PROOF OF DARWIN'S THEORY DISCOVERED!!!!

[Rob King]

But what if they knew a way in which the house could have been built without an architect? (Nevermind...)

Also, God revealing himself is something more than him appearing in the highway and making a car fly. It's REVEALING. I mean, you can't not believe then, by definition, unless you are an extreme skeptic (I mean, it would be like not believing in you computer monitor...)

Well, from a Christian perspective, he's already revealed himself as much as he's going to: through Jesus. An Atheist or Agnostic can argue that that's not fair, and that doesn't count because they don't believe that Jesus was anything special, and besides, that was two thousand years ago! But again - from where a Christian stands, that just proves my point: revelation doesn't necessarily mean belief.

Anyhow. I'm not trying to bring about a revival here. Just trying to explain the Christian perspective. As far as the Christians are concerned it should be obvious that God exists. But then he went one better, and revealed himself through Jesus. Why then, and why he won't do it again is beyond me, but if you believe that Jesus came, and that the gospel account is at least reasonably accurate, it's obvious that revealing himself is not enough to make everyone believe.

 

[tegid]

But... you are telling me that 'if you believe, it's obvious that he has revealed himself already'. I get your perspective, but the argument only holds from your perspective.

Look, I was a catholic up until some years ago, and I believe(d) what JCM said: it's not believing if it's something you know. Therefore, god can't reveal himself to us, at least in an obvious ways. For this reason I mostly don't (didn't) believe in miracles, except maybe in cases when the people affected were already 'true' believers (not even then... it doesn't seem reasonable to me that god would have to do anything special to have things go 'his way')

Besides all of this, I don't think your argument holds. For starters, you need to believe in the accuracy of the gospels which is already hardly a good point. Also, how did he reveal himself through Jesus? To todays people (i.e. me) he didn't. Even to the people who lived all that, unless they saw the actual miracles and whatnot, he didn't. To a non believer, what's the difference between Jesus coming and saying 'I'm God's Son', and some crazy guy doing the same thing? unless he has something to show, he's not SHOWING god's existence. He leaves space for belief (unless you saw miracles or whatev, in which case I think you are still wrong since more or less everyone who did see miracles believed Jesus, according to the bible -lucky those who believe without seeing...).

To me, the Bible, Jesus, whatever, is (and don't be offended, it's for the sake of the argument) like reading about elephants. They tell me they exist, they are this or that way. Allright, you can believe it or not. But if suddenly I found an elephant in my living room, I would have to believe. That's what revelation is to me. The realization that God exists, the knowledge appearing in your head, being forced in, whatever, without a need for belief.

 

[AngelofBitterness]

As one with borderline Deist convictions, I would point to our existence at all as the proof. I'm not ignorant enough to pretend that it will convince anybody, but to me it seems obvious. Disagreeing with it, to me, is like sitting in somebody's kitchen and asking "Where is the architect? If he doesn't show himself, there was no architect."

Your analogy is flawed, though: we see houses being built and kitchens being created. We are not seeing God create new beings or new planets. Everything was already here so it's a bad analogy. With creationism, you're taking a while uneducated guess about what happened before our time. We weren't there, we didn't see, and all we can do is study the traces left behind and those point towards all the theories that disprove creationism.

The main problem with creationism, is that people want to put it at the same level of science. Heck, when a bishop was asked if he believed in the evolution theory, he said "oh, not everything in the Bible is to be taken literately - it's a book of symbolism." Basically, he believed in the theory of evolution because it doesn't say that God didn't create the universe and let life evolve etc. Creationism, however, is so ignorant to say "God created life out of thin air" when it's obvious this did not happen (unless you're a conspiracy nut).

 

[JCM]

But what if they knew a way in which the house could have been built without an architect? (Nevermind...)

Also, God revealing himself is something more than him appearing in the highway and making a car fly. It's REVEALING. I mean, you can't not believe then, by definition, unless you are an extreme skeptic (I mean, it would be like not believing in you computer monitor...)

Well, from a Christian perspective, he's already revealed himself as much as he's going to: through Jesus.

Not much of revealing from a factual point, because one could say-

Well, from a Muslim perspective, he's already revealed himself as much as he's going to: through Muhammed.

Well, from an Indian perspective, he's already revealed himself as much as he's going to: through the Kamas.

What Im saying is that belief cant be proven. People exist? Could be God. Could be Ganesh. Could be the rainbow snake. Easch one has different beliefs that require one to believe.

Heck, even thories that dont have god in it are as valid as beliefs as the Christian one.

it's not believing if it's something you know. Therefore, god can't reveal himself to us, at least in an obvious ways. For this reason I mostly don't (didn't) believe in miracles, except maybe in cases when the people affected were already 'true' believers (not even then... it doesn't seem reasonable to me that god would have to do anything special to have things go 'his way')

Bingo.

Besides all of this, I don't think your argument holds. For starters, you need to believe in the accuracy of the gospels which is already hardly a good point. Also, how did he reveal himself through Jesus? To todays people (i.e. me) he didn't. Even to the people who lived all that, unless they saw the actual miracles and whatnot, he didn't. To a non believer, what's the difference between Jesus coming and saying 'I'm God's Son', and some crazy guy doing the same thing? unless he has something to show, he's not SHOWING god's existence. He leaves space for belief (unless you saw miracles or whatev, in which case I think you are still wrong since more or less everyone who did see miracles believed Jesus, according to the bible -lucky those who believe without seeing...).

To me, the Bible, Jesus, whatever, is (and don't be offended, it's for the sake of the argument) like reading about elephants. They tell me they exist, they are this or that way. Allright, you can believe it or not. But if suddenly I found an elephant in my living room, I would have to believe. That's what revelation is to me. The realization that God exists, the knowledge appearing in your head, being forced in, whatever, without a need for belief.

Exactly this.

If we go by fact and evidence, theres not much of a difference between "Buddha is the proof", "Jesus is the proof" or "that allah-shaped stone is the proof", so a belief in god is basically belief. Not a theory based on observable phenomena and expermiment.

 

[Rob King]

Your analogy is flawed, though: we see houses being built and kitchens being created. We are not seeing God create new beings or new planets. Everything was already here so it's a bad analogy.

Are you serious? Aren't you making an argument for Evolution? Then how can you say we don't see new beings being created? And we don't turn our telescopes to the heavens to watch supernovae and other cosmic events? There are principles of creation at work in the universe that we can watch and examine.

I won't address the further points that get into the problems with creationism, because I am not a creationist.

But... you are telling me that 'if you believe, it's obvious that he has revealed himself already'. I get your perspective, but the argument only holds from your perspective.

Not much of revealing from a factual point, because one could say-

What Im saying is that belief cant be proven. People exist? Could be God. Could be Ganesh. Could be the rainbow snake. Easch one has different beliefs that require one to believe.

Maybe I wasn't being entirely clear. I wasn't trying or pretending to be objective. I wasn't proselytizing. I'm just saying that from the Christian side of the fence (or Muslim, or Bhuddist, or Taoist or ... hell, even Scientolegist) the issue of revelation isn't an issue.

With regards to God, Ganesh, Rainbow Snake, or whatever else ... again, this is where it comes down to my Deism. It could be any of those entities. It could be all of them. It could be none of them. I can't seriously sit here and pretend that my concept of God is the real slim shady. All I can say is that I have a concept of God, and much like Allah, or Krishna or the Greek Pantheon, it is a very likely imperfect approximation of whatever God is.

Besides all of this, I don't think your argument holds. For starters, you need to believe in the accuracy of the gospels which is already hardly a good point.

You're going to be disappointed by any ancient text. Nobody wrote history back then like we do today, with 100% unadulterated fact. Not the Gospel Writers, not Paul, not Herodotus. Everyone embellished, or put their own spin on things. Fox News keeps the tradition alive today, if you'd like a contemporary example :slywink:

So if things didn't happen exactly as the gospels say, I'm not bothered. In fact, we know that they didn't happen exactly as they said, because there are minor discrepancies between them. Stuff like ... in one gospel, Jesus healed two blind men, but in the other it was three. I don't have any specific examples, but we both know that they're there.

But even understanding that, the Gospels are remarkable for being written so soon after the event. Whether it was Matthew or Mark, or whoever's stationary it was written on will be questioned forever. But scholarship generally agrees that they were written in the first century C.E. That means that if there were any glaring errors, you can bet your balls that the Jews would have made note of it. And if they did, they've taken their precious time over the last two thousand years trying to find the post-it they wrote it down on. rly:

Also, how did he reveal himself through Jesus? To todays people (i.e. me) he didn't. Even to the people who lived all that, unless they saw the actual miracles and whatnot, he didn't. To a non believer, what's the difference between Jesus coming and saying 'I'm God's Son', and some crazy guy doing the same thing? unless he has something to show, he's not SHOWING god's existence. He leaves space for belief (unless you saw miracles or whatev, in which case I think you are still wrong since more or less everyone who did see miracles believed Jesus, according to the bible -lucky those who believe without seeing...).

The rest of this stuff ... I can't really answer for anybody but myself. I don't need a personal revelation. The revelation that happened two thousand years ago sparked the creation of a major world religion that affected the worldview of all of Europe. Five hundred years ago, after a long struggle with entrenched classical thinking, Christian Humanism was the spark that ignited the Renaissance. At some point during the Renaissance, secularism became the next big thing.

I don't mind secularism. I believe that the future should be secular. And if in another five hundred years, nobody is a Christian anymore, I won't be too horrified. For me, Christianity served it's purpose when Francis Bacon and the boys decided that - as beings created in the image of a creator God - it was time to muck about with Science.

So I am a Christian today because of what Christianity has done so far. I hold hope that there is further good that it can do. But again, if Christianity has run it's course, and it's on it's way to the same end as worship of the Roman Pantheon, so be it.

After all, what does it matter if I have a line of scripture or a quote from Richard Dawkins as my epitaph in the grand scheme of things? :eyeroll:

 

[Chibibar]

Rob, the big difference of "believing it happen years ago" vs "seeing it happen or at least via evidence" is a pretty big difference.

We do see new life or at least discover. Scientists discover new species all the time (like our weird fish thread) and of course try to figure out how old it was, how long it has been there and how does it compare to other fossils, bones, marine wastes, etc etc etc (whatever all those scientist do) and test and retest to ensure their discovery is accurate.

I don't think anyone know the true origin of life, but scientist try to go by what evidence they discover so far (via fossils, minerals, and anything discover that exist at the time via carbon dating). Creationism doesn't even try to do that. It just go Year 0, man is created out of thin air (or clay or rib or whatever depending on your religion). It didn't come from the "primordial" soup or evolve from apes or from rainbow snake. Poof, there is man.

The stars are pretty interesting stuff. The stuff we see today, isn't really happening today. Light travel fast, but not THAT fast. A lot of things we see today happen hundred, thousands and some million years ago (as light finally travel so we can see it here on earth) it is pretty interesting stuff and try to make sense of it. I guess it boils down to physical evidence.

Evolution (the way I understand it) is from YEARS of study of different animals, their ancestors (via fossils) and make educational guess. I am still baffle by some creationist group thinking the earth is only 3000 years old. (some say) I still have no idea how they come up with that one (at least not scientifically)

 

[ElJuski]

A really smart dude once wrote to me, "We are here on this earth to fart around, don't let anyone tell you any different."

 

[JCM]

The rest of this stuff ... I can't really answer for anybody but myself. I don't need a personal revelation. The revelation that happened two thousand years ago sparked the creation of a major world religion that affected the worldview of all of Europe.

Bingo.

This is a belief. Which everyone is entitled to, but as effective and sound in scientific discussion than someone saying the Great Chaz created the world when a drop of sweat fell from his brow.

 

[@Li3n]

[quote="Rob King":3nv51enk]I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of belief, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

Also, are those "Teach the Controversy" pictures shirt designs? Because if not, they would look awesome, and I would wear them.

Belief is fine and dandy. I'm an active Christian and have my own beliefs and faith, however, I would not, nor will I ever impose those beliefs or faith in my science classroom! It's just not science.

You can believe in creationism all you want, but it's not science. It just isn't. Evolution isn't out there to make itself a religion based on faith. There is no faith in science, only logic and fact. (well, not that kind of faith. I have to admit, I do my little voodoo dance to make sure my qPCR data is good. )

100% THIS. I hate when people ask if I believe in Evolution. My answer is always, "Do you believe in gravity?"
[/quote:3nv51enk]


To be fair, evolution takes more then dropping a bowling ball on someone's foot as proof.

 

[Rob King]

The rest of this stuff ... I can't really answer for anybody but myself. I don't need a personal revelation. The revelation that happened two thousand years ago sparked the creation of a major world religion that affected the worldview of all of Europe.

Bingo.

This is a belief. Which everyone is entitled to, but as effective and sound in scientific discussion than someone saying the Great Chaz created the world when a drop of sweat fell from his brow.

Right. I wasn't arguing that belief was superior, or that everyone must have some sort of religious belief. This all started because I said I disagreed with what I interpreted as your dismissal of belief as somehow suspect or otherwise bankrupt of value. I think we're actually on the same page, generally.

And thanks, @Li3n, I had forgotten this thread when it fell off the first page

 

To be fair, evolution takes more then dropping a bowling ball on someone's foot as proof.

That's not gravity. It's Satan trying to drag us down to hell. You can't prove I'm wrong because it's what I believe!

:smug:

 

[strawman]

To be fair, evolution takes more then dropping a bowling ball on someone's foot as proof.

Not much though. It only takes a few generations of quick growing plants to prove evolution.

Keep in mind that the theory of evolution is merely that plants and animals adapt to their environment over time.

One can scientifically prove evolution while still remaining unconvinced that man descended through primates (ie, believing that there isn't yet enough evidence to consider as scientific 'fact' - merely a well supported theory, with no better scientific theory).

Which, of course, means that if one wants to be taken seriously in the scientific community they must accept that evolution explains man's origin better than any other scientific theory.

But it doesn't preclude believing in a different origin. It merely precludes using something else (or teaching something else) as a valid scientific theory.

-Adam

 

[@Li3n]

Other scientific theories?! I'm pretty sure evolution is the only one that qualifies as scientific in it's field... (also, there are many theory's about gravity, coz we still have no idea what causes it... )

That's not gravity. It's Satan trying to drag us down to hell.

Yeah, and that's called gravity... because it's grave news... (i prefer the whole it's actually inertia because out flat planet if moving at incredible speed... or the whole "sins are weighing us down" thing).

 

[Rob King]

(also, there are many theory's about gravity, coz we still have no idea what causes it... )

Damn my Google-fu! There's an xkcd about this if I remember correctly. They isolate a particle and ask it to explain gravity. It simply says "We get lonely."

 

[Chibibar]

[quote="Rob King":3tt11w7i]The rest of this stuff ... I can't really answer for anybody but myself. I don't need a personal revelation. The revelation that happened two thousand years ago sparked the creation of a major world religion that affected the worldview of all of Europe.

Bingo.

This is a belief. Which everyone is entitled to, but as effective and sound in scientific discussion than someone saying the Great Chaz created the world when a drop of sweat fell from his brow.

Right. I wasn't arguing that belief was superior, or that everyone must have some sort of religious belief. This all started because I said I disagreed with what I interpreted as your dismissal of belief as somehow suspect or otherwise bankrupt of value. I think we're actually on the same page, generally.

And thanks, @Li3n, I had forgotten this thread when it fell off the first page [/quote:3tt11w7i]

the belief system is bankrupt in value in the SCIENTIFIC community. No in the general community. I think that is the big difference people are trying to separate. The "belief community" i.e. Creationism is trying to wedge itself into the science community staying their system is the correct which is not even scientific and force their teaching in SCIENCE class. If you want to teach creationism in a religion class or philosophy, I don't think the scientific community would mind or care at all, but to teach in the science class........

might as well teach voodoo and witchcraft in science class too while we are at it and any other belief and magical thing. We can study unicorns and fairy in biology class.

 

[Rob King]

the belief system is bankrupt in value in the SCIENTIFIC community. No in the general community. I think that is the big difference people are trying to separate. The "belief community" i.e. Creationism is trying to wedge itself into the science community staying their system is the correct which is not even scientific and force their teaching in SCIENCE class. If you want to teach creationism in a religion class or philosophy, I don't think the scientific community would mind or care at all, but to teach in the science class........

might as well teach voodoo and witchcraft in science class too while we are at it and any other belief and magical thing. We can study unicorns and fairy in biology class.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about creationism. I could have missed something, but as far as I can remember, nobody has been talking about creationism other than to mention it in passing, and laugh at the silly fundamentalists.

 

[Chibibar]

the belief system is bankrupt in value in the SCIENTIFIC community. No in the general community. I think that is the big difference people are trying to separate. The "belief community" i.e. Creationism is trying to wedge itself into the science community staying their system is the correct which is not even scientific and force their teaching in SCIENCE class. If you want to teach creationism in a religion class or philosophy, I don't think the scientific community would mind or care at all, but to teach in the science class........

might as well teach voodoo and witchcraft in science class too while we are at it and any other belief and magical thing. We can study unicorns and fairy in biology class.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about creationism. I could have missed something, but as far as I can remember, nobody has been talking about creationism other than to mention it in passing, and laugh at the silly fundamentalists.

cause that is the original "derail" of the thread when talking about evolution vs belief (i.e. creationism)

 

[Rob King]

I'm not sure why you keep talking about creationism. I could have missed something, but as far as I can remember, nobody has been talking about creationism other than to mention it in passing, and laugh at the silly fundamentalists.

cause that is the original "derail" of the thread when talking about evolution vs belief (i.e. creationism)

Oh, I see. That's the fish JCM was chasing, I think. I just wanted to make sure that genuine religious belief wasn't being thrown out altogether when he was declaring his distaste for the creationist fools. I'm not interested in discussing it, since I'm not a creationist.

 

[@Li3n]

If you want to teach creationism in a religion class or philosophy

If we're talking about the version that seems most popular with the crazies in the US then NO, coz it's stupid... if you're just talking about the general idea, that's already taught in religion class, innit.

 

[JCM]

[quote="Rob King":2ttm1cs4]The rest of this stuff ... I can't really answer for anybody but myself. I don't need a personal revelation. The revelation that happened two thousand years ago sparked the creation of a major world religion that affected the worldview of all of Europe.

Bingo.

This is a belief. Which everyone is entitled to, but as effective and sound in scientific discussion than someone saying the Great Chaz created the world when a drop of sweat fell from his brow.

Right. I wasn't arguing that belief was superior, or that everyone must have some sort of religious belief. This all started because I said I disagreed with what I interpreted as your dismissal of belief as somehow suspect or otherwise bankrupt of value. I think we're actually on the same page, generally.

And thanks, @Li3n, I had forgotten this thread when it fell off the first page [/quote:2ttm1cs4]No problem.

I was just noting that "belief" and "scientific theory" were two very different concepts.

 

[fade]

Read this nice synopsis of the Edwards v. Aquillard case, which actually firmly established the definition of "science" through an amicus brief:

Science Defended, Science Defined: The Louisiana Creationism Case
http://www.jstor.org/stable/689806

-- Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:41 pm --

As far as the table analogy goes, the problem is that the analogy itself is skewed to a creationism perspective. What you're saying is like finding something like a rock formation that looks like a set table and assuming that it had to be set by someone. The problem with your analogy is that the set table implies a setter at its outset, but it looks like a set table to you because you're assuming it is a set table.