It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Demolishing the "how did anyone live while those organs evolved?” "argument"

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


The lack of accumulation of mutations in human populations has to do with...overpopulation. We're not really competing anymore. We're no longer subject to natural selection or sexual selection. We've even made a joke out of natural selection in the form of the Darwin award.




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


There's a difference between being closed mind and rejecting positions that have no support in the evidence. Shutting creationism out of education is necessary because it's not supported by the evidence. Just like it isn't closed minded of us to shut geocentrism from our astronomy classes and the idea of a flat earth from geology.

This is all that there is to it. There's hundreds of thousands and millions of pieces of evidence which support evolution, whilst there isn't a single shred of evidence to support creationism.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I think a good example of recent evolution in humans is the abilty to digest milk. A few thousand years ago europeans couldn't digest milk as the lactase gene was absent.

news.bbc.co.uk...


"This is probably the single most advantageous gene trait in humans in the last 30,000 years."
edit on 10-5-2011 by LadyTrick because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Dominant and recessive traits cannot explain observed mutations in viruses and bacteria (since they are haploid).

www.fda.gov...

And why do you think observed mutation rate is insignificant? What would you consider significant? Keep in mind that evolution works in paralell, since there are many individuals in the population. 100 new mutations during every individual reproduction x 8 billion people on Earth = 800 000 000 000 new mutations tried every generation.


edit on 10/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 
Evolution is a fact, how the mechanisms are explained is a theory, ala the theory of gravity, cell theory, germ theory, or the theory of heliocentricity. All of these things exist, there are varied ways of interpreting the evidence.

Creationism is not taught in schools because its not a view point, nobody knows what it is and each sect of religion has their own creation story.

I'll make the assumption you are referring to the judeo-christian version (which itself comes in many forms).

Mere historical contingency is responsible for its prevalence. Hundreds of years ago the Europeans invaded the Americas, and conquered the Mayans and the Aztecs by spreading smallpox and measles, which the Europeans had spent the last few hundred to a thousand years building up resistance to, leaving the natives to suffer, unable to fight. A similar story happened to the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. Otherwise we would be learning about Dreamtime and the Rainbow Gods of the Aztecs.

Not sure what you mean when you say DNA is never altered. Mutations happen, and we've directly seen it happen under a microscope, and witnessed its phenotypic effects. Otherwise SNPs of asexual organisms would be nonexistent, yet with each generation the bdelloid rotifer roughly has the nucleotide individuality of the mutation rate, also known as the "DNA is altered" rate. (This is just one example out of N, number of asexual organisms that have ever existed)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


People still believe in Evolution?


DNA cannot be altered.


Your link cites DNA error correction as proof against evolution..

If that is the case, explain Cancer.

DNA can and does change. You also brought up the small amount of mutations seen in a population and cite the fact that as they don't seem to have any affect on the lifeform, it can be ignored. Some mutations will kill (Cancer), some mutations will have no effect and others will make small but beneficial changes to the lifeform in it's given environment.

Evolution is actually extraordinarily easy to understand. My 7 Year old goes to a Church of England school and has had the Bible story taught to her in her RE class (not science class) and she did buy into it, being a 7 year old. But when I bought her an encyclopedia and explained evolution to her, she got it straight away. I also pointed out to her that the Bible was written a long time ago by people who didn't know about such things and she should not look at it as a litteral textbook, but as a book of useful stories to help you be a good person.

With that, her proto-Christianity has been quashed.

If she can get it, the question is, why can't any of you?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
One of the funniest statements I ever saw on ATS, was a user who posted "the Catholic Church is responsible for more scientific findings than any other organization in the history of the planet".

I laughed about that one for about a week. The even funnier part about the thread was that when I pointed out the absolute incredible stupidity and ignorance of this guy's statement, he fought back.

My position was that the Catholic Church has actually been responsible for the QUASHING of more scientific findings that any other organization in the history of the planet. He actually responded with the GALL to suggest that the Catholic Church was "scientifically advanced" enough to accept the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and to claim responsibility for the find. Most Christians (and this was his argument) will tell you that God made the brains of the men who figured all this "scientific stuff" out, so therefore ALL science has religion to thank.

It's people like this that make me wanna puke.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



The lack of accumulation of mutations in human populations has to do with...overpopulation. We're not really competing anymore. We're no longer subject to natural selection or sexual selection. We've even made a joke out of natural selection in the form of the Darwin award.


I really don't believe in overpopulation. The world is really quite big; we just have a problem with sticking too many people in one place. Though, I guess in either case you could be right, in a sense.


There's a difference between being closed mind and rejecting positions that have no support in the evidence. Shutting creationism out of education is necessary because it's not supported by the evidence. Just like it isn't closed minded of us to shut geocentrism from our astronomy classes and the idea of a flat earth from geology.

This is all that there is to it. There's hundreds of thousands and millions of pieces of evidence which support evolution, whilst there isn't a single shred of evidence to support creationism.

"The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty"
-Ludwig Wittgenstein #115 from On Certainty

For one to be so closed-minded, they would obviously be skeptical of any answer given by someone. Many people tend to this without FIRST having a basis for what Truth is -

Example; The atheist’s mind (and universe) is closed to God, and therefore, is close-minded in rejecting the possibility of God from the outset, as they define science as a search for naturalistic explanations, which means that it is a foregone conclusion that they will never discover evidence for the supernatural. Thus, when they claim to believe things on the basis of “evidence” and will follow the evidence wherever it leads, they have rigged the game by defining “evidence” from the start to exclude God.

reply to post by Maslo
 

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Lionhearte
 

Dominant and recessive traits cannot explain observed mutations in viruses and bacteria (since they are haploid).

www.fda.gov...

And why do you think observed mutation rate is insignificant? What would you consider significant? Keep in mind that evolution works in paralell, since there are many individuals in the population. 100 new mutations during every individual reproduction x 8 billion people on Earth = 800 000 000 000 new mutations tried every generation.

Viruses and Bacteria are completely different in how they function when compared to say, Humans, because for one, they require a host cell to reproduce.

I only say it's insignificant because it is dwarfed in size comparison to how many cells we actually have in our body that it would need to affect in order to change future generations. At least, that's what I was taught; that every single cell that carries DNA would need to be changed (or mutate) in order for future generations to be affected by it, or actually, even the offspring. But then again, I had also heard that the self-correcting feature our cells have would make it nearly impossible for all cells to go under this mutation; because it would just get fixed. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though.

reply to post by uva3021
 


Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by Lionhearte
 
Evolution is a fact, how the mechanisms are explained is a theory, ala the theory of gravity, cell theory, germ theory, or the theory of heliocentricity. All of these things exist, there are varied ways of interpreting the evidence.
I was under the impression it was a Theory because it is still an established scientific model that generates propositions with observational consequences. When you call it "Fact", there's only two meanings I can derive from you.. either you mean it in the empirical sense, or because it is universally accepted by Scientists?



Creationism is not taught in schools because its not a view point, nobody knows what it is and each sect of religion has their own creation story.

I'll make the assumption you are referring to the judeo-christian version (which itself comes in many forms).
This does not make sense.. you clearly know what Creationism is, I think everyone here does. It's a view point, regardless if you agree with it or not. Nobody knows what it is? It's quite simple: God created the Universe and everything in it. Although it is true that each Religion has their own take on it (I'm pretty sure 99% of them all involve Creation, regardless), but Judaism/Christianity are one of the most widely popular beliefs (always has been) and their view point should be expressed. In all fairness.

reply to post by stumason
 



Originally posted by stumason
Your link cites DNA error correction as proof against evolution..

If that is the case, explain Cancer.

I don't understand this. Cancer exists in everyone from the day we are born, our bodies are designed to fight it off, of course. It's only when we're not able to fight it off (whether because of a poor immune system, or perhaps something triggers it to grow) that it gets too wide-spread, and people die from it. The point here being, that if it were to occur, our bodies are designed to fix it. Mutations aren't naturally beneficial by any means, else our bodies would accept them. Can you explain why donor patients have to take meds to suppress their immune system when they receive an implant?


Evolution is actually extraordinarily easy to understand. My 7 Year old goes to a Church of England school and has had the Bible story taught to her in her RE class (not science class) and she did buy into it, being a 7 year old. But when I bought her an encyclopedia and explained evolution to her, she got it straight away. I also pointed out to her that the Bible was written a long time ago by people who didn't know about such things and she should not look at it as a litteral textbook, but as a book of useful stories to help you be a good person.

If she can get it, the question is, why can't any of you?

I hear this a lot, actually. I may as well come out and clarify EXACTLY where I stand: I'm open to all ideas. I can ACTUALLY believe in some form of Evolution, in fact I think it should be obvious... I just don't think it happens the way most people do. Adaptation is a real thing; but all the "extra" parts they have to tag on to it just make it sound silly.

Hell, I even believe the Big Bang happened, in a sense.



Hopefully this wasn't too long.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 





Viruses and Bacteria are completely different in how they function when compared to say, Humans, because for one, they require a host cell to reproduce.


Bacteria generally do not require a host cell, only some pathogens do.




But then again, I had also heard that the self-correcting feature our cells have would make it nearly impossible for all cells to go under this mutation; because it would just get fixed. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though.


Only the gamete (a sperm or an egg) that is used in reproduction needs to have the mutation.
edit on 11/5/11 by Maslo because: typo



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 



Originally posted by Lionhearte
I really don't believe in overpopulation.


We're overpopulated. Our population doesn't cull out those who are born sick or with disadvantages that would render them entirely incapable of surviving on their own. We would not be able to sustain our current population without modern technologies.



The world is really quite big; we just have a problem with sticking too many people in one place.


The world is massive..but 2/3rds of it is already uninhabitable because we're not aquatic. The rest of it varies in inhabitablity, but we still would be unable to maintain our current population without modern technology.



Though, I guess in either case you could be right, in a sense.


It's more about gene pool size than physical population size. Our gene pool is relatively stable because there aren't pressures on the population.



"The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty"
-Ludwig Wittgenstein #115 from On Certainty

For one to be so closed-minded, they would obviously be skeptical of any answer given by someone. Many people tend to this without FIRST having a basis for what Truth is -


Except...no. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to keep an open mind to discarded ideas like geocentrism because they simply don't work.



Example; The atheist’s mind (and universe) is closed to God, and therefore, is close-minded in rejecting the possibility of God from the outset,


Incorrect. I'm an atheist and I fully welcome the possibility of deities, I just have yet to see compelling evidence to claim that any deity exists. I don't believe, but I welcome proof.



as they define science as a search for naturalistic explanations, which means that it is a foregone conclusion that they will never discover evidence for the supernatural.


Science cannot work within the confines of the supernatural...unless the supernatural itself works uniformly and within a set of rules just like the natural. Granted, science would be able to measure the effect of the supernatural, and that supposed effect has been subjected to repeated tests to no proof.



Thus, when they claim to believe things on the basis of “evidence” and will follow the evidence wherever it leads, they have rigged the game by defining “evidence” from the start to exclude God.


Except that I'm the first person to start looking at things like...prayer studies. Prayer studies should definitively test the existence of an intercessory deity, and yet not a single one has turned out positive.

I've asked for evidence that the supernatural has had an effect on the natural world many times. I have yet to find any. Hell, I've got a thread linked in my sig that asks for proof of creationism (a challenge that none have met).



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
Explain the results of the Escherichia coli long term evolution experiment. You can't pin it down on dominate/recessive traits, since E. coli only have 1 chromosome (thus there's no such thing as a recessive trait in the world of E. coli).

Also explain the mechanism by which DNA remains unaltered. I'm saying this is not the case, since we've never discovered an error free DNA polymerase (they all make mistakes). Also saying this, since your claim is utterly ridiculous (perhaps your biology education is limited to middle school classes?). There's no mechanism on Earth that can maintain DNA molecules unaltered. If everything is down to dominate/recessive, then how come people don't show only 2 different heights (say dominate tall and recessive short)? Why not only 2 colours of hair/skin/eyes? Etc..

Maybe this time think a bit longer before you reply.
edit on 11-5-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

I was under the impression it was a Theory because it is still an established scientific model that generates propositions with observational consequences. When you call it "Fact", there's only two meanings I can derive from you.. either you mean it in the empirical sense, or because it is universally accepted by Scientists?



It is universally accepted. There will always be some rogue group of people that disagree with the consensus. There are probably more scientist that do not believe space is curved, or believe the earth is the center of the universe, than there are that do not believe in evolution.

madnessinmysoul has pointed out on many occasions the fact that there are more scientists named Steve than there are that do not believe in evolution. (When in fact, there is no "believing" in a fact)


This does not make sense.. you clearly know what Creationism is, I think everyone here does. It's a view point, regardless if you agree with it or not. Nobody knows what it is? It's quite simple: God created the Universe and everything in it. Although it is true that each Religion has their own take on it (I'm pretty sure 99% of them all involve Creation, regardless), but Judaism/Christianity are one of the most widely popular beliefs (always has been) and their view point should be expressed. In all fairness.

Make perfect sense. Imagine going to a class on general Creationism. "Ok class, God created everything. See ya next year."

What is Creationism?

Popularity, again, is simply the result of historical contingency. Judeo-Christian followers weren't burdened with trying to domesticate a lion, a wooly mammoth, a saber-tooth tiger, or an elephant, they were given horses, chickens, and cows. Thus established an agricultural society with dense populations, built up resistance to diseases, and spread their cultures and traditions as a result. How can historical contingency reconcile with divine truth?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 

Bacteria generally do not require a host cell, only some pathogens do.

Right, my mistake. Still, they are basically -designed- to mutate, as they both rely on it to survive, or reproduce.


Only the gamete (a sperm or an egg) that is used in reproduction needs to have the mutation.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, basically, when two species have offspring, it would be one of the offspring that would have the mutation at conception(?), and he would carry that on until he himself had offspring, and spread his "mutation" (which would, for sake of argument, be beneficial, in this case, for his species), so on and so forth, until we have entire different species walking around?

If this is the case (and if it isn't, please point out where I'm wrong), then I must ask; How would our DNA repair function have come into existence today if all species practically relied on such advantages of evolving into completely new species that were perfectly adapted to their environments?

Also, this seems like a massive amount of luck for species to all benefit from this occurrence, so much so that we are treated with billions of different species existing today. I mean, if we consider the odds of the mutation actually happening (and the likelihood of it being beneficial), and the odds of it happening across all living species, it would seem almost.. outside of the realm of probability. I believe there is a word for such a number, which is claimed by scientists to be "absurd", unless of course, it was intentional, or designed, no? I would believe that.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
In my estimation, this whole argument is waste of time. Neither side is gonna win over the other and until the rapture happens or we see a monkey turn into a person there is no absolute proof either way, just beliefs.

Hey, you know what beliefs and opinions are like..............? Yep, and everyones got one.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



We're overpopulated. Our population doesn't cull out those who are born sick or with disadvantages that would render them entirely incapable of surviving on their own. We would not be able to sustain our current population without modern technologies.


That's true, although I have heard that the government was willing to pay for people to get an abortion should their child be found with a disease or sickness while still in the womb, which could be considered 'culling out the sick'. At least, that's why the doctors would recommend it, so the child isn't kept in special needs all his life.


The world is massive..but 2/3rds of it is already uninhabitable because we're not aquatic. The rest of it varies in inhabitablity, but we still would be unable to maintain our current population without modern technology.
That 1/3 is still a lot of room, though you may be correct on the basis of what we're talking about, but I'm simply stating that overpopulation in regards to natural resources isn't likely. We have plenty of, for example, oil under the US soil to last us quite a long time. Though, I couldn't say how bad the overpopulation is for evolution, I don't claim to be an expert on that.



It's more about gene pool size than physical population size. Our gene pool is relatively stable because there aren't pressures on the population.

I.. yea, basically what I was just saying I wouldn't know it's effects on the gene pool. Never really thought about it.


Except...no. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to keep an open mind to discarded ideas like geocentrism because they simply don't work.
Of course, ideas like that have obviously been proven wrong with today's technologies, but there's no doubt that back in the middle ages, an idea like that was under constant debate. They couldn't prove it wrong, much less prove it right. It wasn't until today's technologies that allowed us to completely debunk it. The thing is, Christianity and Creationism practically go hand in hand, so until God is completely debunked, Creationism will still be a topic of debate. It's just how it is.


Incorrect. I'm an atheist and I fully welcome the possibility of deities, I just have yet to see compelling evidence to claim that any deity exists. I don't believe, but I welcome proof.

This is the problem though, you're using a certain Standard of Truth that contradicts this statement.

Basically, what I'm saying is, one cannot be skeptical of the truth of something unless one accepts a standard of truth by which other claims can be judged. Infallibility is an inescapable concept.

Everyone has -some- ultimate standard of truth. If God is rejected, another ultimate standard will take His place, such as Science. As an ultimate standard, there is no higher standard that can criticize it. The State (Hobbes, Hegel) or the Communist Party; Mother Nature (Marquis de Sade), the will of the majority (Rousseau), experience (Hume), the artistic impulse, academic freedom, etc, etc, all take this place as a Standard.

Both the Christian and Athiest (or Evolutionist and Creationist) have an ultimate authority that they will not question and in terms of which they judge (are skeptical of) other claims to truth. Mines would be God, yours would be Science, I'd presume?

So, by the very definition of God (should He exist, He would obviously be all-powerful, etc), therefore, he should be -the- Ultimate standard, even if we aren't specifically talking about the Christian God, but any basis for ANY God -by definiton- should be an Ultimate standard, (because, again, by definition, nothing should be greater than him). However, the key point here being that if there was a God, he -would- be able to create the Universe, easily.

On the other hand, Science requires evidence. When a person uses it as their standard, they ignore the possibility of a God creating a Universe - because there is no tangible evidence, nothing that can be grasped.. However, back on the other hand - If a person accepts the fact that God is real and He created the universe, it is MUCH more easier to accept something (if they put some research into it) such as the Big Bang, for example - something I possibly believe happened.

Evolution? Maybe I was taught wrong on how it works. Public schools tend to do that. I never put any effort into thinking about it, but I only live by one philosophic question/rule.. and that is, why can't God and Science BOTH exist?

Which leads to...


Science cannot work within the confines of the supernatural...unless the supernatural itself works uniformly and within a set of rules just like the natural. Granted, science would be able to measure the effect of the supernatural, and that supposed effect has been subjected to repeated tests to no proof.


I always have to mention this when the terms "Natural" and "Supernatural" both come up in the same sentence. You see, I've been thinking lately, and PERSONALLY, I don't see why these two are polar opposites.

It's hard to explain, but basically my thoughts are this: Pretend for a moment that Ghosts were a common thing, they were seen daily, and you've personally come into contact with them. For thousands of years they have been here... would this be considered supernatural? By today's standard of thinking; Yes, it would be. However, imagine now a world much like our distant past, which did not have technology like we do today. Should a person from that time period witness our cell phones and televisions.. they would call it witchery; sorcery.. Supernatural.

So, if my point is coming across here, I believe that there is nothing Supernatural in our world at all, because the very beauty and wonders of Nature itself, and the infinite cosmic expanse of space is just too grand to be considered Natural, it's practically Supernatural.

I don't know if that makes sense, I could try clarifying more if it doesn't...


I've asked for evidence that the supernatural has had an effect on the natural world many times. I have yet to find any. Hell, I've got a thread linked in my sig that asks for proof of creationism (a challenge that none have met).


I guess as a follow-up I could say that, I'm a firm believer that Science explains the works of God. To put it in perspective, imagine that the explanation of the Big Bang was when God said "Let there be..." and all the Universes came spiraling out into existence. Imagine for a second that this was true, then consider; was that event Natural, or Supernatural?

Both.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Yes everyone has an opinion...someone can base their opinions on pure fantasy and another can base theirs on evidence, common sense and reason, one is more valid than the other, they are not all created equally. Nothing worse than this new phenomena where we are supposed to treat all opinions as if they have equal merit, it results in us having to see a doctor debating a homeopath kook on tv so we can hear 'both sides' of the argument.... or an evolutionary biologist debate a creationist one, gives the impression to some that they are somehow on equal standing or that there is even a legitimate debate to be made between the two even when there is not.
edit on 11-5-2011 by Solomons because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


I agree that opinions carry more weight when backed up by evidence, I certainly do. That being said, this topic irritates peoples religious beliefs which invokes emotional responses that can lead too suppressing common sense and resort to extremes in speech and violence.

I myself, believe in God, I do however question exactly what God is, when in the bible it says he created us in his own image, I could take that to mean he from a supreme race of aliens and seeded our DNA on this planet. The fact is, I don't know what God is, all I know is what he means to me and me alone and how I can better my life because of it.

I have no problem with evolution, I don't believe it but I don't have a problem with those who do, I don't see a reason to fight over it is all, it would seem to me counter productive. Hell, there are people who believe in both!

Thinking for yourself and deciding what you believe and accept is probably the only true freedom we all have left and there is no reason that you have to make everyone that has a different belief believe the same things you do, diversity is a good thing.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 
That's precisely how it works, a mutation occurs in the gametes, gets fixed in the offspring who in turn has offspring. Over hundreds of thousands of generations, this spawns new species. But you have to understand a gene isn't an accumulation of mutations. One single nucleotide mutation to a sequence of non-coding DNA can activate the transcription process and create a novel phenotype (relative to the population). Because we have sex and recombine our DNA, even more unique sequences of DNA are created and work in conjunction with the mutation rate to form new genes, and also brings advantageous genes together.

THe DNA repair mechanisms are forever going to be refined, as there is a tradeoff between the mechanisms at work and metabolism. Those organisms that had perfect fidelity died out billions of years ago, as they were unable to cope with changing selection pressures. Those with too many mutations could not retain the information that is needed to survive in their current environment.

Species that exist are well-adapted to their environment because they exist. About 99% of the species that have ever lived have gone extinct.

Life's diversity is ultimately a function of billions of years of differential reproduction, and information is conserved to the degree appropriate for survival, for otherwise such life would not exist. Thinking otherwise you would have to believe a nucleotide has foresight.


edit on 11-5-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 



Thinking for yourself and deciding what you believe and accept is probably the only true freedom we all have left and there is no reason that you have to make everyone that has a different belief believe the same things you do, diversity is a good thing.


Except where established science is concerned. We don't have a diversity of beliefs on the layout of our solar system, the shape of our planet, the behavior of electricity, the color of the sky on a clear day at noon, the cause of infectious disease, etc.

The fact is that the rejection of evolution is actually harmful to the study of biology. It is the foundational theory upon which all modern biology rests. It's hard to make sense of marine biology at an academic level without a proper evolutionary understanding.

Diversity of opinions is good when the question is still up in the air. When we don't have an answer that has all of the evidence. In this case it's a lot of speculation against a mountain of evidence, so there's a danger in letting those people who are screaming quite loudly about the mountain not being there carry on.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 



Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/f
Of course, ideas like that have obviously been proven wrong with today's technologies, but there's no doubt that back in the middle ages, an idea like that was under constant debate. They couldn't prove it wrong, much less prove it right. It wasn't until today's technologies that allowed us to completely debunk it.


Well, it also took a while for the whole 'the earth is a spheroid' thing to catch on and we had that one knocked out of the park with a relatively accurate calculation of the Earth's circumference by the time of Post-Socratic philosophy.



The thing is, Christianity and Creationism practically go hand in hand, so until God is completely debunked, Creationism will still be a topic of debate. It's just how it is.


No, they really don't. There are some prominent Christian evolutionary biologists, paleoanthropologists, paleontologists, etc. They don't seem to have trouble reconciling the natural world as it is with their beliefs.

The Christian religion is in no way founded upon a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. And the idea of creationism is a single doctrine within the Christian religion that doesn't even spread across all denominations.

Creationism is thoroughly debunked except in the most nebulous sense of a prime mover. Frankly, Aristotle came up with that one, so it's not really a Christian thing.



This is the problem though, you're using a certain Standard of Truth that contradicts this statement.


I'm using the same standard of proof that I'd use for any extraordinary claim.



Basically, what I'm saying is, one cannot be skeptical of the truth of something unless one accepts a standard of truth by which other claims can be judged. Infallibility is an inescapable concept.


No. I'm accepting a reasonable standard of evidence dependent on the scale of the claim. There's a very small burden of proof for "I ate cornflakes this morning." There's a quite decent standard of proof for "I just got accepted into Harvard!" There's a large burden of proof for "I just won a billion dollars!" There's a massive burden for "I just cured cancer!" Yet there's still an even greater burden for a claim that would mean a fundamental basis for all things.



Everyone has -some- ultimate standard of truth.


A deity cannot be a standard of truth. It isn't a standard if it's truth by fiat.



If God is rejected, another ultimate standard will take His place, such as Science.


Except that this is incorrect and you're going to delve into a slippery slope, aren't you?



As an ultimate standard, there is no higher standard that can criticize it. The State (Hobbes, Hegel) or the Communist Party; Mother Nature (Marquis de Sade), the will of the majority (Rousseau), experience (Hume), the artistic impulse, academic freedom, etc, etc, all take this place as a Standard.


You avoided the slope. I'd have to point out that this is an incorrect comparison as few modern individuals seek to elevate anything as the ultimate standard in the same way a deity is provided as one. There may be a highest standard, but the highest standard is still open to critique.



Both the Christian and Athiest (or Evolutionist and Creationist)


Not all Christians are creationists.



have an ultimate authority that they will not question and in terms of which they judge (are skeptical of) other claims to truth. Mines would be God, yours would be Science, I'd presume?


I don't have an ultimate authority, I just have reasonable standards. For certain claims, science is the only viable method to use. Of course, I'm not going to use science to judge whether a Van Gogh is superior or inferior to a Monet.



So, by the very definition of God (should He exist, He would obviously be all-powerful, etc),


Whoa-ho! You're skipping over a few millenia of disagreement on this subject and jumping to the late-monotheistic assumption! I'm sorry, but I can name more deities that are not all powerful than I can name all-powerful deities and I can name about an equivalent number of female and nongendered deities to male ones.



therefore, he should be -the- Ultimate standard, even if we aren't specifically talking about the Christian God, but any basis for ANY God -by definiton- should be an Ultimate standard, (because, again, by definition, nothing should be greater than him).


I like that you're just taking Anselm's infamous assertion as if it were a priori fact. No, it wouldn't Why? Well, there is no such thing as the greatest thing. Greatness is a subjective characteristic. For me the greatest possible beautiful woman would be a redhead, for someone else it would be a blonde. For me the greatest possible deity would not judge its creations, yet I've not seen a non-judgmental deity described as the 'greatest' being.



However, the key point here being that if there was a God, he -would- be able to create the Universe, easily.


Except for Odin
Or Zeus
Or Amaterasu
Or Osiris
Or a vast majority of all deities.

Again, you're operating under the assumption that a deity necessarily has certain characteristics. And it's purely an assumption as you've done nothing to prove that.



On the other hand, Science requires evidence. When a person uses it as their standard, they ignore the possibility of a God creating a Universe - because there is no tangible evidence, nothing that can be grasped..


Except that such an event should leave mounds of evidence, unless the deity in question used natural means. And if that deity continues to interact with the physical world then we should be able to measure and evaluate the effects of this interaction.



However, back on the other hand - If a person accepts the fact that God is real and He created the universe, it is MUCH more easier to accept something (if they put some research into it) such as the Big Bang, for example - something I possibly believe happened.


I'm sorry, but how does the compatibility of a deity with science make it a better standard than science alone? And I'm not arguing for science alone, I'm arguing for science as the only means to measure the natural world.



Evolution? Maybe I was taught wrong on how it works. Public schools tend to do that. I never put any effort into thinking about it, but I only live by one philosophic question/rule.. and that is, why can't God and Science BOTH exist?


Never said that they couldn't. And I'd suggest actually reading up on evolution. If you want I can PM you some great resources.



Which leads to...


Science cannot work within the confines of the supernatural...unless the supernatural itself works uniformly and within a set of rules just like the natural. Granted, science would be able to measure the effect of the supernatural, and that supposed effect has been subjected to repeated tests to no proof.


I always have to mention this when the terms "Natural" and "Supernatural" both come up in the same sentence. You see, I've been thinking lately, and PERSONALLY, I don't see why these two are polar opposites.


Well, I can explain it briefly from how I understand it: The supernatural doesn't tend to follow any set of rules. When magic comes into play, all bets of uniformity are off.



It's hard to explain, but basically my thoughts are this: Pretend for a moment that Ghosts were a common thing, they were seen daily, and you've personally come into contact with them. For thousands of years they have been here... would this be considered supernatural? By today's standard of thinking; Yes, it would be. However, imagine now a world much like our distant past, which did not have technology like we do today. Should a person from that time period witness our cell phones and televisions.. they would call it witchery; sorcery.. Supernatural.


Except that's an issue of ignorance. The issue with the idea of 'ghosts' is that they don't seem to operate in the realm of a set of rules. The distinction between the supernatural and the natural is uniformity.



So, if my point is coming across here, I believe that there is nothing Supernatural in our world at all, because the very beauty and wonders of Nature itself, and the infinite cosmic expanse of space is just too grand to be considered Natural, it's practically Supernatural.


...the universe isn't infinite. Might as well be as far as our minds are concerned because we can't grasp the scope, but it isn't actually.

And no, it's all natural. It's beautiful and all, but it also contains horror beyond imagining. The collision of two galaxies comes to mind.



I don't know if that makes sense, I could try clarifying more if it doesn't...


Well, if all were supernatural we would not have a way of testing the universe around us because there would be no way of knowing if our results from today would work tomorrow...and if there is only the natural then your deity is completely within the realm of testing.




I guess as a follow-up I could say that, I'm a firm believer that Science explains the works of God. To put it in perspective, imagine that the explanation of the Big Bang was when God said "Let there be..." and all the Universes came spiraling out into existence. Imagine for a second that this was true, then consider; was that event Natural, or Supernatural?


Well, that would be supernatural as it would be a whim of a being of divine power creating things for no apparent rhyme or reason.

And you'd have to imagine it as there's no evidence to back up the idea.



Both.


Causing a natural event doesn't make the event natural. We would note the difference between a natural fire occurring and a supernatural fire occurring because the natural fire would...well...start naturally. The supernatural fire would start for no damn reason.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join