Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

The Big Bang Theory is a religious Catholic theory about creation. It has no basis in reality because it's completely illogical.

 

You only see it as juvenile because you see leprechauns as silly. Hopefully you understand though, that if one sees god as exactly as silly, then claims from people who believe in her are seen as equally juvenile.

No, it really isn't. Many of us do have that - myself included, but that isn't "being an atheist".

Indeed. I know a lot of people think atheist means you have to state positively that god does not exist. Often, though, atheists themselves tend not to agree.

I don't accept that one iota I'm afraid.

Who is it you think that said that?

(Emphasis added)

Do they now? Really?

 

I think that a lot of you are confusing evidence with proof. Think of this as a murder investigation. It could be that you have evidence that points to one individual, but it also could be that the individual is completely innocent.

Cosmic Background Radiation and Galactic red shifts are all evidence that point to the Big Bang, but are not proof of a Big Bang.

A thousand years ago people thought the world was flat. 500 years later, we discovered that it is a sphere. The people from 500 years ago probably laughed at the people from a thousand years ago because of their ignorance. Then some people said, not only is the Earth a sphere, but it rotates around the Sun (Copernicus). That made other people mad because they thought the Earth was the center of the Universe, and they persecuted the people (Galileo) who believed in a Heliocentric Universe. But then it became accepted that the Earth did indeed rotate around the Sun. Not much more that a hundred years ago, we believed that the Universe consisted of the Milky Way Galaxy. Then we discovered, that there are a lot of Galaxies. I'm sure that people would have probably laughed at how ignorant the people were before them.

Now about 60 years ago, it became accepted that the Big Bang happened. Now imagine if it is later discovered that this theory is wrong. Can you imagine people a thousand years from now just laughing at our ignorance?

 

Proof means different things under different contexts. You are right that the Big Bang is not 'proven' in a scientific context - but then, nothing is. Nothing at all. Personal proofs are very different - all one means when one speaks in this context is that the evidence is enough to convince you. Which, admittedly, isn't very useful, but neither is it actually wrong.

 

Evolution theory do not care how life started, this is not it's object .
All new evidence that falls in the gaps in the fossil record fits right in , all .
Time is a very relevant thing , if the weather conditions in Africa were stable we would be still jumping from tree to tree . Toba eruption killed the vast majority of humans and only the very best survived , this was a random event whose effects lasted for a couple of years and forced natural selection to the extreme .
Science is not faith driven , during late 19th century new discoveries destroyed earlier established models , books and theories and careers became obsolete .
You really need to read about extinction events and how resilient life is. There is algae in mines 4km deep and maybe even deeper , this means that if a comet hits earth oceans get evaporated and there is fire everywhere life will not end , we can never be sure how many times evolution was restarted.

 

Everyone who lived at that time is dead now. There are accounts of
man-gods who died and came back to life / will return some day
in other religions. Apparently a lot of people, whether with a T in their name or not, have been gullible enough to believe in it.

 

I use that word when it is appropriate. You on the other hand, simply made up the thing about "insult" for the reasons outlined.

Im not the one who has been using every moldy rhetorical trick in the playbook.

Its true Im not capable of debating with someone who wont stay on topic or ever attempt to talk issues.

If you have something to say about "interpreting evidence differently"
that has some sort of validity, then lets hear it. I've never called anyone a liar for doing that, if you have suggested above that I did, you should
provide an example.

 

Yes and no. In hard sciences and in mathematics definitions without wriggle room are the rule. In soft science [philosophy, psychology, sociology, theology] they tend to depend on the practitioner's culture and even life experiences to some extent. I listed theology simply because different branches of Christian religion go through immense effort to instill in their practitioners the meaning of what it is to be a Methodist or a Baptist or a Roman Catholic or a Greek Orthodox Catholic or a Church of England Christian or a [fill-in-the-blank] and yet if you want to have some fun put several well educated theists together from those offshoots of Christianity and ask them to collectively define several different terms.

Since I look at theology from the standpoint of a half-arsed philosopher rather than from the standpoint of anyone formally trained in theism of any sort or from the standpoint of a formally trained practitioner of philosophy, sociology, or psychology my homemade definitions won't work past a certain point in reaching a meeting of the minds on this subject since I am disinclined at my age to toss aside my definitions in favor of formalized academic definitions. So the fault is mine.

 

What part of the story about the earth and all living things being created in a week
matches the ToE? They seem to be a lot less similar than, say, Barak Obama and the
Metro Goldwin lion.

 

Sure. Possible.
Just like we laugh at the flat earth or orbiting sun described in scripture.
We have vastly more data now that would have to support the new theory, so we build on past discovery and when necessary adapt our theories.
You have made the perfect case for realizing scripture is merely an antiquated understanding.
Well done.

 

Actually, no. The "creator" concept is something rooted in a methodology that has proved wrong every time it's been held up to scrutiny. 6 day creation, global flood, 6000 yo earth, all creatures created at the same time, all creatures created individually.....

The methodology of Science is a long track record of being correct when it come to explaining what we currently know....and you think they are on equal footing?

How can you honestly make that claim?

 

Agreed. When words are arbitrary, at any age, a meeting of the minds becomes elusive. Who would ever know if it was achieved?

 

Ah now we are about to have some fun! Aside from the physical mechanics involved, and aside from the knowledge gained through masturbation, can a complete virgin grasp what it 'feels like' to engage in an incredibly sensual sexual experience [from tease to foreplay to consummation to afterglow]? Speaking as a once upon a time virgin, who was intensely interested in putting the question to the test, I eventually discovered to my utter delight that the answer [for me] was 'no'.

I once had faith in God and also in the doctrine of my birth religion. I know what it 'feels like' to burn with faith in God to the extent that one holds HIM up as an ideal and believes in HIM with a passion. [Shrug] and then I discovered what it 'felt like' to be a doubt-filled agnostic and then I discovered what it 'felt like' to embrace the relief of atheism.

So can someone who's never known those very different states of being 'know' what they individually 'feel like'. I argue that it's doubtful. An intellectual grasp of subject matter is simply not the same as living it.

 

Not in a natural world, it doesn't. For your statement to have any merit, you need to prove a supernatural exists....and you can't do that either. Based on your logic, Superman, the Easter Bunny, Santa, the Tooth Fairy and god are all possible.

Once again, we have a typical "god of the gaps" apologetic.

 

Oh I see . . . and so a BELIEVER in a natural world is not called upon to prove that the supernatural does not exist because he or she only BELIEVES in a natural world. Yet for some reason a believer in the supernatural must prove that the supernatural exists because . . . ?

No, in a give and take 'discussion' everything is on the table. While I definitely credit science for being able to debunk countless claims of the supernatural I must point out that science has also failed to debunk countless claims of the supernatural even after a couple of hundred years of trying. Logically every failure to debunk leaves a door or a window or a cupboard open for believers in the supernatural.

 

Yeah, like with Kenneth Miller, evolutionary biologist, professor, and staunch atheist. ...Wait, no, hang on, he's actually a devout evangelist Christian. Also, the catholic church has accepted evolution by natural selection since Pius XII. Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. It is incompatible with certain very limited interpretations of Christianity, but those guys fly in the face of reality so hard that there's no point in even discussing it with them.

No, but either way that's not the answer that atheists offer. The answer they offer is "I don't know". And "I don't know" is in literally every situation better than an answer which is both unverified and unfalsifiable. "God did it" is not an answer. It has all of the predictive and explanatory power of "I don't know", that is, zero, but isn't replaced as easily. When you say "god did it", you're not expecting any further answers. It is a dead end for scientific discovery. On the contrary, "I don't know" is the same type of non-answer with no predictive or explanatory power, but it's not telling us to stop looking, it's making it clear that there's still work to be done. "I don't know" is begging to be replaced.

And for the record? "God did it" is not better than "nothing did it", because neither has any predictive or explanatory power, and neither can be verified or falsified. They're both terrible answers but they both are just as useless as the other.

No, because the fact that they are christians does not under any circumstances imply that they just shoved "god did it" into every hole in their knowledge. In fact, the fact that they explicitly asked those questions is a damn good sign that they weren't happy with "god did it". They didn't think "god did it" was enough. Because they were intellectually honest scientists, who weren't afraid to follow the truth where it leads. And today, we recognize that "god did it" is a dead end. I mean, seriously, imagine if scientists had looked at lightning, said, "god did it", and not questioned it further. We wouldn't have the knowledge of electricity we have today. We certainly wouldn't have lightning rods.




But back to the quotes. You still have been dodging my questions. Here's two big ones:

1. How many of the massive list of quotes you posted do I have to demonstrate to be intentionally taken out of context before you'll admit that the list as a whole is bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?
2. What conclusion am I supposed to draw from Lewontin's quote that is supposedly bad for science, materialism, or evolution?

An answer or two would be really nice here. You're using another common creationist tactic of flitting back and forth from topic to topic, shifting whenever you get called on something and never giving a satisfactory answer or rebuttal to your critics. Let's keep this focused, please.

No, the Big Bang Theory predicted cosmic background microwave radiation and then it was found. The big bang theory predicted universal homogeny, and then it was found to be the case. Essentially every line of evidence we can come up with verifies it, and the best part is, most of these effects are things the theory itself predicted and relied on before they were found.

The creation story in Genesis is completely irreconcilable with observed reality. Even ignoring the use of "days" or the implication that the time spans were similar in length (they weren't - not even close), it places the creation of the sun and moon in the same time frame, and after the creation of the earth. It presents a flood mythos that must have happened within approximately the last 10,000 years which all the evidence vouches against. There's all kinds of problems that you just can't apologize away.

 

"a BELIEVER in a natural world..." What world do you live in? Were you not produced by natural means?

"believer in the supernatural must prove that the supernatural exists because "...Are you daft?...those who claim something, carry the burden of proof. You claim your god is outside the natural world....PROVE IT.

You're not even the slightest bit good at this.

Name one.

 

Well of course its hard to debunk claims of that sort Tough to prove there is no nessie..

More to the point is that those with the claims have failed to ever demonstrate there is any basis to them.

Of course,for those who want to hold out hope for Nessie or the supernatural, there will always be hope.

 

I wish you would check your quotation before you post so they look right.

Faith in the Big Bang has zero data attached too.

All the evidence that points to a Big Bang doesn't mean there was a Big Bang. Don't you get it? One could also say that the evidence is proof there is a God because the Bible says, "In the beginning the Earth was a void...and God said, 'Let there be light'". There may very well be other explanations for all the evidence later once science gets to a point when it can figure out these things. We are not there yet.

 

Oh, I disagree with you TBB! Totally! But it was a good attempt at a bait and switch, or if it wasn’t a b&s what could it be? Paul’s words are very true. He didn’t say yall' didn’t admit that science can’t get it wrong. He was referencing the slurs and the belittling comments that a large majority of seculars sling towards the religious and the religion i.e. the Christian religion is unfailingly singled out. The aforementioned insults etc comes our way for any manner of reasons when the religious challenge sciences authority. So in the hopes you aren’t being intentionally deceptive as to what Paul actually said I posted the above and the following.

I know of no theists, or those that support theism or metaphysics that are active in this discussion who are ignorant of what science theory entails. In fact the Christians I know are more knowledgeable of evolution than the average joe, at least the Christians in my Church (ABOTC) and the church I attend FOL (Fountain of Life). Compare that to a female secular member here that has nearly zero knowledge of the Christian religion and doesn’t know the role falsbility* plays in the scientific method. However she is very vocal in a crude belittling manner when speaking of religion and its adherents.

The definition of Falsifiability for our female secular member; www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/.../Falsifiability.html - Cached - ...

That said I will soothe the wound I may have opened by saying that most atheists are above average in knowing their way around the subjects of science and even theology. But I am getting off on a tangent. Getting back to the topic U everyone knows there is a huge resistance for the atheist and other secular* members here at PF to accept the reality of sciences inability to define truth** with anything other than a good guess that relies on evidences that may or may not be true or is only true for 'the day'***. On one hand seculars that use science for their authority of reality will admit most answers etc of science is lible to change but on the other hand science theory is a fact, and in any case it can and does define reality (ie example; that the earth orbits the sun is true because science tells us so). Lastly religious belief also for the most part does not as you so delicately put it; 'It strives to find truth, not cling to discredited beliefs', however religion works on a much slower and more cautious time scale, and uses a different version of change than does science. Do you think the original bible that sits is the same as the NIV bible? No it is modified. Just as science has some theories that are 'fact' like evolution religion has some truths that are more truth than some details etc described in the bible. And the length of this post is a big reason why its almost impossible to discuss such things in a message forum! Eh?


reva

 

Key word "story". I think at the time the bible was written that there was no concept of billions of years. Creation of the Universe and in 7 days is obviously metaphorical. I've also went over what parts matches the Theory of Evolution. The order in which the living things appeared upon the Earth in the bible matches the know order of evolution on Earth.

 

An apology to the forum members; Sorry I am not answering the replies in turn but they are too numerous and this one caught my eye as I was posting another.

PARTIAL QUOTE>>>>>

<<<<<PARTIAL QUOTE

Of course! You could have said faith in science has zero data attached, faith in truth has zero data attached, that is because faith by definition is belief without 'data' well by this definition; 1. Belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 2008-2013 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The reason I bring this (above) up is that &#8216;faith&#8217; and other words are misused and that misuse produces confusion etc. Other words that seem not to be understood well here at PF are &#8216;Theory&#8217; and &#8216;evidence&#8216;. Hmmm&#8217; someone should do a thread on that. Another similar thread that addresses the limits of language would be helpful. Kurt Gödel said he is surprised that people can understand and convey even moderately difficult concepts using common language. (or words to that effect) Gödel the famous brilliant logician and theist was referring to the public not using mathematics as language.



Your other words are specifically addressed to another member so byeeeee~.


reva