NationStates Jolt Archive

Last week's Time Magazine had a great interview with Drs. Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins over the subject of creationism. Dawkins is a well-known proponent of evolution and naturalism, and the author of several persuasive books such as The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene. Collins is a renowned geneticist and Christian who has dedicated his career to reconciling science and faith.

In the article, the two of them had a small debate, moderated by the article's author. As a clash between the foremost leaders of the evolution and creationist movements, I found it fascinating and indicative of the veracity and robustness of the two arguments. Despite their inherent differences, both of them were refreshingly lucid and respectful debaters.

Draw whatever conclusions you want, but I think that Dawkins pretty much nailed Collins for wriggling out of the responsibility to explain. For instance:

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

DAWKINS: I think that's a tremendous cop-out. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshipping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.

COLLINS: Who are we to say that that was an odd way to do it? I don't think that it is God's purpose to make his intention absolutely obvious to us. If it suits him to be a deity that we must seek without being forced to, would it not have been sensible for him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal his role in creation?
DAWKINS: People who believe in God conclude there must have been a divine knob twiddler who twiddled the knobs of these half-dozen constants to get them exactly right. The problem is that this says, because something is vastly improbable, we need a God to explain it. But that God himself would be even more improbable. Physicists have come up with other explanations. One is to say that these six constants are not free to vary. Some unified theory will eventually show that they are as locked in as the circumference and the diameter of a circle. That reduces the odds of them all independently just happening to fit the bill. The other way is the multiverse way. That says that maybe the universe we are in is one of a very large number of universes. The vast majority will not contain life because they have the wrong gravitational constant or the wrong this constant or that constant. But as the number of universes climbs, the odds mount that a tiny minority of universes will have the right fine-tuning.

COLLINS: This is an interesting choice. Barring a theoretical resolution, which I think is unlikely, you either have to say there are zillions of parallel universes out there that we can't observe at present or you have to say there was a plan. I actually find the argument of the existence of a God who did the planning more compelling than the bubbling of all these multiverses. So Occam's razor--Occam says you should choose the explanation that is most simple and straightforward--leads me more to believe in God than in the multiverse, which seems quite a stretch of the imagination.

DAWKINS: I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine. What I can't understand is why you invoke improbability and yet you will not admit that you're shooting yourself in the foot by postulating something just as improbable, magicking into existence the word God.

COLLINS: My God is not improbable to me. He has no need of a creation story for himself or to be fine-tuned by something else. God is the answer to all of those "How must it have come to be" questions.

DAWKINS: I think that's the mother and father of all cop-outs. It's an honest scientific quest to discover where this apparent improbability comes from. Now Dr. Collins says, "Well, God did it. And God needs no explanation because God is outside all this." Well, what an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain. Scientists don't do that. Scientists say, "We're working on it. We're struggling to understand."

The full interview is here (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-3,00.html) (it starts halfway down the page). Do yourself a favor and at least look it over -- it's a great read.

Anyways, what do you think about it?

Honestly, I think it shows the problem with the entire debate. God is not a scientific hypothesis; you can't test God or objectively observe him in action so to try and argue his existence in scientific terms is pointless. Human nature itself makes this impossible because human comprehension is limited at best, both in scientific terms as well as in philosophical terms. There are some things we simply can't know, and the existence of God is definitely part of it.

At the very least, God is definitely far more intelligent than any human, so how could we attempt to observe, let alone comprehend, something that not only exists outside of our physical senses but is also far greater than all of them combined? Dawkins can try to use his interpretation of the ramifications of scientific inquiry all he wants to argue about God, but he's really just trying to evangelize and convert others to his faith and spread his religious beliefs like any other missionary. The only real difference is that his religion uses different terminology and has different beliefs than the others; in fact, I'd go so far to say his beliefs are more dogmatic than most theists.

Science has nothing to say about God because God does not matter to the physical laws of the universe or to the empirical observation of phenomena in the universe. Science is nontheistic, not atheistic; it has nothing to say about the matter and the existence of God has no bearing on scientific inquiry. In fact, the Fourteen Unanswerable Questions of Buddhism could apply to science just as well; science has nothing to say on the matter, and the matter does not have anything to do with science. It can argue against particular beliefs (which is in itself a futile exercise), but not the concept of God in and of itself.

I think the sooner we realize that and admit that science is not capable of arguing about the existence of God we will leave this silly debate behind and move on. Science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria (to paraphrase Stephen Jay Gould, a man I respect much more than Dawkins, I'm afraid) and do not concern or affect each other.

Collins is not avoiding explanation. He is simply assigning those natural forces and factors to God.

Dawkins does not do a very good job of explaining why these forces and factors exist, either. If there are multiple universes, why are there multiple universes?

DAWKINS: I think that's the mother and father of all cop-outs. It's an honest scientific quest to discover where this apparent improbability comes from. Now Dr. Collins says, "Well, God did it. And God needs no explanation because God is outside all this." Well, what an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain. Scientists don't do that. Scientists say, "We're working on it. We're struggling to understand."

Heh, reminds me of this:

"And that's why I don't like magic, Captain. 'Cos it's magic. You can't ask questions, it's magic. It doesn't explain anything, it's magic. You don't know where it comes from, it's magic! That's what I don't like about magic, it does everything by magic!" - Sam Vimes, in Terry Pratchett's Discworld novel, Thud.

*snip*
You've got to admit that science does have some bearing on God's existence, or at least the concept of creationism. It has routinely disproven one version of ID after another, and unlike ID, which offers vague comebacks such as "God can do anything" and "God is outside of nature", science gives us facts and data and hard evidence that makes consistent, logical sense.

Just look at the multiverse theory. Drawing from years of study in physics and theoretical mathematics, physicists believe that reality has many parallel universes with different physical laws. This explains why life appears so fine-tuned: we are but one of the few universes out of billions that have the right conditions for life.

Collins, on the other hand, can merely say "God did it" and leave it at that. He and his supporters offer no proof, no reason, and no evidence for their claims. And the only reason that most of them make those claims in the first place is because they were put forth in a two thousand-year old religious book, which is just one book out of many that offers conflicting descriptions of how life began.

Collins is not avoiding explanation. He is simply assigning those natural forces and factors to God.

Dawkins does not do a very good job of explaining why these forces and factors exist, either. If there are multiple universes, why are there multiple universes?
Yes, it's true that science cannot answer everything about how or why the universe started. But even the unproven or unexplained theories are based on something. They have evidence and reason and mathematical data backing up their claims in a way that is consistent with the observable universe. But, again, Collins offers nothing, nothing at all. He simply says that "God did it" and leaves it at that. How did God do it? Where did God come from? How could a willful, omnipotent personality come from nothing? What evidence is there to cause you to claim God's existence? Collins has no way of answering these questions, and lacks even the most basic evidence that might lead to theories about what the answers might be. He's got nothing but the Bible and his own, personal faith.

In the article, the two of them had a small debate, moderated by the article's author. As a clash between the foremost leaders of the evolution and creationist movements, I found it fascinating and indicative of the veracity and robustness of the two arguments. Despite their inherent differences, I found both of them to be refreshingly lucid and respectful debaters.

I agree. It's kinda nice to see.

Draw whatever conclusions you want, but I found that Dawkins pretty much nailed Collins for wriggling out of the responsibility to explain. For instance:

Anyways, what do you think about it?

I think Collins nailed Dawkins for the same wriggling out of responsibility to explain. When pressed, he mentioned multiple universes, and when Collins called him on that, fell back to the cop-out, "We're working on it", which seems to me to be just as much a cop-out as "God did it" in terms of a useful explanation.

Ultimately what the two positions seem to come down to is this:

Dawkins: "I can't explain everything, but I'm being scientific and my way is the right way!"

Colllins: "I can't explain everything, but I'm being religious and my way is the right way!"

You've got to admit that science does have some bearing on God's existence, or at least the concept of creationism. It has routinely disproven one version of ID after another, and unlike ID, which offers vague comebacks such as "God can do anything" and "God is outside of nature", science gives us facts and data and hard evidence that makes consistent, logical sense.

I kind of referenced that in my post. Science can disprove certain explanations or beliefs about God, but the concept itself is an entirely different idea because it is far more reduced than any of those and makes no specific claims about the nature of God. I mean, compare the Deist conception of God and the fundamentalist Christian or Islamic conceptions of God.

We can argue pretty effectively that the fundamentalist interpretation is incorrect using observation and logic, but the concept of a distant, non-interventionist God that lets things run according to pre-established natural laws is not so easy to disprove. That God's bearing on science is nothing other than as the origin of those laws...no offense, but saying that the anthropic principle and the fine-tuned universe just are and emerged for no particular reason from the Big Bang, which exploded, well, just because seems like a "cop out" to me, borrowing from Mr. Dawkins . His explanations really seem to be reductionism to a point, and after that it becomes a "just-so story" without explanation.

Now, that "just-so story" wouldn't in and of itself be a bad thing if we were to conclude that science is inherently nontheistic because we can't empirically know the origins of those concepts and so they don't concern scientific inquiry, but Dawkins makes the leap of faith and argues that not only are these laws "just-so" but that also justifies the non-existence of God. That's a scientifically and logically untenable principle.

Just look at the multiverse theory. Drawing from years of study in physics and theoretical mathematics, physicists believe that reality has many parallel universes with different physical laws. This explains why life appears so fine-tuned: we are but one of the few universes out of billions that have the right conditions for life.

Which, of course, raises two more questions: Why is there an infinite number of universes, and why is ours the one that could support life? Why is our particular set of laws the only one that could produce a habitable universe? Those questions can't be answered scientifically, so they shouldn't concern science; it's not their place to speculate on them except outside of scientific research.

It's not that they are proof of God, or anything like that (because that would resort to the logically untenable "God of the Gaps" argument) but rather they are proof that there are questions science cannot answer and which cannot be tested empirically.

Collins, on the other hand, can merely say "God did it" and leave it at that. He and his supporters offer no proof, no reason, and no evidence for their claims. And the only reason that most of them make those claims in the first place is because they were put forth in a two thousand-year old religious book, which is just one book out of many that offers conflicting descriptions of how life began..

Well, it depends. If we're dealing with something science can't answer, scientific arguments about the concept are meaningless. It falls in to the realm of philosophy and theology rather than science; even if you consider the explanation that "God did it" to be logically untenable as an answer for the question of "why did it happen this way", you also have to consider the answer that "well, because it did" is just as weak and that seems to be what Dawkins is saying here.

Nontheism is really the only logically tenable position science can take on the matter because it is not within the domain of empirical research to comment on it. Science can only comment on theological claims that enter the realm of science, like creationism or the Great Flood. I mean, Collins may see these processes as an argument for the existence of a deity, but his claims are taken on faith just like Dawkins' atheism makes its claims on faith.

*snip*
Now see, that's what I'm talking about. I'm not really atheist so much as agnostic -- as far as we can tell, life on Earth and all the processes of the observable universe are rooted in basic physical laws, and show no evidence of divine creation. That's the sticking point thought -- "as far as we can tell". I readily concede that there are realms of existence beyond our observation and even our comprehension -- quantum physics, for instance, is understandable mainly through math, and things such as higher dimensions and multiverses can only be implied to exist, never observed. When we get into those theoretical higher planes, it's possible that there is some kind of god there -- possible only because we cannot observe it and therefore cannot make sure.

That being said, I do think that even this kind of god is unlikely, since everything we've seen so far has been tied to basic physical laws. We have seen no hard evidence even suggesting the divine -- at least not any that science does not have an alternative explanation for. One would think that, based on Occam's Razor and all, that these same basic principles would hold sway in higher dimensions, and not be replaced by some god who decided to create us for some reason. The Christian creationist God, by the way, is right out the window for me.

Dawkins summed it up in the interview best:

"My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."

I think Collins nailed Dawkins for the same wriggling out of responsibility to explain. When pressed, he mentioned multiple universes, and when Collins called him on that, fell back to the cop-out, "We're working on it", which seems to me to be just as much a cop-out as "God did it" in terms of a useful explanation.
The thing is, science has arrived at its explanations through observation and evidence. The explanations may be incomplete, and the reasons for their conclusions may not be completely clear, but they are still much more grounded in reality and rationality than the creationist viewpoint. In other words, neither the scientific nor creationist positions can be absolutely proven, but at least the scientific one was arrived at logically.

What does creationism offer? That's what gets me. I've often wondered what an intelligent design class would cover. Outside of trying to poke holes in evolution, what would it have to teach beyond "God created the heavens and the earth"?

Just look at the multiverse theory. Drawing from years of study in physics and theoretical mathematics, physicists believe that reality has many parallel universes with different physical laws. This explains why life appears so fine-tuned: we are but one of the few universes out of billions that have the right conditions for life.

It doesn't take years of study in physics and theoretical mathematics to know about parallel universes. It states in the Qur'an that Allah created 7 heavens. Some believe these are the parallel universes you talk about.



Yes, it's true that science cannot answer everything about how or why the universe started. But even the unproven or unexplained theories are based on something. They have evidence and reason and mathematical data backing up their claims in a way that is consistent with the observable universe. But, again, Collins offers nothing, nothing at all. He simply says that "God did it" and leaves it at that. How did God do it? Where did God come from? How could a willful, omnipotent personality come from nothing? What evidence is there to cause you to claim God's existence? Collins has no way of answering these questions, and lacks even the most basic evidence that might lead to theories about what the answers might be. He's got nothing but the Bible and his own, personal faith.
No one can figure out how the universe started. The matter or energy that began the universe could not have just appeared, that is magic. It would have had to come from the creator. It would have to come from Allah.

It doesn't take years of study in physics and theoretical mathematics to know about parallel universes. It states in the Qur'an that Allah created 7 heavens. Some believe these are the parallel universes you talk about.




No one can figure out how the universe started. The matter or energy that began the universe could not have just appeared if the normal laws of physics applied at the beginning of the universe, that is magic. It would have had to come from the creator. It would have to come from Allah.

Fixed.

No one can figure out how the universe started. The matter or energy that began the universe could not have just appeared, that is magic. It would have had to come from the creator. It would have to come from Allah.
If you insist on the creationist viewpoint, then let me ask you this: why not Yahweh? Or Zeus? Or Brahma? Or the Demiurge? Or any other religion's god?

The thing is, science has arrived at its explanations through observation and evidence. The explanations may be incomplete, and the reasons for their conclusions may not be completely clear, but they are still much more grounded in reality and rationality than the creationist viewpoint. In other words, neither the scientific nor creationist positions can be absolutely proven, but at least the scientific one was arrived at logically.

What does creationism offer? That's what gets me. I've often wondered what an intelligent design class would cover. Outside of trying to poke holes in evolution, what would it have to teach beyond "God created the heavens and the earth"?

Nothing, that's what ID does, try to prove the Bible and try to prove evolution false.

Fixed.

so you honestly think matter or energy could just magically appear at the start of the Universe without help from a creator?

so you honestly think matter or energy could just magically appear at the start of the Universe without help from a creator?

Yep.

The matter or energy that began the universe could not have just appeared.

Why not?

It is true that in this universe matter and energy can not simply appear However there is no reason to believe that this is true outside of the universe. You can not apply universal laws to circumstances that existed prior to the universe.

I have green eyes in 2006. That is of no evidence that I had green eyes in 1966. I couldn't have. I didn't exist. There is no reason to suspect the laws of the universe applied when there was no universe. There is no reason to state that it could not "just appear". It may violate laws of THIS universe, but THIS universe didn't exist before it existed.

The laws of the universe apply only to the universe, and not to whatever may have existed before.

Now see, that's what I'm talking about. I'm not really athiest so much as agnostic -- as far as we can tell, life on Earth and all the processes of the observable universe are rooted in basic physical laws, and show no evidence of divine creation. That's the sticking point thought -- "as far as we can tell". I readily concede that there are realms of existence beyond our observation and even our comprehension -- quantum physics, for instance, is understandable mainly through math, and things such as higher dimensions and multiverses can only be implied to exist, never observed. When we get into those theoretical higher planes, it's possible that there is some kind of god there -- possible only because we cannot observe it and therefore cannot make sure.

I'm agnostic, for the simple reason that science can't explain everything and neither can any of our current conceptions of God. Personally, since I see them as mutually exclusive concepts that don't relate to each other. Even if God doesn't exist, we can't deny the fact that it is a very comforting belief. However, I just can't shake the feeling that there's something more than us out there...of course, that's no definite statement of fact, just a feeling.

That being said, I do think that even this kind of god is unlikely, since everything we've seen so far has been tied to basic physical laws. We have seen no hard evidence even suggesting the divine -- at least not any that science does not have an alternative explanation for. One would think that, based on Occam's Razor and all, that these same basic principles would hold sway in higher dimensions, and not be replaced by some god who decided to create us for some reason. The Christian creationist God, by the way, is right out the window for me.

I think the divine is a concept that doesn't have hard evidence; God as it is generally defined by man seems to be clearly separate from the physical world, so there will be no hard evidence for it.

However, the very fact that we can't answer the "why" part of the equation in regard to the birth of the universe as well as the fact that our mental capacity and ability to observe things are both limited suggests to me that we will never know for sure. There is a fundamental limitation to our knowledge, and always will be because the universe is ultimately finite.

Dawkins summed it up in the interview best:

Well, hell, if he said that he wouldn't even be considered an atheist. That's pretty much identical to my position; he sounds like a weak or empirical agnostic there rather than a strong atheist.

so you honestly think matter or energy could just magically appear at the start of the Universe without help from a creator?
There's actually a scientific theory covering this. It's called brane cosmology, and it posits that our universe is a four-dimensional membrane floating in a much grander 11-dimensional multiverse. When two membranes collide, the interactions of their component particles (which follow different physical laws) unleashes a tremendous amount of energy. They bounce off eachother, their respective space-times boiling with energy, which then settles out into nebulas and galaxies and you know the rest. Eventually the energy dissapates over the life of the universe (stars dying, black holes drying up, etc.), leaving the universe devoid of light and energy until it eventually collides with another membrane.

Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology)

EDIT: And before you ask where the membranes came from, the answer is: we don't know. We're talking about an 11-dimensional multiverse that is almost beyond our comprehension. However, it's existence is supported by numerous mathematical and physical equations based on hard evidence, and does a hell of a lot better job at explaining the universe than the Koran saying that Allah whisked it out of nothing.

It is true that in this universe matter and energy can not simply appear However there is no reason to believe that this is true outside of the universe. You can not apply universal laws to circumstances that existed prior to the universe.

But that also means that God is equally as plausible an explanation for the origin of the universe, doesn't it? And, what of the possibility that the Gods appeared from a spontaneous act of creation ex nihilo as is detailed in Greek mythology?

I am a strong proponent for ID because


I grew up christian and was basicly force fed christian at an early age
I refuse to believe i was once a mankey, or at least my ancestors were
If i was a monkey why are there still monkeys? I mean, all the other animals that got left behind on evolutions little romp through life died off, but we have monkeys. Did evolution leave them there for shits and giggles?
The fact that theres an earth. Really, big bang theorists are basicly useing a godles god-explanation. What i mean is that there saying that instead of God a random event caused earth. So basicly there god is Randomness, sure they don't worship it par say but it's the same idea. Something happened in which we have no idea how it happened but this is what we believe happened.

But that also means that God is equally as plausible an explanation for the origin of the universe, doesn't it? And, what of the possibility that the Gods appeared from a spontaneous act of creation ex nihilo as is detailed in Greek mythology?

Sure. All of them are possible. None of which are proveable. All of which exists therefore beyond proof, and therefore any claims that one answer is "true" is short sighted at best.

I am a strong proponent for ID because

I grew up christian and was basicly force fed christian at an early age
Brainwashing is always a good thing to base your worldview on...
I refuse to believe i was once a mankey, or at least my ancestors were
Just because you don't like the idea doesn't render the idea false. I don't like the idea that my parents had sex in order to have me, but it's still true.
If i was a monkey why are there still monkeys? I mean, all the other animals that got left behind on evolutions little romp through life died off, but we have monkeys. Did evolution leave them there for shits and giggles?
Modern monkeys and modern humans evolved from a common ancestor that is now extinct.
The fact that theres an earth. Really, big bang theorists are basicly useing a godles god-explanation. What i mean is that there saying that instead of God a random event caused earth. So basicly there god is Randomness, sure they don't worship it par say but it's the same idea. Something happened in which we have no idea how it happened but this is what we believe happened.
Yes, scientists believe in the big bang and co. just as faithfully as religious people believe in divine creation. The difference, however, is that the scientists have proof and reason on their side. The religious people have a book and personal convictions.

I am a strong proponent for ID because

[LIST]
I grew up christian and was basicly force fed christian at an early age

No excuse


I refuse to believe i was once a mankey, or at least my ancestors were

Then you are wilfully ingnorant of science.

If i was a monkey why are there still monkeys? I mean, all the other animals that got left behind on evolutions little romp through life died off, but we have monkeys. Did evolution leave them there for shits and giggles?

Two problems. One, we didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and man evolved from a common ancestor.

Second evolution doesn't "leave" anything. Species don't randomly die off for no reason. Their enviornment becomes unsuitable for them, and they either die, or evolve to a new species. Monkeys exist because their enviornment is habitable for them, and therefore their species has no reason to adapt, therefore it doesn't.

Evolution isn't a mind, it isn't a "thing". Species don't simply just evolve randomly. They respond to their enviornments, certain genetic changes become favorable and those changes survive and procreate while others do not. There has been nothing to prompt a gradual kill of of the "unsuited monkeys" so they haven't died off.

The thing is, science has arrived at its explanations through observation and evidence.

Indeed it has, as have all human belief systems, regardless of the varying means of interpreting those observations and evidence employed by the proponents of those systems. But I'm really not interested in hearing you explaining what science is and does. I'm well aware of it.

The explanations may be incomplete, and the reasons for their conclusions may not be completely clear, but they are still much more grounded in reality and rationality than the creationist viewpoint.

Now that strikes me as funny. It reminds me of the trite expression so often used by religious folks, "God works in mysterious ways," when confronted with the fact that their explanations are incomplete and the reasons for their conclusions are unclear. Essentially, they're saying that despite the problems with their approach, they'll continue to use it and believe in its efficacy because they some like things about it. Which is, strangely enough, what you are saying with regard to your approach.

In other words, neither the scientific nor creationist positions can be absolutely proven, but at least the scientific one was arrived at logically.

Ah, I see. You're one of those who believes in the supremacy of reason. Riddle me this Rhaomi, why does logic warrant privileged status?

Or if I'm misunderstanding your view, please accept my apologies. I'll offer an alternative counter-attack. Demonstrate that science is fully logical. Do remember to address Hume's observations on causality and Russel's critique of induction. We can't have the basic underlying principles of science going unproven, now can we?

What does creationism offer? That's what gets me. I've often wondered what an intelligent design class would cover. Outside of trying to poke holes in evolution, what would it have to teach beyond "God created the heavens and the earth"?

I have no idea. But then I'm not a creationist. Maybe one of them would know. *shrug*

EDIT: And before you ask where the membranes came from, the answer is: we don't know. We're talking about an 11-dimensional multiverse that is almost beyond our comprehension. However, it's existence is supported by numerous mathematical and physical equations based on hard evidence, and does a hell of a lot better job at explaining the universe than the Koran saying that Allah whisked it out of nothing.

But that falls in to the problem that it is both extremely complicated and cannot be empirically tested...is that science, and is it vulnerable to Occam's razor? I mean, the explanation that God created the universe out of nothing is a lot simpler and does explain everything about it (since there are no facts in the most literal sense of empirically testable).

Sure. All of them are possible. None of which are proveable. All of which exists therefore beyond proof, and therefore any claims that one answer is "true" is short sighted at best.

Exactly. Any claim of "truth" is inherently faith-based in this case.

Why not?

It is true that in this universe matter and energy can not simply appear However there is no reason to believe that this is true outside of the universe. You can not apply universal laws to circumstances that existed prior to the universe.

I have green eyes in 2006. That is of no evidence that I had green eyes in 1966. I couldn't have. I didn't exist. There is no reason to suspect the laws of the universe applied when there was no universe. There is no reason to state that it could not "just appear". It may violate laws of THIS universe, but THIS universe didn't exist before it existed.

The laws of the universe apply only to the universe, and not to whatever may have existed before.
If you want to accept that, why is it such a crazy concept to belief God operates outside of this universe and thus created it. but unlike your theory, creation of the world has been documented in the Qur'an, the most beautiful book ever written. Why? Because it was written by God.

Yep.

to me, this is a far greater leap of faith than anyone who believes in ID. If you believe that, do you also believe in Magic?

Ha, brainwashing is a perfect thing to base beliefs off of. I do it all the time, and look where i am. Well you can't but thats beside the point. And in truth it isn't really brain washing if you grew up in that kind of envrioment.

And i don't mean refuse in the sense of "if i can't see you, you can't see me" i mean, seriously. A monkey. Could they not have picked something more dignified. Like dragons, or just something funnier, like flying ass monkeys. Truely i don't care. And "wilfully ingnorant of science" no i am willfully ignorant of ignorance, science is perfeclty fine.

My last peragraph may have been unclear. The whole point i was trying to make is that science is basicly creating a God without calling it God, and that god is randomness. Big bang was just a series of random coincedences, evolution is just a bunch of random mutations that helped the ones that got it and killed off the ones that didn't do to random changes in enviroment.

Indeed it has, as have all human belief systems, regardless of the varying means of interpreting those observations and evidence employed by the proponents of those systems. But I'm really not interested in hearing you explaining what science is and does. I'm well aware of it.
I'm sorry if that sounded a bit patronizing -- I was just trying to set up my argument.
Now that strikes me as funny. It reminds me of the trite expression so often used by religious folks, "God works in mysterious ways," when confronted with the fact that their explanations are incomplete and the reasons for their conclusions are unclear.
But even those explanations are based on faith and convictions, not facts. Science is. That's what I was talking about when I was saying that they're both not absolutely provable.
Essentially, they're saying that despite the problems with their approach, they'll continue to use it and believe in its efficacy because they some like things about it. Which is, strangely enough, what you are saying with regard to your approach.
They use that approach because it accurately and consistently describes the universe. Physics and math sends rockets into space and gives us advanced technologies -- prayer and faith do not.
Ah, I see. You're one of those who believes in the supremacy of reason. Riddle me this Rhaomi, why does logic warrant privileged status?
Because, again, it accurately describes the universe. If we want to use the method that helps us find the truth about our world and how it works, then logic, math, and science are the way to go.
Or if I'm misunderstanding your view, please accept my apologies. I'll offer an alternative counter-attack. Demonstrate that science is fully logical. Do remember to address Hume's observations on causality and Russel's critique of induction. We can't have the basic underlying principles of science going unproven, now can we?
I'm not familiar with those, so I'll get back to you once I Wiki it.
I have no idea. But then I'm not a creationist. Maybe one of them would know. *shrug*
Sorry -- didn't mean to pigeonhole anybody. :)

I find it both hilarious and deeply disturbing that people still believe in bullshit religions in 2006.
It seems that the middle east and the USA are the worst for it. And look who are at political and ideological loggerheads; the religious nutcases from both those places.

Most normal parents will admit that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and god are just fairy tales by the time a child is about 10. But some seem to take the joke way too far and insist some or all are true even into adulthood. Ghosts, aliens and psychics are all a product of this ignorance.

Believing in what is obviously nonsense should be illegal once a person is over the age of 16.

If you want to accept that, why is it such a crazy concept to belief God operates outside of this universe and thus created it.

Neither are provable, neither are disprovable. I can not therefore fully believe either. I support God and Zeus to be equally possible

but unlike your theory, creation of the world has been documented

No it hasn't.

Because it was written by God.

Prove it.

Most normal parents will admit that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and god are just fairy tales by the time a child is about 10. But some seem to take the joke way too far and insist some or all are true even into adulthood. Ghosts, aliens and psychics are all a product of this ignorance.

Of all the things you've said aliens are actually the most plausable, and perfectly possible.

There is no reason to suggest that that in all the vastness of the galaxy, nothing else intelligent exists.

No excuse
Evolution isn't a mind, it isn't a "thing". Species don't simply just evolve randomly. They respond to their enviornments, certain genetic changes become favorable and those changes survive and procreate while others do not. There has been nothing to prompt a gradual kill of of the "unsuited monkeys" so they haven't died off.

Oh, so what your really telling me is that technicaly my existance is a miracle. Thank you. I much like attempts to thrash my beliefs that nurse my ego as well. My monkey (i am using the word monkey because i can. i live in america) ancestors just happened to grow a larger brain cause it was cold. That would explain California.

Big bang was just a series of random coincedences, evolution is just a bunch of random mutations that helped the ones that got it and killed off the ones that didn't do to random changes in enviroment.

Exactly. That's the point. No intelligence needed.

Allright, you go worship randomness and leave the sane to regular thinking.

Most normal parents will admit that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and god are just fairy tales by the time a child is about 10. But some seem to take the joke way too far and insist some or all are true even into adulthood. Ghosts, aliens and psychics are all a product of this ignorance.

Really? Can you empirically prove that there is no life anywhere in the universe? Can you empirically prove that there is no supernatural, or can you prove that there are no kinds of extrasensory perception? You're using individual examples to try and argue against an entire concept; that's like saying "well, Lamarckism doesn't appear to exist, so obviously biology doesn't exist either".

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and straw men are logically invalid forms of argument, I'm afraid.

Believing in what is obviously nonsense should be illegal once a person is over the age of 16.

Yes, faith-based systems like atheism or theism should obviously be illegal. We can't allow people to think for themselves, after all, even if their beliefs appear to be dogmatic.

Oh, so what your really telling me is that technicaly my existance is a miracle.

No, technically your existance is due to a series of events that favored certain genetic formations over another, and that this favoring of certain genetic conditions, over time, lead our species to develop as it has.

No miracle required

Sure. All of them are possible. None of which are proveable. All of which exists therefore beyond proof, and therefore any claims that one answer is "true" is short sighted at best.
That's a good thing to clarify, the difference between possibility, probability, and truth. Virtually anything we can't directly observe is possible; for instance, it's possible that our universe is controlled by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or invisble pink unicorns, or anything else. We can't leave the universe to make sure, so it's not impossible. It is, however, extremely unlikely given what we know. And, more often than not, the things that we find to be the most likely are most often the truth. We may not be able to prove that truth absolutely, but it's a sure enough bet that we can depend on it as such.

And i don't mean refuse in the sense of "if i can't see you, you can't see me" i mean, seriously. A monkey. Could they not have picked something more dignified. Like dragons, or just something funnier, like flying ass monkeys. Truely i don't care. And "wilfully ingnorant of science" no i am willfully ignorant of ignorance, science is perfeclty fine.
Yeah, you're a good candidate for my ignore list.
science is basicly creating a God without calling it God, and that god is randomness. Big bang was just a series of random coincedences, evolution is just a bunch of random mutations that helped the ones that got it and killed off the ones that didn't do to random changes in enviroment.
I already addressed that -- yes, scientists believe in randomness like Christians believe in God, but they have proof to back their beliefs up.

Allright, you go worship randomness and leave the sane to regular thinking.

I "worship" nothing, and if you consider the worship of anything without proof...your definition of sane is lacking.

I "worship" nothing, and if you consider the worship of anything without proof...your definition of sane is lacking.
I'd love to hear what his definition of "regular thinking" is...

I'd love to hear what his definition of "regular thinking" is...

I'm really not sure what you're asking. My definition of "rational thinking" is not believing in something without proof to substantiate that belief.

I'm really not sure what you're asking. My definition of "rational thinking" is not believing in something without proof to substantiate that belief.
No, I was talking about Snix.

I'm calling it a miracle, how about i meet you half-way.

We could consider the fact that your evolution happened, just not randomly; But instead because God slowly changed us, and our ancestors. Until he got us, because truely would you be able to take the idea of waking up instantly as yourself, in the councesnes you have now? That sounded off, what i mean is: Could you personaly come to terms with the fact that you just apeared and now your hearing voices (God) might drive you crazy.

That's a good thing to clarify, the difference between possibility, probability, and truth. Virtually anything we can't directly observe is possible; for instance, it's possible that our universe is controlled by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or invisble pink unicorns, or anything else. We can't leave the universe to make sure, so it's not impossible. It is, however, extremely unlikely given what we know. And, more often than not, the things that we find to be the most likely are most often the truth. We may not be able to prove that truth absolutely, but it's a sure enough bet that we can depend on it as such.

That's why science is nontheistic; anything is possible, but those things can neither be proven through testing nor have their probability established through empirical testing, so they aren't factored in to scientific theories because apparently they have no effect on the outcome either way. All that matters is that the predictions made by science work and can be empirically tested...anything else doesn't really need to be factored in and doesn't matter.

I mean, it's possible that we're actually living on a disk that is supported by elephants on the back of a turtle swimming through space, but all of our scientific theories and observations work when we observe the Earth as an oblate spheroid orbiting an average main sequence star in an ordinary arm of the Milky Way galaxy.

No, I was talking about Snix.

oh...ok...you quoted me so I was confused.

We could consider the fact that your evolution happened, just not randomly; But instead because God slowly changed us, and our ancestors. Until he got us, because truely would you be able to take the idea of waking up instantly as yourself, in the councesnes you have now?
A better question is: if evolution adequately explains how we came to be, then why invoke the idea of a God that oversaw that process? It's unnecessary.

We could consider the fact that your evolution happened, just not randomly; But instead because God slowly changed us, and our ancestors. Until he got us, because truely would you be able to take the idea of waking up instantly as yourself, in the councesnes you have now? That sounded off, what i mean is: Could you personaly come to terms with the fact that you just apeared and now your hearing voices (God) might drive you crazy.

It's POSSIBLE certainly. It's likewise POSSIBLE that it happened entirely randomly. It is also POSSIBLE that this is all, in fact, the matrix.

All of it possible, none of it testable. Therefore science just doesn't care about what is not testable. It cares only about what is testable, god is not. So science doesn't care.

I'm sorry if that sounded a bit patronizing -- I was just trying to set up my argument.

No worries. It did sound patronizing, but I just took advantage of it and used it to set up an argument of my own, which is that all belief systems (scientific and otherwise) use a system of interpretation of evidence and observations to build up a body of propositions about our world.

One of the problems in trying to demonstrate the accuracy of any of these systems is that the proponents of them fall prey to circular reasoning. Because their view is already rooted in the system, any proof they offer is likely to be rooted in that same system.

For example, let's look at a typical example of a religious person trying to prove the accuracy of their view.

"I believe in God because he gave me His inspired Word, the Bible."

"Why do you believe in the inspired quality of the Bible?"

"Because God wrote it."

But even those explanations are based on faith and convictions, not facts. Science is. That's what I was talking about when I was saying that they're both not absolutely provable.

They use that approach because it accurately and consistently describes the universe. Physics and math sends rockets into space and gives us advanced technologies -- prayer and faith do not.

Because, again, it accurately describes the universe. If we want to use the method that helps us find the truth about our world and how it works, then logic, math, and science are the way to go.

You see, this is the same sort of attempt at the proof of the accuracy of their system offered by religious folks, just revised to fit the scientific approach.

"I believe in science because it is empirically demonstrated that it works."

"Why do you believe in the efficacy of empirical testing?"

"Because it has been empirically demonstrated that it works."

If anything, in this case it's just a little more obvious that it's circular reasoning.

I'm not familiar with those, so I'll get back to you once I Wiki it.

Sorry -- didn't mean to pigeonhole anybody. :)

Fair enough.

All of it possible, none of it testable. Therefore science just doesn't care about what is not testable. It cares only about what is testable, god is not. So science doesn't care.

Which boils down to what I said in the first post after the OP of this entire thread:

Science is nontheistic.

I'm saying that evolution on it's own doesn't make sense to me, but my version does.

And i have decided to stand on that, as well as go to bed. Have fun ripping each other new ones.

It's POSSIBLE certainly. It's likewise POSSIBLE that it happened entirely randomly. It is also POSSIBLE that this is all, in fact, the matrix.

All of it possible, none of it testable. Therefore science just doesn't care about what is not testable. It cares only about what is testable, god is not. So science doesn't care.

Sorry, i'm back but only to give Kudos for the matrix tie-in.

You see, this is the same sort of attempt at the proof of the accuracy of their system offered by religious folks, just revised to fit the scientific approach.

"I believe in science because it is empirically demonstrated that it works."

"Why do you believe in the efficacy of empirical testing?"

"Because it has been empirically demonstrated that it works."

If anything, in this case it's just a little more obvious that it's circular reasoning.What more do you want? It works because, well... it works. That's it. I believe in the laws of physics because objects behave as predicted under those laws. I believe in genetics because observations of plants manipulated genetically conform to our theories on how genes interact. I believe in evolution because fossil evidence fits into theories of how and when creatures evolved over time across various areas of the world. Etc., etc.

You can't get much closer to established truth than that.

I'm saying that evolution on it's own doesn't make sense to me, but my version does.


Yet your "version" does nothing to simplify the concept. If anything, it makes it more complicated by adding a "god element" to it.

If I don't reply to anybody's well-reasoned arguments in the next hour, sorry. Discussions about God and science are subservient to the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. :p

You can't get much closer to established truth than that.

And then it gets moved back even farther when we start to question the nature of reality itself. Truth is unattainable, although closer approximations of truth are attainable through observation and reason.

If I don't reply to anybody's well-reasoned arguments in the next hour, sorry. Discussions about God and science are subservient to the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. :p

Unless you've got a laptop like me and you can do both at the same time. A winrar is I.

And then it gets moved back even farther when we start to question the nature of reality itself. Truth is unattainable, although closer approximations of truth are attainable through observation and reason.
Exactly. There has to be some limit to how far back we can trace our logic for anything to make any sense at all. I mean, anything can be reducted into nonsense.

"Two plus two is four."

"Prove it."

"Well, here are two rocks, and here are two more. I put them together, and have four."

"How do you know you have four?"

"I counted them."

"How do you know you counted correctly?"

"I just double-checked and confirmed it."

"How does confirming it make it true?"

Etc.

Exactly. There has to be some limit to how far back we can trace our logic for anything to make any sense at all. I mean, anything can be reducted into nonsense.

Daniel Dennett, a man whose views I disagree with but whom I respect greatly, put it best when he called such attempts "greedy reductionism".

I mean, the Mona Lisa is ultimately nothing more than dabs of chemical compounds on a canvas, but it's the way those dabs are used and our observation of the whole painting that makes it what it is. The same is true of anything; chances are, if it reduces something but adds nothing to its properties, it's likely a candidate for greedy reductionism.

What more do you want? It works because, well... it works. That's it. I believe in the laws of physics because objects behave as predicted under those laws. I believe in genetics because observations of plants manipulated genetically conform to our theories on how genes interact. I believe in evolution because fossil evidence fits into theories of how and when creatures evolved over time across various areas of the world. Etc., etc.

You can't get much closer to established truth than that.

I don't really want any more. And I really didn't need yet another explanation of why you believe in scientific theories. I believe in them for much the same reasons, after all. :)

I'm quite satisfied with the fact that all human belief systems are ultimately justified by appeals to themselves, including mine. Whether you are satisfied with that fact or not, I just want you to be aware of it.

Exactly. There has to be some limit to how far back we can trace our logic for anything to make any sense at all. I mean, anything can be reducted into nonsense.

"Two plus two is four."

"Prove it."

"Well, here are two rocks, and here are two more. I put them together, and have four."

"How do you know you have four?"

"I counted them."

"How do you know you counted correctly?"

"I just double-checked and confirmed it."

"How does confirming it make it true?"

Etc.

Indeed. That's a good example of the regress problem. There have been many attempts to solve it, but none I've found so far manage to accomplish it. Aside from circular reasoning or arbitrary assumptions, anyway.

Indeed. That's a good example of the regress problem. There have been many attempts to solve it, but none I've found so far manage to accomplish it. Aside from circular reasoning or arbitrary assumptions, anyway.

Well, there's always the possibility of infinitism as an answer to the question; there are some philosophers who are advancing infinite regression as a valid answer to the regress problem.

Creationotalibanist spotted.

Fire for effect, over.

Dawkins FTW

And then it gets moved back even farther when we start to question the nature of reality itself.

No, that is actually the only way we can ever come anywhere near truth at all - we define reality in such a way as to make knowledge of it achievable.

Well, there's always the possibility of infinitism as an answer to the question; there are some philosophers who are advancing infinite regression as a valid answer to the regress problem.

It is no solution. The only way you might get "infinite" regression is if you start justifying what you say in a circular manner.

Well, there's always the possibility of infinitism as an answer to the question; there are some philosophers who are advancing infinite regression as a valid answer to the regress problem.

That has always struck me as redescription of the problem by saying in effect "This ain't a problem, it's just a fact." I think that's a perfectly valid approach. Though that may be because it's the one I favor. ;)

Dawkins FTW

Dawkins didn't really win, he just fell back on the same kind of "just so" argument as his opponent because they're arguing about something that science shouldn't be involved in to begin with. Not only that, but there are things that science can't explain because of the fundamental limitation that it exists within our universe and so can't make any empirical inquiry in to what exists outside of it.

Frankly, it's rather unscientific and illogical to try and use science to argue about God, which is an inherently untestable and unobservable hypothesis and so doesn't even fall under the category of science to begin with.

It is no solution. The only way you might get "infinite" regression is if you start justifying what you say in a circular manner.

I don't support infinitism. However, there are some people who do defend it as a valid argument; the primary problem with infinitism is that it's not actually a justification for anything, just an infinite chain of circular reasoning.

That has always struck me as redescription of the problem by saying in effect "This ain't a problem, it's just a fact." I think that's a perfectly valid approach. Though that may be because it's the one I favor. ;)

Well, the only other discrete option (as opposed to simply saying we don't know) would be to say that justification is arbitrary, which can be quite philosophically unappealing and does raise unpleasant ideas like nihilism that don't really help advance our understanding of the reasoning and functioning behind whatever we're looking at. I think this kind of questioning might fall under Dennett's "greedy reductionism", so it might not even be a meaningful question to ask.

At the same time, it's interesting if viewed as the most basic expression of free will; I mean, if we think about it an intentional creation of the universe by God would be the ultimate arbitrary act.

I don't support infinitism. However, there are some people who do defend it as a valid argument; the primary problem with infinitism is that it's not actually a justification for anything, just an infinite chain of circular reasoning.

It doesn't have to be, though.

For some conceivable creature somewhere, infinite regression may actually be a true observation about their system of justification; they may be able to actually justify everything they say in some sense, in a way that is not simply circular. I'm not sure exactly how that would work, but I suppose it is conceivable.

Human beings do not have this privilege. It is actually quite easy to lead someone back to unproveable assumptions. At that level all we do is repeatedly resort to circular arguments of one variety or another; we are not actually justifying anything.

The only good solution to this problem is to deny the necessity of justifying every step rationally in the first place.

Well, the only other discrete option (as opposed to simply saying we don't know) would be to say that justification is arbitrary,

My view actually contains both in a way: there is an infinite regress, and the only routes to justification are arbitrary.

which can be quite philosophically unappealing and does raise unpleasant ideas like nihilism that don't really help advance our understanding of the reasoning and functioning behind whatever we're looking at. I think this kind of questioning might fall under Dennett's "greedy reductionism", so it might not even be a meaningful question to ask.

Indeed. It may well not be.

At the same time, it's interesting if viewed as the most basic expression of free will; I mean, if we think about it an intentional creation of the universe by God would be the ultimate arbitrary act.

I like that idea.

I have to say, I've really enjoyed your discussion here, Vetalia. :)

It doesn't have to be, though.

For some conceivable creature somewhere, infinite regression may actually be a true observation about their mental patterns; they may be able to actually justify everything they say in some sense, in a way that is not simply circular. I'm not sure exactly how that would work, but I suppose it is conceivable

I imagine you would have to be able to think an infinite number of thoughts. I mean, human beings can think of a lot of concepts and it's a gigantic number of them but it is ultimately finite. Our fundamental limitation is our ability to comprehend, and that's why infinite regression is not able to be truly justified by humans without circular reasoning at some point.

Human beings do not have this privilege. It is actually quite easy to lead someone back to unproveable assumptions. At that level all we do is repeatedly resort to circular arguments of one variety or another; we are not actually justifying anything.

Which ties in to my response below; it really becomes meaningless at this point and we gain no new knowledge from it. In fact, I'd say we squander the things we can learn by trying to overreduce rather than trying to build on the concepts and expand our knowledge.

I mean, which one is more fruitful: reducing a Pollock painting to splatters of chemical compounds on a canvas or using his work to interpret the larger emotional and social aspects of the abstract expressionist movement?

The only good solution to this problem is to deny the necessity of justifying every step rationally in the first place.

That's true; I don't because it's impossible to do so. Trying to justify everything rationally or to reduce it to some kind of basic cause becomes impossible once you reach a certain point, and any further attempt to justify it will be pointless, even distressing and will add nothing to your understanding of the concept in question.

In my opinion, accepting the fact that there are limits to our ability to reason is one of the most important realizations you can make when it comes to any kind of philosophical (or spiritual) thought.

<snipped for brevity>

In my opinion, accepting the fact that there are limits to our ability to reason is one of the most important realizations you can make when it comes to any kind of philosophical (or spiritual) thought.

So true. It is disturbing to me how often I agree with you. Were we separated at birth or something? :eek:

My view actually contains both in a way: there is an infinite regress, and the only routes to justification are arbitrary.

That sounds kind of like coherentism; it combines both in to a system that focuses on being consistent rather than using either infinite regress or arbitrary foundations as its sole justification.


Indeed. It may well not be.

I'm of the opinion that you should discuss it and think about it, but don't let yourself worry about it. I mean, in reality, we can't really know past a certain point of justification so that's kind of the point we can stop at when it comes to making moral or philosophical decisions.

I like that idea.

I have to say, I've really enjoyed your discussion here, Vetalia. :)

What can I say? I've spend a lot of time thinking about the stuff, and it's really enjoyable to talk about.

Stick around, because Soheran is here and that always produces some good discussion between us. We could always use someone else adding their ideas to the mix.

So true. It is disturbing to me how often I agree with you. Were we separated at birth or something? :eek:

Possibly, possibly.:eek:

Now that would be a major shock, that's for sure. Of course, there's always the possibility that you're actually me in another universe and we're communicating through this computer which is actually exploiting a rift in space time...

Really, though, I don't worry about it because I can't know beyond a certain point and it's irrational to fear something you not only know nothing about, but can't know anything about. I mean, the emotional and philosophical distress that nihilism produces more than convinces me at that such a position is most likely not the correct position on the matter.

I imagine you would have to be able to think an infinite number of thoughts.

Yes. Which now that I think about it has interesting implications for God.

Which ties in to my response below; it really becomes meaningless at this point and we gain no new knowledge from it. In fact, I'd say we squander the things we can learn by trying to overreduce rather than trying to build on the concepts and expand our knowledge.

And if we cannot learn them at all, but are really just self-deluding?

No, the problem is one that must be faced up to; otherwise we are contradicting ourselves. In ordinary discourse we criticize others for making arbitrary assumptions; if ours are arbitrary as well, we can hardly do so.

In my opinion, accepting the fact that there are limits to our ability to reason is one of the most important realizations you can make when it comes to any kind of philosophical (or spiritual) thought.

But the problem is more profound than that. It isn't the declaration of limitation; most of us can accept that without too much trouble. It's that everything loses coherence.

We cannot, in fact, say that our thought is limited, because to say so we presuppose the very things that we have just declared we cannot know. We cannot say that we cannot say that our thought is limited, because to do so we assume the premises and the legitimacy of the form of the argument I have just used. And so on. We can say nothing with fully rational justification, and the statement that we can say nothing with fully rational justification is one of the statements that we cannot say with fully rational justification.

What is necessary to get out of that is a non-arbitrary kind of circularity, and the solution probably lies somewhere in the notion of self-evidence (which has its only problems.)

That sounds kind of like coherentism; it combines both in to a system that focuses on being consistent rather than using either infinite regress or arbitrary foundations as its sole justification.

Eh. I'm not much for coherentism either, except as a partial description of the operation of human belief systems.

I'm of the opinion that you should discuss it and think about it, but don't let yourself worry about it. I mean, in reality, we can't really know past a certain point of justification so that's kind of the point we can stop at when it comes to making moral or philosophical decisions.

Exactly. I certainly agree, and I suspect fellows like Hume would as well.

What can I say? I've spend a lot of time thinking about the stuff, and it's really enjoyable to talk about.

Stick around, because Soheran is here and that always produces some good discussion between us. We could always use someone else adding their ideas to the mix.

Noted. I'm getting tired at this point, but I'll try to stay around a bit longer.

Last week's Time Magazine had a great interview with Drs. Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins over the subject of creationism. Dawkins is a well-known proponent of evolution and naturalism, and the author of several persuasive books such as The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene. Collins is a renowned geneticist and Christian who has dedicated his career to reconciling science and faith.

<SNIP>

Anyways, what do you think about it?

Well, creationist are asses of the highest order :) But that doesn't mean that Dawkins isn't a bigger turd on the pavement of life..

If you want scientific answers for creation and God, don't look at "well God coulda used evolution, blah, blah..."

Here is why.. --->http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/god_evolution.asp

Yes. Which now that I think about it has interesting implications for God.

Indeed. If we premise that only an entity with infinite existence would be able to perform an infinite regress, then perhaps it is only a problem for God. Or perhaps it is not a problem at all, and God just happens to have the complete set of propositions. Perhaps humans just happen to have a finite set of propositions, and cannot be subject to the regress problem. It's a line of thought I will need to consider further.

No, the problem is one that must be faced up to; otherwise we are contradicting ourselves. In ordinary discourse we criticize others for making arbitrary assumptions; if ours are arbitrary as well, we can hardly do so.

Personally, when I point out that someone is making an arbitrary assumption, it's not a criticism because I am inherently opposed to arbirtary assumptions, but because I want them to see that their belief system is subject to the same problems in those of others. For me, it's just part of a teaching/explanatory method.

We cannot, in fact, say that our thought is limited, because to say so we presuppose the very things that we have just declared we cannot know. We cannot say that we cannot say that our thought is limited, because to do so we assume the premises and the legitimacy of the form of the argument I have just used. And so on. We can say nothing with fully rational justification, and the statement that we can say nothing with fully rational justification is one of the statements that we cannot say with fully rational justification.

What is necessary to get out of that is a non-arbitrary kind of circularity, and the solution probably lies somewhere in the notion of self-evidence (which has its only problems.)

Indeed. Though I have no problems with resolving the matter arbitrarily or with circularity, by themselves. Or even with a variety of non-logical forms. To me it matters little how this particular problem is solved, only that it is.

Indeed. If we premise that only an entity with infinite existence would be able to perform an infinite regress, then perhaps it is only a problem for God. Or perhaps it is not a problem at all, and God just happens to have the complete set of propositions. Perhaps humans just happen to have a finite set of propositions, and cannot be subject to the regress problem. It's a line of thought I will need to consider further.

No, if they have a finite set of propositions, they are subject to the regress problem; since God would theoretically have an infinite set of propositions, He would not be, because everything would be justified.

Personally, when I point out that someone is making an arbitrary assumption, it's not a criticism because I am inherently opposed to arbirtary assumptions, but because I want them to see that their belief system is subject to the same problems in those of others. For me, it's just part of a teaching/explanatory method.

What if they make contradictory ones instead? Say outright that white is black, or x and not x coexist, and so on?

If logic is arbitrary, we can't object to that on the level of truth.

Though I have no problems with resolving the matter arbitrarily or with circularity, by themselves.

I don't see how arbitrariness can solve it at all. It does not provide us with justification; it does not elevate any method or statement over any other.

(We may be conceiving of "arbitrary" differently.)

Yes. Which now that I think about it has interesting implications for God.

It does. Actually, I've seen some pretty interesting implications for God in this discussion; I'd say these are some good arguments to explore further.



And if we cannot learn them at all, but are really just self-deluding?

I imagine in that case it becomes utilitarian; it might be a delusion, but if that delusion produces a net benefit for everyone, is it necessarily a bad thing?

No, the problem is one that must be faced up to; otherwise we are contradicting ourselves. In ordinary discourse we criticize others for making arbitrary assumptions; if ours are arbitrary as well, we can hardly do so.

I tend to agree, but I also realize that with current knowledge I can't achieve that kind of justification. Unfortunately, I'm forced to resort to utilitarianism to serve as an ersatz justification and then use agnosticism to "explain" everything else. It's not particularly intellectually satisfying, but it's an ad-hoc explanation that functions for most things.

But the problem is more profound than that. It isn't the declaration of limitation; most of us can accept that without too much trouble. It's that everything loses coherence.

I wouldn't necessarily come to that conclusion; just because we can't understand now it doesn't mean that we won't be able to understand it in the future. At the same time, it also doesn't mean the thing in question doesn't exist; your fundamental position would either be nontheistic or agnostic in regard to this knowledge.

It only loses coherence, in my opinion, if you jump to the conclusion that a lack of understanding or a limit to rational understanding equates with nihilism. I mean, it seems similar to assuming that the universe did not exist or function prior to human comprehension of the laws that govern it.

We cannot, in fact, say that our thought is limited, because to say so we presuppose the very things that we have just declared we cannot know. We cannot say that we cannot say that our thought is limited, because to do so we assume the premises and the legitimacy of the form of the argument I have just used. And so on. We can say nothing with fully rational justification, and the statement that we can say nothing with fully rational justification is one of the statements that we cannot say with fully rational justification.

Which, of course, falls in to Fitch's paradox and the Epiminides Paradox, along with any of the other paradoxes that deal with the limits of justification.

What is necessary to get out of that is a non-arbitrary kind of circularity, and the solution probably lies somewhere in the notion of self-evidence (which has its only problems.)

Well, here's the ultimate question: is self-evidence the simplest explanation that fits? I mean, simply establishing that there are self-evident justifications seems to eliminate the whole regress argument, and it does work because it provides a fundamental justification for all knowledge.

I'm wondering because if we were to apply the Razor in that way we would come to the conclusion that the most reduced justifications are those self-evident truths, and they require no justification prior to them in order to function.

No, if they have a finite set of propositions, they are subject to the regress problem; since God would theoretically have an infinite set of propositions, He would not be, because everything would be justified.

So you think complete propositional knowledge is sufficient for justification? I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly.

What if they make contradictory ones instead? Say outright that white is black, or x and not x coexist, and so on?

If logic is arbitrary, we can't object to that on the level of truth.

Indeed. And frankly, I am not opposed to paradox, nor do I hold as inviolable the law of non-contradiction. Unfortunately, debate tends to be largely limited to accepted logical forms, and so I debate with others within those confines.

I don't see how arbitrariness can solve it at all. It does not provide us with justification; it does not elevate any method or statement over any other.

(We may be conceiving of "arbitrary" differently.)

Yes, it's quite possible that we are conceiving of it differently. Perhaps getting more specific will help us to see if that's the case. To begin, I see establishing any kind of justification as essentially arbitrary.

I imagine in that case it becomes utilitarian; it might be a delusion, but if that delusion produces a net benefit for everyone, is it necessarily a bad thing?

Who is "everyone"? How do you tell what is a "benefit"? Indeed, from where come your distinctions between good and bad, and how do you formulate the sphere of their applicability?

We need a foundation for knowledge for everything.

I tend to agree, but I also realize that with current knowledge I can't achieve that kind of justification.

Well, this isn't clear.

The thing with the whole regress line of logic is that it feels overly formal, which is one reason why it's hard to accept. It doesn't actually destroy our faith in what we think is true; it's a challenge purely on the intellectual level, one that might keep us up at night but doesn't actually shatter us. Indeed, we seem to reject it in accepting it, because we accept the legitimacy of its form.

What it asks us for is a rational justification, labeling everything else arbitrary - but this could well be a false dichotomy. Indeed, rational justification has a mediacy to it; we take something and consider the implications through our thinking process. Genuine appreciation for reality may consist of living and being rather than abstract thinking, and this kind of immediate knowledge, lacking justification because it needs none, may provide us with the foundation for everything else.

The argument is often made that there were no skeptics among primitives; personally, I doubt it, but the line of thought behind it plays well into this kind of argument.

I wouldn't necessarily come to that conclusion; just because we can't understand now it doesn't mean that we won't be able to understand it in the future.

The future may provide us with a great quantity of additional empirical knowledge, but unless it can make our minds infinite like God's, and have that be actual justification rather than mere delusion (and I don't see how any technology could do any such thing), I don't think it could solve this problem.

At the same time, it also doesn't mean the thing in question doesn't exist; your fundamental position would either be nontheistic or agnostic in regard to this knowledge.

You could have no "fundamental position" at all, including the position that you cannot have any fundamental position.

For even simple agnosticism rests on the notion that we do not in fact know the truth... but we do not even know that truth, nor do we know that we do not even know that truth, and so on in infinite succession. (And even the succession itself can be challenged. Everything we think contains assumptions.)

It only loses coherence, in my opinion, if you jump to the conclusion that a lack of understanding or a limit to rational understanding equates with nihilism. I mean, it seems similar to assuming that the universe did not exist or function prior to human comprehension of the laws that govern it.

I meant thought loses coherence, not reality itself.

Well, here's the ultimate question: is self-evidence the simplest explanation that fits? I mean, simply establishing that there are self-evident justifications seems to eliminate the whole regress argument, and it does work because it provides a fundamental justification for all knowledge.

Some notion of justification in itself does seem necessary to resolve this problem, so simple or not, it may be "only."

The problem is that self-evidence is a highly troublesome notion.

So you think complete propositional knowledge is sufficient for justification? I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly.

No, I think a being with an infinite string of justification (as opposed to mere circularity) would not be subject to the regress problem.

The same way a temporally infinite universe would be spared the First Cause problem, though of course there are other ways around that as well.

Indeed. And frankly, I am not opposed to paradox, nor do I hold as inviolable the law of non-contradiction. Unfortunately, debate tends to be largely limited to accepted logical forms, and so I debate with others within those confines.

Intellectually, I might have agreed with you once, but then I noticed that I still wasn't running into walls.

Since I can't escape non-skepticism, I might as well make an attempt to justify it.

Yes, it's quite possible that we are conceiving of it differently. Perhaps getting more specific will help us to see if that's the case. To begin, I see establishing any kind of justification as essentially arbitrary.

I see "justification" as necessarily non-arbitrary. In order for something to be justified, it must have a basis; once it has a basis, it is not arbitrary.

No, I think a being with an infinite string of justification (as opposed to mere circularity) would not be subject to the regress problem.

The same way a temporally infinite universe would be spared the First Cause problem, though of course there are other ways around that as well.

Ok, I understand what you meant now. I really was misreading badly the time before.

Intellectually, I might have agreed with you once, but then I noticed that I still wasn't running into walls.

I've noticed a lack of walls too. This pleases me. I think it allows me to be more genuinely objective (though not perfectly so).

Since I can't escape non-skepticism, I might as well make an attempt to justify it.

Haha! That's basically the opposite of what I did. Funny how things work out. :)

I ended up deciding that since I couldn't escape skepticism, I might as well embrace it and make it work for me.

I see "justification" as necessarily non-arbitrary. In order for something to be justified, it must have a basis; once it has a basis, it is not arbitrary.

Ah. We really do have very different notions of arbitrary. In any case, it's time for me to get some sleep. My brain is starting to conk out. Have a good night or day or whatever it is where you're at.

No it hasn't.

Yes it has. There is proof that the earth was in fact created by Allah throughout the Qur'an.

Prove it.

Prove that it wasn't. The facts about Prophet Muhammed's(pbuh) life and the revelations about Allah have been well documented.

Yes it has. There is proof that the earth was in fact created by Allah throughout the Qur'an.

What proof? You say that the Qur'an is proved by the Qur'an...ok, prove the Qur'an is true.

Prove that it wasn't.

It is impossible to prove a negative. I never said it wasn't. You said it was. Therefore the burden of proof falls fully on your head. You made the claim, now substantiate it.

the facts about Prophet Muhammed's(pbuh) life and the revelations about Allah have been well documented.

Prove it.

Although since you have asked me to prove it, I shall do so.

Right now on my desk is a post it note that say "Everything written on this post it note was put here by Zeus. The Qu'ran is bullshit"

There you go, I just disproved the Qu'ran.

Who is "everyone"? How do you tell what is a "benefit"? Indeed, from where come your distinctions between good and bad, and how do you formulate the sphere of their applicability?

Everyone in this case is anyone with whom I interact directly or indirectly. I figure that if an action increases our overall well-being and my own happiness, it would most likely be a benefit just based upon the effects. That's not a justification of why I would see that kind of altruism as desirable, however, and that's a shortfall of this particular method.

We need a foundation for knowledge for everything.

The question is, can we have that foundation of knowledge? Or is it a fundamental limit of our ability to comprehend our world?

One of my concerns is that our search for a foundation of all knowledge may be an exercise in futility that causes us to neglect the extrapolation of our ideas on a larger scale in favor of finding reduced underlying principles; it might sacrifice the overall coherence of knowledge, possibly causing us to miss new ideas that might have provided a better justification for our knowledge.

Well, this isn't clear.

The thing with the whole regress line of logic is that it feels overly formal, which is one reason why it's hard to accept. It doesn't actually destroy our faith in what we think is true; it's a challenge purely on the intellectual level, one that might keep us up at night but doesn't actually shatter us. Indeed, we seem to reject it in accepting it, because we accept the legitimacy of its form.

It's an interesting concept; another thought that interests me about the regress argument is that we don't accept arbitrary, one-shot justifications for our arguments. We need more than that, and they always seem to end up at infinite regression. I wonder if there are any implications to be drawn from this constant recursion to the infinite as both source and problem in regard to epistemological justification.

What it asks us for is a rational justification, labeling everything else arbitrary - but this could well be a false dichotomy. Indeed, rational justification has a mediacy to it; we take something and consider the implications through our thinking process. Genuine appreciation for reality may consist of living and being rather than abstract thinking, and this kind of immediate knowledge, lacking justification because it needs none, may provide us with the foundation for everything else.

That's true; our immediate knowledge does not require justification because it is being directly observed by us. Of course, this becomes a problem when you run in to concepts like consensus reality; if one person's worldview shows them something that

That also raises questions because it makes me wonder whether self-evidence is really objective, or if it is objective to us as individuals, and what effect that kind of flexible truth might have on our search for justification for knowledge. If there is no objective truth save that which is determined by each individual, then the entire debate changes from a search for objective justification to a search for individual justification. The problem with this is that it also encourages various forms of relativism, which is an undesirable state for a number of reasons, the least of which is the total elimination of epistemology as an objective study of knowledge and which brings us back to square one.

So, the question now becomes (I'm evolving this through my thoughts as I write, so it's kind of stream-of-consciousness) is there a way for each of our individual justifications to be reconciled with the concept of objective justification, and how that could be achieved in a way that both preserves the validity of individual justification and avoids the problems of moral relativism?

I mean, for me the chain of justification may simply end at utilitarianism, or at the possible existence of objective good, while for someone else they would have to reduce it much further, perhaps to the point of infinite regress.

The argument is often made that there were no skeptics among primitives; personally, I doubt it, but the line of thought behind it plays well into this kind of argument.

Well, someone had to start it; I imagine skepticism developed alongside of logic and mathematics, both of which have their origins in language. I imagine there are some evolutionary underpinnings behind skepticism, but I think that those underpinnings concern a much smaller, more survival-oriented portion of the epistemological pie (in particular immediate knowledge) as opposed to the more esoteric components like what we're discussing.

I mean, in other words, doubting a rival tribe's claim of an abundant gazelle herd in that exposed, dead end canyon is a good deal different and more immediate in scope than trying to solve, for example, the regress problem or a similar, more abstract paradox.

The future may provide us with a great quantity of additional empirical knowledge, but unless it can make our minds infinite like God's, and have that be actual justification rather than mere delusion (and I don't see how any technology could do any such thing), I don't think it could solve this problem.

That's why I lean more towards the idea (I'm answering these kind of out of order) that one of our fundamental self-evident truths has to be "Certain truths cannot be known", both for reasons given below and because of the fact that we would have to have infinite minds in order to achieve that kind of justification. Otherwise, we are inherently limited, and so we have to accept as self-evident the idea that our ability to justify is limited to a series of self-evident fundamental axioms.


You could have no "fundamental position" at all, including the position that you cannot have any fundamental position.

Effectively, any stance we take does require some kind of fundamental position in that it makes a statement about our beliefs on the issue. I imagine in reality the only way that we could avoid this is to have no positions on anything, which of course would mean that we wouldn't be talking about it or thinking about it.

Of course, that also ties in to your aforementioned quote about immediate knowledge vs. abstract knowledge; if we were not to consider the justifications of our knowledge, there would be no position beyond direct experience.

For even simple agnosticism rests on the notion that we do not in fact know the truth... but we do not even know that truth, nor do we know that we do not even know that truth, and so on in infinite succession. (And even the succession itself can be challenged. Everything we think contains assumptions.)

And, of course, all of them fall in to the same regress argument at some point along the justification chain. I tend towards agnosticism because I think it's the most malleable of those notions; it can mold pretty easily depending on new knowledge, although it does rest on the initial assumption that there are certain truths that cannot be known or are not know at this point in time.

Now, if we were to declare the statement "Certain truths cannot be known" as self-evident by the virtue of the fact that the concept of "truth" itself is axiomatic, and the underlying justifications of the concept of "truth" are either unknowable or unnecessary due to the fact that our entire epistemology is based upon the axioms that stem from the concept of "truth", it would stand to reason that it may be possible to posit the existence of self-evident statements and so work from there, possibly by trying to reduce statements to a fundamental axiom like truth or falsehood.

I meant thought loses coherence, not reality itself.

I tend to see them as mutually dependent. If our thought loses coherence, so does our perception of reality. However, it's the latter that can be even more dangerous because it initiates a loop of worsening incoherence that might ultimately shatter our worldview altogether and produce any number of problems for us, both philosophical and possibly psychological.

Some notion of justification in itself does seem necessary to resolve this problem, so simple or not, it may be "only."

The problem is that self-evidence is a highly troublesome notion.

Well, aside from the fact that you've effectively declared that there are concepts which are true by virtue of their existence, you also have to accept that there are supreme objective standards, including morality. And that, of course, raises any number of theological questions as well as the philosophical ones.

However, that does seem to be the only way, at least from my viewpoint right now, that the regress problem could be solved. The challenge from there would be to state what those self-evident truths are; it's not an easy question because you're effectively laying down the parameters of epistemology, or any of the other fields, by virtue of declaring the concepts "self-evident".

so you honestly think matter or energy could just magically appear at the start of the Universe without help from a creator?

If you can contend that a "creator" has always existed, I can contend that matter has always existed.

Yes, it's true that science cannot answer everything about how or why the universe started. But even the unproven or unexplained theories are based on something. They have evidence and reason and mathematical data backing up their claims in a way that is consistent with the observable universe. But, again, Collins offers nothing, nothing at all. He simply says that "God did it" and leaves it at that. How did God do it? Where did God come from? How could a willful, omnipotent personality come from nothing? What evidence is there to cause you to claim God's existence? Collins has no way of answering these questions, and lacks even the most basic evidence that might lead to theories about what the answers might be. He's got nothing but the Bible and his own, personal faith.

As opposed to Dawkins merely saying "It just happened."

Collins is as much a scientist as Dawkins, just for Collins, science is figuring out what God has created, what processes God used to create what he created.

The concept of creationism, and the Creator God were once the best explanation we had of the Universe around us. Now science and evolution are the best explantion we have. Both require faith, but scientific explanation, has rendered religious explanation obsolete in most cases.

I would also like to thank Vetalia, HotRodia, and Soheran for the food for thought.

This post deserves more of a response than I am currently capable of giving it, in my present tired state of mind. I might add more later, but a few things stuck out that I wanted to reply to immediately.

That's true; our immediate knowledge does not require justification because it is being directly observed by us.

That's not what I meant. It does require justification, in several ways. First, we must establish that we are actually perceiving something. This strikes us as strange, since it is evident that we are actually perceiving something, but with the regress argument, we must question everything - including the reason that protests this notion. Secondly, we must establish that the perception is meaningful - we must be able to come to real conclusions beyond our immediate sensory input, or else it is useless; it doesn't help us understand anything. In order to do so, we must use tools that have been called into question by the regress argument. Thirdly, we must establish that what we have learned is actually relevant - that it matters in some sense. Otherwise, what difference does justifying it make?

I was getting at something more fundamental, that I evidently did not explain very well. We have a basic set of assumptions about the world that we never really question. We may do so intellectually (as we are right now), but such questioning is merely superficial, and has few implications for our actual behavior. We do not cease valuing the things we value, however much we question their existence. We do not cease acting, we do not cease living, despite the ways in which all activity and life is bound up with these seemingly unjustified assumptions.

My proposal, moving from this idea, is that the justification may not lie in abstract thought, in a series of rationally-justified propositions, but, at least for the most basic assumptions we make about the world (that our perception is "true" in some sense, that we exist, that things matter) the justification is more fundamental and less mediate; it is something we understand, something we know, without even needing to think about, just by virtue of... existence, for a lack of a better term, and is such beyond the necessity of rational justification.

We can speculate philosophically all we want, but ultimately, the world is still there, we still feel it matters, and we still accept the basic rules by which it runs.

That also raises questions because it makes me wonder whether self-evidence is really objective, or if it is objective to us as individuals, and what effect that kind of flexible truth might have on our search for justification for knowledge.

Going on reason alone, we must conclude that it is objectively true only of the world as we perceive it, for we cannot experience the world otherwise.

Indeed, ultimately we cannot know anything of the world but that which we learn through our perceptions, and quite possibly those are filtered or mistaken in some way.

I happen to think that this is not sufficient. We cannot perceive the sentience of others, but nevertheless we value them as sentient persons, worthy of certain kinds of treatment as a consequence. We value our experiences not merely as experiences, but as real events. A solution, if there is one, will have to go further.

So, the question now becomes (I'm evolving this through my thoughts as I write, so it's kind of stream-of-consciousness) is there a way for each of our individual justifications to be reconciled with the concept of objective justification, and how that could be achieved in a way that both preserves the validity of individual justification and avoids the problems of moral relativism?

Individual justifications do not preclude objective justifications, nor does the inaccessibility of objective truth imply its non-existence.

Since we are capable of meaningfully speaking of truth beyond our subjective experience (God, for instance) I find the notion of subjective truth highly questionable.

I mean, in other words, doubting a rival tribe's claim of an abundant gazelle herd in that exposed, dead end canyon is a good deal different and more immediate in scope than trying to solve, for example, the regress problem or a similar, more abstract paradox.

Certainly. But the questions we are asking, in their simpler forms anyway, do not require the kind of context that would exclude it to moderns.

That's why I lean more towards the idea (I'm answering these kind of out of order) that one of our fundamental self-evident truths has to be "Certain truths cannot be known", both for reasons given below and because of the fact that we would have to have infinite minds in order to achieve that kind of justification. Otherwise, we are inherently limited, and so we have to accept as self-evident the idea that our ability to justify is limited to a series of self-evident fundamental axioms.

That doesn't seem self-evident to me - more evident on the basis of self-evident truths.

Well, aside from the fact that you've effectively declared that there are concepts which are true by virtue of their existence, you also have to accept that there are supreme objective standards, including morality. And that, of course, raises any number of theological questions as well as the philosophical ones.

I don't see how objective morality necessarily follows from this line of thinking.

Someone may have already brought this up, but no way am I reading through all that to find it.

Dawkins has one devastating flaw in his approach, and I hope you've all noticed it:

"Some unified theory will eventually show that they are as locked in as the circumference and the diameter of a circle. That reduces the odds of them all independently just happening to fit the bill. The other way is the multiverse way. That says that maybe the universe we are in is one of a very large number of universes."

You can't take a set of hypotheses and use them as arguments. These statements were made as a counterpoint to the idea that the vast number of universal constants that caome together to enable life to exist in the universe is evidence of Intelligent Design.

You can't say "I'm right and even though I can't prove it I'm sure someday someone will figure it out so I'm claiming victory now."

if a Creationist said "Well someday God will show you for yourself so, Darwin is wrong." A Evolutionist would laugh their butt off... and justifiably so.

Since no such unifying theory exists, and since the existence of multiple universes cannot be proven, Occam's Razor dictates that we accept a source of Divine Intervention.

*snip*
Just because it can't be proven absolutely does not make it a random stab in the dark. The multiverse theory is a well-developed mathematical model supported by many aspects of theoretical physics. We may not be 100% certain as to its veracity, but we're reasonably sure based on evidence and prior observations.

Just because it can't be proven absolutely does not make it a random stab in the dark. The multiverse theory is a well-developed mathematical model supported by many aspects of theoretical physics. We may not be 100% certain as to its veracity, but we're reasonably sure based on evidence and prior observations.

The only problem is, if that theory is "true" then what is the origin of the multiverse?

Also, the problem with the multiverse is that there is no way to empirically test it, and the system is extremely complicated. Obviously, the challenge may be to find out how to develop this theory in order to avoid the Razor.

The only problem is, if that theory is "true" then what is the origin of the multiverse?
We don't know at this point. All of these higher-level theories are twenty years old or less; we have only just begun to unravel the mysteries therein. However, everything we have deduced so far points to physical law, not God.

Also, the problem with the multiverse is that there is no way to empirically test it, and the system is extremely complicated. Obviously, the challenge may be to find out how to develop this theory in order to avoid the Razor.
Maybe, maybe not. String theory and its brethren are still being formulated, and there are still many opportunities for us to refine and polish them.

As for the testability, that is also up to question. A century or two ago, DNA and atoms were merely theoretical inklings, if that. Now, we can observe and manipulate them as well as anything else. With the exponential growth of technology, who knows what new tools and methods we will develop in the future? Perhaps we'll find a way to probe those higher dimensions.

We don't know at this point. All of these higher-level theories are twenty years old or less; we have only just begun to unravel the mysteries therein. However, everything we have deduced so far points to physical law, not God.

Well, the problem is, physical laws do not solve the problem of cosmogenesis itself, for the simple reason that they did not exist prior to the Big Bang in their current form, if at all. As a result, there's a limit to what we can know, and barring some miraculous way to manipulate spacetime itself, I doubt we could find it out (and if we could control spacetime, is there any difference between us and a God?).

Maybe, maybe not. String theory and its brethren are still being formulated, and there are still many opportunities for us to refine and polish them.

Unfortunately, it also looks like they are running in to more and more difficulties with each successive generation of the theory. However, it's also possible that this is a product of limited computational and experimental capacity rather than necessarily a problem with the theory itself.

As for the testability, that is also up to question. A century or two ago, DNA and atoms were merely theoretical inklings, if that. Now, we can observe and manipulate them as well as anything else. With the exponential growth of technology, who knows what new tools and methods we will develop in the future? Perhaps we'll find a way to probe those higher dimensions.

Possibly. That's why I tend to reserve judgement about many-worlds and multiverse concepts; we can't observe them yet, but whether or not it will happen is still unknown. However, if the complexity of these theories also continues to grow, they will become more and more vulnerable to Occam's Razor and we may find they become completely untestable at some point.

What proof? You say that the Qur'an is proved by the Qur'an...ok, prove the Qur'an is true.



here are some examples of proof the earth was created in the Qur'an;
"Modern earth sciences have proven that mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground and that these roots can reach several times their elevations above the surface of the ground.2 So the most suitable word to describe mountains on the basis of this information is the word ‘peg,’ since most of a properly set peg is hidden under the surface of the ground. The history of science tells us that the theory of mountains having deep roots was introduced only in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth.4 They hinder the shaking of the earth. God has said in the Quran:

And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you... (Quran, 16:15)

Likewise, the modern theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth. This knowledge about the role of mountains as stabilizers for the earth has just begun to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics since the late 1960’s.

Could anyone during the time of the Prophet Muhammad have known of the true shape of mountains? Could anyone imagine that the solid massive mountain which he sees before him actually extends deep into the earth and has a root, as scientists assert? A large number of books of geology, when discussing mountains, only describe that part which is above the surface of the earth. This is because these books were not written by specialists in geology. However, modern geology has confirmed the truth of the Quranic verses." -another forum

"It is amazing miracle, and the story of it; a Man came to the prophet, with a dead bones and ask him O Mohammed do you say that Allah (God) will bring me back to life after i become like this dead Bones. Then Allah (God) reply with a verse in the holy Qur'an, that not only his bones will be back, but the tip of his finger. As we now know that every human has his unique fingerprint."

"We have sent our Messengers with clear proofs, and sent down with them the Book and Balance, that mankind may observe justice; And We sent down iron, in which is (material for) mighty power, as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allah may test who it is that will help, unseen, Him and His Messengers, for Allah is full of strength, Exalted in Might.
(The Holy Qur'an, 57:25)


The Holy Qur'an tells us that the iron was sent down to earth. Scientists have, only recently, come to discover the relevant facts about the formation of iron. Geologists believe that the entire energy of our solar system is not sufficient to produce even one atom of iron. Moreover, they state that four times as much energy as that of our solar system would be required to make one atom of iron on the surface of the earth. The geologists thus conclude that iron is an extraterrestrial material that was sent down to earth from some other planet."



Although since you have asked me to prove it, I shall do so.

Right now on my desk is a post it note that say "Everything written on this post it note was put here by Zeus. The Qu'ran is bullshit"

There you go, I just disproved the Qu'ran.
you didnt disprove anything

I agree. It's kinda nice to see.



I think Collins nailed Dawkins for the same wriggling out of responsibility to explain. When pressed, he mentioned multiple universes, and when Collins called him on that, fell back to the cop-out, "We're working on it", which seems to me to be just as much a cop-out as "God did it" in terms of a useful explanation.

Ultimately what the two positions seem to come down to is this:

Dawkins: "I can't explain everything, but I'm being scientific and my way is the right way!"

Colllins: "I can't explain everything, but I'm being religious and my way is the right way!"

Not so. More like:

Dawkins: "I can't explain everything, but I never claimed to be able to in the first place, though I believe that through science we will eventually find out much of what there is to find out."

Collins: "I can't explain everything, but I think god is behind all of it. I have no proof, and I'll never be able to give a concrete explanation, no matter how hard I look, because I'll always blame it partly on god."

*snip cutnpaste junk science*



you didnt disprove anything

Could we have some sources please?

Could we have some sources please?

what more sources do you want?

here are some examples of proof the earth was created in the Qur'an;
"Modern earth sciences have proven that mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground and that these roots can reach several times their elevations above the surface of the ground.2 So the most suitable word to describe mountains on the basis of this information is the word ‘peg,’ since most of a properly set peg is hidden under the surface of the ground. The history of science tells us that the theory of mountains having deep roots was introduced only in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth.4 They hinder the shaking of the earth. God has said in the Quran:

And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you... (Quran, 16:15)

Likewise, the modern theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth. This knowledge about the role of mountains as stabilizers for the earth has just begun to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics since the late 1960’s.

Could anyone during the time of the Prophet Muhammad have known of the true shape of mountains? Could anyone imagine that the solid massive mountain which he sees before him actually extends deep into the earth and has a root, as scientists assert? A large number of books of geology, when discussing mountains, only describe that part which is above the surface of the earth. This is because these books were not written by specialists in geology. However, modern geology has confirmed the truth of the Quranic verses." -another forum

"It is amazing miracle, and the story of it; a Man came to the prophet, with a dead bones and ask him O Mohammed do you say that Allah (God) will bring me back to life after i become like this dead Bones. Then Allah (God) reply with a verse in the holy Qur'an, that not only his bones will be back, but the tip of his finger. As we now know that every human has his unique fingerprint."

"We have sent our Messengers with clear proofs, and sent down with them the Book and Balance, that mankind may observe justice; And We sent down iron, in which is (material for) mighty power, as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allah may test who it is that will help, unseen, Him and His Messengers, for Allah is full of strength, Exalted in Might.
(The Holy Qur'an, 57:25)


The Holy Qur'an tells us that the iron was sent down to earth. Scientists have, only recently, come to discover the relevant facts about the formation of iron. Geologists believe that the entire energy of our solar system is not sufficient to produce even one atom of iron. Moreover, they state that four times as much energy as that of our solar system would be required to make one atom of iron on the surface of the earth. The geologists thus conclude that iron is an extraterrestrial material that was sent down to earth from some other planet."



you didnt disprove anything

I call bullshit. I'm sorry, but that's way too vague. It can very easily be seen as coincidence that the Quran says iron came from the sky, since it says "The Book of Balance" was sent down as well, meaning they would probably label anything they considered to be useful and holy to be from god, therefore, from above, or the sky. If it mentioned planets and atoms and such, then yes, it would be proof, but right now it's bollocks.

Also, bullshit on the mountain thing as well. It makes no mention of plate techtonics - it simply says Allah created the mountains so that they wouldn't shake with earthquakes. It doesn't say how, it doesn't say why - it just says it. Any retard standing on a mountain during an earthquake could notice they don't shake as much as things that aren't on a mountain and write it down.

And yeah, he pretty much disproved any kind of circular source logic that any religious text has. If you can doubt his sticky note, then you can doubt religious texts that showed up just as mysteriously and had little more proof of source or fact.

The Holy Qur'an tells us that the iron was sent down to earth. Scientists have, only recently, come to discover the relevant facts about the formation of iron. Geologists believe that the entire energy of our solar system is not sufficient to produce even one atom of iron. Moreover, they state that four times as much energy as that of our solar system would be required to make one atom of iron on the surface of the earth. The geologists thus conclude that iron is an extraterrestrial material that was sent down to earth from some other planet."

Well, the iron in the Earth comes from the ancient stars which formed the planetary nebula from which our sun, planets, and other bodies of the solar system formed.

So, technically, yes. Our planet is inherently extraterrestrial, formed in ancient stars by extremely high-temperature fusion of hydrogen to helium, then helium to carbon, then carbon to oxygen, and then oxygen to iron. It requires extremely high temperature and pressure to do this, most likely on the level of a super-giant star and definitely not a main-sequence star like our own.

what more sources do you want?

Like maybe the ones from the handy dandy little citation numbers in your uncited cutnpaste?

Dawkins loses right here:

DAWKINS: The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.

The supernatural, by definition, is outside the realm of science. The scientific method can only be expected to work within the natural, within the realm of that which can be empirically measured - within a deterministic universe.

The question of whether or not an actual supernatural being (not a natural being that we just haven't explained yet) exists cannot possibly be a question for science, as it is, by definition, outside of science's reach.

On that note, from what I can tell, the rest of the argument is rather meaningless. Collins doesn't seem to be promoting the idea that a literal interpretation of the Bible is scientifically correct (which is what Creationism usually refers to) and doesn't seem to be stating that he can prove God's existence with science. Thus, Collins is being much more logical and reasonable. He points out that he believes in God, and thus sees evidence of God in the natural universe, but does not attempt or claim to be able to demonstrate this existence with science. Thus, his science will be carried out just as any other scientist. He simply will believe that God is behind it. Dawkins, on the other hand, claims to be able to disprove the existence of something he, by definition, cannot empirically measure for and thus cannot disprove using science. If God is supernatural, and Dawkins defines God as such, then science cannot be used to investigate that proposition.

The supernatural, by definition, is outside the realm of science. The scientific method can only be expected to work within the natural, within the realm of that which can be empirically measured - within a deterministic universe.


Yeah, and that's what bothers me about him; he uses science where it doesn't and shouldn't work, and so creates the same kind of dangerous overlap between science and religion that the IDers use. Neither is scientific, and both pose a danger to the pursuit of free scientific inquiry. I mean, dogmatic insistence on your interpretation of science as truth about concepts with which science can't concern itself is identical in principle to using Genesis as a science textbook. We're talking non-overlapping magisteria here.

Using science as faith is just as dangerous and as dogmatic as using literal interpretation of faith as science. Of course, if you read some of my earlier posts you can probably tell that I like Stephen Gould much more than Dawkins, for this reason among many others.

Yeah, and that's what bothers me about him; he uses science where it doesn't and shouldn't work, and so creates the same kind of dangerous overlap between science and religion that the IDers use. Neither is scientific, and both pose a danger to the pursuit of free scientific inquiry. I mean, dogmatic insistence on your interpretation of science as truth about concepts with which science can't concern itself is identical in principle to using Genesis as a science textbook. We're talking non-overlapping magisteria here.

Using science as faith is just as dangerous and as dogmatic as using literal interpretation of faith as science. Of course, if you read some of my earlier posts you can probably tell that I like Stephen Gould much more than Dawkins, for this reason among many others.

Granted, it's difficult to say anything for or against the presence of god in this universe as we know it, but as far as arguing against the possibility that god had a personal hand in the inner makings of the earth and it's growth into what it is now, I think he did a fairly good job.

Granted, it's difficult to say anything for or against the presence of god in this universe as we know it, but as far as arguing against the possibility that god had a personal hand in the inner makings of the earth and it's growth into what it is now, I think he did a fairly good job.

Yes, he does a good job arguing against religion when religion tries to make explanations of the physical world. That's different than declaring that God in general does not exist and trying to argue it with science, which is what he seems to do more and more these days. His early stuff, like The Blind Watchmaker or The Selfish Gene is excellent for debunking creationism, but things like The God Delusion go way beyond what science can say on the matter and is little more than a faith-based argument with science as its theology.

That is as logically untenable as creationism because it is science venturing in to a realm it cannot and should not explain; again, the NOMAs come in to effect here.

Just because it can't be proven absolutely does not make it a random stab in the dark. The multiverse theory is a well-developed mathematical model supported by many aspects of theoretical physics. We may not be 100% certain as to its veracity, but we're reasonably sure based on evidence and prior observations.

That is a matter of considerable debate at best, and it still doesn't change the fact that, as a thus far not proven theory, it's useless as "proof."

Furthermore, don't forget that it was thrown out there right after "someday a unifying theory will appear." The guy is obviously taking stabs in the dark.

The controversy surrouding this debate is insane. Why would some omipotent deity blow something up, tweak that for 10 billion years, form Earth, tweak it for 2 billion years, form life, then tweak THAT for another 2 billion years to see this debate and tell all its followers that he didn't tweak anything, that it was already perfect like that 6000 years ago?

Which basically is why I'm maltheist.

The controversy surrouding this debate is insane. Why would some omipotent deity blow something up, tweak that for 10 billion years, form Earth, tweak it for 2 billion years, form life, then tweak THAT for another 2 billion years to see this debate and tell all its followers that he didn't tweak anything, that it was already perfect like that 6000 years ago?

Because it's probably not God who's parroting that kind of BS; I'm pretty sure if he had a hand in the Bible he's looking down at the six-day creationists and wondering "WTF?" just like the rest of us.

*Snip*

The two questions are ultimately completly diffrent

ID and creationism (call them what you will) are not religious ideas. What they are is alternative interpretations of evolutionary evidence. And this is the nub. People who support evolution will rubbish the notion of evolution being "just a theory" by pointing out that gravity is also "just a theory" which misses the point

Firstly, there is a distinction to be made between evolution as the process by which develoment and changes of species over time (natural selection etc - and with the idea of mutation comes another debate), and evolution as the history of the origin of and development of life. The latter is debateable

Secondly, evolution of regard to the latter is not the same as gravity in terms of being a theory. Gravity is a predictive theory, it tells us what will happen. When I drop my pen, it will hit the ground. However evolution, in regard to the development of lifes history does not tell us this. It is a theory in the sense that it is an estimation based upon available evidence, much like the investigation of a crime scene, you look at the evidence and contstruct a theroy in your mind based upon what the evidence tells you. Obviously the evidence will not provide a complete picture, and the ammount of evidence there is will depend upon how complete the picture is. The question then comes given the reliablity and ammount of evidence at our dispolal, just how many diffrent interpretaions can be made.

Firstly, there is a distinction to be made between evolution as the process by which develoment and changes of species over time (natural selection etc - and with the idea of mutation comes another debate), and evolution as the history of the origin of and development of life. The latter is debatable

Evolution should have nothing to do with the origin of life; evolution concerns the development of life from its earliest forms to the present day, but it has nothing to do with how life came to be in the first place. We don't know exactly how life came to be; we have ideas, but they are far from definite and far from tested or supported from empirical observation.

We might find out in the future, but that's no guarantee. Even so, it has nothing to do with God; I mean, even if life came from nonliving matter, for what purpose did life emerge from that nonliving matter?

I more-a-less skipped the last few pages

I agree. It's kinda nice to see.



I think Collins nailed Dawkins for the same wriggling out of responsibility to explain. When pressed, he mentioned multiple universes, and when Collins called him on that, fell back to the cop-out, "We're working on it", which seems to me to be just as much a cop-out as "God did it" in terms of a useful explanation.

Ultimately what the two positions seem to come down to is this:

Dawkins: "I can't explain everything, but I'm being scientific and my way is the right way!"

Colllins: "I can't explain everything, but I'm being religious and my way is the right way!"

But the cop-out "We're working on it" is a temporary thing, either something has been proven by scientists working on it, or scientists are still working on it (or havnt bothered trying) but Collins's explaination is more "I cant explain it, and if im right then i never will be able to"

so you honestly think matter or energy could just magically appear at the start of the Universe without help from a creator?

As oppose to thinking that a creator magically appeared and then magically created a Universe and then magically created matter and energy

And i don't mean refuse in the sense of "if i can't see you, you can't see me" i mean, seriously. A monkey. Could they not have picked something more dignified. Like dragons, or just something funnier, like flying ass monkeys. Truely i don't care. And "wilfully ingnorant of science" no i am willfully ignorant of ignorance, science is perfeclty fine.

Yes, a monkey, apart from the fact we didnt actually evolve from monkeys as many people before me have pointed out, because science works on evidence and tries to prove things regardless of what it might mean, whereas religion might say we came from something like dragons because it sounds better

I find it both hilarious and deeply disturbing that people still believe in bullshit religions in 2006.
It seems that the middle east and the USA are the worst for it. And look who are at political and ideological loggerheads; the religious nutcases from both those places.

Most normal parents will admit that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and god are just fairy tales by the time a child is about 10. But some seem to take the joke way too far and insist some or all are true even into adulthood. Ghosts, aliens and psychics are all a product of this ignorance.

Believing in what is obviously nonsense should be illegal once a person is over the age of 16.

Cross out "aliens" and im fine with it:p if only, if only...

Allright, you go worship randomness and leave the sane to regular thinking.

Yes, i will go and worship randomness and chance, (Monty Hall problem now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem)) because when i choose to change doors because chance is with me, and you choose to stay because chance is irrelevent compared with the fact God would have made you pick the right one first time and the option to switch is just a test of faith, then im going to win more often than you:cool:

Exactly. There has to be some limit to how far back we can trace our logic for anything to make any sense at all. I mean, anything can be reducted into nonsense.

"Two plus two is four."

"Prove it."

...

Etc.

I see it as closer to:

"Two plus two is four."

"Prove it."

"I have two rocks now, and when i put two more rocks here i have four rocks"

"But i can see and feel five rocks there, not four, so you must be wrong and 2+2=5"

It just comes to an impasse

But the cop-out "We're working on it" is a temporary thing, either something has been proven by scientists working on it, or scientists are still working on it (or havnt bothered trying) but Collins's explaination is more "I cant explain it, and if im right then i never will be able to"

A cop-out is still a cop-out no matter what. Dawkins is using a leap of faith to advance his argument and is trying to justify it with the justification that "we're working on it, so therefore I will eventually be proven correct". I mean, that's a faith-based argument if I've every heard one; not only does that assume that the question can and will be answered, but that our answer will be in line with Dawkins' faith rather than something completely different.

I mean, it's really no different than saying "someday, God will appear and clear this whole thing up"; both assume that there will be some kind of magical revelation at an indefinite point in the future that will answer all of our questions and allow mankind to bask in a fully objective world of truth.

It just comes to an impasse

It does, and you rapidly come to the conclusion that objective truth is inherently unknowable; we can approximate it through observation, but ultimately we can only reduce to an axiom that is accepted as fact without any underlying justification.

That doesn't mean those justifications are arbitrary; an axiom is true by virtue of being an axiom, so there is some kind of justification behind it but we probably can't know it, and if it takes place outside of the universe we can't know it objectively, because public language is inherently limited.

The concept of creationism, and the Creator God were once the best explanation we had of the Universe around us. Now science and evolution are the best explantion we have. Both require faith, but scientific explanation, has rendered religious explanation obsolete in most cases.

I would also like to thank Vetalia, HotRodia, and Soheran for the food for thought.

You're quite welcome, Jim. Good to see you're enjoying the discussion. :)

Not so. More like:

Dawkins: "I can't explain everything, but I never claimed to be able to in the first place, though I believe that through science we will eventually find out much of what there is to find out."

Collins: "I can't explain everything, but I think god is behind all of it. I have no proof, and I'll never be able to give a concrete explanation, no matter how hard I look, because I'll always blame it partly on god."

See here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11953884&postcount=49) for a more detailed explanation of why the two positions are equally fallacious.

I more-a-less skipped the last few pages

Bad move, in my opinion.

But the cop-out "We're working on it" is a temporary thing, either something has been proven by scientists working on it, or scientists are still working on it (or havnt bothered trying) but Collins's explaination is more "I cant explain it, and if im right then i never will be able to"

Ah. So temporary cop-outs are acceptable, and permanent ones are not?

In any case, see here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11953884&postcount=49) for why both positions break down pretty obviously.

There is a huge logic hole in Intelligent Design. The basic ID theory, to sum it up in one line, is that man is so complex that he had to be created. Any religious person will tell you god is more complex than man. If man is so complex that he needs a creator, and god is more complex than man, ergo God needs a creator, and God's creator needs a creator, ad infinitum.

There is a huge logic hole in Intelligent Design. The basic ID theory, to sum it up in one line, is that man is so complex that he had to be created. Any religious person will tell you god is more complex than man. If man is so complex that he needs a creator, and god is more complex than man, ergo God needs a creator, and God's creator needs a creator, ad infinitum.

No, not really

We do not know if God is complex or not, or anything about that kind of nature

We do know however that since he created time, it is logical to assume that he is outside it, thus he always was, is, and ever will be, existing beyond time

Evolution should have nothing to do with the origin of life; evolution concerns the development of life from its earliest forms to the present day, but it has nothing to do with how life came to be in the first place. We don't know exactly how life came to be; we have ideas, but they are far from definite and far from tested or supported from empirical observation.

We might find out in the future, but that's no guarantee. Even so, it has nothing to do with God; I mean, even if life came from nonliving matter, for what purpose did life emerge from that nonliving matter?

I think the point is evolution being concerend with the history of lifes developed as opposed to the methods by which it happened.

The question of purpose is where scientits fall down. They claim life has no purpose, but they are wrong to make such a claim as science is not in the field of observing that sort of thing.

ID and creationism (call them what you will) are not religious ideas.

Ok, you lost me here.

What they are is alternative interpretations of evolutionary evidence.

.....based in religion, and therefore religious.

Firstly, there is a distinction to be made between evolution as the process by which develoment and changes of species over time (natural selection etc - and with the idea of mutation comes another debate), and evolution as the history of the origin of and development of life. The latter is debateable

Evolutionary theory has nothing at all to say about the origin of life, only the way in which it has changed over time. Life could have been sneezed out of some deity's nose, and evolutionary theory would still stand.

Secondly, evolution of regard to the latter is not the same as gravity in terms of being a theory.

From the point of view that both are theories derived using the scientific method, yes, they are.

Ok, you lost me here.


"If you unwilling to listen you will not hear" - Anon


.....based in religion, and therefore religious.

The theroies are interpretations, and still if they have evidence (which can be demonstrated) stand


Evolutionary theory has nothing at all to say about the origin of life, only the way in which it has changed over time. Life could have been sneezed out of some deity's nose, and evolutionary theory would still stand.

Fair point


From the point of view that both are theories derived using the scientific method, yes, they are.

No they arnt. You conviently droped the part of the explaintion where I explained the diffrence. Evolution as a history of the development of life is based upon examining evidence, not upon obseving phonomina. Gravity we can see by dropping a book. We cannot see evoultion in the same manner when we consider it as a history (which is what is disputed). It is more like a crime scene, where we have to build up a picture based upon various pieces of evicdence we find around it, and not like a situation where we see the crime actually happen before our eyes.

"If you unwilling to listen you will not hear" - Anon

So, if you make an absolutely ridiculous statement, and I point it out, it's my fault that it's ridiculous?

The theroies are interpretations, and still if they have evidence (which can be demonstrated) stand

Not in science, they don't. Only theories derived using the scientific method - those which can be falsified using science - are scientific theories. If you begin your interpretation with the assumption "God exists" or "God did something," both of which are unfalsifiable assumptions, then that which follows from it is not a scientific theory. Meanwhile, even if ID or Creationism were scientific hypotheses (which they are not, as I just pointed out), a hypothesis is all they could be. In order to become theories, they would have to stand the test of time and testing - and God cannot be empirically tested.

No they arnt. You conviently droped the part of the explaintion where I explained the diffrence.

That's because it was incorrect and irrelevant.

Evolution as a history of the development of life is based upon examining evidence, not upon obseving phonomina.

Incorrect. "Examining evidence" and "observing phenomina" are essentially the same thing. The phenomenon serves as evidence. And the various processes that form the backbone of evolutionary theory have been empirically observed. The similarities between life processes (phenomena) in various species have been observed.

Gravity we can see by dropping a book.

If you think the entire theory surrounding gravity was derived from dropping things and observing things on this planet, you are very much mistaken.

If we are going to simplify things this much, I could just as easily say, "Evolution, we could see by watching bacteria in culture."

We cannot see evoultion in the same manner when we consider it as a history (which is what is disputed). It is more like a crime scene, where we have to build up a picture based upon various pieces of evicdence we find around it, and not like a situation where we see the crime actually happen before our eyes.

You are making up this "evolution as a history" distinction. Evolutionary theory is not split up into "current" and "history." This distinction makes no more sense than the "micro" vs. "macro" distinctions in the theory. Neither are made by scientists, and neither are part of the theory.

One only has to read a few pages into this kind of discussion to see that Darwinism is as much a religion as anything subscribing to a holy text or going to worship meetings.

Seriously. I hear a lot of evolutionists viscerally attacking creationists for believing what they do, and yet are just as inflexible and myopic.

I think the reason for that is that people who, for whatever reason, don't want to believe in God or His omnnipotence need some kind of alternative explanation for how we came to be here, and at the moment, Darwinism is it. It wouldn't matter if the theory is disproven tommorrow (although I maintain that it already has) people will continue to vehemently argue it until they find a replacement.

For my part, I do not believe in Darwinism. The "science" behind it is much too flawed. I also don't subscribe to Creationism in the way people expect.

Gravity we can see by dropping a book. We cannot see evoultion in the same manner

Incorrect, your premise is flawed. We do not see gravity. Gravity is likely either a forced caused by a distortion of space, or the work of a subatomic particle. You neither see the distortion, nor the particle.

You can not SEE gravity. GRAVITY is not observed. What you see by the book falling is the EFFECT of gravity. Seeing the book fall is not seeing gravity, it is seeing the effect of gravity.

Likewise nobody SEES evolution, but through fossil records, observation of species and the like, we see the effects of evolution.

You can not observe gravity, you may only observe what gravity does. Likewise we can not observe evolution, we may only see what evolution does.

There is no difference.

Incorrect, your premise is flawed. We do not see gravity. Gravity is likely either a forced caused by a distortion of space, or the work of a subatomic particle. You neither see the distortion, nor the particle.

You can not SEE gravity. GRAVITY is not observed. What you see by the book falling is the EFFECT of gravity. Seeing the book fall is not seeing gravity, it is seeing the effect of gravity.

Likewise nobody SEES evolution, but through fossil records, observation of species and the like, we see the effects of evolution.

You can not observe gravity, you may only observe what gravity does. Likewise we can not observe evolution, we may only see what evolution does.

There is no difference.

Gawd I love the gravity analogy.

The gravitational interaction between objects of mass is a mathematical LAW. It is undisputed. Gravity operates according to a known mathematical formula that had been proven. It is true that the nature of the source of gravitational force isn't understood, and yes it may well be caused either by a subatomic particle or by space-time distortion, but it's effect is clear, provable and preditable.

No matter how badly you want it to, Darwinism is not the same. There are no formulae that describe it, t here is no obervational evidence. As someone stated earlier, it's a theroy derived from fragments, like a crime scene. That does NOT carry the same weight as a scientific law.

It does NOT. You may believe it with your whole heart but that doesn't change anything. Do you suppose perhaps there's a reason scientists have yet to codify it as a scientific law?

Gawd I love the gravity analogy.

The gravitational interaction between objects of mass is a mathematical LAW. It is undisputed. Gravity operates according to a known mathematical formula that had been proven. It is true that the nature of the source of gravitational force isn't understood, and yes it may well be caused either by a subatomic particle or by space-time distortion, but it's effect is clear, provable and preditable.

No matter how badly you want it to, Darwinism is not the same. There are no formulae that describe it, t here is no obervational evidence. As someone stated earlier, it's a theroy derived from fragments, like a crime scene. That does NOT carry the same weight as a scientific law.

It does NOT. You may believe it with your whole heart but that doesn't change anything. Do you suppose perhaps there's a reason scientists have yet to codify it as a scientific law?

Aw chuckles, angst much? Never said there was no difference, I corrected the poster when he said we "observe gravity". We don't. No more so than we "observe evolution" We only observe the effects of gravity, only the effects of evolution.

Is it scientific law? Of course not, and no real scientist would say otherwise. It is, however, a theory. And most importantly, it is the best explanation we have. God is not an explanation, god is not a theory. God is not disprovable. God is not scientific.

We have no evidence to say whether god is, or isn't. So science doesn't answer it. We DO have evidence, very strong evidence, that the earth is considerably older than 6000 years, and not one person has made a strong argument to the contrary that hasn't been refuted over and over again. In fact, just as we have as much evidence for gravity in that when we drop the book it falls, every single time we conceive of a test for the age of the earth, it shows it to be much much older. So as much as it is "law" that gravity exists, it's as much law that the earth is billions of years old.

The only way to argue that it isn't is to argue that all our evidence is faked by god/the devil. Of course when you introduce that little possibility, it's equally possible that god and/or the devil is faking the falling book. If you allow god to go mucking with observation than NOTHING is law, all is speculation, god could be screwing with us by making it look like the book falls to the earth when in fact the earth rushes up to meet the book.

So is intelligent design possible? Sure it's possible. Zeus is equally possible. So is the flying spaghetti monster. None of it science.

"Creationism", being that the earth is 6000 years old, and mankind is as we were created in 6 days to be, has been disproven, over and over again.

Aw chuckles, angst much? Never said there was no difference, I corrected the poster when he said we "observe gravity". We don't. No more so than we "observe evolution" We only observe the effects of gravity, only the effects of evolution.

Is it scientific law? Of course not, and no real scientist would say otherwise. It is, however, a theory. And most importantly, it is the best explanation we have. God is not an explanation, god is not a theory. God is not disprovable. God is not scientific.

We have no evidence to say whether god is, or isn't. So science doesn't answer it. We DO have evidence, very strong evidence, that the earth is considerably older than 6000 years, and not one person has made a strong argument to the contrary that hasn't been refuted over and over again. In fact, just as we have as much evidence for gravity in that when we drop the book it falls, every single time we conceive of a test for the age of the earth, it shows it to be much much older. So as much as it is "law" that gravity exists, it's as much law that the earth is billions of years old.

The only way to argue that it isn't is to argue that all our evidence is faked by god/the devil. Of course when you introduce that little possibility, it's equally possible that god and/or the devil is faking the falling book. If you allow god to go mucking with observation than NOTHING is law, all is speculation, god could be screwing with us by making it look like the book falls to the earth when in fact the earth rushes up to meet the book.

So is intelligent design possible? Sure it's possible. Zeus is equally possible. So is the flying spaghetti monster. None of it science.

"Creationism", being that the earth is 6000 years old, and mankind is as we were created in 6 days to be, has been disproven, over and over again.

I have a very close friend who is a follower of Darwinism, and he says the same thing. "It's the best we've got." Well, for being the best we've got, Darwinism has fallen tragically short.

What mystifies me is that people still adhere to it despite, on many occasions, being willing to admit to its shortcomings. "Well, yes it does fail there, but it is still the best we've got." Well if that were any other theory, it would be scrapped when it fails, instead of being put on life support in hopes of resurrecting it.

On the other hand, I think that most Creationists misread the account in Genesis of the creation of the world. No, the planet was not created 6,000 years ago. It's been here considerably longer. It's the STATE of the planet that is up for discussion, IMHO.

Intelligent Design is more supported than disproven by science, when you break it down to objectivity. Use whatever vehicle you like. Irreducible Complexity, Entropy, The Pre-Cambrian Explosion, whetever. Don't say ID is disproven, because convenient as that might be for a Darwinist, it isn't so.

I think the point is evolution being concerend with the history of lifes developed as opposed to the methods by which it happened.

All evolution is concerned with is how life developed from its origins to its present day form. The origin of life is another question that evolution is not concerned with.

The question of purpose is where scientits fall down. They claim life has no purpose, but they are wrong to make such a claim as science is not in the field of observing that sort of thing.

If a scientists makes that claim, they are not speaking scientifically. Science cannot, and should not (frankly, it's mind-bogglingly unprofessional) try and answer questions like that, because it can't.

If anything, the existence of emergent properties should dissuade them from making those kinds of statements just from an empirical basis; I mean, observing one ant seemingly walking randomly seems to suggest no purpose, but then you realize that every ant is in fact operating within a perfectly synchronized, albeit chaotic, method of maximizing the efficiency of their gigantic colony. Or look at fractals, with objects of complex and orderly beauty generated from randomness.

Any scientist who argues that life has no purpose is not getting their ideas from science. They are speaking solely in terms of their faith, and they are no different than any religious figure when it comes to making those kinds of judgments.

I have a very close friend who is a follower of Darwinism, and he says the same thing. "It's the best we've got." Well, for being the best we've got, Darwinism has fallen tragically short.

I'd say it hasn't, given that almost all of our new antibiotics and medicines use Darwinian evolutionary theory to develop and predict new organisms and compounds to fight the bacteria that cause diseases. We know that bacteria evolve through natural selection in the short term, and Darwin's theory of evolution has given us an indispensable tool to fight those bacteria.

Now, I imagine your criticism is more in regard to macroevolution rather than microevolution, but it's a significant difference.

I'd say it hasn't, given that almost all of our new antibiotics and medicines use Darwinian evolutionary theory to develop and predict new organisms and compounds to fight the bacteria that cause diseases. We know that bacteria evolve through natural selection in the short term, and Darwin's theory of evolution has given us an indispensable tool to fight those bacteria.

Now, I imagine your criticism is more in regard to macroevolution rather than microevolution, but it's a significant difference.

Granted. Thank you for pointing that out.

I have a very close friend who is a follower of Darwinism, and he says the same thing. "It's the best we've got." Well, for being the best we've got, Darwinism has fallen tragically short.

What mystifies me is that people still adhere to it despite, on many occasions, being willing to admit to its shortcomings. "Well, yes it does fail there, but it is still the best we've got." Well if that were any other theory, it would be scrapped when it fails, instead of being put on life support in hopes of resurrecting it.

On the other hand, I think that most Creationists misread the account in Genesis of the creation of the world. No, the planet was not created 6,000 years ago. It's been here considerably longer. It's the STATE of the planet that is up for discussion, IMHO.

Intelligent Design is more supported than disproven by science, when you break it down to objectivity. Use whatever vehicle you like. Irreducible Complexity, Entropy, The Pre-Cambrian Explosion, whetever. Don't say ID is disproven, because convenient as that might be for a Darwinist, it isn't so.

Fine. Then present the disprovable hypothesis for ID. Present the evidence FOR it, not against Evolution. Present the peer-reviewed papers supporting ID.

Gawd I love the gravity analogy.

The gravitational interaction between objects of mass is a mathematical LAW. It is undisputed. Gravity operates according to a known mathematical formula that had been proven. It is true that the nature of the source of gravitational force isn't understood, and yes it may well be caused either by a subatomic particle or by space-time distortion, but it's effect is clear, provable and preditable.

No matter how badly you want it to, Darwinism is not the same. There are no formulae that describe it, t here is no obervational evidence. As someone stated earlier, it's a theroy derived from fragments, like a crime scene. That does NOT carry the same weight as a scientific law.

It does NOT. You may believe it with your whole heart but that doesn't change anything. Do you suppose perhaps there's a reason scientists have yet to codify it as a scientific law?

Erm, aren't theories as high as you can go? I mean Newtons "laws" break down on a small enough scale.

And as for evidence you only have to look at MRSA and all those other diseases that have resistant to antibiotics.

Fine. Then present the disprovable hypothesis for ID. Present the evidence FOR it, not against Evolution. Present the peer-reviewed papers supporting ID.

That's an interesting standard for evidence.. peer-reviewed papers. Never seen it applied to Darwinists in here.

But I'll play along. Have you ever heard of the concept of Irreducible Complexity?

Trilby63;11961501']Erm, aren't theories as high as you can go? I mean Newtons "laws" break down on a small enough scale.

And as for evidence you only have to look at MRSA and all those other diseases that have resistant to antibiotics.


No, theories aren't as high as one can go. Law of Gravity, Law of Thermodynamics, Law of Conservation of Energy....

Darwinism has failed to reach this level.

That's an interesting standard for evidence.. peer-reviewed papers. Never seen it applied to Darwinists in here.

But I'll play along. Have you ever heard of the concept of Irreducible Complexity?

I have!

*waves hand*

That's an interesting standard for evidence.. peer-reviewed papers. Never seen it applied to Darwinists in here.

I could present thousands.

But I'll play along. Have you ever heard of the concept of Irreducible Complexity?

Yep, and it's complete bogus. Now answer my questions.

Fine. Then present the disprovable hypothesis for ID. Present the evidence FOR it, not against Evolution. Present the peer-reviewed papers supporting ID.

How about you present the theological and scriptural evidence for evolution?

Or, you could refrain from asking folks to prove their beliefs within a system in which the standards of proof are different, because that's nonsense. Whichever.

Or, you could refrain from asking folks to prove their beliefs within a system in which the standards of proof are different, because that's nonsense. Whichever.

Non-overlapping magisteria win again!

No, theories aren't as high as one can go. Law of Gravity, Law of Thermodynamics, Law of Conservation of Energy....

Darwinism has failed to reach this level.

My mistake. A scientific notes that something happens. A theory explains how and why something happens. Evolution is a theory.

I could present thousands.

I don't doubt it, but that's not what I said. I said it's rarely applied to Darwin apologists on here. I am accusing your side of applying a double standard. Get it?


Yep, and it's complete bogus. Now answer my questions.

Nothing bogus about it.

For those who haven't heard of it, Irreducible Complexity is the concept that there are biological constructs in nature that cannot exist in a simpler form. For example, a human eye CAN exist in a simpler form (albet less effective), thus it is not irreducibly complex. On the other hand, structures like a bacterial flagellum CANOT exist in a simpler form (and still function) and is thus irreducibly complex.

Since one of the most basic tenets of Darwinism is that every structure must have evolved from a simpler form, and that in orer to have evolved at all the simpler form must have been functional, then the existence of an irreducibly complex system defies Darwinisn development.

Trilby63;11961560']My mistake. A scientific notes that something happens. A theory explains how and why something happens. Evolution is a theory.

No, that's a hypothesis. A theory is something considerably more than that.

How about you present the theological and scriptural evidence for evolution?

Or, you could refrain from asking folks to prove their beliefs within a system in which the standards of proof are different, because that's nonsense. Whichever.

Where the hell is the fun in that?

*grumbles about killjoy mods*

*Looks up what The Honest Book Of Truth has to say on the matter*

No, that's a hypothesis. A theory is something considerably more than that.

Don't bloody argue with me! I have the full weight of wikipedia behind me!

Just as a side note, I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to want to read scientific articles discussing the fallacy of Darwinism in suport of an argument, but I would offer the caveat that at this time, politics within the scientific community are such that scientists that come out against Darwinism are often ridiculed and shouted down, therefore a peer-reviewed work would not be likely to have been examined objectively.

Having said that, I would point out that such articles DO exist, but in an environment like this it would be pointless for either side to start reaching for the bookshelf, because it would only then turn into a "My expert is better than yours" argument.

Since one of the most basic tenets of Darwinism is that every structure must have evolved from a simpler form, and that in orer to have evolved at all the simpler form must have been functional

Incorrect, totally. Evolution theory mearly posits a simple fact "mutations happen". And sometimes those mutations are favorable, and that favorable mutation helps those with the mutation propogate, while those without it die off, until the mutation becomes common place.

It says NOTHING about random mutations occuring, neither harmful nor helpful, and since they provide neither benefit nor harm, simply continuing on until, mutation upon mutation, they've been built into something helpful, at which point evolutionary steps kick in.

You assume that each genetic step that gets carried forward must be HELPFUL, not true at all, evolution only states that helpful mutations provide advantage, and help those with the mutation pass those genes on. It doesn't mean that EVERY SINGLE MUTATION that occurs MUST either be helpful, or bred out by biology. Some mutations simply are neutral, and carry forward.

Some in fact may be harmful, or at least provide some disadvantage, they merely don't carry enough of a disadvantage to cause those with them to die out and not pass it on.

My worthless organ of an appendix which serves no biological purpose is an example of this. It has no purpose, and in fact in some ways is harmful as it is just one more organ that could go pop on me and reduce my life expectancy.

Likewise your flaggilum example fails to recognize that even though reduced complexity of the flaggilum may or may not have had use (actually highly contested) it states that the bacteria could have lived on quite happily with their random, and all together neutral, mutation, until further mutations built that little extention into something quite useful.

Irreducible complexity is ergo bunk.

Incorrect, totally. Evolution theory mearly posits a simple fact "mutations happen"...
My worthless organ of an appendix which serves no biological purpose is an example of this. It has no purpose, and in fact in some ways is harmful as it is just one more organ that could go pop on me and reduce my life expectancy.

Likewise your flaggilum example fails to recognize that even though reduced complexity of the flaggilum may or may not have had use (actually highly contested) it states that the bacteria could have lived on quite happily with their random, and all together neutral, mutation, until further mutations built that little extention into something quite useful.

Irreducible complexity is ergo bunk.

What's missing from this argument is that it does not address the complexity of a flagellum (to stick with the same example.) Darwinism states that every system must have an earlier, less complex version. That applies even to your appendix. An appendix, according to evolution, is not just a random organ that one day mutated into someone's body cavity. It would have to have come from somewhere, presumably during a time when having such an organ was advantageous for whatever reason. Now, these aren't my rules, this is the stated premise of Darwinism. That appendix MUST have existed in a simpler form prior, and evolved through natural selection into what it is today.

A flagellum is vastly more complex than people realize, and could not have been a one-step mutation from nothing into a full-fleged flagellum. It simply cannot. Again, these are Darwin's rules, not mine, but then he didn't have any way of knowing just how complex a structure it is.

Trilby63;11961560']My mistake. A scientific notes that something happens. A theory explains how and why something happens. Evolution is a theory.

It explains a certain kind of why, in the context of how. What it doesn't explain is purpose, which is not a scientific question and science cannot comment on by its very nature.

For example, you could explain why a random and running car's parts work the way they do but not for what purpose they are running.

One only has to read a few pages into this kind of discussion to see that Darwinism is as much a religion as anything subscribing to a holy text or going to worship meetings.

What is this "Darwinism" of which you speak?

Seriously. I hear a lot of evolutionists viscerally attacking creationists for believing what they do, and yet are just as inflexible and myopic.

What is an "evolutionist"?

I think the reason for that is that people who, for whatever reason, don't want to believe in God or His omnnipotence need some kind of alternative explanation for how we came to be here, and at the moment, Darwinism is it. It wouldn't matter if the theory is disproven tommorrow (although I maintain that it already has) people will continue to vehemently argue it until they find a replacement.

The theory of evolution has been disproven? Do tell!

((Note that, if that were true, the scientific community would not only be aware of it, but would be all "aflutter".))

The gravitational interaction between objects of mass is a mathematical LAW.

Actually it is a law of physics, which is the same thing as saying a theory of physics. Laws, in science, are nothing more than theories that have been around so long, and have stood up to so much testing, that we feel perfectly comfortable assuming that they are true.

Of course, since some things that were declared scientific laws have since been disproven, scientists have largely shied away from using the word "law" to describe anything.

It is undisputed.

It has not been disproven, you mean. And this is true. Of course, neither has evolutionary theory.

It does NOT. You may believe it with your whole heart but that doesn't change anything. Do you suppose perhaps there's a reason scientists have yet to codify it as a scientific law?

Scientists have basically stopped codifying *anything* as "scientific law." Everything, yes, EVERYTHING in science is open to continued questioing, and might one day be disproven. And since "laws" have been disproven in the past, it seems prudent to quit "upgrading" theories to laws, as they were simply theories capable of being disproven, just like any other theory.

I have a very close friend who is a follower of Darwinism, and he says the same thing. "It's the best we've got." Well, for being the best we've got, Darwinism has fallen tragically short.

What mystifies me is that people still adhere to it despite, on many occasions, being willing to admit to its shortcomings. "Well, yes it does fail there, but it is still the best we've got." Well if that were any other theory, it would be scrapped when it fails, instead of being put on life support in hopes of resurrecting it.
Just because evolution cannot explain every little facet of life on this planet does not mean that it is false. For the very few flaws and mysteries it has, it explains much, much more in satisfactory detail.

As an analogy, consider Einstein's Theory (ZOMG!) of Relativity. It is a brilliant formulation of how the universe works, but falters when describing the sub-microscopic world (quarks and such). Does that flaw mean that we should scrap the theory and throw Einstein off his pedestal? Does it mean that relativity is a barely-tolerable excuse that is "on life support"? No. It, like evolution, is an elegant, but not perfect, description of the world and how it works.

What is this "Darwinism" of which you speak?

What is an "evolutionist"?


Who is that meant to impress? Just wondering. You can't win an argument on wit. Gotta win based on facts. Supportable facts, not necessarily popular ones.


The theory of evolution has been disproven? Do tell!

((Note that, if that were true, the scientific community would not only be aware of it, but would be all "aflutter".))

Yes and I'm sure the scientific community is ready and willing to admit it's wrong, take back all the self-congratulatory prizes, return all the grant money, and tell atheists it's back to the drawing board.


Actually it is a law of physics, which is the same thing as saying a theory of physics. Laws, in science, are nothing more than theories that have been around so long, and have stood up to so much testing, that we feel perfectly comfortable assuming that they are true.

Of course, since some things that were declared scientific laws have since been disproven, scientists have largely shied away from using the word "law" to describe anything.

So you're ready to imagine that Gravity, Thermodynamics and so on might all be wrong, but if soneone questions Darwinism... it's time for battle stations.


It has not been disproven, you mean. And this is true. Of course, neither has evolutionary theory.

That depends on who you ask. But I suspect anyone that says otherwise would be labeled as a religious nut, right?



Scientists have basically stopped codifying *anything* as "scientific law."


Was that before or after they decided not to call Natural Selection a law?


Everything, yes, EVERYTHING in science is open to continued questioing, and might one day be disproven. And since "laws" have been disproven in the past, it seems prudent to quit "upgrading" theories to laws, as they were simply theories capable of being disproven, just like any other theory.

On this we agree, but I stand by a previous stament, that there are those who look upon Darwinism as a religion and would fight for it to the last.

Because implicit in your statement is that Natural Selection could be subject to being disproven, right?

A flagellum is vastly more complex than people realize, and could not have been a one-step mutation from nothing into a full-fleged flagellum. It simply cannot. Again, these are Darwin's rules, not mine, but then he didn't have any way of knowing just how complex a structure it is.

That's fine, and that's entirely consistant with evolution. I said that already, but you ignored. What you seem to insist, and which is absolutly untrue, is that a mutation MUST be helpful to be passed on. This is blantantly false.

A flagellum may not have been able to spring forth in a single mutation, fine.

But a bacteria might have undergone one mutation, which developed it a bit. Then later bacteria developed another which developed it a bit more. Then a bit more, then a bit more, then a bit more. A lot of bits can happen in a billion years or so.

There is nothing about evolution, AT ALL, that says a mutation HAS to be helpful to be transmitted. That's nonsensical. All evolution says, ALL it says, is that HELPFUL mutations are self propogating, as organisms with HELPFUL mutations tend to live longer than those WITHOUT helpful mutations and thus have a better chance of passing on their genes.

That's it. This instance that "omg only helpful mutations pass forward" is bullshit. I'm color blind. That is a genetic dissorder, passed down through god knows how many generations of my family. It is not at all helpful. In fact it can be down right annoying at times. But it exists.

Evolution doesn't posit that ONLY helpful mutations go forward, not in the freaking slightest. All it says, ALL IT SAYS is that those organisms with helpful mutations have a greater chance of passing those genes on. Organisms with down right NASTY mutations can also survive to pass THEM on too, but over periods of massive amounts of time, speciation will favor the positive ones and disfavor the negative ones. Not "get rid of", or "always put forward", favor and disfavor, that's it.

And perfeclty neutral mutations, such as those that gave me my delightful green eyes but doesn't really hurt OR harm me in the slightest, may keep on going down the species too, slowly but surely being built further and further on, neutral mutation by neutral mutation, until purely by happenstance, something good comes from it.

Likewise even bad mutations, which have rendered my delightfully green eyes to be unable to tell the differnece between red and green (which leaves me HOPING my eyes are green) still gets passed along.

And my appendix, which has no use what so ever, hasn't disappeared to human biology because it has no need to. It really is pretty neutral, and thus having one neither favors, nor disfavors anyone. If anything it DISFAVORS a bit, by, as I said, being one more organ to blow up. BUt the fact that we have it, and evolution hasn't "done away with it" suggests that evolution isn't this vast hive mind selecting good mutations and getting rid of bad ones like you seem to think it is.

ALL of that is absolutly consistant with evolutionary biology.

Just because evolution cannot explain every little facet of life on this planet does not mean that it is false. For the very few flaws and mysteries it has, it explains much, much more in satisfactory detail.

I understand yoru point, but the flaws in evolution as stated are much more abundant than that.


As an analogy, consider Einstein's Theory (ZOMG!) of Relativity. It is a brilliant formulation of how the universe works, but falters when describing the sub-microscopic world (quarks and such). Does that flaw mean that we should scrap the theory and throw Einstein off his pedestal? Does it mean that relativity is a barely-tolerable excuse that is "on life support"? No. It, like evolution, is an elegant, but not perfect, description of the world and how it works.
But consider also that scientists are searching for a theory to replace it. If a theory can be found that applies to physics on both the macroscopic as well as the quantum level, it will take over.

Not so with Darwinism. It's still considered the lens through which all archaeology is viewed without question.

But consider also that scientists are searching for a theory to replace it. If a theory can be found that applies to physics on both the macroscopic as well as the quantum level, it will take over.

Not so with Darwinism. It's still considered the lens through which all archaeology is viewed without question.


You know that's probably beause it works quite well.

How about you present the theological and scriptural evidence for evolution?

Or, you could refrain from asking folks to prove their beliefs within a system in which the standards of proof are different, because that's nonsense. Whichever.

He claimed ID was scientific. No different standards at all.

But consider also that scientists are searching for a theory to replace it. If a theory can be found that applies to physics on both the macroscopic as well as the quantum level, it will take over.

Not so with Darwinism. It's still considered the lens through which all archaeology is viewed without question.
And why is that? Oh, yes -- because it is the best theory around. No other theory even approaches it in terms of describing life's history with the same level of elegance and self-consistency.

Now, if someone develops a scientific theory that proposes an alternative view of the matter, and backs it up with evidence, and provides compelling arguments on why it should take precedence over evolution, then by all means, let that one take over. But nothing better has stepped up to the plate, so we stick with Darwin.

EDIT: Also, the problems with relativity are fundamental -- its explanations completely break down at the quantum level. Scientists are actively searching for a better explanation to address that flaw. The only flaws evolution has, on the other hand, stem from the fact that we don't have some magical camera that can look back in time. We only have bits and pieces of evidence from millions of years ago, so its not hard to believe that a comprehensive theory based on such an incomplete record would be somewhat imperfect.

Again, that doesn't mean its wrong. It just means we don't have enough evidence to conclusively answer every single question.

I understand yoru point, but the flaws in evolution as stated are much more abundant than that.

Fine. Point out the "flaws" that outnumber the evidence. Provide sources.


But consider also that scientists are searching for a theory to replace it. If a theory can be found that applies to physics on both the macroscopic as well as the quantum level, it will take over.

And so far, there has been none that come even close. Not ID nor "scientific creationism

Not so with Darwinism. It's still considered the lens through which all archaeology is viewed without question.

Because the evidence for it is overwhelming and there has been NO evidence that has opposed it.

I understand yoru point, but the flaws in evolution as stated are much more abundant than that.


But consider also that scientists are searching for a theory to replace it. If a theory can be found that applies to physics on both the macroscopic as well as the quantum level, it will take over.

Not so with Darwinism. It's still considered the lens through which all archaeology is viewed without question.

I love how in one breath you said there's all this scholarly research poking at evolution and yet with another said nobody is looking to disprove it.

You're running in circles flinging out contradictory arguments, and when someone pins you to it you pull the "oh, well of course, the scientists are in a conspiracy".

I promise you, PROMISE you that the first scientist to definitivly, conclusively, disprove evolution will be famous.

THere's MASSIVE attempt at disproving evolution. And while some have forced evolutionary proponents to modify their theory, nothing, NOTHING has unseated it.

The reason it is continually used more than anything else, more than which anyone else has ever been able to come up with to the contrary, is because it WORKS

I don't doubt it, but that's not what I said. I said it's rarely applied to Darwin apologists on here. I am accusing your side of applying a double standard. Get it?

A double standard of requiring evidence to support a possible hypothesis. Seems you've been ignoring the dozens of threads that present the evidence along w/ the citations.



Nothing bogus about it.

For those who haven't heard of it, Irreducible Complexity is the concept that there are biological constructs in nature that cannot exist in a simpler form. For example, a human eye CAN exist in a simpler form (albet less effective), thus it is not irreducibly complex. On the other hand, structures like a bacterial flagellum CANOT exist in a simpler form (and still function) and is thus irreducibly complex.

Since one of the most basic tenets of Darwinism is that every structure must have evolved from a simpler form, and that in orer to have evolved at all the simpler form must have been functional, then the existence of an irreducibly complex system defies Darwinisn development.

And since there is no such thing as "irreducibly complex" systems, the entire idea falls apart.

I love how in one breath you said there's all this scholarly research poking at evolution and yet with another said nobody is looking to disprove it.

You're running in circles flinging out contradictory arguments, and when someone pins you to it you pull the "oh, well of course, the scientists are in a conspiracy".

I promise you, PROMISE you that the first scientist to definitivly, conclusively, disprove evolution will be famous.

THere's MASSIVE attempt at disproving evolution. And while some have forced evolutionary proponents to modify their theory, nothing, NOTHING has unseated it.

The reason it is continually used more than anything else, more than which anyone else has ever been able to come up with to the contrary, is because it WORKS

I'm still waiting for the evidence supporting ID.

He claimed ID was scientific. No different standards at all.

But you and I know damn well that it isn't. At least I'm assuming you know that ID is non-scientific. If you don't, my apologies for misrepresenting your view.

Last week's Time Magazine had a great interview with Drs. Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins over the subject of creationism. Dawkins is a well-known proponent of evolution and naturalism, and the author of several persuasive books such as The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene. Collins is a renowned geneticist and Christian who has dedicated his career to reconciling science and faith.

In the article, the two of them had a small debate, moderated by the article's author. As a clash between the foremost leaders of the evolution and creationist movements, I found it fascinating and indicative of the veracity and robustness of the two arguments. Despite their inherent differences, both of them were refreshingly lucid and respectful debaters.

Draw whatever conclusions you want, but I think that Dawkins pretty much nailed Collins for wriggling out of the responsibility to explain. For instance:




The full interview is here (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-3,00.html) (it starts halfway down the page). Do yourself a favor and at least look it over -- it's a great read.

Anyways, what do you think about it?

theism and creationism (or "intellegent design" or whatever bullshit they're trying to pass off as science) are entirely seperate concepts, the fact there are theistic idiots doesn't really have any bearing on the validity of theism as a whole...or really much of anything.

But you and I know damn well that it isn't. At least I'm assuming you know that ID is non-scientific. If you don't, my apologies for misrepresenting your view.

OF course I recognize ID is non-scientific. NB claimed that ID was and that it was supported by science. Since he did, I asked for the support based off of standard scientific method. I don't consider that a double or a different standard of comparison. Had he claimed ID was based off of a religious belief and didn't hold up to those standards (something like OEC), I would have accepted that at face value.

OF course I recognize ID is non-scientific. NB claimed that ID was and that it was supported by science. Since he did, I asked for the support based off of standard scientific method. I don't consider that a double or a different standard of comparison. Had he claimed ID was based off of a religious belief and didn't hold up to those standards (something like OEC), I would have accepted that at face value.

It is a different standard of comparison. NB's implication that it isn't hardly negates that.

In any case, I think at this point we're just quibbling over debate style, essentially. You preferred to watch him futilely attempt to demonstrate that ID is scientific, and I would have just called him on the false premise. Both perfectly valid approaches. :)

This will be my last reply as I'm about to head out, but by all means respond because I will catch back up later.

It is true that not all mutations are necessarily helpful. It is true that some are disadvantageous and some are neutral.

However, when you pull back to the broader scale of evolution, it does become necessary to trace every organ and organ system backward through ever more simple systems. This is a fundamental point of Darwin's theory. (Look it up.) Every system comes from a simpler version, if that theory is true.

You can't say that a flagellum, or an appendix or anything else is an organ that developed from a bunch of random mutations that one day produced a working system. Darwin's theory doesn't allow for this.

Try to imagine this: a bacterium that suddenly had a mutation that produced some component of a flagellum, say one of the protein chains that functions as a bearing. This protein chain does NOTHING to either help or hinder the bacteria. This will not result in speciation. It is a single mutation that provides no increased chance of survival. Maybe the bacterium reproduces and passes that trait along. Will that result in speciation? Not according to Darwin.

According to Darwin, every species is how it is as a result of natural selection. Nature won't select the mutated bacterium over the non-mutated version, therefore speciation will not take place.

That would be like saying that humans with green eyes somehow have the potential to evolve beyond what humans with brown eyes do. It doesn't work.

You can't pick and choose the elements of Natural Selection that work to support your argument. It either hold water or it doesn't.

Please pass the mop.

I'll be back on later.

*cough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella)*

This will be my last reply as I'm about to head out, but by all means respond because I will catch back up later.

It is true that not all mutations are necessarily helpful. It is true that some are disadvantageous and some are neutral.

However, when you pull back to the broader scale of evolution, it does become necessary to trace every organ and organ system backward through ever more simple systems. This is a fundamental point of Darwin's theory. (Look it up.) Every system comes from a simpler version, if that theory is true.

You can't say that a flagellum, or an appendix or anything else is an organ that developed from a bunch of random mutations that one day produced a working system. Darwin's theory doesn't allow for this.

Try to imagine this: a bacterium that suddenly had a mutation that produced some component of a flagellum, say one of the protein chains that functions as a bearing. This protein chain does NOTHING to either help or hinder the bacteria. This will not result in speciation. It is a single mutation that provides no increased chance of survival. Maybe the bacterium reproduces and passes that trait along. Will that result in speciation? Not according to Darwin.

According to Darwin, every species is how it is as a result of natural selection. Nature won't select the mutated bacterium over the non-mutated version, therefore speciation will not take place.

That would be like saying that humans with green eyes somehow have the potential to evolve beyond what humans with brown eyes do. It doesn't work.

You can't pick and choose the elements of Natural Selection that work to support your argument. It either hold water or it doesn't.

Please pass the mop.

I'll be back on later.

ANd now you're throwing in the term "speciation" which you haven't defined and keep refering to "Darwinism". Of course you then don't recognize that the theory has advanced in the last 150 years. You make the points, you have to support them.

You've stated ID has scientific evidence. You need to present it.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/22794;jsessionid=aaab66Eyz41my3?fulltext=true

*cough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella)*

Oh, look. Peer-reviewed papers.

*cough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella)*

lol. that's actually extremely interesting...symbiotic spirochetes? the pictures of the cytoskeleton are actually quite lovely...makes me want to take biology again

Oh, look. Peer-reviewed papers.

wikipedia is an incredible resource...and besides, any academic publication can be simplified to "peer-reviewed papers" - it's as credible as anything.

wikipedia is an incredible resource...and besides, any academic publication can be simplified to "peer-reviewed papers" - it's as credible as anything.

Oh, I know. I was remarking on the fact that NB claimed "double standard" when asked for peer-reviewed papers supporting ID.

You can't say that a flagellum, or an appendix or anything else is an organ that developed from a bunch of random mutations that one day produced a working system. Darwin's theory doesn't allow for this.

Your assertions about what evolution says is most assuredly wrong, and the theory absolutly does allow for it.

Try to imagine this: a bacterium that suddenly had a mutation that produced some component of a flagellum, say one of the protein chains that functions as a bearing. This protein chain does NOTHING to either help or hinder the bacteria. This will not result in speciation. It is a single mutation that provides no increased chance of survival. Maybe the bacterium reproduces and passes that trait along. Will that result in speciation? Not according to Darwin.

Will it result in speciation? Nope. YOu seem to assume speciation just "happens", just BOOM, new species. Not at all. It's a gradual, slow, extremely slow process where small changes built upon one another over HUGE amounts of time result in change.

Nature won't select the mutated bacterium over the non-mutated version, therefore speciation will not take place.

Here is where you have a problem.

nature doesn't SELECT shit. You seem to think there's some great mind going on, there isn't. Mutations happen. Sometimes they're favorable, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes good ones don't get passed along. Sometimes bad ones doo. That all happens.

All evolution says is, that slowly, over time, good mutations are favored more than bad ones.

That would be like saying that humans with green eyes somehow have the potential to evolve beyond what humans with brown eyes do. It doesn't work.

The problem with talking about humans is that we can adapt our enviornment to suit us so we don't have to evolve due to natural selection. We don't need to evolve better hunting skills to defend ourselves and get food, we have guns and slaughterhouses. Humans don't really evolve in that sense anymore, because we don't need to respond to our enviornment, we can mold the enviornment to suit us.

But let's look instead at...I dunno, wild jungle animals....let's say jungle cats. Let's say those cats...I dunno, come in two eyes, green or yellow. Now let's say a random mutation occurs on the genetic governing green eyes. This mutation increases the size of the brain, making them a bit smarter. Now the smarter ones, being smarter, avoid predators etc, and procreate better. So now we have a group of green eyes smart cats and yellow eyed not so smart ones. The green eyed smart ones begin to outnumber the yellow eyed stupid ones because they're smarter, they can survive better. And over time that intelligence grows due to further mutations. Now these green eyed cats have grown smart enough to start using tools. Instead of relying on tooth and claw, they rely on spears and fire to get their food. And over countless years they rely less and less on natural weapons, and those weapons become less and less important. You no longer need big claws and teeth to survive, you need smarts. So the smart cats with small claws tend to outlive the stupid cats with big claws, and slowly those preadator weapons fade away to those with superior intellect.

And what do we have? The green eyed cats who for some freak accident actually got smart, no longer really much looking like the cats with yellow eyes who never got smart. THe green eyed cats have evolved smaller claws, smaller teeth, less muscle, less fur...they don't need any of this, they're smart enough to survive better with brains and less animal tendancies than less brains and more claws.

The yellow eyed cats, never had this advantage, and continued to use tooth and claw.

So what happened? Well let's just call those green eyed cats who got smart, evolved brains, used tools, and over time lost their big strong predatory weaponry because it was less usefull.....lets just call them humans.

And the yellow eyed cats who never had that little random genetic mutation that started making them smarter, so they never evolved passed the need for their superior strength and physical prowess? Let's just call them chimps.

And gee, what do we have here? Common ancestry taking one species, splitting it in two due to random mutations in one subgroup but not the other, and resultant in two species looking somewhat different based on different evolutionary paths.

And another link on actual speciation that has actual support, including bacteriological.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And some more:

Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

Now find support ID. That would include testable, disprovable hypothesis. Actual tests. Peer-reviewed papers, etc.

Oh, I know. I was remarking on the fact that NB claimed "double standard" when asked for peer-reviewed papers supporting ID.

oh, yay! I love wikipedia and defend it like it's my baby.

See this is what I don't get. Why are athiest scientists putting so much money, time and effort in to this? What good is it doing for the world? Can they not pay attention on more important things like finding a cure for cancer or some other worthy cause.

Then some of you may be thinking "Why are Christian/creationist scientists putting so much money, time and effort in to this?"

It is their Christian duty to bring others to Christ and uphold God's authority and other things.....(you know what Imean)

See this is what I don't get. Why are athiest scientists putting so much money, time and effort in to this? What good is it doing for the world? Can they not pay attention on more important things like finding a cure for cancer or some other worthy cause.

Then some of you may be thinking "Why are Christian/creationist scientists putting so much money, time and effort in to this?"

It is their Christian duty to bring others to Christ and uphold God's authority and other things.....(you know what Imean)

Into what? Be specific. Advancing science? Finding the foundations to try and understand the workings and predict the possibilities? Trying to teach theology as science? What?

For those who haven't heard of it, Irreducible Complexity is the concept that there are biological constructs in nature that cannot exist in a simpler form. For example, a human eye CAN exist in a simpler form (albet less effective), thus it is not irreducibly complex. On the other hand, structures like a bacterial flagellum CANOT exist in a simpler form (and still function) and is thus irreducibly complex.

Of course, what the proponents of ID forget is that it is possible that the components were functional in some other way. This is precisely the problem with the flagellum example.

Since one of the most basic tenets of Darwinism is that every structure must have evolved from a simpler form, and that in orer to have evolved at all the simpler form must have been functional, then the existence of an irreducibly complex system defies Darwinisn development.

These may be basic tenets of Darwinism, but they have nothing at all to do with evolutionary theory. The theory does not state that every structure must have evolved from a simpler form. In fact, it is entirely possible that it evolved from a more complex form, and that extra functionality has been lost. The theory also does not state that all mutations must be functional. It is perfectly possible for a mutation to be neutral, or even harmful, and still be propogated.

In other words, your argument is completely based in an ignorance of evolutionary theory.

Who is that meant to impress? Just wondering. You can't win an argument on wit. Gotta win based on facts. Supportable facts, not necessarily popular ones.

It isn't meant to "impress" anyone. I'd really like to know what you mean by these words, since they mean nothing within the scientific community.

Yes and I'm sure the scientific community is ready and willing to admit it's wrong, take back all the self-congratulatory prizes, return all the grant money, and tell atheists it's back to the drawing board.

I'm not sure what atheists have to do with it. The majority of the scientific community, like the majority of the general population, are theists. But, yes. In fact, finding something that disproved evolutionary theory would most likely earn a scientist the Nobel Prize and more. Science progresses by disproving old ideas. When it happens, it is very exciting.

So you're ready to imagine that Gravity, Thermodynamics and so on might all be wrong, but if soneone questions Darwinism... it's time for battle stations.

All things in science are up for debate. They all might be wrong. But, to challenge them as scientific theories, they must be either disproven by the scientific method or another scientific theory, arrived at using the scientific method, must have more evidence to support it.

Unfortunately, the challenges to evolutionary theory that I have seen have never been scientific, and have never adhered to the scientific method. Most of the challenges, much like your own, are based in misconception about the theory itself. They start with, "Evolution says 'x'," where 'x' is a statement that is not a part of evolutionary theory. The others are based on "Goddidit," which is also not scientific, although it very well may be right.


That depends on who you ask. But I suspect anyone that says otherwise would be labeled as a religious nut, right?

Anyone who says otherwise would be asked to provide the empirical evidence they had to disprove evolutionary theory. And, if they could do so, would probably get the Nobel.

On this we agree, but I stand by a previous stament, that there are those who look upon Darwinism as a religion and would fight for it to the last.

Because implicit in your statement is that Natural Selection could be subject to being disproven, right?

If it couldn't, science could not investigate it.

Anyone who says otherwise would be asked to provide the empirical evidence they had to disprove evolutionary theory. And, if they could do so, would probably get the Nobel.


Remember though, asking for empirical evidence to support what is claimed to be a scientific theory is a double standard when there isn't any evidence.

See this is what I don't get. Why are athiest scientists putting so much money, time and effort in to this? What good is it doing for the world? Can they not pay attention on more important things like finding a cure for cancer or some other worthy cause.

Then some of you may be thinking "Why are Christian/creationist scientists putting so much money, time and effort in to this?"

It is their Christian duty to bring others to Christ and uphold God's authority and other things.....(you know what Imean)

erm, inasmuch as creationism and "intellegent design theory" don't warrent a minute of attention, much less funding, I certainly agree with you. however, religion is excellent at converting people through compassionate outreach. "they'll know we are christians by our love", right? faux scientific debate lends christianity all the faults of secularism and none of its benefits.

Because it's probably not God who's parroting that kind of BS; I'm pretty sure if he had a hand in the Bible he's looking down at the six-day creationists and wondering "WTF?" just like the rest of us.

True.

But how come He hasn't struck them down with lightning already?

Like maybe the ones from the handy dandy little citation numbers in your uncited cutnpaste?

there were no citation numbers, sorry.

Try to imagine this: a bacterium that suddenly had a mutation that produced some component of a flagellum, say one of the protein chains that functions as a bearing. This protein chain does NOTHING to either help or hinder the bacteria. This will not result in speciation. It is a single mutation that provides no increased chance of survival. Maybe the bacterium reproduces and passes that trait along. Will that result in speciation? Not according to Darwin.

On its own? No, not at all. But combined with lots of other mutations, it very well might.

According to Darwin, every species is how it is as a result of natural selection. Nature won't select the mutated bacterium over the non-mutated version, therefore speciation will not take place.

Not with a single, neutral mutation, no it won't. Of course, it also won't select the mutated over the non-mutated. This means that we would expect both the mutated and the non-mutated to still be around. Both lines will continue to mutate, but with different genetics from the start.

Speciation has never been suggested to occur from a single mutation. It is the accumulation of many mutations over time. Once a mutation occurs, and it is not selected out of the population, you now have two populations, one with mutation A and one without. The "with" population will continue to mutate (as will the "without" population). Eventually, enough mutations may accumulate to alter functionality or even create new functionality. And, eventually, those accumulated mutations may lead to speciation.

Once again, your argument relies upon a completley flawed view of the theory of evolution.

That would be like saying that humans with green eyes somehow have the potential to evolve beyond what humans with brown eyes do. It doesn't work.

If humans with green eyes were a segregated breeding population, separate from humans with brown eyes, for a long enough period, they very well could become separate species. This is because the changes over time in the green-eyed population would be different from those in the brown-eyed population.

You can't pick and choose the elements of Natural Selection that work to support your argument. It either hold water or it doesn't.

And nothing you have said has argued, in any way, with natural selection. You have created a strawman argument that you have called "natural selection," but has nothing to do with the scientific conception of the term.

See this is what I don't get. Why are athiest scientists putting so much money, time and effort in to this? What good is it doing for the world? Can they not pay attention on more important things like finding a cure for cancer or some other worthy cause.

(a) You seem to be assuming that only atheists accept evolutionary theory as valid. This is an incredibly incorrect assumption.

(b) The search for the cure for cancer is related to evolutionary biology, as is most medical research.The Dalriads

Then some of you may be thinking "Why are Christian/creationist scientists putting so much money, time and effort in to this?"

It is their Christian duty to bring others to Christ and uphold God's authority and other things.....(you know what Imean)

You seem to be suggesting that any scientist who is a Christian will attempt to prove their faith with science and will ignore scientific evidence to do so. This is also very untrue.

There is nothing incompatible with faith in God and evolutionary theory.

Yes compasionate outreach is probably the main way of converting. But many people need to see direct evidence to believe-people who need to see to have faith. Not really in the mood for argueing atm so don't expect long, technical, well thought out posts. Just as long as you get the jist of what I'm trying to say.

I'm only a 15 year old school boy not some intelligent scientist so there isn't much point of me commenting as it always seems to invalid.

edit
-----
Just when I finish repying to someone else, there are half-a-dozen new posts so the above doesn't make since any more. I should realy use the quote function more.

Too many new posts, not enought time to read, think and reply to them.

BYE

I call bullshit. I'm sorry, but that's way too vague. It can very easily be seen as coincidence that the Quran says iron came from the sky, since it says "The Book of Balance" was sent down as well, meaning they would probably label anything they considered to be useful and holy to be from god, therefore, from above, or the sky. If it mentioned planets and atoms and such, then yes, it would be proof, but right now it's bollocks.

Also, bullshit on the mountain thing as well. It makes no mention of plate techtonics - it simply says Allah created the mountains so that they wouldn't shake with earthquakes. It doesn't say how, it doesn't say why - it just says it. Any retard standing on a mountain during an earthquake could notice they don't shake as much as things that aren't on a mountain and write it down.

And yeah, he pretty much disproved any kind of circular source logic that any religious text has. If you can doubt his sticky note, then you can doubt religious texts that showed up just as mysteriously and had little more proof of source or fact.

well, its like the old saying goes. For the sceptic, no amount of proof will do, for the believer, no amount of proof is necessary.

there were no citation numbers, sorry.

Um, try again:

"Modern earth sciences have proven that mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground and that these roots can reach several times their elevations above the surface of the ground.2 So the most suitable word to describe mountains on the basis of this information is the word ‘peg,’ since most of a properly set peg is hidden under the surface of the ground. The history of science tells us that the theory of mountains having deep roots was introduced only in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth.4 They hinder the shaking of the earth. God has said in the Quran:

Yes compasionate outreach is probably the main way of converting. But many people need to see direct evidence to believe-people who need to see to have faith. Not really in the mood for argueing atm so don't expect long, technical, well thought out posts. Just as long as you get the jist of what I'm trying to say.

People who need scientific evidence to "have faith" don't have faith at all. What little faith they *might* have is so weak that it may as well not exist.


well, its like the old saying goes. For the sceptic, no amount of proof will do, for the believer, no amount of proof is necessary.

Not *entirely* true. But scientific proof of religion cannot be necessary, as questions of the supernatural are, by definition, outside of science. So a believer may have some sort of evidence that has led them to believe, but it will not be scientific or empirical evidence.

Um, try again:

after looking around. I found a link the forum I pasted from.

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_25.html#dp

after looking around. I found a link the forum I pasted from.

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_25.html#dp

absolutly none of which is proof. Your entire premise seems to be "OMG it said the mountains are fixed to the earth!" well...no shit, they're mountains. And unless 1400 years ago some folks were able to move mountains with their bare hands, it need not be shocking that a book said millions of tons of rock are fixed into place, and it is likewise not shocking that science confirms the obvious.

True.

But how come He hasn't struck them down with lightning already?

it's moot. it'd be like shooting something that was already dead. they're such a small minority with rediculously little influence that getting rid of them doesn't have a point...assuming god would care about truth being popular in the first place...and I think there's ample evidence that if god exists in such a way as to care about anything, it certainly doesn't care about that.

Yes compasionate outreach is probably the main way of converting. But many people need to see direct evidence to believe-people who need to see to have faith. Not really in the mood for argueing atm so don't expect long, technical, well thought out posts. Just as long as you get the jist of what I'm trying to say.

I'm only a 15 year old school boy not some intelligent scientist so there isn't much point of me commenting as it always seems to invalid.

edit
-----
Just when I finish repying to someone else, there are half-a-dozen new posts so the above doesn't make since any more. I should realy use the quote function more.

Too many new posts, not enought time to read, think and reply to them.

BYE

true, but *ahem* Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

that lept to mind. and when you convert someone to your religion with faked science they're going to become an apostate as soon as somebody with real science proves the botched apoligetics attempt wrong.

Not *entirely* true. But scientific proof of religion cannot be necessary, as questions of the supernatural are, by definition, outside of science. So a believer may have some sort of evidence that has led them to believe, but it will not be scientific or empirical evidence.

The word occult comes from the Latin occultus (clandestine, hidden, secret), referring to the 'knowledge of the secret' or 'knowledge of the hidden' and often popularly meaning 'knowledge of the supernatural', as opposed to 'knowledge of the visible' or 'knowledge of the measurable', usually referred to as science.

it may not be peer-reviewed, labratory science - but there *is* a studied, experimental, skeptical approach to religion and the supernatural.

Seriously. I hear a lot of evolutionists viscerally attacking creationists for believing what they do, and yet are just as inflexible and myopic.

Educating is very different from "viscerally attacking". If you want an indepth discussion of evolution and why it is a superior view of biology than ID in every way, there are many on here who can help. First, you must develop a thick skin and understand that your views are totally counter to all modern science and will be treated as such.

Educating is very different from "viscerally attacking".

yes it is. and atheists just as frequently are guilty of the later.

But how come He hasn't struck them down with lightning already?

Well, God's big on faith and free will, so I figure he would think something along the lines of:

"Well, I created all of these laws to produce the universe from the Big Bang and gave man the capability to understand them, but if they don't want to look for my hand in creation then so be it. I can not interact with those who do not want to listen to me"

absolutly none of which is proof. Your entire premise seems to be "OMG it said the mountains are fixed to the earth!" well...no shit, they're mountains. And unless 1400 years ago some folks were able to move mountains with their bare hands, it need not be shocking that a book said millions of tons of rock are fixed into place, and it is likewise not shocking that science confirms the obvious.

what it shows is that mountians go farther into the earth than just the ground. This was not a widely accepted concept until science proved the Qur'an true.

what it shows is that mountians go farther into the earth than just the ground. This was not a widely accepted concept until science proved the Qur'an true.

No, it says they were set "in the ground", not deep into the earth. "in the earth" means, quite literally, in the dirt, and considering the mountains like quite well in the dirt, that is self evident. It makes absolutly no mention, what so ever, that the mountains decend into subterranian depths.

Any attempt to read it as such is pure wishful thinking.

As for the "not a widely accepted concept"...says whom? You intend to speak for the dead?

Before anyone decides to start hurling arguments against evolution, I suggest you get a definition of what evolution is first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Then come back and argue those points, as it seems that most anti-evolution tripe comes from people who don't know what evolution is (my favorite one is "if humans evolved from monkeys, how come monkeys are still around? evolution disproven!"

No, not really

We do not know if God is complex or not, or anything about that kind of nature

We do know however that since he created time, it is logical to assume that he is outside it, thus he always was, is, and ever will be, existing beyond time
So basically what you are telling me is that a creature that exists beyond time is not as complex as a human, or atleast, we can't know this. Are you trying to invoke a Schrodinger's Creator? Whatever you are doing, it's a cop out.

ID has the fundamental flaw I mentioned. If man is too complex and must be created, his creator would obviously be more complex and must be created.

At some point you have to accept something just came in to existence. That can be god who then created the universe, or it can be the universe. There is no Scientific reason for putting in the extra layer. I have no problem with people saying "believe, have faith" the end. As soon as they try to make it scientific, which ID tries to do, it is a Joke that too many people take seriously.