Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

First topic message reminder :

I have listened to theists and creationists make what I view as the most absurd claims about the validity of religious doctrine and scripture. So here's a thread designed for anyone who thinks they can to show any evidence for these claims.

Of course everyone will then be entitled to comment on the veracity of what is presented and whether it has at least as much validity as scientific evidence, or indeed if it really is evidence at all.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that this thread is not just about evolution vs creationism,but seeks to uncover why anyone thinks faith based belief has as much or more validity as scientifically validated evidence.

polyglide wrote:Science as far as I am aware advocates nothing

Another odd claim, as you have repeatedly claimed science is culpable for how the knowledge its use grants us is used.

Polyglide wrote:it persues a course towards explaining a problem and attempting to solve it, in some cases for good and in other cases for potential evil.

No it doesn't, scientists do that. You seem to have difficulty understanding that science is a tool-kit, a method, and is therefore insentient, the direction it is taken in, and the way it's knowledge is used is determined by humans. Knowledge is neither good not bad, that is down to how it is used. This next bit is important as I tire now of repeating myself and you ignoring it....

***Science and scientists are two entirely different things, and it's the latter and the latter alone that is culpable, because the former is an insentient process which simply can't make any decisions.****

Polyglide wrote:It is difficult for one who believes in God to explain how one thinks because my religion is based on faith alone and to convey this to a none believer is difficult.

Especially difficult as you have repeatedly claimed to have factual empirical evidence to support your beliefs, when did this change to it being based entirely on faith?

marcolucco,
Fistly I would ask your indulgence for my spelling and other grammatical errors, I use an out of date computer in the library and often I have not the chance to go over what I have written because it often just goes off.

To attempt to explain my position regarding my belief in creation and ultimately the belief in God.

After consideration of Darwin's and other theories I looked at what I could actually see for myself.

I came down to considering two things, the oak tree and the butterfly.

I considered the fact that the Bible says God spread the seeds and the plants grew from them.

This to my mind explained that the seed came first.

Holding an acorn and considering the cup which holds the actual seed and the manner in which it is formed I came to the conclusion that for it to hold the means of creating an oak tree involved intelligence far beyond our own and the possibility of it being as a result series evolutionary events beyond reason.

I then considered the butterfly and it's life cycle and in no way could I feel that such a series of events could occur other than by an intelligence being involved.

I then I took into consideration the chicken and egg situation and it is obvious that the chicken must have been created first or there would be no means of hatching the egg.

Having taken the above into consideration I felt that the only thing that would make any sense was that there is a far greater being whose abilities are beyond our understanding and after further consideration I found the Bible gives the answer.

I trust this helps to understand my position.

marcolucco,
I have done this in two stages as if a post disappears half way through it may reflect on what I post after [anger being a sin].

I have had many problems regarding both the Bible content and the actual evidence regarding life.

Why would anyone write any adverse accounts regarding God's actions if they were devout Christians?.

I came to the conclusion that we do not think in the same terms as God and his actions we are not in a position to judge.

I am certain that there is a missing link which would explain many things and it is not one between a monkey and mankind.

Ater all a banana has 90% the same genes as man, does that make mankind 90% banana. [ in some cases maybe]

regards.

Wow! A cornucopia of the most embarrassing creationist clichés ever written.  Worth noting that the misrepresentations in there have been thoroughly explained to Polyglide who chooses to dishonestly repeat such nonsense as humans evolving from monkeys. Wow, I really feel sorry for anyone this deluded and ignorant of scientific reality.  It's a shame to see our education system fail someone so utterly,  but it's a stark warning of the dangers of not separating religion and faith from a state education.

Polyglide wrote:Ater all a banana has 90% the same genes as man

Not even remotely close, dear oh dear.

The earliest known butterfly fossils are from the mid Eocene epoch, between 40-50 million years ago.[1][dubious ] Their development is closely linked to the evolution of flowering plants, since both adult butterflies and caterpillars feed on flowering plants. Of the 220,000 species of Lepidoptera, about 45,000 species are butterflies, which probably evolved from moths.

LINK

Just for Polyglide: Creationists are so funny..

marcolucco,
Although I am unshakeable in believing in God as the creator I am also well aware of many problems relative to both the Bible contents and the life before mankind.

Take the dinosaurs as an example, the last one recorded is said to have been 60 meters long and weigh 90 tons.

Along with many other species of animal life that at face value does not fit in with the Bible explanation of creation.

I would be interested in your views on this matter.

Mine go along the line that the beggining of anything can be half way between other matters.

Could there have been an entirely different set up on earth prior to God creating the present animal and plant life along with the present human forms etc; and the beggining as expressed in the Bible actually refering to the latest stage as the beggining of a new order? etc;

Is there a stage where all the animal life as we know it appeared at once?.

marcolucco,
I agree that at face value one would not expect a loving creator to be involved in what at face value appears to be unacceptable behaviour.

However, I believe any action taken by God will be in accordance with the laws he advised us to follow and the disrespect for his people on earth shown by the followers of Satan.

If you believe in a creator in the form of God then you also believe in Satan as the creator of evil, not original sin but evil and he exploits mankinds weaknesses to the maximum.

As God has promised to look after his people there is little wonder he has to have taken many steps to safeguard their welfare when unjustly threatened. The actions may appear unacceptable to us but who are we to judge?.

polyglide wrote: Take the dinosaurs as an example, the last one recorded is said to have been 60 meters long and weigh 90 tons.  

The main problem is that dinosaur evolution spans a vast amount of the earth's history, infinitely larger and more ancient than humans. That is entirely at odds with biblical creation claiming humans were created at once, and from clay, with no mention of dinosaurs at all. This kind of erroneous narrative hardly indicates omniscience.

Polyglide wrote:Could there have been an entirely different set up on earth prior to God creating the present animal and plant life along with the present human forms etc; and the beggining as expressed in the Bible actually refering to the latest stage as the beggining of a new order? etc;

There is no evidence that any life was created, or for the existence of any deity for that matter, throw in the human propensity to create such myths and deities and I'd start from there, with what are unassailable fatcs. The biblical creationist myth, one of many humans have created before the science of physics, chemistry, cosmology, biology, geology, and of course evolution, is demonstrably wrong, as I keep pointing out Genesis couldn't even get the most basic chronology of how our universe and solar system formed correct. Your premise is little just pure supposition, but cosmology and evolution are based on testable empirical evidence.

Polyglide wrote:Is there a stage where all the animal life as we know it appeared at once?.

No, there is no evidence to support this assertion at all.

polyglide wrote:marcolucco,  I agree that at face value one would not expect a loving creator to be involved in what at face value appears to be unacceptable behaviour.  However, I believe any action taken by God will be in accordance with the laws he advised us to follow and the disrespect for his people on earth shown by the followers of Satan. If you believe in a creator in the form of God then you also believe in Satan as the creator of evil, not original sin but evil and he exploits mankinds weaknesses to the maximum.  As God has promised to look after his people there is little wonder he has to have taken many steps to safeguard their welfare when unjustly threatened. The actions may appear unacceptable to us but who are we to judge?.

None of that is anything but subjective conjecture, science is based on objective and testable evidence. Besides all the many thousands of religions humans have created make the same appeals to faith and special pleading for their claims. Science alone stands or fails on evidence, and it's success in a very short space of time are nothing short of astonishing.

"Malaria is a preventable and treatable disease. As a result of investing in malaria projects, the number of deaths fell from nearly a million in 2000 to 781,000 in 2009. Yet more than half of the world’s population is still at risk of malaria and nearly 250 million people become severely ill with it each year. 1 in 5 child deaths in Africa is still caused by malaria. All of these are preventable. Where it doesn't kill, it can have a long term impact on a child’s mental and physical development.

Malaria does not just affect children. The health of pregnant women and newborn children is put at risk. Men and women are unable to work for long periods when they become ill. Households can be thrown back into poverty when faced with the costs of saving a family member’s life. Whole nations suffer lost gross domestic product as a result of malaria. What we are doing We will help halve malaria deaths in at least 10 of the worst affected countries by 2015 and work to continue these reductions into the future. We will do this by improving the quality and access of comprehensive health services, including malaria testing, treatment and prevention. UK aid will also fund research to develop new ways of preventing and dealing with malaria. We also work through international institutions and partnerships to improve the global response to this preventable disease. "

It seems that science and the developed west are more altruistic than polyglide claims, nor is there any evidence that "most scientists" are motivated purely by ego, indeed quite the opposite appears to be true, but then Polyglide never offered a shred of evidence to support his biased claim.

Then there's scientific research into curing cancer....
"Over the last 40 years, cancer survival rates in the UK have doubled. In the 1970s just a quarter of people survived. Today that figure is half. Our ambition is to accelerate progress and see three quarters of patients surviving the disease within the next 20 years. This requires us to set an ambitious new agenda for cancer research, substantially increasing our investment, pioneering new approaches and bringing new disciplines to bear on the cancer problem."

Meanwhile the lame excuses to justify an omnipotent deity doing nothing keep being rolled out, un-evidenced claims of course, as always seems to be the case.

             

polyglide wrote: I agree that at face value one would not expect a loving creator to be involved in what at face value appears to be unacceptable behaviour. However, I believe any action taken by God will be in accordance with the laws he advised us to follow and the disrespect for his people on earth shown by the followers of Satan.

               
God acts in exactly the same way as we would expect if there were no one around. There is not a single sign of God's actions in human history unless we give credence to religious tales. At the Battle of Badr, a local dispute between Muhammad and the Meccans, it would seem that some 5000 angels helped Muhammad - 2000 of them possibly held in reserve. Birds dropped stones on the enemy, at Allah's behest. Lest we laugh too loudly, a lady looking at the nuclear disaster that was the Cities of the Plain, was turned into a mound of salt. And of course the Israelites, fleeing the Egyptians, had the Red Sea opened up for them. But today God is camera shy.

The concept of Satan is the same as the idea of evil spirits or bad and good gods. Humans are remarkably adept at endowing their divinities with rather charming human qualities. God encapsulates all that is good and Satan all that is evil. We have an account of the unwitnessed fight between Lucifer and God. For me the stories of the Greek and Roman gods have more appeal. Do you not see that an immortal being spending his existence making people steal pennies or tell untruths can only be the invention of primitive hearts?

From which Biblical verse do you derive your statement that God has promised to look after his people? What does this mean if it is clear that they suffer plagues, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis...? In what way is he protecting anyone? And what does a divine "promise" mean? This is an example of the reduction of an eternal entity to the status of a man. And of course we can say that, as humans, we cannot understand God. I am sympathetic with the Rabbi who, begging in vain for God to help a dying child in a death camp, called out: "There is no god."    What does that promise mean?  
I know you can't answer and fall back on your faith. In these days of evil terrorists perhaps it is wise and good to have a faith.      

Then there's scientific research into curing cancer....
"Over the last 40 years, cancer survival rates in the UK have doubled. In the 1970s just a quarter of people survived. Today that figure is half. Our ambition is to accelerate progress and see three quarters of patients surviving the disease within the next 20 years. This requires us to set an ambitious new agenda for cancer research, substantially increasing our investment, pioneering new approaches and bringing new disciplines to bear on the cancer problem."

Meanwhile the lame excuses to justify an omnipotent deity doing nothing keep being rolled out, un-evidenced claims of course, as always seems to be the case. : Quote

I would agree although I would say science/technology may have brought us many hazards too. I believe there was a time 1 in every 30 had cancer and today it is believed to be about 1 out of 5.  

Perhaps for the sake of this particular argument .A Deity would not necessarily negate any existence by doing nothing, if man has the ability using the very science mentioned. In the 'The Lord will provide' sense.  

Science we know requires repeated tests and observations which over many years has validated certain ideas. I would have to say, this would not really apply to evolution because " We have not been able to observe evolution in the process" We can of course deduce and make the theory. Equally if man observes and sees mechanical workings and mechanisms in nature itself. Then to deduce what he has observed that a maker must be the cause of how nature behaves.  This idea would give equally a valid question.
 Is there a God who designed all this ?  



I am not of any faith and I also find scripture quite violent and confusing .


Good debate anyway
Best wishes

Jsmythe wrote:[color=#3366ff] I would agree although I would say science/technology may have brought us many hazards too. I believe there was a time 1 in every 30 had cancer and today it is believed to be about 1 out of 5.

Hi J, welcome to the forum. I wonder do you have a source for this statistic? I know that science has made us aware that there are many lifestyle choices that can be catalysts that increase the risk of various cancers of course. Though there is a tendency by those who wish to discredit science to misrepresent this scientific evidence by distorting it's claims as absolutes, rather than broad warnings. Thus they create straw man arguments that science has never actually made, and that they can then easily knock down. I'm not suggesting you've done this here of course, but a source for that statistic would help verify the evidence before we look at root cause, if you understand me.   

Perhaps for the sake of this particular argument .A Deity would not necessarily negate any existence by doing nothing, if man has the ability using the very science mentioned. In the 'The Lord will provide' sense.  

That's not really evidence for the existence of such a deity though, as no deity existing would provide exactly the same evidence as we see, and then the logical principle Occam's razor would apply. Also I'd argue that since simply leaving us to struggle to find cures for ourselves would result in suffering, and Christianity has traditionally claimed that its deity has limitless benevolence, or Islam that Allah is "all merciful". So simply doing nothing and thus allowing suffering seems to me to logically defeat such claims when viewed alongside the claim that such a deity is omnipotent.  

Science we know requires repeated tests and observations which over many years has validated certain ideas. I would have to say, this would not really apply to evolution because " We have not been able to observe evolution in the process"

Not true I'm afraid, such evidence abounds, both the fossil record and genetics can and have provided such evidence. Fruit fly genetics have allowed scientists to do this in the laboratory, since they have a very fast breeding cycle, and their genome has been mapped by science. Scientists in China recently discovered bacteria that had evolved a resistance to our last strain of antibiotics, not good news of course, but ample evidence for evolution. This usually is a creationist argument that tries to falsely claim that micro and macro evolution are two different things, but they are the same things occurring over vastly different time-scales.

We can of course deduce and make the theory. Equally if man observes and sees mechanical workings and mechanisms in nature itself. Then to deduce what he has observed that a maker must be the cause of how nature behaves.This idea would give equally a valid question.    Is there a God who designed all this ?  

This is quite a common misconception used by creationists again, called irreducible complexity, it has been quite thoroughly refuted by science of course, the argument usually makes the spurious reasoning that because an animal or part of an animal, such as an eye for example, cannot perform the end function without all it's components parts na d this the parts wouldn't have evolved, but it makes the error of not realising that each component part could evolve independently having a separate function and yet combine to perform a different function when later combined. Most creationists make the second spurious assertion that this is so statistically unlikely as to be prohibitive. Evolution of course would require such a process to have a massive failure rate and therefore require a vast timespan, and this is precisely what the evidence shows. Professor Dawkins has an excellent book on this very topic, called The Blind Watchmaker.

I am not of any faith and I also find scripture quite violent and confusing .
Good debate anyway
Best wishes

Thank you for your contribution, I have no expertise in science or evolutionary biology, but there quite a few very good books on the subject. Professor Dawkins has written many that are considered to be foremost in the field of evolutionary biology and genetics.

DSC wrote: I have no expertise in science or evolutionary biology, but there quite a few very good books on the subject. Professor Dawkins has written many that are considered to be foremost in the field of evolutionary biology and genetics.

Dawkins is seductively persuasive in his dismissal of God - generally the Abrahamic God - but outside the magisterium where he is an authority he tends to be exuberantly provocative rather than precise. Having said this I like his cheeky manner. He provides powerful challenges to those who maintain that their God is alive and well.

For my own part I think that setting out on a quest to prove or disprove the existence of God is fruitless. Those believers with whom I have discussed generally revert to a personal conclusion: God has worked some sort of wonder in their lives or in the lives of others that set them on a "good, fulfilling" path. For those who use their faith in the service of mankind I have nothing but admiration. It would be a wonder if all our cherished ideas were immutable truths. Much of what science regards as axioms today may, in a distant year, become myths. We compare what we know now with the invention of the wheel and laud our advances; if only we were to see ourselves in the light of the year 50,000 AD. That year may not come for humankind, of course, if our religiously vociferous and murderous cousins get their way. Inshallah, they won't. Go well,

Very true, and when I recommended books by Professor Dawkins,  I was of course in this instance referring to his scientific works. Though I found TGD quite compelling,  well I would wouldn't I,  I recognised where his arguments were strong, and where he used weaker polemic in a fairly strident fashion. As you say he's a persuasive author, but I think it's important to pay him due deference as one of the foremost experts on evolutionary biology, when he is dealing with that subject. 

Perhaps anyone who found TGD uncompelling overall could show where and why? I'll happily refer to a copy for objective discussion.  Unfortunately I have found most theists tend towards ad hominem dismissal of the author himself.

marcolucoo,
I feel the 50,000 AD years just a little over estimated taking into account that no one in any country at the present time can feel safe.

In one repect this can also be used the other way, we do not know how certain words were used 100s of years BC.

Take the word gay, for hundereds of years until recent times everything regarding it would be relative to people having a good time and being gay and people would and have written many things along those lines.

Today anyone writing about gay would have an entirely different meaning and confuse and the same could apply to words at the diffrent times the Bible was written.

If you could prove the existance of God then there would be no need for faith.

Just as if there was any sensible explanation of all the wonderful plant and animal life it would settle the matter.

Forget everything regarding either science and God and just consider the facts.

Can anyone in their right mind consider that everything came about by chance?.

Chance being an example of something from nothing and bringing about all forms of life by a sequence of evolutionary events.

Even if you do not believe in a God etc; there must be an explantion for everything and the only sensible conclusion is that there are entities far beyond our understanding and we are far too far up our own posteriors to acknowledeg the fact.

Polyglide wrote:Just as if there was any sensible explanation of all the wonderful plant and animal life it would settle the matter.

Forget everything regarding either science and God and just consider the facts.

Can anyone in their right mind consider that everything came about by chance?. 

There is sensible, elegant explanation for the diversity of life, it's called evolution and ALL the evidence we have validates it. Now before you try to twist this into 'Polyglide's ' personal version of evolution,  I'm talking about the scientific theory of evolution that does involve species evolution and shared ancestry as facts. 


Adding a bronze age superstition about supernatural magic doesn't involve less chance or shorten the odds of life coming into existence on this planet,  as has been explained innumerable times. 

Polyglide wrote:the only sensible conclusion is that there are entities far beyond our understanding and we are far too far up our own posteriors to acknowledeg the fact. 

It's not the only sensible conclusion at all. It's not even sensible to make such a wild unevidenced assumption. Directing broad insults to anyone who refuses to accept your wild subjective assumption isn't rational informed polemic either. 




This is just another use of argumentum ad ignorantiam, or god of the gaps polemic. It's also more than a little dishonest to just keep regurgitating this spurious logic endlessly without ever acknowledging the responses showing that'll you're using a common logical fallacy.  

Polyglide wrote:Can anyone in their right mind consider that everything came about by chance?.

Who has ever claimed it did? Just because chance is a factor in any process doesn't mean it came about 'purely'  by chance. There are 200 billion stars in our galaxy, and a billion stars for each of those in the observable universe. Since the universe is 14.6 billion years old the odds that life would occurr are not nearly as remote as you keep suggesting. Nor does picking one version of one religion based on bronze age creation myth reduce the odds,  quite the opposite in fact.

Polyglide wrote:entities far beyond our understanding and we are far too far up our own posteriors to acknowledeg the fact. 

Well you're entitled to an opinion, but since you claimed in your previous post to think humans share 90% of their DNA  with bananas, and humans evolved from monkeys, I'm afraid we have to view such claims as indicative of a woeful ignorance of scientific facts.

Hello Dr. Sheldon

Hi J, welcome to the forum.I wonder do you have a source for this statistic? I know that science has made us aware that there are many lifestyle choices that can be catalysts that increase the risk of various cancers of course.Though there is a tendency by those who wish to discredit science to misrepresent this scientific evidence by distorting it's claims as absolutes,rather than broad warnings.This they create straw man arguments that science has never actually made,and that they can then easily knock down. I'm not suggesting you've done this here of course,but a source for that statistic would help verify the evidence before we look at root cause,if you understand me.  

Thank you. Yes I understand and you are right .I say the same thing.I refer to hazardous elements of modern day life for example; Drugs being put out to market in such a rush without sufficient time to be assessed thoroughly.Wireless microwave technology,electromagnetic radiation powerlines etc,plastic waste and once my favorite "Takeaway food." Indeed it is down to lifestyle choices as you mentioned .

I have just logged on the net so I will have to find links to the statistics which should exist somewhere. I remember back then when I was a teenager, our teacher once said about 1 in 10 would get cancer but was quite insistant we learn about our health and to especially eat our greens.I vaguely remember something about the 2nd world war,where statistics were even better but don't quote me on this.Interestingly I will look it up.I'm sure we are on the same page and understand why statistics regarding cancer would in time vary and change this way.

That's not really evidence for the existence of such a deity though, as no deity existing would provide exactly the same evidence as we see, and then the logical principle Occam's razor would apply. Also I'd argue that since simply leaving us to struggle to find cures for ourselves would result in suffering, and Christianity has traditionally claimed that its deity has limitless benevolence,or Islam that Allah is "all merciful".So simply doing nothing and thus allowing suffering seems to me to logically defeat such claims when viewed alongside the claim that such a deity is omnipotent.

It is not evidence yes and logically by perspective we can consider doing the same things without a God. However can we make the assumption that there really is no creator without knowing what we are actually looking for in a God to quantify? Granted that examples like the claimed miracles of those miraculous statues dripping blood is often refutable.An argument  most problematic for a Christian to prove any existence of God in the language of science or just having faith to explain with.

Man by the 'means available' around him has survived eons before 'modern' science. It is amazing that we obsessantly keep reminding ourselves how so fragile we are, yet we have lived  through catastrophes and live in some of the most harshes of places across the Earth.The argument we have against Christians and other religious sects is that they 'humanize' their Gods by their very own nature. Evolutionists are mistakingly using the same method of argument with the same 'humanizing' factor asking "Why would a God do such things and leave man all alone to fend for himself?"or " If God cared why would he allow disaster after disaster?TBH I have asked the same thing in the past myself but I would not dare to suggest this proves anything either way.  

Not true I'm afraid, such evidence abounds, both the fossil record and genetics can and have provided such evidence. Fruit fly genetics have allowed scientists to do this in the laboratory, since they have a very fast breeding cycle, and their genome has been mapped by science. Scientists in China recently discovered bacteria that had evolved a resistance to our last strain of antibiotics, not good news of course, but ample evidence for evolution. This usually is a creationist argument that tries to falsely claim that micro and macro evolution are two different things, but they are the same things occurring over vastly different time-scales.

Evolution with the big 'E' I refer to is the millions of years to be able to observe and witness  Evolution in its entirety from formations of life into the multitudes of different kinds. This data  is non existent like the theory of the Blackhole.We can guess at best.Nevertheless  Evolution is fair a good theory.Yes indeed we can note on evolution (with small 'e' )species evolving into variants ' only' and not into different creatures.The argument used is:A virus will mutate but will always be a virus. A fish will mutate but will always be a fish. A bird will mutate but always be a bird coinciding with No evidence of the missing link between man or ape.

It is puzzling that the Creationists would try to seperate micro with macro making those claims.I am with you when you say these two are the same things. Strangely if the micro and macro being the same thing then surely this would actually be in favour of Creationist .If you consider humans are creating life in the lab. Would it not be logical to think and ask the question;" If we can do this on this small scale,is it then possible this could also be done but on an unfathomable much larger scale?  

This is quite a common misconception used by creationists again, called irreducible complexity, it has been quite thoroughly refuted by science of course, the argument usually makes the spurious reasoning that because an animal or part of an animal, such as an eye for example,cannot perform the end function without all it's components parts na d this the parts wouldn't have evolved, but it makes the error of not realising that each component part could evolve independently having a separate function and yet combine to perform a different function when later combined.Most creationists make the second spurious assertion that this is so statistically unlikely as to be prohibitive.Evolution of course would require such a process to have a massive failure rate and therefore require a vast timespan, and this is precisely what the evidence shows. Professor Dawkins has an excellent book on this very topic,called The Blind Watchmaker.

Unfortunately Creationists when  trying to use common dialogue without any aspects of religion, use the wrong examples  for their argument at most times.I can not see any point regarding the existence of God when both sides are debating whether or not  component parts evolve independently by the circumstances of its environment or lack of. What is crucial and overlooked by these particular scientists is the process itself.This is or should be more fascinating to try and understand as to why these components do what they do.How does it know making it functional for the right function?  

Even if we are to go along with evolution requiring a massive failure rate by a vast amount of time are we to say then every apect of life in all its forms has uncountable unmeasurable amounts of luck that keeps coming our way allowing life to exist for millenia of years? If we cut our finger it then heals quickly in a day or two. On the micro level ,millions upon millions of cells have died and have been replaced when that finger was cut.On the whole, the finger is fine again.In my layman explanation I only point out how the simplest of things are far more complex than seems (my opinion) but trully thought provoking.  

Thank you for your contribution, I have no expertise in science or evolutionary biology, but there quite a few very good books on the subject. Professor Dawkins has written many that are considered to be foremost in the field of evolutionary biology and genetics.

Well Doc ..You seem adequatley qualified to me and thank you for the welcome.

Hello DSC - when I retrieve my copy of The God Delusion I'll let you know the quibbles I had. Alexander Waugh has written an excellent book - GOD - terribly funny. God, a Biography, by Jack Miles is also amusing. There are a few good books from the other side in the darker reaches of my book shelves. They say that the Devil has all the best tunes - maybe.

It is not evidence yes and logically by perspective we can consider doing the same things without a God. However can we make the assumption that there really is no creator without knowing what we are actually looking for in a God to quantify?

No, but of course that argument could be applied in just the same fashion to unicorns. My apologies if that seems a little flippant, but this strikes me as reversing the burden of proof, and I am not immune to using hyperbole. I recently heard a very good explanation of the atheist position as it applies here as an analogous comparison with a juror assessing the guilt of a defendant.

The juror doesn't have to find the defendant innocent, indeed that is usually impossible, they only have to determine if guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. So a juror on hearing and examining all the evidence either accepts the guilt or rejects it, no decision is necessary as to the defendants innocence.

So it with atheism, I don't need to know there is no god, and I certainly don't need to prove it, or for that matter evidence it. Any more than I would have to for unicorns, if someone claimed they existed, which the bible does by the way. Now if someone claims a god exist then the onus is on them to define what a deity is and then evidence it. I am free to decide of they have done so, but need not decide if a deity may exist or show evidence that it doesn't.

Evolutionists are mistakingly using the same method of argument with the same 'humanizing' factor asking "Why would a God do such things and leave man all alone to fend for himself?"

I think you mean atheists not evolutionists, but I'd content this to be honest. You see when a theist makes claims for the characteristic of their god which either are contradicted by the evidence or are logical dichotomies, then it's perfectly reasonably to infer things from this. I wasn't anthropomorphising the Christian deity when like Epicurus I pointed out that it's a logical contradiction to claim a being is omnipotent and omni-benevolent in a world with ubiquitous suffering. In fact I might expect such fallibility from humans, but I absolutely would not expect it from such a being as Polyglide and traditional Christianity has described. You see a being either exists with limitless benevolence or it does not, a being either exists with omnipotence or it does not, so all we need do is ask if it is logical for a being that has limitless power and choice and limitless benevolence to allow untold suffering, let alone cause it. The fact that a human wouldn't do so merely strengthens the case against the existence of such a being.

Evolution with the big 'E' I refer to is the millions of years to be able to observe and witness Evolution in its entirety from formations of life into the multitudes of different kinds. This data is non existent like the theory of the Blackhole.We can guess at best.Nevertheless Evolution is fair a good theory.Yes indeed we can note on evolution (with small 'e' )species evolving into variants ' only' and not into different creatures

We have a complete fossil record for the evolution of the horse spanning 50+ million years, with a fossil for each intermediate stage.
LINK
LINK
LINKI'm not sure how you think this doesn't represent the evidence you're saying doesn't exist? Of course humans live just a few decades, so we can't witness species change, despite what Polyglide has claimed. That however is testable empirical evidence.

A fish will mutate but will always be a fish. A bird will mutate but always be a bird coinciding with No evidence of the missing link between man or ape.

HUMANS ARE APES – ‘GREAT APES’
Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes. LINK I'm not sure what you mean by a bird is always a bird, or a fish, birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs. Whales are mammalian air breathing creatures that live in the sea but were once land dwellers, we know this for a variety of reasons but they also have vestigial legs, a remnant of their earlier evolutionary forms. There is a pretty good genealogical evolutionary table HERE.

If we can do this on this small scale,is it then possible this could also be done but on an unfathomable much larger scale?

This is mixing evolution with abiogenesis, the two things are very separate, whilst science has amply evidenced and continues to evidence evolution beyond any reasonable doubt, abiogenesis is not part of that scientific theory, nor is it needed.

If we can do this on this small scale,is it then possible this could also be done but on an unfathomable much larger scale?

This is actually another quite common misconception creationists use, they backwards engineer something and infer sentience behind it's ultimate function. If it works evolution keeps it, if it doesn't it is discarded. So it isn't comparable to a billion to 1 shot evolving perfectly for it;s environment, rather think of a billion attempts by evolution to adapt through natural selection with just one having the best advantage, the others are removed from he gene pool. The end product may appear 'designed' but it is of course just one 'winner' from an evolutionary lottery that has vast numbers of losers.

Even if we are to go along with evolution requiring a massive failure rate by a vast amount of time are we to say then every apect of life in all its forms has uncountable unmeasurable amounts of luck that keeps coming our way allowing life to exist for millenia of years?

I'm not sure as again we seem to be focusing on the end product as if it has happened purely by chance to match it's environment, when in fact the mechanisms that drive evolution are not really down to chance. That's not to say chance isn't ever a factor of course, I mean an asteroid wiping out 99% of all life could be viewed as bad luck, and humans would probably not be here now if that hadn't wiped out the dinosaurs.

Again if I have erred then I apologise, and welcome and would appreciate those with genuine knowledge of evolution to correct me.

 

               

polyglide wrote: In one repect this can also be used the other way, we do not know how certain words were used 100s of years BC.

           

It might amaze you to know how well versed we are in the meanings of ancient words. One of the oldest languages, Sumerian, can be tackled very well; the cuneiform symbols, due to patient effort, come meaningfully alive. It is a pleasure to discover their meaning. Ancient Greek and Latin are of course easily rendered into English and we know what the words mean. Reading the younger Pliny's description of the eruption of Vesuvius is simple - we know the meaning of every word. The Rosetta Stone opened up hieroglyphs for us.

You are of course right in saying the meaning of words can change over the years. Some words that are crude today were happily used in Shakespeare's time with no nasty shade. If you plough through Chaucer you will find words that have altered their meaning. I am not sure how these semantic considerations have a bearing on the Bible, unless you mean that translations vary. There is an interesting section in the OT when David meets Jonathan. The KJ version I believe says David exceeded (in his joy) and we may deduce that David's joy exceeded that of Jonathan but the word "exceed" also carried the meaning "to pass semen." This would make David's feelings much more interesting. And why not?


               

polyglide wrote:If you could prove the existence of God then there would be no need for faith.

No -you'd be in a much better position - knowledge replacing doubt. My view of "proving" the existence of God is that we would then be reducing something infinite to the boundaries of the finite - a contradiction.

               

polyglide wrote: Just as if there was any sensible explanation of all the wonderful plant and animal life it would settle the matter.......Can anyone in their right mind consider that everything came about by chance?.

               


It not incumbent on anyone, scientist or whoever, to EXPLAIN the complexity of life. We can try but our failure does NOT mean we revert to the answer - God must have done it. Our failure points to our ignorance not to God's omnipotence. Evolution is a post eventum explanation of the unfolding of various life forms; the original scintilla that set everything off is not readily explainable - as yet, anyway. When we postulate the existence of a Creator we have to concede that his existence is subject to the same problems of origin as was the universe. If we are prepared to shrug and say - that's what God is, uncreated - we can just as well make the shrug before the God assumption.

But, you know, there are other wonderful ideas floating around. Descartes threw out the quip: cogito ergo sum, but our persona in a dream seems to think, but does not have reality. Are we images on a screen? Are we bacteria on the surface of an enormous being? Little fleas have smaller fleas that on their backs do bite 'em, and smaller fleas have smaller fleas....and so ad infinitum.
Life is a fantastic mystery and to me it is cheapened by the primitive introduction of a God who destroys cities because they sinned, and schoolboys because they taunted and his own "son" because He was once offended by a primitive being called Adam and had to be brought out of his huff via torture and death.

In any case, chance is a complicated subject and probability theory comes up with some unexpected results. When your sample population is an infinite expanse of time, you can EXPECT the IMPOSSIBLE. Impossible often means "cannot be done in a finite space." If the initial spark started off a process of order, then evolution explains the rest. Go well.

marcolucco wrote:Hello DSC - when I retrieve my copy of The God Delusion I'll let you know the quibbles I had. Alexander Waugh has written an excellent book - GOD - terribly funny. God, a Biography, by Jack Miles is also amusing. There are a few good books from the other side in the darker reaches of my book shelves.  They say that the Devil has all the best tunes - maybe.

I'd like that, thank you.

marcolucco wrote:  

polyglide wrote: In one repect this can also be used the other way, we do not know how certain words were used 100s of years BC.

I am not sure how these semantic considerations have a bearing on the Bible,

Well I'd wonder, as I have done many times on here, why a being that is purportedly both omniscient and omnipotent can't communicate a message free from error, and human linguistic fallibility.  

polyglide wrote: Just as if there was any sensible explanation of all the wonderful plant and animal life it would settle the matter.......Can anyone in their right mind consider that everything came about by chance?.  

               

It not incumbent on anyone, scientist or whoever, to EXPLAIN the complexity of life. We can try but our failure does NOT mean we revert to the answer - God must have done it. Our failure points to our ignorance not to God's omnipotence. Evolution is a post eventum explanation of the unfolding of various life forms; the original scintilla that set everything off is not readily explainable -  as yet, anyway. When we postulate the existence of a Creator we have to concede that his existence is subject to the same problems of origin as was the universe. If we are prepared to shrug and say - that's what God is, uncreated - we can just as well make the shrug before the God assumption.

Precisely, the Kalam cosmological argument is deeply flawed, it first claims that everything we see has a cause, therefore everything must have a cause, a broad assumption already given we can't quantify how much we don't know against how much we do so it is assumption (even if based on some evidence) that everything must have a cause, but the real problem is one step later when the first cause is attributed to a deity that has no first cause. In just two steps we go from 'everything must have a first cause, to premising a deity that directly contradicts this assumption.

But, you know, there are other wonderful ideas floating around. Descartes threw out the quip: cogito ergo sum, but our persona in a dream seems to think, but does not have reality. Are we images on a screen? Are we bacteria on the surface of an enormous being? Little fleas have smaller fleas that on their backs do bite 'em, and smaller fleas have smaller fleas....and so ad infinitum.
Life is a fantastic mystery and to me it is cheapened by the primitive introduction of a God who destroys cities because they sinned, and schoolboys because they taunted and his own "son" because He was once offended by a primitive being called Adam and had to be brought out of his huff via torture and death.

Again I concur completely, which is a bit pompous of me, to think Descartes needs my approbation.   I have tried to explain, though I'm woefully unqualified that absolute certainty is anathema to the human condition.

In any case, chance is a complicated subject and probability theory comes up with some unexpected results. When your sample population is an infinite expanse of time, you can EXPECT the IMPOSSIBLE. Impossible often means "cannot be done in a finite space."  If the initial spark started off a process of order, then evolution explains the rest.  Go well.

I like Russell's dice analogy, simple and elegant, and easy enough for an ignorant duffer like me to grasp. This is why Russell is a genius...he could make complex ideas simple enough for an ignoramus like me to understand.

Good interview dealing with creationists selection bias and cherry picking of data. It also deals with his conspiracy theories of elite scientific bodies being atheist cabals. It also explains why evolution has been falsified, and why this is abundantly clear to any remotely objective person with even the most cursory knowledge of science.

I'm not sure about it being anathema but we can assign a probability of 1 to lots of events. In the field of discussion, which is what I think you mean, claiming absolute certainty is asking for a refutation. Even the simple "I exist" is subject to question.

I like Russell too; he comes over as modest and intelligent. We are all ignoramuses in that relativity applies to more than particles. Socrates declared he was the most foolish man in Greece because he alone knew how little he knew. That's a clever way of saying how wise he was but I don't think he was wise in electing to take poison rather than the alternative, exile.

marcolucco wrote:Even the simple "I exist" is subject to question.

If it's not too painful a trudge go back through my exchanges with Polyglide and see if you can count how many times I tried to explain that this was epistemologically true. I believe I lost my patience when he claimed to be 100% certain it had rained the day before, and that I was (I'm paraphrasing) too stupid for discussion if I couldn't grasp that. Sigh.....

I like Russell too; he comes over as modest and intelligent. We are all ignoramuses in that relativity applies to more than particles. Socrates declared he was the most foolish man in Greece because he alone knew how little he knew. That's a clever way of saying how wise he was but I don't think he was wise in electing to take poison rather than the alternative, exile.

Prima facie I'd agree, but then poison is not the innocuous way out most people think. Also it's the end, and though we'd all like to believe we'd stoically and uncompromisingly hold to our ideals, I suspect I'd fold like a cheap suit. Too much soft living maybe, but at least I'm happy to accept how lucky I am, well most of the time anyway, usually when the grandchildren are over and explaining things to me, truly humbling experience that, I can't recommend it highly enough.



 

DSC wrote:If it's not too painful a trudge go back through my exchanges with Polyglide and see if you can count how many times I tried to explain

I fear it would be painful.

I retrieved Dawkins - I have a few of his books - and in the process recaptured my impressions, rather like Proust in his search for temps perdu.
His method is to unfold his learning, spread it like a winning hand of cards, and then wait for the shock. If you play along with him then he is wholly convincing. In chapter 2 he tosses aside the objection that the God he rejects is one I reject too - he is a long-bearded old man in the sky. Dawkins says: "That old man is an irrelevant distraction.... the very silliness is calculated to distract ...."
Quite! And he uses exactly the same method in disparaging religious views.

He says he is not attacking any particular version of God (actually he IS) but everything supernatural. He does NOT dismiss everything supernatural - he effectively reduces the Abrahamic God to dust. But the notion that there may exist a reality beyond our own; the idea that we have the wrong view of our existence; the possibilities that rise from the amazing sub-atomic world - these are left alone but in them may reside something that we could conceivably call supernatural. This of course requires us to define what we mean by natural and supernatural.

Dawkins is most effective when he is sarcastically or humorously dismissive. The Thomist proofs can be countered, but to reduce them to schoolboy language and via ridicule claim their refutation is a little dishonest.

He mentions Antony Frew who has written an interesting book on why there IS a God. Ungenerously he says that whereas Russell was a great philosopher, Frew.... I think intelligent people have to leave room for varying opinions. So Dawkins has his flaws. His expertise with Giant Redwoods does not make him a philosopher of comparable expertise. He seems unaware of this.

 His expertise with Giant Redwoods does not make him a philosopher of comparable expertise. He seems unaware of this.

Agreed, I quite like his style of writing,  and when interviewed he usually seems a lot less strident, qualifying his remarks, and of course i already agree with his main premise.  However I've seen him in interviews where things he's said in print seem too easily used to trip him up. 

If you reject theistic religions based on lack of evidence then oddly enough it's prudent to avoid going from that rejection of a claim, to making a claim that moves the onus back onto you to evidence it. 

I remember his scale of certainty for disbelieving the existence of God,  and he later had to re-think this, rightly so I thought.

marcolucco,
As I have tried to explain to Dr, Sheldon the expression 100% certainty is used by millions of people to express their utter conviction of something, THEIR, and nothing else.

marcolucco,
If you have 24 hours a day to consider matters it is obvious that you will come up with a number of both sensible and not so sensible conclusions and all that I have considered have done so that does not mean that some of their conclusions are not disputable, the best to date is Einsteins statement regarding war, words to the effect that he did not know what WW3 would be fought with but WW4 would be fought with sticks and stones, now if God does not step in before I would go along with that 100%.

marcolucco,
There is no possibility that you can get something from nothing in any explanation that holds water so everything must have been created by one means or another or nothing realy exists.

It can be discussed for evermore but the only reasonable explanation is that the universe was in fact created by one means or another or we all live in a dream world but then we would have to explain the dream world etc;

As I have said many times, just consider all the implications regarding the complexity of all forms of life and it would be difficult if not impossible to put foreward any reasonable explanation that did not include intelligence being involved.

polyglide wrote:marcolucco,
                As I have tried to explain to Dr, Sheldon the expression 100% certainty is used by millions of people to express their utter conviction of something, THEIR, and nothing else.

Your ignorance of epistemological philosophy is the only thing that is 100%. Using a common logical fallacy like argumentum ad populum won't help either.

Dr, Sheldon,
Do you realy not see the stupidity of the above statement?.

polyglide wrote:marcolucco,
               If you have 24 hours a day to consider matters it is obvious that you will come up with a number of both sensible and not so sensible conclusions  and all that I have considered have done so that does not mean that some of their conclusions are not disputable, the best to date is Einsteins statement regarding war, words to the effect that he did not know what WW3 would be fought with but WW4 would be fought with sticks and stones, now if God does not step in before I would go along with that 100%.

I don't wish to be unkind but these desperate sweeping unevidenced claims only show a heightened level of expectation after 2000 years and  a "no show" from your god. Perhaps your own advancing years, and the prospect of your own mortality has exacerbated this expectation into the desperation of such bizarre claims. They're no more credible now than 2000 years ago.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 Do you realy not see the stupidity of the above statement?.

No, I realy (sic) don't.  Sigh......I swear it's like kicking a naughty puppy sometimes. I really take no pleasure in it. It's all very sad really, but what can one do with such willful ignorance?

marcolucco,
There is no possibility that you can get something from nothing

Really? How exactly did you evidence that claim to an absolute certainty? Bearing in mind you'd first have to have literally nothing in order to test your premise. You really are woefully out of your depth here Polyglide. It would be prudent for you to desist from making such asinine claims.

Polyglide  by polyglide Today at 12:27 pm wrote:
marcolucco,
There is no possibility that you can get something from nothing in any explanation that holds water so everything must have been created.......

From????

Polyglide wrote:consider all the implications regarding the complexity of all forms of life and it would be difficult if not impossible to put foreward any reasonable explanation that did not include intelligence being involved.

Except we already know the answer, it's evolution. A scientific fact explained by the theory of evolution of evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt.

Dr, Sheldon,
Jus read Descartes opinion on certainty.,