Creation vs. Evolution

[Kylehnat]

But if you believe there is definetly no God, be prepared to answer such questions as to how the universe came about, and science doesnt have your answer for you

This is exactly the type of ignorance that infuriates us.

You could pull together all of the collective knowledge from every member of this forum, and it would still be possible to pose a question about evolution that we couldn't answer. Again, WE, GTP FORUM MEMBERS, DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW. Now, you can ask questions; that's what this thread is all about, but you've got to be reasonable. Just because I or anyone else can't sufficiently answer your question doesn't mean that there is no answer, and that science should go thump sand. Science has an excellent track record, which is why I and others choose to follow and pursue it.

Evoloution proves in no way that the earth is billions of years old, that is simply a mathematical aging process used, based on how something ages in a time-frame we can measure, then multiplyed by the difference, far from exact science.

Dating the earth is in fact an exact science. Do you understand how it's done?

 

[Touring Mars]

The age of the Earth is a major point of debate in the context of evolution because the timescales required for evolution theory to be plausible are in the orders of millions, even billions of years. Creationists, such as Ken Ham, the founder of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, firmly believes in the literal word of the Bible, which in turn leads him to firmly believe that the Earth is in fact merely 6,000 years old, which even by any stretch of the imagination, is nowhere near long enough to make evolution a possibility.

Unfortunately for Ham, the evidence that shows that the Earth is in the region of 4.6 billion years old is entirely independent of any discussion about evolution, and has been gathered from many different fileds of scientific research, i.e. geology, astronomy etc. What the evidence points to, however, is that the Earth is certainly old enough to allow the theory of evolution to be plausible, even inevitable.

If you are still unconvinced about the age of the Earth argument, ask yourself this... if Ken Ham's interpretation of the Bible is to be trusted (notice I don't say the Bible itself, merely his understanding of it), then the Earth and the heavens at large are the same age, i.e. the whole universe is a mere 6,000 years old. How do you then explain the fact that we here on Earth can see objects that are over 6,000 light years away from Earth? If the universe was only 6,000 years old, light from objects more than 6,000 light years away could not possibly have reached us yet. But it has. We are able to see objects billions of light years away... also note that the Milky Way itself is some 100,000 light years across! That means, if Ham's estimate of the age of the universe is correct, it would not be possible to see the vast majority of our own galaxy, and let alone any other galaxies... this is firm evidence that Ham's literal interpretation of the Bible, and hence also his inferences about the age of the Earth and the age of the universe as a whole, is palpable nonsense.

 

[Swift]

As far as the age of the earth goes. I think people that believe that the world is 6000 years old are just fooling themselves. Now, having said that, I do of course believe in the creation of the world as described in the bible. There are two big variables though(I've mentioned them earlier in this thread)

1. How long were the days that God took to create everything
2. How long were Adam and Eve in the garden?

These are the two questions WITHOUT definite answers. I don't care who you are and what you have. You can't answer these questions with exact precision. People say, "Well the bible says that Adam died at 900 years old!" That's true, but we don't know WHEN he started to age. Adam was never a child and death was never in the equation(much like Angels) until after the sin in the garden. So it could've been thousands or even millions of years before Adam was dumb enough to sin. But since age wasn't a factor then, it wouldn't have mattered.

 

[Kylehnat]

^I guess until God put the earth in motion around the sun, "day" was rather undefined

 

[Swift]

^I guess until God put the earth in motion around the sun, "day" was rather undefined

That would be a year there sir.

 

[kennythebomb]

As far as the age of the earth goes. I think people that believe that the world is 6000 years old are just fooling themselves. Now, having said that, I do of course believe in the creation of the world as described in the bible. There are two big variables though(I've mentioned them earlier in this thread)

1. How long were the days that God took to create everything
2. How long were Adam and Eve in the garden?

These are the two questions WITHOUT definite answers. I don't care who you are and what you have. You can't answer these questions with exact precision. People say, "Well the bible says that Adam died at 900 years old!" That's true, but we don't know WHEN he started to age. Adam was never a child and death was never in the equation(much like Angels) until after the sin in the garden. So it could've been thousands or even millions of years before Adam was dumb enough to sin. But since age wasn't a factor then, it wouldn't have mattered.

I have the same views as you, Swift.
Never thought about the second scenario.

With that said I also believe in micro-evolution, which is obviously proven, but not macro evolution except in maybe rare instances.

 

[Touring Mars]

With that said I also believe in micro-evolution, which is obviously proven, but not macro evolution except in maybe rare instances.

The processes involved in micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same, in other words, if you accept the evidence which proves that micro-evolution can and does happen, then it follows that you must also accept that macro-evolution can happen. Micro-evolution, as I understand it, is the principle by which certain properties of a species are adaptable, such as the camoflague of a stick insect (like I mentioned above), or longer necks for giraffes etc. The evidence for micro-evolution is plentiful and (as you point out) is not in question. However, if you accept that it happens, then what is the reasoning behind putting constraints on it? In other words, when does micro-evolution stop? The answer is that is doesn't. Take an island covered in all sorts of different creatures - and take one example, say a monkey of some description. That population will interbreed and micro-evolution will occur... But what happens when, for some reason (rising sea levels, changing shape of the land by volcanic activity etc.,) causes the island to split into two physically separate regions?... each half of the population is now incapable of breeding with the other. The gene flow between the two halves has stopped. What happens next is that any genetic changes in one half of the population is now no longer followed by the other. Over the centuries, the two halves of the population, once genetically indistinct from each other, are now distinct. And one result of this genetic distinction means that they are now no longer able to successfully breed with members of the other population. From the common ancestor (when the two halves of the population lived side by side), arises two, genetically distinct populations of animal...

Even in this simplistic example, you can see how speciation (and hence macro-evolution) may occur, simply as a result of geographical separation. In reality, this may occur many many times, and there are many other mechanisms that may also result in speciation (not least the fact that the evolution of any one species is interdependent on the evolution of many others... thus small changes in one species will lead to small changes in an other, for example, faster foxes will lead to faster/smarter rabbits etc.)...In the geographical separation example, the separation would not need to be so cut and dried as a complete physical separation... given enough land, and a propensity for territoriality (like most animals have to this day), speciation may occur without the need for total physical separation. You may point out that in that example, what you end up with is two sub-species of monkey, as opposed to any completely new species... but it depends on what you classify as a 'species', which in itself is a vexed question. The observation, however, that distinct populations of animals can be traced back to common ancestors, lends heavy support to the theory of macro-evolution , although micro-evolution is even better evidence if you ask me... given enough iterations of small change (micro-evolution), and without constraints (i.e. time on a geological scale), hey presto, you have changes on a large scale, or macro-evolution...

An interesting issue, related to this, is that of the origins of different human races - our modern understanding of this issue is inextricably linked to our modern understanding of global plate tectonics and how the land mass of the Earth separated into distinct continents etc....

​

This picture of continental drift, provides a large-scale example of how geographic separation of species occured, and suggests how subsequent macro-evolution of species could have been facilitated.

 

[James2097]

The evidence for micro-evolution is plentiful and (as you point out) is not in question. However, if you accept that it happens, then what is the reasoning behind putting constraints on it? In other words, when does micro-evolution stop? The answer is that is doesn't.

This is beautifully and succinctly put, TM.

 

[Danoff]

Yet we haven't extracted those facts with our tools to determine the answer to that question. All we have is speculation and/or 'belief' in one theory or another. You don't believe that God created you, because you believe that God doesn't exist. (sorry if I seem presumptuous in that statement....)

I don't believe that God didn't create me, and I don't believe that he did. I don't believe much of anything. Almost nothing is certain, almost everything can be cast into doubt. The existence of God, the existence of the universe, the very nature of your own existence... certainty is hard to come by. You can tell me that the rock is purple, perhaps I even see the rock as purple, but that doesn't mean I believe with certainty that the rock is purple... perhaps we're both high. My point is this, please stop claiming that I "believe" in science. I believe in almost nothing. I accept science as the most likely explanation I have been exposed to. That's all. No belief. Only probability and only based on my own understanding of my environment.

Again, please do not claim that I believe in science any more. It misunderstands my support of science and draws an imporper parallel between my relationship with science and your relationship with God.

As far as belief, see the reply just above this one. As far as my lack of skepticism towards my faith? To be quite honest, once I had a personal relationship with God and could feel the glory of his grace in my life, how could I be skeptical. After all that he has done for me personally, not to mention the countless miracles that other people have experienced in their faith, the proof of God's existence is too overwhelming to ignore.

So you admit freely that you are not as skeptical of your faith in God or of the contents of the bible as you are in science. I find this to be hypocritical. How can you trust your emotions/perceptions/analysis of the events in this way? If you pray in the morning that God bring you the solution to some problem and it happens later that day, how can you not be skeptical that it was not simply a coincidence? Even if you accepted that it was not coincidence how can you avoid skepticism that it was not God? Even if you accepted that it was god how can you avoid skepticism that it was not the God you think it was? Even if you accept that it was the God you think it was, how can you avoid skepticism that it the bible doesn't reflect that God's teachings?

What's interesting is the latest point of having different scientific fields where no one person is expected to know everything, so somethings are accepted as truth from different experts in different fields.

No one person CAN know everything. It's a simple fact, there is too much knowledge for any one person to amass. I do not know how to build a car transmission, but I have every confidence that the knowledge exists and that I can find it quickly. I don't know how to build a carbon dating machine, but I am as certain as I can be that I can find the schematics and discover how to do so quickly. It's a matter of choice. Right now instead of doing those interesting productive things, I'm choosing to chat on the internet with people I have never met. Why I'm choosing to do that is tough to answer, maybe because I'm lazy and don't feel like learning about transmissions this morning. Or maybe because I don't think I'll ever need to know how to build a transmission... or maybe because I don't think I would ever get all the equipment necessary to machine a transmission even if I knew how to build one and wanted to. Anyway the knowledge is out there (with extrodinarily high probability in my expereince), and I am confident that were I too look these things up on Google right now I could learn all about it.

In some cases, my faith is the same, in that my personal faith is strengthened through the experience of others as well. My faith is confirmed when God's promises are fulfilled in my life as well as others. What is different about my faith, is that it's not difficult to understand and it doesn't exclude anyone. You don't need special instruments to experience it, and you don't need a panel of experts to decipher it.

Anecdotal evidence is a weak thing to build your faith upon. I refuse to accept my own experiences with the certainty that you seem to accept the experiences of others. This is a remarkable lack of skepticism on your part, and one that I think exists in large part because you are comfortable in your beliefs and don't want to go out of your way to shake them. Religion is comforting, I went through that very carefully in the "religion is contrived" thread. I find it hypocritical on your part that you accept weak evidence in the realm of religion - evidence like a feeling or a book, or even anecdotal claims of others, yet you refuse much stronger evidence in the scientific realm - evidence like reason, logic, testability, repeatability, and physical observation.

 

[Touring Mars]

As an adjunct to your post danoff, and the excellent point you make about 'belief' in science, I say this: questions of 'belief' do not arise about the vast majority of science. Most people, even creationists, accept most fundamentals of science, like basic chemistry, basic physics etc. But the reason that belief comes into the equation when discussing evolutionary biology is pure and simply because the ultimate conclusion, that Mankind arose as a species from simpler, more humble beginnings, directly contradicts the Bible. So for people of strong religious faith, it does come down to a question of 'who do you believe?'... For the rest of us, however, it doesn't...

 

[Kylehnat]

That would be a year there sir.

Hmmm, correct you are. Excuse me while I go re-enroll myself in elementary school. *hangs head in shame*

 

[Pako]

Danoff,

Perhaps this is for a different topic, "What is belief?". It seems from your posts that what you call probability, I call belief. Your definition of probability as described in your posts are not mathematical, but rather an opinion or rationalization that you have created in your head. It is a probability that you have accepted to be true. When an expert states something as fact, you say it's probable to be true...., but why? Not because of any equations that you processed, it's because you believe what they said because they are experts in their field. If you don't challenge their answer to find out for yourself, then you obviously 'believe' enough in what they are saying to not challenge them for yourself, you trust that what they say is true. Perhaps you are mixing up 'faith' with 'belief'?

Please show me where I have been hypocritical on my part, or do you just think that it's just "highly probable in your experience" that I would be hypocritical because of my faith?

My faith is not built upon others experiences, it is built upon my personal relation with God, however, anecdotal evidence does endorse my faith and builds a fellowship with like believers. You have a collection of writings prophesying of the coming of a messiah, then Jesus comes to earth, born of the virgin Mary, he is crucified, and raises from the dead three days later. Can science recreate those events? Not a chance, but that doesn't mean that those events didn't happen. I choose to believe it did. In using Google, and in your opinion, it's high probability of finding facts for your fancy, check this link. Talks about the probability or improbability of God's existence.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff,

Perhaps this is for a different topic, "What is belief?". It seems from your posts that what you call probability, I call belief. Your definition of probability as described in your posts are not mathematical, but rather an opinion or rationalization that you have created in your head. It is a probability that you have accepted to be true. When an expert states something as fact, you say it's probable to be true...., but why? Not because of any equations that you processed, it's because you believe what they said because they are experts in their field. If you don't challenge their answer to find out for yourself, then you obviously 'believe' enough in what they are saying to not challenge them for yourself, you trust that what they say is true. Perhaps you are mixing up 'faith' with 'belief'?

I assure you, I am not mixing up "faith" with "belief", they are two completely separate issues and it is very important to keep in mind the distinction. A belief is something that one takes as indisputable undeniable fact. It is something that one thinks is a truth, a fundamentally undeniable peice of knowledge about the universe. "Faith" is a "belief" that one holds without sufficient reason. Faith is by its very nature irrational, and as such, it is a kind of belief that to which one arrives by irrational means.

I do have a belief. I believe that I exist. It is something that I hold to be an indisputable fact proveable undeniably to myself only, but there you have it. That is something that I claim to know about my reality beyond all doubt. It is a belief. Nothing else that exists in the world do I claim to know beyond all doubt. All of the rest of my experiences I take on probability. I do not know that the sun will rise tomorrow, it cannot be proven beyond all possible doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow - since tomorrow the flying spaghetti monster could destroy the sun. But, the sun has risen every day for my entire life. So I would give it a 1/number-of-days-I've-been-alive probablity. I don't base my acceptance of things on "feelings", I base them on my own observations of reality. In my experience, almost everything I learned in school about math, science, engineering, etc. has all been logical, self-consistent, and correct. That allows me to assume with a high degree of certainty that when I pick up a text book and learn something new that it will be correct.

Let me draw this out so that I can be certain there is no misunderstanding. I do not assume that something I read is correct because of a faith in the person writing it. Often, I do not even assume that it is correct. I base my acceptance or dismissal of a book based on my own experience with similar references.

Please show me where I have been hypocritical on my part, or do you just think that it's just "highly probable in your experience" that I would be hypocritical because of my faith?

It is hypocritical of you to accept weak/unsupported evidence on which to base your belief in God, yet refuse to accept stronger evidence in support of science.

My faith is not built upon others experiences, it is built upon my personal relation with God, however, anecdotal evidence does endorse my faith and builds a fellowship with like believers.

Ok seriously, you just wrote "my relationship with God is built on my relationship with God". You must see the circularity of this argument. You're saying that your belief in God exists because you know God... but you don't explain how it is that you know you knwo God - which is my point. Your "evidence" assumes the conclusion.

You have a collection of writings prophesying of the coming of a messiah, then Jesus comes to earth, born of the virgin Mary, he is crucified, and raises from the dead three days later. Can science recreate those events? Not a chance, but that doesn't mean that those events didn't happen.

Of course it doesn't. But it also doesn't mean they did happen. Like I said earlier, you can't prove that the sun will come up tomorrow. If you can't prove that beyond all doubt - how can you prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead 2000 years ago?

I choose to believe it did.

It is either truth or not truth. It is not a personal choice. You cannot choose for something to be true. Your beliefs should not be based on personal choice, but rather based on indisputable, undeniable proof. Something that despite your best attempts at explaining you simply do not have. You may claim you know God, but I can claim just as easily that it is the flying spaghetti monster you know and you CANNOT dispute that. It is hypocritical of you to refuse to accept that you may be deceived in your relationship with God but point out that science could be wrong.

 

[Div is back]

Spent years thinkin’ God was the truth
Finally free no domination
I am my truth, the one I define
It was created for annihilation
Of thoughts, a human creation
Leading to massive extermination
In the name of love

From Augustine to Beni Sixteen
Humanity fearing triple six
Dogma, has been
Finished, the truth is no bricks
No buildings, no pope
Betta off smokin’ dope than
Listenin’ to him a mental catastrophy
Non-believers?
My own motivation source, my truth

In the name of God
Big G fo big kills
The son crucified up the hill
Created in violence, the dogmatic truth
Religion is control simply put
Dead scientists, controlled politics
Heretics, heads on sticks

Crusade, never ending ego
False pledges of redemption
No choice but to go
Salahadin an inferior
Acted as a saviour
Savin’ the world from absolute mind domination
Popes, I may say Generals on the battlefields
Exterminating heretics so no weapons they wield
Please tell me why?
God wills it​

I wrote this for an English school project.
My first language is french and I'm 16 years old, please take that into consideration!
You may also notice that some statements are widely over-exaggerated, the poem was to provoque(sp?) the students in class.

 

[James2097]

That was totally sweet, and by that, I mean totally awesome.

Great poem for a non-native English language 16 yr old. Damn Frenchies and their totally sweet turn of phrase.

 

[Pako]

I assure you, I am not mixing up "faith" with "belief", they are two completely separate issues and it is very important to keep in mind the distinction. A belief is something that one takes as indisputable undeniable fact. It is something that one thinks is a truth, a fundamentally undeniable peice of knowledge about the universe. "Faith" is a "belief" that one holds without sufficient reason. Faith is by its very nature irrational, and as such, it is a kind of belief that to which one arrives by irrational means.

I do have a belief. I believe that I exist. It is something that I hold to be an indisputable fact proveable undeniably to myself only, but there you have it. That is something that I claim to know about my reality beyond all doubt. It is a belief. Nothing else that exists in the world do I claim to know beyond all doubt. All of the rest of my experiences I take on probability. I do not know that the sun will rise tomorrow, it cannot be proven beyond all possible doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow - since tomorrow the flying spaghetti monster could destroy the sun. But, the sun has risen every day for my entire life. So I would give it a 1/number-of-days-I've-been-alive probablity. I don't base my acceptance of things on "feelings", I base them on my own observations of reality. In my experience, almost everything I learned in school about math, science, engineering, etc. has all been logical, self-consistent, and correct. That allows me to assume with a high degree of certainty that when I pick up a text book and learn something new that it will be correct.

Let me draw this out so that I can be certain there is no misunderstanding. I do not assume that something I read is correct because of a faith in the person writing it. Often, I do not even assume that it is correct. I base my acceptance or dismissal of a book based on my own experience with similar references.



It is hypocritical of you to accept weak/unsupported evidence on which to base your belief in God, yet refuse to accept stronger evidence in support of science.



Ok seriously, you just wrote "my relationship with God is built on my relationship with God". You must see the circularity of this argument. You're saying that your belief in God exists because you know God... but you don't explain how it is that you know you knwo God - which is my point. Your "evidence" assumes the conclusion.



Of course it doesn't. But it also doesn't mean they did happen. Like I said earlier, you can't prove that the sun will come up tomorrow. If you can't prove that beyond all doubt - how can you prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead 2000 years ago?



It is either truth or not truth. It is not a personal choice. You cannot choose for something to be true. Your beliefs should not be based on personal choice, but rather based on indisputable, undeniable proof. Something that despite your best attempts at explaining you simply do not have. You may claim you know God, but I can claim just as easily that it is the flying spaghetti monster you know and you CANNOT dispute that. It is hypocritical of you to refuse to accept that you may be deceived in your relationship with God but point out that science could be wrong.

There's just a couple of things that make the hair standup on the back of my neck with your post. First off, if your going to quote someone, don't change the words around to fit your argument. I did not say, "my relationship with God is built on my relationship with God" as you quote me saying. If that's your interpretation of what I said, so be it, but let others interpret what I post on their own without you changing my post and quoting some different. I asked you to show me where I have been hypocritical yet you couldn't come up with anything other than your interpretation of what you think is a probable stance for me. It is possible to 1.) believe in God as the supreme orchestrator or the universe and of my life on a personal level and 2.) understand and accept the principles of science and the laws of nature. I don't see where it has to be a one or the other relationship. Quite simply, where science hits area's of uncertainty about the origin's of life, my Bible picks up and fills in the blanks, my faith allows me to confirm that, my personal relationship with God gives me His grace so that I can experience life the way He meant it to be lived. Consider my faith as that transmission you could build. The instruction manual, the blue print for life is in the Bible, all you have to do follow the instructions, but that has to be your choice.

 

[Danoff]

There's just a couple of things that make the hair standup on the back of my neck with your post. First off, if your going to quote someone, don't change the words around to fit your argument. I did not say, "my relationship with God is built on my relationship with God" as you quote me saying. If that's your interpretation of what I said, so be it, but let others interpret what I post on their own without you changing my post and quoting some different.

True, it was not a direct quote and was never meant to be a direct quote. I was paraphrasing and I doubt that anyone will confuse it with a direct quote from you. If they do then I certainly wasn't clear enough. However, I believe that my summary of your statement is appropriate. I'll note that you have not commented on the substance of my argument, simply the style. Do you have anything to say about the circular reasoning?

I asked you to show me where I have been hypocritical yet you couldn't come up with anything other than your interpretation of what you think is a probable stance for me. It is possible to 1.) believe in God as the supreme orchestrator or the universe and of my life on a personal level and 2.) understand and accept the principles of science and the laws of nature. I don't see where it has to be a one or the other relationship. Quite simply, where science hits area's of uncertainty about the origin's of life, my Bible picks up and fills in the blanks, my faith allows me to confirm that, my personal relationship with God gives me His grace so that I can experience life the way He meant it to be lived.

Granted it is possible to believe in God as the supreme orchestrator of the universe and accept the principles of science and the laws of nature. No part of that is incorrect - but it's very close. Let me ask you this: which do you follow when science and the bible contradict? Do you accept evolution? Or do you believe man comes from Adam and Eve?

 

[Pako]

True, it was not a direct quote and was never meant to be a direct quote. I was paraphrasing and I doubt that anyone will confuse it with a direct quote from you. If they do then I certainly wasn't clear enough. However, I believe that my summary of your statement is appropriate. I'll note that you have not commented on the substance of my argument, simply the style. Do you have anything to say about the circular reasoning?




Granted it is possible to believe in God as the supreme orchestrator of the universe and accept the principles of science and the laws of nature. No part of that is incorrect - but it's very close. Let me ask you this: which do you follow when science and the bible contradict? Do you accept evolution? Or do you believe man comes from Adam and Eve?

It depends, a lot of the Bible is written in parable, symbolism, and stories, while other parts of the Bible are written as historical accounts, or first hand experiences of the writers. A lot of the Bible is taken out of context for the sake of proving an argument while other parts of Bible are translated into 'simplistic' phrasing just because of the limits of the English language compared to Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek where the descriptive words mean so much more. I could look up some literary examples of this if you like. The point is, a lot of these disputed contradictions can be dismissed if the passages in question were looked at in the context in which they were intended and with an understanding of the original language in which it was written.

 

[Danoff]

It depends, a lot of the Bible is written in parable, symbolism, and stories, while other parts of the Bible are written as historical accounts, or first hand experiences of the writers. A lot of the Bible is taken out of context for the sake of proving an argument while other parts of Bible are translated into 'simplistic' phrasing just because of the limits of the English language compared to Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek where the descriptive words mean so much more. I could look up some literary examples of this if you like. The point is, a lot of these disputed contradictions can be dismissed if the passages in question were looked at in the context in which they were intended and with an understanding of the original language in which it was written.

I had two points. One of them is that you're using your relationship with God to prove God exists... the evidence assumes the conclusion. Do you have a way to reconcile that?

The second point was that the bible and science contradict in places (especially genesis). Are you saying that if I read it in Hebrew the bible talks about evolution?

 

[Joey D]

Actually you guys are both right since neither one of you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the other is wrong.

As my physic teacher used to say "Everything is true until it can be proven false". And that is what basically science is, proving things false as apposed to proving things true.

Personally I would need solid evidence that God exsists, I mean you'd have to show me something that is 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt. You show me, then I will be more then happy to oblige to believeing in this God fellow. But it's not to say that people that believe in God are wrong because there is no way I can show you concrete evidence that God does not exsist.

My point, no ones wrong, no ones right.

 

[Danoff]

Actually you guys are both right since neither one of you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the other is wrong.

No, it means neither of us can claim we know for certain - which one of us is not doing.

As my physic teacher used to say "Everything is true until it can be proven false". And that is what basically science is, proving things false as apposed to proving things true.

Wrong. Everything is false until proven true. You cannot prove anything false. If I say "the flying spaghetti monster visited me this morning" and you cannot prove that it didn't happen - that doesn't make it true.

 

[Joey D]

No, science is meant to prove things false, not prove things true.

 

[Famine]

Sort of, but not really. Science attempts to prove that observed evidence isn't related to a supposed causative act (the null hypothesis).

 

[Danoff]

Right. It is true that a scientist can generate a theory and try to establish that the theory is an incorrect model of reality. But it is impossible to disprove anything. I can claim that you sprang into existance just now with all of your memories intact and that moments ago you did not exist. You cannot disprove that claim.

Let me give you another example. I can claim that 1+1=3. You can literally grab 1 object, and then grab another, bring them together and show me that it is two objects. You can do this a thousand times and claim that it is repeatable... and I can tell you that my theory is correct because the 3rd object dissapears into another universe in such a way that it cannot be tested or proven.

You fundamentally cannot assume that everything that hasn't been proven false is true - because you'd believe contradictory things. Here's an example.

I can claim that the flying spaghetti monster spoke to me this morning... and I can claim that the flying spaghetting monster did not speak to me this morning. Neither of those things is disprovable - and now if you accept all that cannot be disproven you must accept contradictory truths.

Edit: I suppose testability is critical here. If you have a theory that cannot be proven, but is testable and verifiable then it can be considered scientifically viable until such time as it can be disproven. But testability is critical to that claim, and my definition of proof includes that.

Here's a quote about science from the wikipedia entry about science:
Empiricist philosopher, Karl Popper also argued that certain verification is impossible and that scientific hypotheses can only be falsified (falsification).

I think Karl is way wrong on this. I would argue that certain falsification is impossible and that scientific hypotheses can only be verified. Here's another quote that I think is pertinent to our discussion:

"According to empiricism, science does not make any statements about how nature actually "is"; science can only make conclusions about our observations of nature. Both scientists and the people who accept science believe, and more importantly, act as if nature actually "is" as science claims."

That's the key right there. Science is flawed reasoning fundamentally. You cannot accept scientific conlusions as fundamental knowledge of the universe. You can only act as if it is, because that's the best avenue available to us.

 

[Pako]

I had two points. One of them is that you're using your relationship with God to prove God exists... the evidence assumes the conclusion. Do you have a way to reconcile that?

The second point was that the bible and science contradict in places (especially genesis). Are you saying that if I read it in Hebrew the bible talks about evolution?

.....how to put this so as not to be misquoted. My belief in God is for me, not you. I mean that in a way that because I have chosen to have faith in something that science cannot logically explain, evidence that supports my faith has presented itself. I can give you examples of how God has helped me, and millions of other testimonies of other people, but you have already stated that personal experience and eye witness accounts is something that you wish to ignore. I cannot ignore these things, and I won't try to fool myself into believing that they don't happen for the sake of logical reasoning of the scientific method. I don't want to limit my understanding of who God is just because I can't measure Him with a ruler. Have you ever had a friend that you could confide in, look to for direction, have there to help you through times of struggle? How can you possibly measure those things scientifically? I can't see how it can be done, so how then are you supposed to measure God? How is a human supposed to measure the God that has created all of the universe? Without faith, I can't show you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that God exists. To further discuss this, refer to some of the prior 200 posts that I have made in this thread. With faith you can see God love as he works through other people, without faith, you just think their nice (or some other kind of probable attribute).

There's a big difference between your Spaghetti Monster 'O fun, and God. What has the Spaghetti monster ever done for me? Nothing. What has God done for me? Plenty.

By the way, 1+1+1 does equal 3. You can either trust me, call me a lier, or do some research for yourself and highlight the equation for yourself to see that I'm right, and just because someone doesn't see it or can't prove it now, doesn't mean that you won't be shown the answer later.

Without faith or trust in me and highlighting the equation for yourself, the answer would have never been revealed to you. I guess the same could be said for my belief in God.

 

[Danoff]

Pako,

I have a lot of respect for you and the way in which you support your faith on this thread. You've provided me with the majority of the insight I posses into the mind of the faithful and I appreciate that. Which is why I want you to know that nothing that I'm writing below is personal in any way - everything I write below stems from my own desire to better understand how you have arrived where you are and how you reconcile that with metaphysics.

.....how to put this so as not to be misquoted. My belief in God is for me, not you.

Granted. And that certainly makes sense. My line of questioning is directed at how YOU personally can come to the conlusions you have - not how you can convince others that you're right. My questions are aimed at understanding how you internally reconcile your understand of God with basic questions about the nature of that understanding.

I mean that in a way that because I have chosen to have faith in something that science cannot logically explain, evidence that supports my faith has presented itself.

So you're saying that initially you had faith for no reason. That you believed in God without any evidence that supported that decision, and that after you made that leap you found evidence to support it. In other words, you had faith, and then you justified to yourself why you had that faith. Did you ever try the opposite? Did you ever try to come up with reasons why your faith was misplaced?

I can give you examples of how God has helped me, and millions of other testimonies of other people, but you have already stated that personal experience and eye witness accounts is something that you wish to ignore. I cannot ignore these things, and I won't try to fool myself into believing that they don't happen for the sake of logical reasoning of the scientific method.

Your own personal experiences can be invalidated, just as those of a scientist can be. I know you don't like to answer this question, but:

How do you KNOW for certain that it is God?

Have you ever had a friend that you could confide in, look to for direction, have there to help you through times of struggle? How can you possibly measure those things scientifically? I can't see how it can be done, so how then are you supposed to measure God?

True, it is difficult to capture emotion in a scientific experiment. But the existence of god is not an emotion. Perhaps God's influence on you cannot be measured, but his existance is external.

How is a human supposed to measure the God that has created all of the universe?

Are we talking Big Bang here or literal Genesis? Science can explain how the planets and stars formed - no God necessary for the explanation.

Without faith, I can't show you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that God exists.

So you can't show anyone who doesn't already believe... sounds circular.

There's a big difference between your Spaghetti Monster 'O fun, and God. What has the Spaghetti monster ever done for me? Nothing. What has God done for me? Plenty.

That's my point though. You claim some entity has done something for you, but you don't know whether it was your God or the Spaghetti monster. You CAN'T know which of those it was.

By the way, 1+1+1 does equal 3. You can either trust me, call me a lier, or do some research for yourself and highlight the equation for yourself to see that I'm right, and just because someone doesn't see it or can't prove it now, doesn't mean that you won't be shown the answer later.

Of course not. I didn't claim otherwise. God could come swooping down from the clouds tomorrow (everyone knows that heaven is in the upper troposphere), and declare his existence with a giant roar and a pillar of fire and I'd become a believer really quickly - though not quite the same as you. I'd still hold out that it was only probable that God existed. But of course just because you can't prove it now doesn't mean it isn't true. That's clear. What isn't clear is why you believe it if you can't prove it now.

Without faith or trust in me and highlighting the equation for yourself, the answer would have never been revealed to you. I guess the same could be said for my belief in God.

Well, I didn't trust you. I just highlighted it and saw that you were right. But I have to come back with the same question. How do you know it's God?

 

[LeadSlead#2]

You want to play like that.

Where did God come from?

I believe it's clearly stated he always was, and always will be. And also that we are to feeble minded to understand, because we have nothing else that does that, to relate to. Duh.

A much better and accurate method then beliveing words written in a book. Where is your proof that the earth is only 10,000? years old?

I never said it was. FYI-most guesses are 6-8 thousand
And yours is... billions? where did EXACT go?

Where is your proof that the earth ISNT billions of years old?

I certainly never said it wasnt. I simply said WE DON"T KNOW.. Fine line there. Humans falter, we fail, we get wrong answers and believe them. so even if it WAS (it's not) an EXACT science, it could still falter.
P.S. What's the margin of error on billions? and if it's exact science, how old is it exactly? Billions doesnt seem exact to me, how about you?

Please don't take this as mean, or personal, I'm simply hoping you'll think before you post with such authority next time

 

[Small_Fryz]

Sorry.

4.5billion years

 

[Zardoz]

...we are to feeble minded to understand, because we have nothing else that does that, to relate to. Duh.

Oh, so that's my problem! I'm too stupid to "get it". If I and some others who loiter around this forum were brighter, we would understand all this stuff, and believe.

Born dumb, stay dumb, I'm afraid. I doubt if I'll ever wise up enough to catch on...

 

[LeadSlead#2]

Oh, so that's my problem! I'm too stupid to "get it". If I and some others who loiter around this forum were brighter, we would understand all this stuff, and believe.

Born dumb, stay dumb, I'm afraid. I doubt if I'll ever wise up enough to catch on...

That'd be between you and God, my friend, not me.
And actually, nobody has ever claimed (that I know of) to understand God's existance, they simply believe it.

4.5 Billion Years.

So that's, 4,500,000,000 right? not 4,500,000,039? are you sure? You're the only source of this exact number I've ever seen. Yes I am skeptical


The problem here is, everybody accuses everybody of not being open-minded. That isnt neccesarily the case. You see, I believe in God, not because of what science can or can't prove, it's completley aside from that. To base your religion on what you and other humans can prove is ludacris. even if you think you have it all figured out, how can you be so shamelessly arrogant? conceded? ignorant? Why in any form of sense, rationality, or logic, would you assume you could figure out everything about your creator? you can't see him, The book behind him tells you your to dumb, and do you really think, if we clone sheep's, they can ever understand us? or how we made them? we can't even actually create anything, ( only manipulate ) what would make anyone assume they could understand someone that can? Top that with some "Something had to make it all happen" sense/logic, and what do we have? random chance does not make sense, and the flu changing every year aint quite on the same platter as a planet with all the things on it forming, sorry.
^^ it's just more manipulation.