29 Aug 03
Originally posted by dfm651) If god is self-creating you could say that he was formed by a process of evolution.
1. an aspect of the usual concept of God is that God is not the effect of any cause: God is usually taken to have existed forever, or to be self-creating, or outside of time, or a combination of these. if something created god, then he would not be god, but whatever created him would be a candidate...
2. the theory of evolution applies to the changing of one ...[text shortened]... ugh natural selection. in the beginning of the universe, there was no life, hence no evolution.
2) Where did the intial spark of life come from ?
3)
Evolution creates man, man creates god (to explain evolution)
or
God creates man, man creates evolution (to explain god)
29 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchicken
Did you read the rest of my apology, which argued the point I wished to introduce into this debate?
Yes I did read your entire post and it seemed to me that what you call "the rest of my apology" was in fact a justification for what you did.
Am I correct ?
IvanH.
29 Aug 03
It was a contribution to the argument in the same way that any previous posts besides the spam by Mike and myself were. I was in no way justifying the spam, merely presenting a thesis:
"To engage in a debate pitting scientific principles against the dictates of faith with a view toward swaying any party towards one side is pointless. Anyone (observer or participant) who chooses to decide the issue based on reason will reject the 'faithful' position out of hand, making the argument with the faithful superfluous. The faithful (observer or participant) will not really listen to the scientific position anyway, so no-one is convinced. Those who have not decided will still have to pick between reason and faith, and in so doing will immediately put themselves into one of the other camps. The last possibility is that faith and reason reach the same conclusion on the issue. This still does not indicate any compatibility since the methods used are still irreconcilable. Thus the initial question should be considered as to never have been asked."
29 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchicken
It was a contribution to the argument in the same way that any previous posts besides the spam by Mike and myself were. I was in no way justifying the spam, merely presenting a thesis:
"To engage in a debate pitting scientific principles against the dictates of faith with a view toward swaying any party towards one side is pointless. Anyone (obser ...[text shortened]... irreconcilable. Thus the initial question should be considered as to never have been asked."
Royalchicken,
I do not know where to begin. So I just pick a few words from your last post that seem important to me."The faithful (observer or participant) will not really listen to the scientific position anyway."
Are you sure about that ? I hope you have been following my contributions to this thread. Now, what do you think my attitude is in this debate ?
I intend to proceed point after point.
This point , the first, is about "listening", others will follow I hope.
IvanH.
29 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyOK. haha. But wasn't this supposed to be a discussion of ideas, not a piss take? I thought we were interested in hearing others points of view, not interested in slapping like minded individuals on the back for a funny quip.
Shoot. All these years thinking "Pedigree" was just dog food. Hunh! My incestors are better than yours. 😀 What do you meen by "webbed" ones? Don't all fingers got those flabby thingys?
29 Aug 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeHere are some example of the "faithful position" in this thread. Please do not take my use of names as personal attacks; this is not what is at issue.
[b]
"The faithful (observer or participant) will not really listen to the scientific position anyway."
Are you sure about that ?
Reaper:
To answer the original question of this thread: Yes, God does exist. God created everything that was needed for live on earth and then God created all living things. That is one piece of the proof I offer. Therefore I am saying that live did not start through evolution.
This is argument based on blind faith and does not answer the scientific question on its own ground. This stipulates the presence of some proof but offers not reasoning to substantiate it, because it is faith-based.
Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. It was God inspired. Moses wrote the first book, "Genesis" around 1450 b.C. In Genesis 1 the account of creation is found. Now if we break the account of creation down into 10 basic events, the odds ONLY that Moses could guess the correct order of those 10 events is 1:4000000, a little better than winning a lottery. Further if you look at all other holy books of other religions, they attest to vast misconceptions of creation.
Virtually every declarative sentence here is, as presented, unsubstantiated dogma and dubious numerology.
dwerkman:
I would have to agree w/ Ivanhoe on this one. Science method itself prevents Evolution from being accepted as fact. The "Science Method", as its called, requires 1. Original values 2. Documented / observed change 3. Reproducability. The first two require time travel and the last hasn't been successfully done.
This exhibits fundamental misunderstanding and oversimplification of the scientific method. It presumes that inference from things like the fossil record is scientifically inadmissible when that is obviously not the case.
ivanhoe:
I accept the theorie of evolution the same way I accept the theorie of relativity and the theorie of quantum mechanics, however the two latter ones are not (yet) compatible with each other ...
Failure to understand illustrative concepts. QM and relativity are not logically incompatible. They are merely incomplete in that the links have not yet been determined. Since this leads me to doubt that you have much understanding of QM or relativity, I can take your first sentence as an admission of the fact that you have little understanding of evolution either. If I am wrong I apologize.
genius:
well, everything in the bible, save the first few chapters of genisis, have been proven to be true... problems with translations? well, the dead sea scrolls were extrairdinarilly accurate compared to recent translations.
The first is absurd to the extent that I think genius is satirizing. I would love to see this "proof".
reaper:
The Bible was inspired by God.
More of same. No argument at all.
reaper:
God created by design. There is no way that all the things required for life (can I just add that ONLY to have life, there are 60 criteria - have you any idea of the probability that this will happen trhough evolution?) could actually happen through macroevolution. DNA shows it's not possible. God created seasons, systems, hierarchies so that "life" would be maintained in equilibrium. Just look at what happened to the people of Easter Island. Man would not be able to sustain life if God did not put the mechanics in place.
Again, there is not argument, merely a set of statements that could be interpreted in many different ways.
huntingbear:
That's what eventually led me from atheism, through agnosticism, through my own made-up "spiritualism," into a reasoned belief, based on evidence, that the Bible represents actual history. That, however, is a LONG story, and probably rather dull so I'll spare you.
We are conveniently "spared" the rationale, and until I see it I will assume it is something faith-based and not a "reasoned belief" at all.
Plainly, those supporting faith have no need of the standard argumentative devices that define good defense of a sceintific position. Nor do they understand the latter. As to your own view, I believe you are being more accomodating of both positions than anyone else in a manner befitting your role as the"moderator" of this debate.
I stand by my previous thesis.
29 Aug 03
a discussion of this type (pitting scientific principles against faith) is always pointless. Those defending the scientific position will attempt an argument of the first type outlined by Acolyte in the thread "The Art of Debating". This of course will fall on deaf ears if it does not agree with the dictates of faith because faith does not have its basis in reason . Furthermore, the people observing will already be in either camp, and will not change their mindshave you concidered biew point 3? Me!? I want to hear why people have the views they do, hear their explanations, and maybe form my own view.
What I have discovered is that EVERYTHING is based on faith, be it your faith in God or your faith in the paper you read that says carbon dating works.
29 Aug 03
But there are reasons, which can be expanded upon down to a very mundane level, saying that the carbon dating will work. Saying "the Bible is the magnum opus of God" is, to my mind, totally unsubstantiated rubbish because anything that would imply it is as open to question (no simpler) than the original claim.
29 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenshow me this reasoning, to prove carbon dating. If you can that'd be cool.
[b]But there are reasons, which can be expanded upon down to a very mundane level, saying that the carbon dating will work.
remember that I am a scientist looking to believe you proofs, not looking for a flaw to slam back into yuor face 🙂
29 Aug 03
Originally posted by belgianfreakNote that I am not claiming that a logical proof is always possible, merely a logical reduction to simpler ideas.
show me this reasoning, to prove carbon dating. If you can that'd be cool.
remember that I am a scientist looking to believe you proofs, not looking for a flaw to slam back into yuor face 🙂
1. Some objects contain carbon-14.
2. The amount of carbon-14 in something can be measured with accuracy X.
3. Carbon-14 has a half-life of L (this in turn can be reduced to many simpler principles)
4. Combining 2&3, it follows that the age of an object containing carbon-14 can be calculated with accuracy that is some function of X.
Notice that each of these is simpler than the statement "Carbon dating gives accurate ages." Also note that I did not really research it and so it could be made clearer by someone with a better understanding that I have. Try it with "God wrote the Bible".
29 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakHow about the following argument. As a super nova explodes, heavy elements are created. Over billions of years, there is a measurable rate of decay from one stage to the next, OF ALL RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS. Even in a fission bomb, we can measure the half life's of six different elements as one becomes the next down the chart. Plutonium is half-lived at a very, very long time and Strontium 90 is also quite long lived. An Iodine isotope i believe is one of the shorter with a half life in the millisecond range. Assured that "Half-Life" really exists and knowing what the expected quantity of radiation should be to what it actually is gives us a time of "embeddment" in any particular rock. The logic is that "it got into that puppy some when" . Barring magic again. It is part of earth. At this point it's immission rate tells us how long it has been since being imbedded. We measure the Effect on the Victim rock, you see. Not the continuing radiation. We see the Accumulation of effect on the composite of the rock, not the Carbon 14. We know it all came from the same Super Nova that gave rise to us all. Without that sure knowledge, there could be no measurement of effect on anything.
show me this reasoning, to prove carbon dating. If you can that'd be cool.
remember that I am a scientist looking to believe you proofs, not looking for a flaw to slam back into yuor face 🙂
29 Aug 03
Originally posted by kirksey957It is very unlikely that someone who examines input ideas in a critical light, and tests them against previously tested knowledge, and comes to conclusions that are rationally solid would subscribe to creationist ideas. I therefore think of it as kind of an indicator of the method by which the subject thinks.
OK, I will ask this question of all on both sides of creation vs. evolution. What difference does it really make in how you think, believe, and live on a daily basis?