Creationism, Intelligent Design, Evolution and God.

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Creationism, Intelligent Design, Evolution and God.

It would seem that the 'Creationism/ Intelligent Design' front are stepping up their offensive, from Behe's new book 'The Edge of Evolution' to the creation museum.However, this actually hinders the things on the Theistic front. To put it simply it gives the following impression: 'You must choose. Either God or science. Either one or the other.' This is of course absurd and could undermine the scientific progress. The main idea behind creationism, is poking holes in the explanations. For intelligent Design, trying to show that the explanations are inadequate to explain the 'irreducably complex' components of a given system.

 

Science is constantly changing, once new theories arise, old ones are tossed or revised. It helps our understanding of the world. If a theory isn't adequate enough, it is further investigated or revised. To the Creationist or IDer, the theory is entirely thown out. On the side of the Creationist, their lack of knowledge helps drive their fierce determination. Since they cannot find an alternate explination, than it must be their God, and argument from ignorance. They feel the scientific process hinders their Theistic belif, but it does not. It gives the impression you cannot simitaniously believe in Big Bang/Evolution and God at the same time.

They label the Big Bang the 'Big Dud', since it seems to go against their belief in God, one cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution and the Big Bang. (Never mind the fact that George Lemaitre was himself, a Christian, or the fact that one of the most outspoken nemesises of ID is Ken Miller, who is also Christian).

 

However, scientific theories have holes indeed. Especially new and exciting theories, but this does not indicate they are wrong, it just indicates we don't know. They give explaniations that seem to condratict modern theories. This is because science is constantly discovering new things.

Let us work through an example.


The atom is made up of electrons orbiting protons. Electrons are negativly charged and charged particle orbits lose energy, also the proton is positivley charged, therefore the electrons should smash into the proton, making atoms impossible.

This is a perfect example of the scientific process. At first, it was thought that the atom resembled a blueberry muffin, where the positive part was the muffin itself, and the blueberries were the electrons, imbedded inside the nucleus.

However, this theory was revised by Rutherford into electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus of protons. The problem above was an actual problem since it seemingly contradicted classic electromagnetic theory. It was pondered by scientists unil it was solved by Bohr. He proposed the electrons travel in waves rather than in orbits like our Earth orbits the sun. That since they travel in waves, only certain energies are allowed otherwise, an electron would smash into the nucleus.There are many formulas that indicate whether or not an electron energy level jump is possible or not.

You may have learned this is high school chemistry, known as the Bohr-Rutherford model.


 

Here is a much clearer picture:

 

There was no condratiction. Classic electromagnetic theory is still valid, here is just a new form of it.

This example clearly shows how more scientific investigation can lead to better answers. The creationists will see this as 'God did it', others will see this as a gap in our knowledge that demands a better explination.

 

The intelligent design, fronted by Behe, a univeristy biochemistry prof uses the term 'irreducably complex'. This is better explained by Ken Miller than I.

Watch this video or Dr.Miller's ID presentation

 

 

I personally would be extremely disappointed if creation was true and the universe/Earth was created as is 6,000 years ago. That this God would have a complete lack of imagination. That he would be so boring and so bland to simply put everything as is.

To all the creationists/IDers I suggest the following:


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Okay, how do I get rid of

Okay, how do I get rid of the picture at the top?


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
good post and classic

good post and classic picture.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: To put it simply it

Quote:
To put it simply it gives the following impression: 'You must choose. Either God or science. Either one or the other.' This is of course absurd and could undermine the scientific progress.

Pursuant to our previous conversations, I'm perfectly happy with science proving god, but I want it to be real science.  I want data.  Peer review.  Math.

I agree that science and the existence of some intelligent being that could be called god are not mutually exclusive.  But I still hold to the statement that calling such a being god is a little disengenous, and  gives theists something to hold onto, when nothing is actually there.  Historical theist gods do not exist.  Yahweh, Allah, etc... do not exist, and their theology IS completely contradictory and incompatible with science.  Any being that science can discover is natural, quantifiable, and has limits.  This is NOT the god that people believe in.  If science discovers such a being, I suspect it will not be called god.  It will be called an alien.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Pursuant to our previous conversations, I'm perfectly happy with science proving god, but I want it to be real science. I want data. Peer review. Math.

 

Science can neither directly prove nor disprove God. All we can do is work in probabilities. 

 



Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Science can neither

Quote:
Science can neither directly prove nor disprove God. All we can do is work in probabilities.

This horse is dead.  I refuse to flog it again.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

Science can neither directly prove nor disprove God 

 

Then 'god' as a term is either incohernt, non falsifiable, or both.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Then 'god'

todangst wrote:

Then 'god' as a term is either incohernt, non falsifiable, or both.

 

 

God/purpose isn't a scientific question, it's a philosophical. How can science possibly prove purpose of life/universe?


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Okay,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Okay, how do I get rid of the picture at the top?

Maybe you can edit your post, put the cursor juuuuuuust to the right of the image you want to remove, and hit delete/backspace. It should work.

I don't guarantee it will work, though, so if you do it that way, hit "preview comment" to make sure it will appear the way you want it to appear before you actually post.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: God/purpose isn't a

Quote:
God/purpose isn't a scientific question, it's a philosophical. How can science possibly prove purpose of life/universe?

Why do you keep saying this?

First, why do you keep harping on purpose? You must demonstrate the existence of purpose before you can speculate on what the purpose might be. So far, you have been completely unsuccessful. Back up your claims!

Second, philosophy is the science of thought.

Epistemology is the study of what knowledge is. Like any other science, claims must be backed up. Just because you say that a thing exists, or that a thought process is valid, it is not necessarily so. You must back up your claim. Therefore, if god exists and philosophy can prove it, then you must prove it philosophically.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of existence. The observations of metaphysics, like scientific observations, are limited to what we can witness, either directly or indirectly, through the senses, which are natural. Without evidence, any claim in metaphysics falls under the same rules as anything else. The burden of proof is on the claimant, and a thing is considered not to exist until it is demonstrated as existant.

Logic is the codification of the way thought moves from the known to the unknown through deduction and induction, and includes probability and symbolic logic. If god can be proven through logic, the test of validity must apply.

As all of these disciplines work together, any discussion that involves any of them must conform to the laws of the others to be valid. Philosophy is not separate from empiricism. Without empiricism, philosophy would not -- could not exist. They are intertwined and inextricably linked.

Until you can prove otherwise, please stop trying to take god out of the realm of falsifiability.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: First,

Hambydammit wrote:

First, why do you keep harping on purpose? You must demonstrate the existence of purpose before you can speculate on what the purpose might be. So far, you have been completely unsuccessful. Back up your claims!

 Didn't I say I couldn't prove purpose? 

It's like determining whether or not something is moral. It differs from person to person. 



Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
I think you should be

I think you should be content with a purpose that is completely selfish. When you start to contemplate a purpose that relates to the universe or a God your thoughts leave the scope of your own existence.

Your sense of self is not defined by a single entity such as a soul, it is obvious through empirical evidence that there are many components that amalgamate to form a personality. Any essence that is to extend beyond inevitable death will not be you.

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote: I think

Cernunnos wrote:

I think you should be content with a purpose that is completely selfish. When you start to contemplate a purpose that relates to the universe or a God your thoughts leave the scope of your own existence.

 

What are you talking about? 

 

Quote:
 

Your sense of self is not defined by a single entity such as a soul, it is obvious through empirical evidence that there are many components that amalgamate to form a personality. Any essence that is to extend beyond inevitable death will not be you.

I am away of the components and don't see how that hinders my argument. 


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What are you talking

Quote:
What are you talking about?

Ultimate purpose is meaningless as your existence is finite. If believing in a God gratifies you do so. However do not waste your own time by letting a perceived God's purpose hold sway.

I did not mean to hinder your argument.

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
How is the falsifiability of

How is the falsifiability of purpose related to the falsifiability of god?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote: How is the

Fish wrote:
How is the falsifiability of purpose related to the falsifiability of god?

 

Wouldn't a purpose imply a God? 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It's like

Quote:
It's like determining whether or not something is moral. It differs from person to person.

No, it's not even remotely similar.

Morality is the codification of the value perceptions of interpersonal interactions between people.

Value judgment exists.

Perceptions exist.

Interactions exist.

People exist.

These are all empirical fact. We recognize, after thorough examination of the empirical facts that moral judgments are based on a very large number of variables, many of which overlap. This overlap, and subsequent conflict of generalized moral statements, combined with the almost infinite number of possible situations, each with their own immensely large number of variables, makes the concept of "universal morality" invalid.

********

"Purpose" is an intended goal.

"Intent" is a conscious desire to affect the universe over time.

"Goal" is the desired result of a purpose.

These words are meaningless without one common concept: Sentience.

To demonstrate purpose, you must demonstrate sentience. The universe, by all observations, is not sentient. Therefore, the universe does not have purpose.

Your analogy is false. There is no connection.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 There are problems with

 There are problems with the first post. This is not a war between God and science. It's a war between science and lies (evolution), Evolution is not scientific. But we have been indoctrinated and duped into believing it is. Science points to an intelligence behind creation. A true and honest scientist follows the data wherever it leads. The problem is that the modern paradigm (evolution) is under attack and being shaken to its foundations. And the atheists don't like it. The entire universe is screaming of intelligent design. Atheists realized in history that they could not defeat the theist through logic, philosophy, the history of Divine revelation, miracles, human ontology, etc. So evolution was their last hope. Now they're little theory is being torn to pieces and they know it. They have nothing left to base their skepticism on.

 

Your statement that God would be boring to have created in 6,000 years, is ludicrous. God could have created in 13 billion years if He wanted to. But there is no reason for it. God is infinite. He does not need time to work things out like some kind of finite and potent god. Being all powerful, He does not need to take billions of years. His creativity is clearly expressed in the short time He took to create. A young earth does not violate creativity whatsoever. The universe screams creativity. My question would be: since God is infinite and all powerful, what reason would He have to take 13 billion years to create? None. That length of time would be required of a finite and potent deity.

 

Theists are not obligated to discard the Big Bang theory. Many scientific theists accept the BB. Many don't. Even if the BB did occur, it presents no problem for Christian theism.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 In fact, the Big Bang

 In fact, the Big Bang actually helps creationists. The BB shows that the universe had a beginning, just like Genesis says. The intelligence behind the BB must have existed outside the universe. The universe is fine-tuned for life. This proves that the source behind the BB is

 

1. Extremely intelligent

 

2. All powerful

 

3. Infinite (the universe is finite).

 

4. Carying/loving, in that He fine-tuned the universe perfectly for our life and sustence.

 

5. Has intelligence, and therefore a mind. The only things we know of that can exist outside the time/space manifold are abstract concepts such as numbers, and mind.

 

When we add all this up, it sounds suspiciously like the God of biblical revelation.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: There are

Apotheon wrote:
There are problems with the first post. This is not a war between God and science.

True, but not for the reasons you want.
Apotheon wrote:
It's a war between science and lies (evolution),

This is where we get amnesia and forget that science has had to fight its way past religion at every new discovery. Then, when science proved too useful to ignore, religion came shuffling behind it, puffing at its inhaler and shouting, "Wait up you guyyyysss!"
Apotheon wrote:
Evolution is not scientific.

It's purely scientific.
Apotheon wrote:
But we have been indoctrinated and duped into believing it is.

Irony's not wasted on you, I see.
Apotheon wrote:
Science points to an intelligence behind creation.

To borrow phrase from the Extant Dodos, science makes no comment on the supernatural.
Apotheon wrote:
A true and honest scientist follows the data wherever it leads.

Which is what happened when Darwin came to the inevitable, and to some, unpleasant, conclusion that, like other animals he'd observed, man must also have evolved.
Apotheon wrote:
The problem is that the modern paradigm (evolution) is under attack and being shaken to its foundations. And the atheists don't like it. The entire universe is screaming of intelligent design. [He goes on to say the same thing fifty ways.]

Yeah, you're all puffed up cos you watched "The Case For A Creator." The thing about that is, all those "experts" (many of them speaking outside their fields) are deeply invested in theology, and most of them are involved with the Discovery Institute. If you can stomach having your views challenged, check out the Extant Dodos annotated version of that on YouTube. If you really cared about science, you'd recognize where the original diverges from real research, and engages in apologetics. Lee Strobel's vacant Ron Popielesque rhapsodizing should have been a tip off.
Apotheon wrote:
They have nothing left to base their skepticism on.

You make me laugh.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Apathon, evoultion within

Apathon, evoultion within the relevent spheres that it effects isn't "shaking at its foundation" it is being proven with more and more evidence daily.  I think you are projeciting, you see evolution being proven as faslifiying your dogma, so it is your "system of beliefs" that is being shaking at its foundation, in your unconcious and/or subconcious.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
zntneo wrote: Apathon,

zntneo wrote:
Apathon, evoultion within the relevent spheres that it effects isn't "shaking at its foundation" it is being proven with more and more evidence daily.  I think you are projeciting, you see evolution being proven as faslifiying your dogma, so it is your "system of beliefs" that is being shaking at its foundation, in your unconcious and/or subconcious.

 

Those are lies they want to indoctrinate you into believing. 

 

 WHAT IS THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR ALL EVOLUTIONARY “ORIGIN OF LIFE” THEORIES?

“In the vast majority of the processes in which we are interested the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis. For example, the spontaneous union, step by step, of amino acid units to form a protein has a certain small probability, and hence might occur over a long stretch of time. But the dissolution of the protein or of an intermediate product into its component amino acids is much more probable, and hence will go ever so much more rapidly. The situation we must face is that of patient Penelope waiting for Odysseus, yet much worse: each night she undid the weaving of the preceding day, but here a night could readily undo the work of a year or a century.

“How do present-day organisms manage to synthesize organic compounds against the forces of dissolution? They do so by a continuous expenditure of energy. . . . A living organism is an intricate machine for performing exactly this function. When, for want of fuel or through some internal failure in its mechanism, an organism stops actively synthesizing itself in opposition to the processes which continuously decompose it, it dies and rapidly disintegrates.

“What we ask here is to synthesize organic molecules without such a machine. I believe this to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us—the weakest link at present in our argument. I do not think it by any means disastrous, but it calls for phenomena and forces some of which are as yet only partly understood and some probably still to be discovered.”

- George Wald, Harvard biologist and Nobel laureate
Scientific American, Aug 1954. pp. 44, 49-50)

 

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Your objection is beyond

Your objection is beyond daft, Apotheon.

First, thre is NO shortage of complex chemistry on earth or in outer freaking space for that matter. The organic materials that comprise life as we know it seem abundant, and far flung no loss.

Secondly, your (or rathe this obscure quote from an obscure man) assessment on how chemistry or physics works is, well, ignorant. As is your understanding of the mechanism of evolution.

The thinking goes and the chemisty goes, that bonds are constantly being busted and formed, and given certain conditions, like a water environ, we can start to expect certain compunds to predominate.

Now there are hundreds of papers and books on how we got from organic compound, to self replicatiing molecule, to protobionate, to cell, but the simple fact of the matter is, DNA has evolved proofreading software.

What the FUCK is the force of "dissolution"?

 

And please, save us both a headache and don't say "entropy".

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon's posts are a

Apotheon's posts are a joke. He demonstrates only that he can use the Ctrl C-V. And even that suprises me. He has never had an original thought in his life.

I took the time to personally write and refute everything he said.

Since he brought up creationist timescale:

 The Absurdity Of Creationist Cosmology (Has Nice Pictures Now)

Since he brought up what sound suspiciously like thermodynamics:

Entropy and Life- The Functions of Thermodynamics and their implications for biological systems

Since he brought up "intelligent design" and "lack of evidence for evolution":

“Appears Designed Is A Contradiction in Terms”: The Fundamentals of Biological Evolution

 

Since he brought up "science proving Intelligent design"

The Notion of Scientific or Indeed any Empirical Proof of God is Absurd

Since he brought up abiogenesis:

 The Argument From Ignorance and its uses and abuses

What a jokester. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Lucretius
Lucretius's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-04-05
User is offlineOffline
Since I've taken a formal

Since I've taken a formal class on thermodynamics I'll just drop my two cents in (even though we all know the basic answer.)
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statistical law that is based upon the probabilistic outcome of a jumble of particles.  There are fewer ordered states than disordered ones... so things will always end up disordered, simply because the possibility is higher — in a closed system.
That is more of a 'kiddie analogy' way of looking at it.  The Second Law states that heat will not spontaneously flow from a cold to hot.  This is true because heat is a measurement of the "jitteryness" of a group of particles.  The more energy they have, the more they move around, the "hotter" they are.  Particles lose energy in collisions, thus, the cold can only get colder, and the hot can only cool.  However, not all particles in a system have the same energy.  We can have minor violations of the Second Law in a jumble of particles, but the sum tendency is towards "disorder".
As this applies to evolution the answer is simple — the Earth isn't a closed system, that big glowing ball up there called the sun provides us with more than enough energy.  But then the Creationist will say "but there is no means by which to use it!"  I find this patently absurd since, on the atomic level, photons emitted by the sun (EM radiation) is 'used' all the time.  Electrons absorb it and jump orbitals, for instance.  Chemical bonds form on occasion by sharing such electron orbitals.  I think you can do the mental math from here and see what you can get.  Energy can be used, and is used, by basic atomic systems — you can't break it down any further (or, if you can, it is unnecessary for this example...) and we get it from the sun. On a side note; the Big Bang does not prove the universe has a beginning. This is a big problem with a lay understanding of General Relativity.  You know that singularity?  That's a mathematical infinity — it's where the theory breaks down.  You can't know anything about the beginning of the universe if you stick with GR alone.  When we apply quantum mechanics to GR, and get quantum gravity, we find the universe does NOT begin where GR says it does.  In fact, the universe never becomes a singularity point, and exists, in some form or another, forever.


ArianeB
ArianeB's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-09-24
User is offlineOffline
No way those Apotheon posts

No way those Apotheon posts are written by the same person, just a bunch of plagarized quotes.

This one's my favorite:

Quote:
When we add all this up, it sounds suspiciously like the God of biblical revelation.

There is a G that is all knowing, all seeing, and can understand every language in the world. This G hears and answers our prayers, though not always in the way we expect. This G is everywhere, at home, at school, at work, and has many adherents and followers who talk to G everyday.

When we add all this up, it sounds suspiciously like the God of biblical revelation. 

 ...

I'm actually talking about Google Smiling 


Venkatrajan
Theist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
I have some comments

I have some comments .

 Evolution thoery seems very good , sometimes too good. I feel that the passion of evolution scientists and supporters to prove the creationists wrong is so extreme (particular after the Discovery Institute stepped in), that it also results in verbal violence and usage of four letter word as shown above by one post.  Are rationalists so totally convinced of themselves , that they are losing the balance ?

 Lets face the music , gentlemen. ask yourself with a conscience , do you have all answers ? If one person posits a small conflict like George Wald - Noble Prize Winner, he becomes an obscure man.   The passions and convictions overtake the senses and then reason is buried (similar to creationists)

 

So we see voices getting drowned by a huge force of  extremely passionate people. Please examine in the course of development of the theory , how many thought profoundly. Yes there were a few who could think profoundly , possibly Darwin and few more , but many followers lapped it up and built and rebuilt over the structure. It may be true what Darwin said, but we cant discount a supernatural cause behind the first building blocks of life, neither can we discount introduction of a consciousness at a very early point when life began, by an outside non phyiscal source.

 

1. Could there have been many instances of Cognitive Dissonance with various scientists (evolutionary ones) and at various times, each of whom in order to resolve the conflict between what presented to him as evidence and what was believed by him, proposed or rather forced himself to propose a supporting argument or some hypothesis , to satisfy himself ?  (Meme could be an example , and thus even 'religiosity' can be inherited and passed on for survival, so why does a Muslim child need to go to a Madrassa , he will be born with beliefs). The problem this presents is that the next scientist takes up this as true and again furthers the theory of evolution , much later in this chain , someone again suffers from a cognitive dissonance  and further adds to the structure to justify.  This cognitive dissonance is a very large body of people forces them to overlook all alternative evidences or overlook and rudely reject any conflicting question. Thus we have a huge structure of a theory , some of them true, some well evidenced theories and some more beliefs and some absolutely a priori hypotheses (which just has to be believed because it fits in too well with the structure and neednt be proved at all (- Rationalist or crazy ?) . So when certain people point to few chinks now and then against this monster of a thoery structure , they are asked to shut up and equated with Hovind types  even if the person happens to be another scientist.

 

 If evolution is true and happened over billions of years and started from few building blocks which could self replicate , synthesize into proteins after some time , become cell and then multicellular etc , why did it happen only once . Why cant hundreds of new species of smallest oragnisms arise today (which can neither be classified as any known bacteria or virus or any thing commonly known to be minute currently) , since conditions for life are there now. Why does it have to be a cellular or multicellular life only.  Eg why cant we have a Plant with a face and a brain ? Why cant we have giant birds which resemble a fighter Jet ? Why cant there be Fresh water fish in waterbodies near big deserts (which run out of water every year) which then are able to creep on to land and live on land also for say 6 months of the year. Plants were always susceptible to be picked out of the ground , roots severed , why couldnt they have had a strong surrounding canopy which prevents anybody from coming near them , rather than just thorns ?

 

 Lastly , if evolution is true, there are theories that if a specie is so strong and  dominating and it begins to displace all other species , is it possible that there was an earlier evolution which resulted in organism to humans and then  humans to super beings . At some point everything ended , but the super beings were so advanced by means of science and evolution that they now exist as supernatural and then again allowed evolution to begin ,which leads to where we are now.

 

So lets realize that we have mountains of the right kind of evidences in support of a very passionately researched subject , but they are in the backdrop of many many conflicts , so many of them posited by various scientists ,  philosophers , religious people , intellectuals etc which we are supposed to just ignore. So much for the search for the truth

I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God


ArianeB
ArianeB's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-09-24
User is offlineOffline
1. You are implying there

1. You are implying there are serious conflicts among evolutionary biologists, there are not. Cognitive dissonance only exists among those who believe in intelligent design, because they are the ones trying to deal with two contradictory ideas.

2. Who says the origin of life happened only once? Scientists are finding simple life forms in inhospitable places like volcanic vents along the mid atlantic range, or in young caves filled with sulfuric acid that are so foreign they may have had their own origin. Even bacteria may have had a seperate origin from the rest of the life forms.

3. That last argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  Why not speculate on the Flying Spaghetti Monster why dont you?

The last part shows a complete misunderstanding of how science works. Science is not dogmatic. Science thrives on conflicting views and individual bias. If the evidence is not solid and the experiments not repeatable, it wont be accepted as scientific fact. 


AngelEngine
AngelEngine's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-10-01
User is offlineOffline
 You are SO funny

 You are SO funny apotheon. Seriously, hilarious.

 

Apotheon wrote:

There are problems with the first post. This is not a war between God and science. It's a war between science and lies (evolution),

Actually, its a war between god and science. Not many scientists are disputing evolution. Only the bible-believing creationists(who arent really scientists, but just assert themselves as one to level the plyaing feild) are disputing evolution. 

Quote:
Evolution is not scientific.
And by your logic, so is gravity, theory of relativity, and quantum theory.

Yet, i fail to see you trying to dispute those. 

 

Quote:

But we have been indoctrinated and duped into believing it is. Science points to an intelligence behind creation.

This is your assumption, and conspiracy theory. Somehow, all the scientists in teh world, who obviously know less about science than you, believe this evolutionary theory is true. But, obviously you are smarter than them, hold multiple PhDs, and is generally a super smart man, and therefore you must be correct.

Quote:
 

A true and honest scientist follows the data wherever it leads.

This is the main reason why creationists are not scientists.

Quote:
 

The problem is that the modern paradigm (evolution) is under attack and being shaken to its foundations. And the atheists don't like it.

Now, now. Atheists dont have to be believers in evolution, just like how not all religious people are believers in creation.

Quote:
The entire universe is screaming of intelligent design.

If its so obvious, proof?

Quote:
 

Atheists realized in history that they could not defeat the theist through logic, philosophy, the history of Divine revelation, miracles, human ontology, etc.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Funny. I didnt know atheists need to rely on divine revelation and miracles to get the word out that god didnt exist.

Quote:
 

So evolution was their last hope. Now they're little theory is being torn to pieces and they know it. They have nothing left to base their skepticism on.

This is, again, just your assumption. Seriously, proof?

 

Quote:

Your statement that God would be boring to have created in 6,000 years, is ludicrous. God could have created in 13 billion years if He wanted to. But there is no reason for it. God is infinite. He does not need time to work things out like some kind of finite and potent god.

And science, which rejects god, should obviously use god in its calcluations, right? There is no gravity, its gods hand pulling the apple towards the ground! Its not aerodynamics, god is lifting the airplane on the palm of his hand!

Quote:
 

Being all powerful, He does not need to take billions of years.

Being all powerful, he couldve.

Quote:
 

His creativity is clearly expressed in the short time He took to create. A young earth does not violate creativity whatsoever.

Neither does an old earth.

Quote:
 

The universe screams creativity. My question would be: since God is infinite and all powerful, what reason would He have to take 13 billion years to create? None. That length of time would be required of a finite and potent deity.

Stop telling your god what he can and cannot do.

Quote:

Theists are not obligated to discard the Big Bang theory. Many scientific theists accept the BB. Many don't. Even if the BB did occur, it presents no problem for Christian theism.

Hmm, thats a first.

 

Quote:
Those are lies they want to indoctrinate you into believing.

Again, proof that they are lying?

 

Venkatrajan wrote:

 Evolution thoery seems very good , sometimes too good. I feel that the passion of evolution scientists and supporters to prove the creationists wrong is so extreme (particular after the Discovery Institute stepped in), that it also results in verbal violence and usage of four letter word as shown above by one post.  Are rationalists so totally convinced of themselves , that they are losing the balance ?

Well, Apatheon or whatever his name is, kept stating that evolution was a lie, yet gave no scientific evidence toback up his claims.  Frankly, we scientists are tired of creationists spoiling the minds of the young with this nonsense. Creationists, who, sometimes arent even in the same feild of study as biology, yet somehow seem to believe that they know more about evolution than a biologist. creationists, who cover up their theories holes with god, while evolutionists, scientists, acknowledge that holes exist in the theory of evolution. There is only so much time that can pass by, until even an atheist loses his tolerance.

Quote:
Lets face the music , gentlemen. ask yourself with a conscience , do you have all answers ? If one person posits a small conflict like George Wald - Noble Prize Winner, he becomes an obscure man.   The passions and convictions overtake the senses and then reason is buried (similar to creationists)

Thats the whole point. Creationists say they have all the answers, evolutionists admit they dont. Creationists are blocking scientific progress. If we already have all the answers, we no longer need to look for questions.

 

Quote:
So we see voices getting drowned by a huge force of  extremely passionate people. Please examine in the course of development of the theory , how many thought profoundly. Yes there were a few who could think profoundly , possibly Darwin and few more , but many followers lapped it up and built and rebuilt over the structure. It may be true what Darwin said, but we cant discount a supernatural cause behind the first building blocks of life, neither can we discount introduction of a consciousness at a very early point when life began, by an outside non phyiscal source.

If science starts to use a supernatural force to explain our existance, there is no limit to what we can explain. its so easy to use a god diety in our theories. We would have the ultimate evidence to back up any theory; God. However, is this acceptable in science? Can we simply use god to patch the holes in our theories? And does this patch actually solve problems, or create them?

 The answer to the above questions are pretty much rhetorical. The answers stop with god, and go no further. however, if we decide not to answer with god, then the possibilities are limitless.

 

Quote:
1. Could there have been many instances of Cognitive Dissonance with various scientists (evolutionary ones) and at various times, each of whom in order to resolve the conflict between what presented to him as evidence and what was believed by him, proposed or rather forced himself to propose a supporting argument or some hypothesis , to satisfy himself ?  (Meme could be an example , and thus even 'religiosity' can be inherited and passed on for survival, so why does a Muslim child need to go to a Madrassa , he will be born with beliefs). The problem this presents is that the next scientist takes up this as true and again furthers the theory of evolution , much later in this chain , someone again suffers from a cognitive dissonance  and further adds to the structure to justify.  This cognitive dissonance is a very large body of people forces them to overlook all alternative evidences or overlook and rudely reject any conflicting question. Thus we have a huge structure of a theory , some of them true, some well evidenced theories and some more beliefs and some absolutely a priori hypotheses (which just has to be believed because it fits in too well with the structure and neednt be proved at all (- Rationalist or crazy ?) . So when certain people point to few chinks now and then against this monster of a thoery structure , they are asked to shut up and equated with Hovind types  even if the person happens to be another scientist.

Well, evolution is a theory in science. If a better, much more correct theory, that fits all the evidences, and has even more evidences to support itself came along,  evolutionists will throw out evolution in a heartbeat, and accept that theory. This is why evolution is accepted as science; It keeps changing, and always will, until we find out the final truth. However, can creation claim the same? Creation, which is based on a book, that doesnt change and hasnt for the past 2000 years?

All great theories in science has undergone change. One good example is the atom. The original models presented by Thompson and Rutherford, were changed constantly, till now. Yet, no one uses this as evidence that the current model of the Atom is flawed.

Quote:
  If evolution is true and happened over billions of years and started from few building blocks which could self replicate , synthesize into proteins after some time , become cell and then multicellular etc , why did it happen only once . Why cant hundreds of new species of smallest oragnisms arise today (which can neither be classified as any known bacteria or virus or any thing commonly known to be minute currently) , since conditions for life are there now. 

Err, im not reallly sure what you mean here, but ill try my best to answer.

It didnt happen all at once, because it cant. This is like going from a lump of metal to a microchip, in an instant. No one could do that, and evolution doesnt claim this happened either.

As for the new species arising... Well, this is hard, because new species have no reason to arise. Evolution states that a change in environment necessitates change, or else the species will be wiped out. A completely new species would necessitate a large change in environment, or a radical mutation. 

 

Quote:
Why does it have to be a cellular or multicellular life only.  Eg why cant we have a Plant with a face and a brain ?

I dont really get what you mean by this. A cellular or multicellular lifeform both exist. A plant doesnt need a brain. It can function well without one. It also needs no face. 

Quote:
Why cant we have giant birds which resemble a fighter Jet ?

This comment makes no sense either. You might as well be asking "Why cant we have a plant thats shaped like a battleship, which can shoot seeds through its turret?"

 

Quote:
Why cant there be Fresh water fish in waterbodies near big deserts (which run out of water every year) which then are able to creep on to land and live on land also for say 6 months of the year.

Fish have no legs, and this comment doesnt make sense. Again, you might as well be asking "Why doesnt a dolphin simply grow legs, walk up on land, and escape SeaWorld?"

Quote:
Plants were always susceptible to be picked out of the ground , roots severed , why couldnt they have had a strong surrounding canopy which prevents anybody from coming near them , rather than just thorns ?

A tad bit better, but still a little off. The fact that now, we have a method to cut down trees, doesnt mean the tree can suddenly grow a metal plating around it to protect itself. This is the same as if you were asking why Cats dont grow missiles on their backs to fend off from dogs. It just doesnt happen this way.

 Most plants that dont have thick bark or any protective measures, dont need them. If i sever a flower from a root, that actually helps the flower instead of harm it. A flowers job is to reproduce. And, if the pollen from that flower has the chance to be taken away from its surroundings, to a different place, with the chance to release its pollen to another flower far away, its willing to do that. This is where you and a flower part ways. Although you may be willing to kill your child to stay alive, the flower doesnt have emotions or thoughts to preserve itself. If a flower could think, i bet he wouldnt like being killed.

Quote:
Lastly , if evolution is true, there are theories that if a specie is so strong and  dominating and it begins to displace all other species , is it possible that there was an earlier evolution which resulted in organism to humans and then  humans to super beings . At some point everything ended , but the super beings were so advanced by means of science and evolution that they now exist as supernatural and then again allowed evolution to begin ,which leads to where we are now.

Yes, this could happen. However, if this were true, wouldnt you think we wouldve found evidences of this "extremely advanced" civilization?

Quote:
So lets realize that we have mountains of the right kind of evidences in support of a very passionately researched subject , but they are in the backdrop of many many conflicts , so many of them posited by various scientists ,  philosophers , religious people , intellectuals etc which we are supposed to just ignore. So much for the search for the truth
Evolution is accepted by science, because it has the most evidences for it. Your previous theory above, has no evidence whatsoever to support it. You are allowed to speculate all you want, but you must provide evidence in order to prove that your position is even slightly plausible.

Most of these creationists theories, have been looked at. However, they all rely on god to fill in the impossible gaps, and most of them use faulty science. Yet, using god to correct faulty science is not scientific at all. Imagine this scenario, and tell me if its valid:

11(X+2XY-6) x 14(XY+16Y)=?

Answer(Please show your work):

11(X+2XY-6) x 14(XY+16Y)= GOD = 5

:D 


 

 

I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.


Fateless7
Posts: 111
Joined: 2007-09-27
User is offlineOffline
AngelEngine

AngelEngine wrote:

Quote:
Why cant we have giant birds which resemble a fighter Jet ?

This comment makes no sense either. You might as well be asking "Why cant we have a plant thats shaped like a battleship, which can shoot seeds through its turret?"

LOL. I love what my imagination does with the "battleship plant with seed shooting turrets" idea. "Oh, you wanna eat my leaves, huh? Well take this! All seed turrets, fire at will!" *PEW* *PEW-PEW*

I think what this question is getting at is that the person asking it doesn't understand natural selection.

Let's say we had a bird that closely resembled a fighter jet. It had short, unmovable wings, its eyes were squished together up in the cockpit position, its legs were short and stubby like landing gear, and it had two anuses located respectively to where the jets would be. How would such a bird survive? The anus-jets would provide very little propulsion from the poop shooting out, and that's given that the bird could manage to eat anything due to the difficulty of seeing anywhere but upwards and not being able to move.

We don't have giant fighter jet birds because of natural selection. Only the fittest results of evolution (and evolution is a fact, it means descent and modification and we can observe this happening today) could survive.

 

 


AngelEngine
AngelEngine's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-10-01
User is offlineOffline
Fateless7

Fateless7 wrote:
AngelEngine wrote:

Quote:
Why cant we have giant birds which resemble a fighter Jet ?

This comment makes no sense either. You might as well be asking "Why cant we have a plant thats shaped like a battleship, which can shoot seeds through its turret?"

LOL. I love what my imagination does with the "battleship plant with seed shooting turrets" idea. "Oh, you wanna eat my leaves, huh? Well take this! All seed turrets, fire at will!" *PEW* *PEW-PEW*

Well, if such a plant existed, it would be a sight to remember. And quite effective too. Its seeds could be dispersed farther if no insects, animals, or wind was present. That, and it might prove effective against fending off animals. 

Quote:

Let's say we had a bird that closely resembled a fighter jet. It had short, unmovable wings, its eyes were squished together up in the cockpit position, its legs were short and stubby like landing gear, and it had two anuses located respectively to where the jets would be. How would such a bird survive? The anus-jets would provide very little propulsion from the poop shooting out, and that's given that the bird could manage to eat anything due to the difficulty of seeing anywhere but upwards and not being able to move.

Well, this depends. If this bird shaped like a fighter jet, could spew out fart at a rate of, say, 10 litred per minute, it could possibly fly.

But i agree with you on the other points. Natural selection weeds out the useless. And frankly, a bird shaped like a fighter jet would die so quickly, it wouldnt even live to see the third generation spawn. We only use the fighter-jet form, because its the only way we can incorporate modern technology into propulsion. However, if we could create wings that flap as fast as a hummingbird, we would already have a fighterjet looking like that.

I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Does any creationist want to

Does any creationist want to answer the question I've been asking? It's just echoing a question that was asked of Kent Hovind on Reginald Finley's program: If creationism is a science, like evolution, what predictions does it make and what applications does it have?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   11(X+2XY-6) x

Quote:
 

11(X+2XY-6) x 14(XY+16Y)=

11(x+2y-6) x 14(xy+16y) = (11x+22y-66)(14xy+224y)=154x^2(y)+ 2464xy + 308x(y^2) + 4928y^2 -924xy - 14784y=

154x^2(y)+1540xy+308x(y^2)-14784y= God

Sorry, couldn't resist. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Does any

magilum wrote:
Does any creationist want to answer the question I've been asking? It's just echoing a question that was asked of Kent Hovind on Reginald Finley's program: If creationism is a science, like evolution, what predictions does it make and what applications does it have?

I've been asking exactly that for five years.

Don't expect anything more profound or scinetific than "GOD DID IT".

Apparently that is what they want taught alongside of endogenous retrogenes and obserseved speciation.

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


AngelEngine
AngelEngine's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-10-01
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Does any

magilum wrote:
Does any creationist want to answer the question I've been asking? It's just echoing a question that was asked of Kent Hovind on Reginald Finley's program: If creationism is a science, like evolution, what predictions does it make and what applications does it have?

Creation predicts the end of the world. More specifically, the rapture. We will be seeing 4 horsemen chopping off heads, as the holy and sacred people ascend to heaven. Creation also gives us a timeline of when this will happen. It is coming, anytime between the next 5 minutes and the next 1000000 years, just to be optomistic.

Creation has tons of applications! You can now proudly brag to YOUR co-workers, that YOUR religion  is scientifically approved, and hence, you are correct!

 

I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.


Fateless7
Posts: 111
Joined: 2007-09-27
User is offlineOffline
AngelEngine wrote: Well,

AngelEngine wrote:

Well, if such a plant existed, it would be a sight to remember. And quite effective too. Its seeds could be dispersed farther if no insects, animals, or wind was present. That, and it might prove effective against fending off animals. 

Wouldn't it be an exciting plant? I'm sure it would be effective against enemies. It works for the seed spitting plants in Legend of Zelda games, right?

AngelEngine wrote:

Well, this depends. If this bird shaped like a fighter jet, could spew out fart at a rate of, say, 10 litred per minute, it could possibly fly.

Is it possible to calculate what type of digestive system would be required to produce farts at a rate of 10 litres per minute? Can we actually design the fighter jet bird?? I'll draw the picture if you do the math. Laughing out loud (I don't like doing math, at least not yet)


AngelEngine
AngelEngine's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-10-01
User is offlineOffline
Fateless7 wrote: Is it

Fateless7 wrote:

Is it possible to calculate what type of digestive system would be required to produce farts at a rate of 10 litres per minute? Can we actually design the fighter jet bird?? I'll draw the picture if you do the math. Laughing out loud (I don't like doing math, at least not yet)

Not possible by natures standards. But, possible for god. :P 

I'm infallible. I don't know why you can't remember that.