ponder the why of it seperately.

That leads us to my second point. To answer a scientific question by saying that God made it happen is to be mingling two very different subjects that do not coincide. Science and theology each have their own purposes, both very much useful, but still very different. Science exists to investigate the how of things, the exact processes and events that cause something to happen. Theology exists to investigate the why. It isn't concerned with what exactly happens, but instead, why it happens that way and not some other way. Hopefully someday people will get these two un-confused.

-ecthelion-

The minute that the mind accepts something as unchallengeable fact, the minute the mind stops working. That's why fundamentalists aren't too bright and why they do nothing to advance science or society, and in fact hamper the advancement of our species. They accept the predominant religious fodder of whatever culture they are in without exercising any of their intellectual gifts to gain deeper understanding. That's why we have people who literally believe that the universe was created 4000 years ago.

There's nothing wrong with convictions, but someone who doesn't allow his or her convictions to be challenged is abdicating the responsibility of being a critical thinker. This is a solemn responsibility that we all share as humans. I don't care if you use God or science (after all, science is in many ways just another faith) or anything else as your dogma, the point is that we should always reflect on our ideas and discuss them with others. Such reflection and debate enables us to better understand other perspectives, not to mention our own. It allows our minds to thrive in a universe in which anything is possible.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Man, you bring up a great point.

I hate it when im trying to have an indepth conversation with someone on how something does something, and everytime, my highly religious friend give me the same lame excuse...."Cause God made it that way."

GRRRRR.....

Now if you think that is annoying....trying talking to someone like that about something bad happening. What religious figure do you think they will use to excuse it?......you guessed it...The Devil:

ex.

"Why do you think that guy killed all those people?"

"The Devil made him do it..."

That's such a lame excuse. It's like Mclain said, giving simplistic and substantial reasons doesn't do anyone any good. But hey, maybe we are wrong at times.

Maybe that psycho killer was possessed by the devil and just felt like killing people. Cause it couldn't possibly just be that he had a crappy childhood, and a serious socialogical disorder, naw......pssh.

So it swings both ways, Like, i here religious people praising God for the good things that happen, and cursing the devil for the bad things. Like everything in the universe is either good or evil. Where from a scientific (even just a logical) point of view, there is no such thing as true good and true evil. Stuff just happens, in accordance to the laws of nature.

What i think is funny is how a religious person puts their lame architypical excuse for something, and then a logical person comes along and debunks their out-dated reasons. Not to bash religion, but it's just funny to see someone try to defend an belief with no logical basis against a simple scientific explanation.

What i think is strange is how people like to segregate science and religion from one another. But, i dont think it's like that. It's not just one or the other. THERE IS A "GRAY" AREA.

Science and religion can coexist. It just requires some compromise. Like, instead of seeing God as the old Archaeic form of an "Old, White, bearded Man in a white robe" (simply man imposing his image upon his dioty), what if God was not a man at all (nor women), not a physical being sitting on a cloud playing with our world like a painter to a canvas (with unexplainable magic powers), but what if God was infact the UNIVERSE itself......

My Views of Religion and Science:

God and the Universe are one and the same. GOD = UNIVERSE. The term for this perspective is call Pantheism; the idea that everything in the universe (including us) is simply apart of a much larger "being" (GOD/ UNIVERSE). aka the GAIA THEORY (sorta)

Now, all living beings in the universe have a nucleus, or brain, some kinda of central control. If we are a model of God (as stated in the Bible), then we are a model of the Universe, and the Universe itself must have a nucleus.

That's the religious perspective, but it also works with the scientific perspective. Just think of the Universe as a giant ATOM, an atom has a nucleus and a cloud of electrons surrounding it. Granted, it's not classified as a living beings, but the structure is "universal" in everything.

So the question is not whether God exists, it's now where is God? Or where is God's Brain/ Consciousness (if it does exist)

There are two possible locations. The obvious one would be at the center of the universe, that being the point at the beginning of time, or of creation (big Bang: the entire universe is compacted to the size of a single proton and then it is released) and the point at the end of time, or end of the universe (Big Crunch: When the universe reaches its apex and collapses in upon itself to the size of a single proton). Ironically, the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are at the same point of time, just as the universe collapses in upon itself, it immediately expands again, in theory.

Religious perspective: "I am the Alpha and the Omega", So if this abides by scientific theory, the Big Bang is the Alpha (beginning) and the Big Crunch is the Omega (the end).

Which gives the location of "God" at the center of the universe. Or from another perspective: God is the spark that sets the Big Bang into motion, hence the universe into "creation".

That's one possible location, another is that "God" has no definitive location at all, but is simply a Primmer, Key, or "Source Code" for the entire function of the universe.

Like, "God" is an equation or number that everything in the universe is derrived from.

In fact, there is one number that has been argued by many as the "God Ratio". What is it?

PHI.

PHI is the ratio of two numbers, 1 and 1.61803399...

with this number you can derrive the "Golden Rectangle" and the "Golden Curve".The Golden Curve is an infinitely large and infinitely small spiral based on this ratio.

How does this relate to the Universe and God?

PHI is everywhere.....

Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Nautilus Shells, the ratios of the parts of your body to other parts (your arms, legs, height), the orbit of planetary bodies, and it can be used to show a graphic representation of the double helix (the base structure of the human DNA strand).

So what if God was an equation? And it's been with us since the beginning of time. Just a thought.

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

Anyway, sorry to hijack your topic with my own philosophies.

feedback plz.

To each his own...

That's such a lame excuse. It's like Mclain said, giving simplistic and substantial reasons doesn't do anyone any good. But hey, maybe we are wrong at times.

No those answers are based on faith, the person giving those answers doesn't need a 'scientific' explaination. The whole premise behind faith is that it's just that, "something you believe to be true". Is it wrong to hold that perspective? No, not in my book.

What i think is funny is how a religious person puts their lame architypical excuse for something, and then a logical person comes along and debunks their out-dated reasons. Not to bash religion, but it's just funny to see someone try to defend an belief with no logical basis against a simple scientific explanation.

I take it you are not religious? If you were I don't believe you'd have said that first line. Anyway, again faith is faith and the person believing such does not need an explanation in scientific terms. You can debunk him all day long and it will not matter one bit.

Anyway, again faith is faith and the person believing such does not need an explanation in scientific terms. You can debunk him all day long and it will not matter one bit.

Sorry pal, but in the real world, we call that blatant ignorance.

As for my beliefs, well, I don't like to be "classified" into just another group or idea. So if you had to describe my religious stance, I guess you could say I'm somewhat a Unitarian Pantheist with a high emphasis of divine and secular theoretical flexibility.

But then again, I don't think people should be "bound" by "ism's."

As for faith...

Well, the thing is, you can preach all day how faith is great and glorious and perfect, and it's the only thing you need in this "evil" world, but...

You must also admit the wrong's, misjudgements, and corruption that come with the devout faithful. I mean, I could go into a huge list of all the atrocities that have been committed for a belief: Wars, Slavery, Crusades, Persecutions, Inquisitions, Jihads, Mass murders, Mass Suicides, etc.

But...I ask you this...

Has anyone really died for just an idea?

You can change an idea, it's a little trickier to change a belief. And in my opinion, i don't think God, Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammed wanted an entire self-righteous, self-indulgent, corrupt, hypocritical belief structure based on multiple, and somewhat unreliable perspectives of what they said and did.

I think they just wanted to present an idea, to make life more interesting and pleasant.

I'm not trying to crack your faith or nothing, I'm just trying to shed some light on a different perspective.

So no disrespect intended.

But in my book,"Cause he said so...or just because" does not cut it.

Chew on that for awhile.

To each his own...

I'd say this GRAY AREA is where I exist. I 'know'/'feel' some things to be true, that my logical mind says cannot be... I also have experienced the 'fact' that if I believe some of these things, while not being able to currently explain it, it changes outcomes for me, and those around me. I want to understand both the hows and the whys, but not if it means I have to be injected with cynical pessimism because I can't prove what I am talking about. I think this is partly what has made me shut up for the most part, about this subject.

The same way that a mathematical or scientific theorem is just 'that', and not a fact...is the way that my particular belief system on the fringes of science exists. I can neither prove, nor disprove it. I'm sure someone else might try, but that's kind of like me living several hundred years ago, and having someone tell me: "The earth is fucking flat you moron! Nobody has ever seen it otherwise! It looks flat, therefore it is...flat." That just rings flat. For me. Resoundingly flat at that. ;P

There are some things I cannot prove, but that doesn't mean they aren't true...and conversely it doesn't mean that because I believe that I will then stick my head in the sand and refuse to look for scientific explanation.

I am personally, equally fed up with 'religious fanatics' trying to force-feed me religion, as I am 'science and logic fanatics' trying to force-feed me so-called rational, logical explanations for things...supposedly to disengage me from my, by their standards, ignorant status. Depending on who I am talking to... I am either 'ignorant' or 'unsaved'. I think I'll just be me. I believe and know (because I am doing it...) that I can exist 'between' religion and science. I can read the arguments on both sides and sympathize with each.

I will continue to be a fence-sitter, and ain't no motherfucker pushin' me off. It's my damn fence. My little tiny piece of it. I built it. I own it. :-)

If mountain goats like living at high elevations, why do none live in high rise apartment buildings?

I hate it when im trying to have an indepth conversation with someone on how something does something, and everytime, my highly religious friend give me the same lame excuse...."Cause God made it that way."

To me it seems that the only scientific philosophy that fundamentalist christians can obey is that they prefer to take the path of least resistance. Or in a more common language they are just too plain lazy to attempt to think outside the box.

That's why we have people who literally believe that the universe was created 4000 years ago.

Well, I believe it to be more around 9-10 thousand years old. So, Im am theoritically one of those young earth creationists.

I am fully an open mind and will believe that way until I am proven wrong. But I know enough to not buy the bull-crap the scientists come up with. And I know how falliable the carbon dating method is and how it couldnt tell you anywhere near the date of anything past like 12 thosound years. And the Big bang theory, please.

Its not ignorance, its faith. Faith to believe in something that is not always popular or with the tide of things.

I saw a poll not but like 2 weeks ago on which Americans were asked how they believe the world came about: Creation by God or Evoltuion. I dont recall the numbers exactly, but the side of creation had relatively higher then evolution, like almost 3:1. Not that I put much relevance in polls at all, but I still found it quite interesting to say the least. Believe it was put up by CBS Nightly News.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

I am fully an open mind and will believe that way until I am proven wrong.

Hardballkid makes an excellent point that everyone ought to think about. The postmodern notion of faith is that it is taken beyond all reason. I think it is best epitomized in this absolutely absurd and moronic line that I remember from Enter the Matrix: "I believe because it is absurd." That is not really faith. That is not why we have religion.

Faith is essentially the filler, the substance that seals together our comprehension, our understanding of two things: belief and truth (or perhaps, reality). And it is based on reason, on things that appear valid, but cannot be known decisively. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, that he populated the earth with vegetation, animals, and the like in order to prepare it for humanity. As Gregory of Nyssa put it, I believe God first prepared a "habitation" full of "beauties of every kind," then "brought in man." I regard the cosmos as something of a dining hall, in which we are the guests. As such I am favorably desposed to the idea of young-earth creationism.

I do not believe this because it is absurd--I don't believe it is absurd. I don't think God made the earth in five steps and then put it all in motion with the creation of man because other voices tell me it's ridiculous. I believe because it seems plausible to me. Because in evolution, like every other scientific theory, there are significant holes. And creationism has its holes too. But that is where faith comes in. There must be something to bring us from the realm of belief into the realm of truth, to bridge the gap between what we think and what is true in reality. I think that something is faith. It isn't a wildcard guess at the workings of the universe, rather it is what we have to unify our belief with reality. When evidence is not definitive, we have faith based on reason.

-ecthelion-

This post was edited by ecthelion33 on Mar 29, 2005.

Well to not unconditionally accept God as the reason behind everything does not imply you have to eat the garbage laid out before you by scientists and their studies. The only reason I would accept such knowledge is a bulk majority of scientists became to an agreement on such an issue. Even then, I believe it is presumptuous to believe it without direct conclusive fact.

Unfortunately, the facts are that you cannot directly prove for yourself some things. When scientists tell you there are 10 planets orbitting around the sun, even if this is basically considered fact, don't unconditionally accept it. What if in 50 years, they invent a more powerful telescope and discover an 11th planet? Things like this happen all the time.

If there is anything history has taught us, it is to never ever suspect that what we know now will never change in the future. Scientists have been proven wrong so many times, I dare say not a true scientist has ever existed without being proven wrong at least once.

There is a proof in philosophy that asks, "Why do we assume things will continue as they have in the past?" Well the answer is that it always has so far. When a glass tea cup gets knocked off the table, it always shatters. We know this from personal experience. However, what we are basing our knowledge on, is something that happened in the past, which precisely puts circular logic in our question "why do we assume things will continue as they have?" because you cannot prove it will happen as it has happened based on the fact that this has happened before, because it is depending on a fundamental fact which fuels the argument. It's a bit like saying God exists because He made me, and because I exist, God must exist.

What does that mean? It means we basically have no foot holding for knowing anything. Tomorrow, cows might fly, and elvis presley might hop out of his grave and get a platinum record.

Science is really no more than faith backed up by a few loosely tied facts. Call me a nihilist, but I would rather just assume that the only thing we've really known throughout our existence of mankind is that we have absolutely no grasp over what is going on in our universe.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

I dont recall the numbers exactly, but the side of creation had relatively higher then evolution, like almost 3:1.

We (that is, those of us in the US) live in an ignorant country, I'm not going to debate that. People in this country also believe in large numbers that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. People in this country also like to listen to Jessica Simpson and Billy Ray Cyrus. People in this country like watching shows like "Who's Your Daddy?", Jerry Springer, and professional wrestling. If anything, your statement only serves to prove my point. In countries where intellectual culture hasn't been crushed by religious dogmatism and other forms of ignorance, these proclivities are much rarer phenomena. No one in Europe thinks Saddam was behind 9-11, for instance. The fact that Saddam was not behind 9-11 indicates to me that these people might have a more realistic and informed view of the world than your average American.

No offense, but I find your belief in creationism fine until you start putting figures like 9-10,000 years as the age of the universe. That's patently absurd. It's alarmingly ignorant, in fact. If the universe is only 10,000 years old, then we were contemporaries with dinosaurs, and every other species that we have fossil records of. The Stone Age, the Ice Age, the Jurassic and Mesozoic, every single period of life on this planet, would have had to have occured in 10,000 years. Absurd. There would be no fossil fuels, because they takes millions of years to form. Same goes for diamonds and other minerals. 10,000 years is a blink of the eye in geological time. We wouldn't have received the starlight from most of the stars in the sky if the universe were that young. We have fossil records going back many millions of years. The human race has existed as Homo sapiens sapiens for longer than 10,000 years. 10,000 years barely even encompasses the rise of civilization, which represents a hair's breadth in the history of the planet, not to mention the history of the universe.

Creationism, again, is fine with me. But be reasonable about it. I can see the argument that God's divine hand created the universe and guided the evolution of species. But there is a difference between faith and willful ignorance. Faith means that you accept certain unproven things as being the truth. It doesn't mean that you reject knowledge. After all, why did God give you a mind if he expects you to shut it off?

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Ok, the problem i see with the people trying to defend Creationism is that they dont have a very large perspective of scope. I think it's a matter of denial how large our realm really is. Like, they want the universe to be nothing but the Earth and sky. They want the universe to be nothing but a "playpen" for humans.

Why? Because it justifies in their minds the signifigance of humanity in comparison to the whole world. Don't let a book decide your importance in this world.

Sorry folks, hate to pull the blinders off your eyes, but the universe is a little older (a couple trillion years) and a lot bigger (couple trillion light years) than the good book portrays.

As for mclaincausey's comment, man, you nailed it right on the head. 3-1? No wonder our country is the fattest and stupidest in the world.

But from earlier, what i though was interesting was how it was stated in this topic that the faithful won't follow the popular idea, that they will stick to their convictions no matter what. It's kinda ironic how the faithful ARE THE POPULAR IDEA, and look where it's taken American Culture.

Reformation of the Church? Yeah, it's about time for one of those. But personally, i'd rather have another Renaissance, you know; a little ENLIGHTENMENT.

"Water is insubstantial. By this I mean you can not grasp hold of it. You can not punch it and hurt it. Be formless, shapeless, like water. Now you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup, you pour water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, you put water into a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow and it can crash...be water my friend."

"Man is constantly growing. When he is bound by a set pattern of ideas or Way of doing things, that's when he stops growing." - BRUCE LEE

I think some of us need to be a little more fluid or flexible with our convictions. You are not going to find the answers to everything in a 2000 year old book that was rewritten and edited over 150 times by atleast a dozen royalty and used as a means of social rule and dominance for centuries.

Chew on that for awhile.

To each his own...

Sorry folks, hate to pull the blinders off your eyes, but the universe is a little older (a couple trillion years) and a lot bigger (couple trillion light years) than the good book portrays.

I'm glad we have you on our side "The_Blue_Ghost", now I can stop worrying about this once and for all. Now I can throw away my old belief system and in return I have total faith in what you are telling me. I appreciate you for setting me straight. How wrong I've been all these years, damn! Silly me.

On a side note I really don't think this thread is going to convince anyone to switch either side, not based on your testimonies. Either you believe in creation or you don't. There is one thing that I know is true, I sleep very soundly at night having faith in what I beleive in. Whether I'm wrong or right matters not to me. I really don't believe that some body on an online message board is going to convince me to totally abandon my current views of reality and do a total paradigm shift in my way of thinking. Sorry d00d, not gonna happen.

On a side note I really don't think this thread is going to convince anyone to switch either side, not based on your testimonies. Either you believe in creation or you don't. There is one thing that I know is true, I sleep very soundly at night having faith in what I beleive in. Whether I'm wrong or right matters not to me. I really don't believe that some body on an online message board is going to convince me to totally abandon my current views of reality and do a total paradigm shift in my way of thinking. Sorry d00d, not gonna happen.

Amen! ...or is that still PC?

Even tho I'm probably slightly hippocritical since I've been bantering with mcclaindown the thread, I do believe this thread will gain any converts. I certainly hope that no argument I make gains a convert. What my mission, if I may make a shameless plug, is about not being hippocritical and that noone is completely correct in issues such as this. Plus I'm tired of the "right wing consipiracy" (conspiracy my ass, we aren't organized like the left wing, how the hell can we conspire?) and Christians are all wrong and the general the world was better off without religion type stuff (though I know much of what I said was not stated, the last I certainly havn't seen implicitly yet in this thread).

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

the problem i see with the people trying to defend Creationism is that they dont have a very large perspective of scope. I think it's a matter of denial how large our realm really is. Like, they want the universe to be nothing but the Earth and sky. They want the universe to be nothing but a "playpen" for humans.

You've aimed for a shot a creationsim, and I love you to death man, but you missed. Creationism does not take into account the vastness of the univers. Creationsim in concern to Christianity concerns itself with what is relevant to it's audience: us. No where in the bible does it say that the universe is constrained. Instead it merely says "God created the heavens and the earth." By saing your piece about "the sky" and such, you are applying today's definition of heavens. The definition of heavens in context to the bible/creationism is what is not earth. The heavens is a catch all referring to the shit around the earth. The bible and creationism is concerned with what happens on earth. Is a US Historian ignorant because he isn't concerned with the evolution of the African nomadic tribes?

stupidest in the world.

Lets ignore the secular Islamic states in the middle east real quick.

I think some of us need to be a little more fluid or flexible with our convictions.

You however are completely imbedded into your beliefs. This is not wrong, this is human nature. However, it is wrong to expect from society what you do not give. I will finish your thought as to what you truly were saying.

I think some of us need to be a little more fluid or flexible with our convictions so that you come to realize the truth that I know.

I don't mean to bash you hard man, I like you, and you have the freedom to think the way you wish, but I do think you are missing a few points and ignoring some areas.

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

Lets try and put aside the strict positions for a moment (just for a moment) and take a step back to have a look at the complete picture.

Whenever I think of beliefs, convictions and testimonies, whenever I think of beliefs having a name and that name becoming a religion, whenever people start defending their beliefs, the borderline between making a point and chauvinism is getting extremely thin.

No matter what your point of view actually is, how can anyone stand up and claim to have the one and only true one? We cannot prove anything, not the existence of God, not any incidence like the Big Bang. We, the ordinary mortals, have to believe, either the preachers in Black, or the preachers in White (strange, how this image fits)!

Still there is a slight difference to learn in how the paradigms in question developed and evolved. There is one science, one set of laws, that's constantly expanding and widening, constantly undergoing changes and renewal, always dependent to the current state of knowledge of a specific time. On the other hand there is a legend, a story, that is told the same way for ages. Even worse, looking at the existence of different religions and their respective stories about creation of the universe, its told in many different ways. Which actually brings me to the point, leaving the position of the open minded understanding person.

How can one of many religions claim to be the right one, to have the right answers, the true beliefs and with that holding up to ridicule any other. How can there be the "chosen few", who are enlightened, while the rest of the world is living in the darkness of not-knowing or implied ignorance? I will never understand how deep one has to be absorbed in his own beliefs to ignore realities to this degree ("the truth that I know"). From the position of the interested reader that seems more than questionable, that's dangerous!

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

I hate to join the majority opinion here, but I don't think it is possible to base your argument on creationism on fact when it undeniably irrefutably depends on unprovable facts (like believing God exists).

I won't stand here and defend evolution. As far as I know dinosaurs might have been alive at the same time man was around. I won't argue for or against this claim.

Though, for you to believe in creationism, you must first believe:
A) God exists
B) God created the world

Now, I don't know about you, but I certainly can't prove God exists, much less that He created the world. Unless I'm wrong in assuming this, neither can you. Therefore, your argument cannot *possibly* be proven by fact. It's like mixing water and oil here.

I know I know, it isn't really good for argument sake not to have some facts to back up your belief in creationism. But then, to believe in creationism in the first place you must have faith in things without fact.

I know some of you will look at me like I'm crazy, but I believe both creationism and evolution. I think the two are one in the same. The bible's reference to how we came to be was a metaphor for evolution. Coincidentally, they say it took 7 million years for things to evolve the way they did, and god created the world in 7 days. I think believing in evolution does not exclude you from believing in creationism (at least a loosely defined creationism). Though I won't sit before you guys and defend this theory, because it does take a bit of faith to believe, which I cannot explain on some text on a web page.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

WOW Hawkeye, this was by far the most intelligent post I've read in this thread. You touched on both sides, didn't offend anyone and remained professional in the process! This is a very good open minded post!

I know some of you will look at me like I'm crazy

On the contrary, very well written post!

I like to read your posts Hawkeye, some of the best stuff I've read is by you!

We (that is, those of us in the US) live in an ignorant country, I'm not going to debate that. People in this country also believe in large numbers that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. People in this country also like to listen to Jessica Simpson and Billy Ray Cyrus.

Well, thats not much to go off considering ignorance is alive and well wherever you go. Was it ignorance for the German people to believe that they did not start WWI? Was it not ignorant for the poeple to believe that the Earth was flat or that Earth was the center of the universe? Bush & 9/11, well, anuone who believed that at first is know been proven wrong just as those examples mentioned above. Ignorance, for the most part, has just been due to a lack of knowledge.

No offense, but I find your belief in creationism fine until you start putting figures like 9-10,000 years as the age of the universe. That's patently absurd. It's alarmingly ignorant, in fact.

I still find it quit hysterical-and sad- that it is taught or seen anything near as a fact. Evoltuion is not that nor will it ever be. Many wonderful people have adopted this fact and used it to benefit them.

Well in that case, let me throw some ideas into your vortex of unrationalisitc views.

If the universe is only 10,000 years old, then we were contemporaries with dinosaurs, and every other species that we have fossil records of.

You got that part right. If you take biblical history at face value, then the notion of men and dinosaurs having lived together in the past is not so difficult. The Bible actually mentions dragons (the Hebrew word is tnn (tannin)-the word "dinosaur was not invented until the 19th century). Also mentions a probably descrption of a dinosaur in Job 40- called a Behemoth. Many creatures have become extict- it is happening today. Extiction is not evolution, and there is no fossil evidence of dinosaurs having evolved from non-dinosaurs.

The Stone Age, the Ice Age, the Jurassic and Mesozoic, every single period of life on this planet, would have had to have occured in 10,000 years. Absurd. There would be no fossil fuels, because they takes millions of years to form. Same goes for diamonds and other minerals.

Well, I dont find those "time periods" relevent considering man was alive and well with the dinosaurs. Having belief in creation also causes me to throw out the insignificant evidence shown to us about the stone age. So that takes away what? Some 250 million years off the time table. I also find it interesting how "scientists" can never make up their mind on the age of the planet. I think the last figure I read was 300 million. That will probably change in a year or so. And the fossil fuels and minerals taking millions of years to develop- well hmmm. So what about those water-deposited rock layes around the world, containing the buried remains of billions of deasd things? Isn't that the sort of thing you would expect if the Bible is right about the destruction of the whole Earth by water- Noah's Flood? (A good modern example is the explosion of Mt. St Helens in 1980) Fossils show signs of rapid burial, not slow and gradual processes as most people believe. For example- there are countless millions of well-preserved fossile fish, even showing scales, fins, and eye sockets. In nature, a dead fish is quickly ripped apart by scavengers and decomposes readily.Unless the fish were buried quickly, and the sediments (sand-mud) hardened fairly rapidly, such features would not be preserved. There are other countless examples of such rapid burial and not the millions of years we are so falsely preached.

More on fossils show how incorrect the theory of evolution is. Darwin stated, correctly for once, that if his theory was true, there would be very large numbers of "in-between types" found as fossils. However, we still have yet to find a part-limb, part-wing or part-feather, part-scale fossil.
As darwin stated in the absence of such intermediates it would be the "most obvious and serious objection" agaisnt his theory. The Origns of Species- by Darwin- breeds hate and sophistic arguments not supported by evidence. It is well- documented that racist attitudes skyrocketed after its intial publishment. After all,the Origins of Species was a bible for Hitler & Stalin. Both were die-hards in their beliefs of Evolution.

But there is a difference between faith and willful ignorance.

After all, why did God give you a mind if he expects you to shut it off?

I use it to its full extent in everything I observe. And frankly I dont see how anyone could believe in such a falliable, unproven and incapable theory such as evolution- but I respect all opinions. You can continue to believe in evolution by faith, or choose to believe in creation by faith. Belief if creation is not only scientifically reasonable, but it makes much more common sense. Just standing back and looking at the incredibly complex, interacting world not to mention the astonishing human brain, and thwen think of the belief that all this came from nothing, ultimatley by chance! Surely such a faith involves blind faith, rather than a reasonable faith such of the creationist.

If you want more information and/or arguments for or against then go ahead and post and I'll throw in my opinions. Later all.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

This post was edited by Hardballkid on Mar 30, 2005.

Ignorance, for the most part, has just been due to a lack of knowledge.

Then why are you citing a survey of an ignorant people to make your point?

People in our country are not well-trained in the sciences, which, whatever your claims, provide the most rigorous and likely explanations for many observed phenomena. All that science is is an ordered approach to thought and investigation. It is not an attempt to disprove religion. It is a methodical use of the human brain, and nothing more. Science should be challenged, but what you're parroting is not challenge, it is propaganda designed to support another conclusion. That's not how rational people think. We don't determine what we want to believe and then figure out a way to justify our conclusions ex post facto. The conclusion by definition comes at the end. That's the problem with Creation "science." No reputable, trained scientist will ever take it seriously, because it turns the scientific method on its head.

I still find it quit hysterical-and sad- that it is taught or seen anything near as a fact. Evoltuion is not that nor will it ever be. Many wonderful people have adopted this fact and used it to benefit them.

Then laugh away:
1. All creatures have a parent or parents. Living creatures always come from living creatures.
2. Some living creatures are much different than others, say a fluke versus an elephant.
3. Looking at fossil records, we can see that the earliest animals were very simple, and that they became more complex as time went on. We also see characteristics common to later species in those earlier primitive ones.

When you put those three facts together, not to mention other more specific, overwheliming evidence, the case for evolution is much tighter than anything the creationists will ever concoct: because "Creation science" is false.

You got that part right. If you take biblical history at face value, then the notion of men and dinosaurs having lived together in the past is not so difficult.

But when you look at the fossil records, it is impossible. How come there are no men or contemporary species buried in the strata that hold dinosaurs? The earliest ancestors of man found thus far are from 3 million years ago, millions of years after the sudden disappearance of the dinosaurs.

Having belief in creation also causes me to throw out the insignificant evidence shown to us about the stone age. So that takes away what? Some 250 million years off the time table.

That "having belief in creation" first of all shows me that you don't understand creation, and second of all, shows me that its pointless to argue with you. You don't have a belief in creation, you have a belief in Creation "science." You can be a creationist and still believe in evolution.

Like I said above, when you put the conclusion before its place in the line of reasoning, you surrender your ability to think critically.

Did you know that until Louis Pasteur, the entire world thought that dung beetles came from dung? The entire world was wrong. They also thought the earth was flat and the center of the solar system. They were wrong there too. The Bible was written in those time with that understanding of the universe. We know better today.

I also find it interesting how "scientists" can never make up their mind on the age of the planet. I think the last figure I read was 300 million.

Well, that's because scientists are unsure of how old the world is. So rather than clinging to some figure, they amend their opnion based on observation, as you are incapable of doing.

Plus, you gave a range of dates earlier for the age of the universe--how come you couldn't provide an exact number yourself?

And the fossil fuels and minerals taking millions of years to develop- well hmmm. So what about those water-deposited rock layes around the world, containing the buried remains of billions of deasd things?

What are you talking about? A fossil fuel is oil, coal, etc. It has nothing to do with fossils of animals.

It is well- documented that racist attitudes skyrocketed after its intial publishment.

And the Crusades and the Inquisition took place under the banner of the Bible--what's your point? Anyone can misinterpret a book and use it to justify their cause. You can't fault Darwin for his work being twisted in such ways posthumously.

And frankly I dont see how anyone could believe in such a falliable, unproven and incapable theory such as evolution

As I proved above more concretely than you will ever prove Creationism, the theory of evolution is the only one that explains ancestry, diversity, and complexity of species, and every piece of biological evidence we have uncovered has supported it.

Belief if creation is not only scientifically reasonable, but it makes much more common sense. Just standing back and looking at the incredibly complex, interacting world not to mention the astonishing human brain, and thwen think of the belief that all this came from nothing, ultimatley by chance! Surely such a faith involves blind faith, rather than a reasonable faith such of the creationist.

Correction, belief in Creation "science" is what you are expounding. And belief in it is scientifically not at all reasonable, nor does it make any "common sense."

The theory of evolution does not stand in conflict with creationism. It doesn't say, as you have, that "everything came from nothing... ultimately by chance." All it says is that species change over time. It says nothing of the origin of life, just the origin of species.

Many Christians regard evolution as God's tool, and regard the spark of life as divine.

But if you're going to make clumsy attacks on a theory such as evolution, you should at least understand what it is.

One last question, if evolution is false, then how do you explain viruses that we have seen adapt, such as the newest strain of HIV?

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on Mar 30, 2005.

When you put those three facts together, not to mention other more specific, overwheliming evidence, the case for evolution is much tighter than anything the creationists will ever concoct: because "Creation science" is false.

However there is a gap in the fossil records. Life seemingly jumped from single celled organisms to complex multicelled organisms with organs and such. We can only trace animals back to a certain period before evidence dissapears. And even so, Evolution from the prehistoric creatures is purely assumption. Scientists essentially say "These bones are similar, THEREFORE we evolved from these animals". When asked to explain how the "first" animals came about, Scientists wildly point to the primordial soup, and when asked to explain where the bacteria came from, the scientists point to a RANDOM assembling of what happened to be the perfect atoms that just so happened to create a lifeform that could miraculously reproduce.

So, based on the logic that Creation Science is false because it can not offer any tangible evidence and is purely an assumption, Evolution is bunk. There's no way around it. Everything that can be said to explain our origin is all speculation and assumption for there is NO HARD EVIDENCE for us to base our facts upon. For all we know the movies could be right and it was a race of intelligence species that crash-landed on earth that jumpstarted our evolution.

Now, may I explain that Adaptation and Evolution are two separate things. Adaptation is irrefuteable and indeniable. Adaptation is a fact, it has been observed, but scale wise only applies to short term, small changes in a creature. Evolution is Adaptation on a large cronological scale that is purely speculation based on the fact that "because adaptation is true, Evolution MUST be true".

This is all why you find that in science there are so few laws and so many theories. That is why we call the Theory of Evolution a Theory.

What are you talking about? A fossil fuel is oil, coal, etc. It has nothing to do with fossils of animals.

The reson why the nomenclature is FOSSIL fuel is that it was formed by the fossels and decay of previously living organisms.

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

So, based on the logic that Creation Science is false because it can not offer any tangible evidence and is purely an assumption, Evolution is bunk. There's no way around it. Everything that can be said to explain our origin is all speculation and assumption for there is NO HARD EVIDENCE for us to base our facts upon

More ignorance. Speciation has been observed in nature time and again. There is plenty of hard scientific evidence. Creation "scientists" just don't want to hear it.

The truth is that creation "scientists" are trying to disprove a body of work that is far from perfect, yet still unassailable from a position so ridiculous as theirs. Why do you people think that brilliant scientists have devoted their lives to these pursuits? Is it some grand conspiracy? If science is just a giant plot to discredit religion, then how do you explain the fact that you can watch TV, wash your clothes in a machine, receive medical treatment for all kinds of maladies, and type nonsense on a discussion forum, all as a result of scientific achievement? What has creation science contributed, by contrast?

When asked to explain how the "first" animals came about, Scientists wildly point to the primordial soup, and when asked to explain where the bacteria came from, the scientists point to a RANDOM assembling of what happened to be the perfect atoms that just so happened to create a lifeform that could miraculously reproduce.

Both of you have been confusing the origin of life with the origin of species. They are two different topics. I don't think scientists are "wildly pointing" to anything with any more desperation than that exhibited by the idiots behind creation "science," and if they are guessing, at least it's an edcated guess. Most evolutionary biologists will tell you that they don't know, and most of them believe (with the same kind of blind faith Christian creationists exhibit) that science will eventually provide the answers. I, for one, do not believe this. But I do think evolution is the only sensible theory to explain the diversity of species and the only theory that neatly aligns so much of what we have observed in the fields of biology, medicine, geology, and anthropology.

The reson why the nomenclature is FOSSIL fuel is that it was formed by the fossels and decay of previously living organisms.

Fossil fuel is completely different from fossils. Why is that so hard to understand? It is possibly comprised of mutated organic data from flora from millions of years ago that change into either coal or some form of oil. A fossil, by contrast, is an organism or a plant cast in the earth, with no organic matter. You can't take a barrel of oil and examine it for meaningful biological data, any more than you can fuel your car with a fossil--but you can look at a fossil and determine a great deal about the organism it represents. The previous poster was using a bait-and-switch from one to the other, or just didn't understand the difference, and I was simply pointing out they are totally different.

There is, however, another theory about fossil fuels. It's possible that they were formed in the primordial history of our planet, before biological matter was here, or while it was in a microbial form. This is called the abiogenic theory. So it's possible that the term fossil fuel is a misnomer.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on Mar 30, 2005.

More ignorance. Speciation has been observed in nature time and again. There is plenty of hard scientific evidence. Creation "scientists" just don't want to hear it.

I really don't think you are going to get the kind of debate you guys are looking for here. The conversation seems to be terribly one sided. I don't share your opinion, at least my view is not as cut and dry as yours. If it had been about 4 years ago I'd waste my time debating with you guys but I've grown past that now, I really don't care who is right. I have my own view on this situation and I'm sticking with it despite your arguements. If you guys are so certain that evolution is the key to our existance then why is this conversation continuing? After all I'm not going to say you are wrong, but I will say I have a different opinion on the matter.

I'm not looking for a debate, but I have a hard time letting someone post disinformation on a public forum without representing the truth.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

I'm not looking for a debate, but I have a hard time letting someone post disinformation on a public forum without representing the truth.

And I have a hard time of allowing only one opinion truly argued under the absolute conviction that it is true and good.

None of what I have been saying is disinformation. If you actually read what I'm saying, including linguistic devices such as sarcasm, you will realize that what I present are facts and 2 possible answered derived from those facts, both having grounds.

For something to be disinformation, that would be to say that I am taking the facts, which are not conclusive, and if they were conclusive, ignoring the the conclusiong and spouting vicious "lies".

I will not lie on my stomach and be bashed as a liar is a theological/hypothetical debate. It is impossible for me to be a liar unless I told you creationism is all about the monky's and The Theory of Evolution is about spaghetti.

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

I wasn't talking about anything you said, I was talking about HardBallKid's discussion of Creation "science"...

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Ha, sorry. ;)

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

Both of you have been confusing the origin of life with the origin of species.

Please explain to me the difference, for I was always under the impression that at the origion of species was the origin of life.

Now if you are speaking of the origin of a specific species, they you are absolutely correct. However Adaptation is the theory that more closely deals with the origin of species, however what you are using/referring to is the Theory of Evolution, which specifically tracks the diversity of life from a common ancestor, AKA the origin of life.

More ignorance. Speciation has been observed in nature time and again. There is plenty of hard scientific evidence. Creation "scientists" just don't want to hear it.

If you read, that was meant to be sarcastic and satircal. What I'm trying to say is you cannot regard creationsim as blatently false, for it is impossible for either to be blatently true.

And who's to say Creation Scientists are ignoring speciation? Maybe perhaps it is you who doesn't want to hear that Creation Science (at least my view of creation science) accepts speciation as fact, just not as the creation of the origional. How could Creation Science disagree with speciation when it really has nothing to do with the origin of life.

And what is so ridiculous about a higher being or another species aiding in the creation of the first lifeform? Current evolutionary theory points to an extremely random sequence of events producing a lifeform.

My views are Science and Religion coincide. Science explains the why, religion produces the what. Both, when referring to primordial history, are speculation, but both in separate relms. Sure there are fundamentalists saying creationsim happend, not evolution, However the key focus in religion is not WHY or HOW the animals came to being, but the fact that they came to being. Rather than stress out over trivial issues such as which soup the alligator came from, religion says God Did It.

What has creation science contributed, by contrast?

What has Creation Science contributed? Nothing more than the Theory of Evolution in concern to the theory of life. You are comparing Creation Science to modern Science, two completely differnet relms. That's like saying what good did phelm do to the tree compared to the bull run in the stock market. However, adjusting the argument from Creation Science to Religion, Religion has contributed plenty: It has contributed society, morality. Essentially, early religion helped foster our societes that allowed us to pursue science. The spread of organized religion is responsible for the dispersion of ideas like Art and Science. Without the evangelical catholics of the early millenium, Western Culture would still be barbaric, the Ottoman Empire would never have rose to such power, and we would all just now be escaping the stone age, or perhaps better yet the iron age.

Mcclain, you are attacking points I have never made.

I don't think scientists are "wildly pointing" to anything with any more desperation than that exhibited by the idiots behind creation "science,"

PRECISELY! Creation Science and the Theory of Evolution are in the Same Boat!

So it's possible that the term fossil fuel is a misnomer.

It is indeed possible, however fossil fuel and fossils are related: they have the same ancestor: Biological matter.

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

This post was edited by eljefe on Mar 30, 2005.

Please explain to me the difference, for I was always under the impression that at the origion of species was the origin of life.

Well then you don't understand evolutionary biology. The origin of species means the origin of diverse forms of life--of heterogeneous species, instead of a monoculture. It refers to how the taxonomy of different species came into being, not how life itself came into being. It also refers to adaptation on a genetic scale.

This reminds me of fundamentalist Christians who talk about how ridiculous the Big Bang theory is when you mention evolution. They don't even understand what evolution is, and how it is a biological, and not a cosmic, theory. They regard it as one theory. It reminds me of the following quote by Herbert Spencer: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

What I'm trying to say is you cannot regard creationsim as blatently false, for it is impossible for either to be blatently true.

Creationism, meaning that God is the divine author of the universe, can certainly not be regarded as blatantly false. Any scientist who discounts that possiblity out of hand is being just as dogmatic as a fundamentalist Christian.

However, I can and do regard creation "science" as blatantly false. It is a campaign based to "prove" certain a priori assumptions. It has no scientific or intellectual merit.

Rather than stress out over trivial issues such as which soup the alligator came from, religion says God Did It.

No, your interpretation of your religion says that. There are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution, and who realize that the universe is billions of years old. My father, for example, is a very conservative Christian, and he (being a doctor, and thus trained in the sciences, and a big Biblical scholar as well) firmly believes in evolution.

What has Creation Science contributed? Nothing more than the Theory of Evolution in concern to the theory of life.

Evolutionary biology is the unifying force between all the life sciences. Without the understanding that the theory of evolution has imparted, the life sciences would not have advanced as they have over the last century. So Darwin's theory has contributed mightily to our scientific progress and our understanding of nature. Creation "science" has contributed nothing.

However, adjusting the argument from Creation Science to Religion, Religion has contributed plenty: It has contributed society, morality.

Now you're comparing two different things, science and religion. I was comparing something claiming to be science to the real article, science. Mine was a valid comparison, yours is not.

But if I wanted to entertain your comparison, you say that religion has contributed society and morality. Where's your proof that religion created society instead of arising from it? Why are you also ignoring the crimes and warfare that has been perpetrated in the name of religion?

Essentially, early religion helped foster our societes that allowed us to pursue science. The spread of organized religion is responsible for the dispersion of ideas like Art and Science. Without the evangelical catholics of the early millenium, Western Culture would still be barbaric, the Ottoman Empire would never have rose to such power, and we would all just now be escaping the stone age, or perhaps better yet the iron age.

This is a patently absurd statement. You offer no proof, just make assertions.

Abbeys throughout Europe and particularly in Ireland did preserve a lot of information from the Old World through the Dark Ages. But what you call barbarism could also have been an advanced tribal culture, such as the Celts. The Romans were "civilized," and certainly more technologically advanced than the barbarians that ultimately took them down: but they also invented a thousand different forms of torture and murdered and subjugated people the world over--so who were the "barbarians?"

The fact is, you have no idea where we would be if history had played out differently, and neither do I.

PRECISELY! Creation Science and the Theory of Evolution are in the Same Boat!

No. We have seen species evolve. We have seen infections evolve to become resistant to penicillin. We have scads of evidence tha evolutionary theory is correct.

Creation "science," OTOH, is pseudoscience. It violates all the tenets of the scientific method, and doesn't deserve to be called a science at all, hence my insistence on quotes. There is no support for it other than blind faith and scripture. No one who applies rigorous forensic and logical standards to thought and investigation takes it seriously. They are not in the same boat. They aren't even in the same ocean.

There is nothing wrong with blind faith, if that's what you want--but don't try to justify it by making up a "science." If you want to be a biblical literalist, fine. But don't lie and distort while doing so. That's all I ask of these nutjobs.

It is indeed possible, however fossil fuel and fossils are related: they have the same ancestor: Biological matter.

That's not necessarily true, but it's a moot point anyway. I've already explained why they are totally different, take it or leave it. Time to quit flogging that dead horse.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on Mar 30, 2005.

Evolutionary biology is the unifying force between all the life sciences. Without the understanding that the theory of evolution has imparted, the life sciences would not have advanced as they have over the last century. So Darwin's theory has contributed mightily to our scientific progress and our understanding of nature. Creation "science" has contributed nothing.

Evolutionary Biology does not imply the origion of life. Therefore you cannot compare it to Creation "science" for creation science does not concern itself with the adaptation and evolution of existing species. To the best of my knowledge, Darwin sought to explain where we came from and how animals became diverse, not where life origionated from. Darwin's theory has contributed amazing amounts of information, however you cannot compare two different subjects: the origin of life and the origin of species.

Now you're comparing two different things, science and religion. I was comparing something claiming to be science to the real article, science. Mine was a valid comparison, yours is not.

You were comparing a science based on the origion of species to a science based on the origin of life. You cannot step that far in your generalizations. The Theory of Evolution in concern to the theory of life, which is was Creation "Science" is concerned with, yielded as much fruit as Creation Science.

But if I wanted to entertain your comparison, you say that religion has contributed society and morality. Where's your proof that religion created society instead of arising from it? Why are you also ignoring the crimes and warfare that has been perpetrated in the name of religion?

EVERYTHING has the capacity to be "evil." Science certainly so. Just because religion has been twisted to commit crimes does not mean that relgion as a whole is bunk. Why are you ignoring the horrid atrocities contributed by science, such as nerve gas and nuclear weapons? I understand your point on religion creating society, however as I said after said statement, religion is an instrumental, key requirement of the formation of a society, a functioning society. Early humans needed to have someone to answer to inorder to have a cause for morality.

but they also invented a thousand different forms of torture and murdered and subjugated people the world over--so who were the "barbarians?"

Here we get into politically correct nomenclature. Alright, so lets call them sociological ranking A and sociological ranking C. Or how about I just inform that when I refer to barbarianism I refer to a culture without the arts, humanities, definately not nomadic, and does not display cohesion on a wide scale? Your argument does not touch what I said, it merely wishes to define who is a barbarian and who is not. How is my argument patently absurd?

I think it's time I stepped back and reinforce the words I use, because I may not be using them the way you are:

Theory of Evolution - Concerns with the origin of life

Evolution - Concerns with the origin of species

Creation "science," OTOH, is pseudoscience. It violates all the tenets of the scientific method, and doesn't deserve to be called a science at all, hence my insistence on quotes. There is no support for it other than blind faith and scripture. No one who applies rigorous forensic and logical standards to thought and investigation takes it seriously. They are not in the same boat. They aren't even in the same ocean.

Now you finally explain your point! I think now I understand what you were struggling to say. While I will back of on many of my points, I do not shrink away from the same blind guesses made by both the THEORY of evolution and creation science.

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

Therefore you cannot compare it to Creation "science" for creation science does not concern itself with the adaptation and evolution of existing species.

Of course I can compare the two, creation "science" attempts to disprove evolutionary biology and imposes a pseudoscientific framework in its place. It also tries to unify the origin of species and the origin of life into this f