Ah, there is just something about religion that makes for fast-paced topics. If nothing else, at least religion (or more exactly, discussions about religion) get the mind going.
@Thought: The video doesn't really concern the general faith of Christianity, just these Young Earth nutjobs.
Unfortunately, the video doesn't make that distinction clear (and even at that, as I pointed out, the report is subject to logical fallacies and is reprehensible for that reason alone, regardless of how nutty those Young Earth nutjobs are). Indeed, it barely seemed to make it at all. Admittedly, the "public" is partially to blame for this as well; people in general aren't quite clear on how creationism and Christianity are fundamentally different. This confusion is worsened in no small part when supposedly knowledgeable individuals such as Richard Dawkins confuse the two regularly.
I say they shouldn't be shoving this stuff down kids throats, especially when they're THAT young. What they should be doing is teaching them how to think for themselves, and not have someone else do it for them.
I quite agree, however that is fairly standard practice across the board. Go to public schools across the world and you are more likely to see "stuff" getting shoved down kids' throats more often than children being taught how to think for themselves. Heck, look at math classes! They are taught exclusively in that manner, "HERE is the equation to use! Now repeat after me, A squared plus B squared equals C squared." Children are specifically taught not to question formulas, or to investigate the matter themselves, just to memorize them and regurgitate them unthinkingly upon command.
The great misfortune of these sort of "tour guides" is that they are setting the kids up for the argumentum ad logicam Logical Fallacy (that is, if the argument for something is false then the conclusion is also false, which is not true). Some of these kids will grow up, learn the truth, and even though Creationism is not a Christian belief, both will get rejected when there is only reason to reject the former.
How does everyone feel about the museum director's decision to let these "Biblically Correct Tours" take place? I applaud him for his tolerance, but on the other hand it's promoting the diminution of certain truths that have become fairly evident
True, but if I might counter that with another question; Should the Museum Director be the one making such a judgment? Indeed, should only people who already accept the validity of displays in a museum be allowed in? And on the other hand, we should be careful of taking museum displays as ultimate truth and fact. To offer an anecdotal example of what I mean, this last weekend I visited a museum that was displaying early Christian art. The items on display were wonderful (though the people I was with poo-pooed the quality of the earliest art, I found them rather impressive and hilarious; apparently Christians used to portray Noah as sitting in a box of very Calvin and Hobbes proportions). However, the texts that accompanied the displays were less than ideal. I just happened to study this time period in college, and so I just happened to be aware of the historical controversy surrounding some of the claims the exhibit made. What the exhibit portrayed as fact was in reality fancy, a possible explanation but by no means the only (or even best) one. Yet, to turn even that around on myself, it isn't like the museum was actually wrong. Just... not right.
I'd like to know their explanation for just how Noah got a T-Rex into the same boat with a cow and not end up with the cow being eaten. That flood lasted a while; T-Rex would have gotten hungry at some point. I guess this calls for ... the Chrono Beef!
Simple, God provided. Creationism is usually internally consistent (depending, of course, on who is doing the "explaining"), which is one of the things that makes it difficult to dispel.
Fun fact about the Big Bang Theory I learned today -- it was first proposed by a priest.
What's really interesting is that the Catholic Church didn't seem to mind one iota. The dude was honored by Pope John XXXIII in 1960, decades after he proposed the Big Bang. It is extremely weird, as you'd think he would have been excommunicated or defrocked or something.
The "time" before the Big Bang is even called "The Augustinian Era" after St. Augustine of Hippo (not to be confused with St. Augustine of Canterbury), as by current scientific understandings anything before then can't be observed or theorized about. It is, essentially, the realm of God, to be poetic about such matters.
Another fun fact is that the Catholic Church was at first quite happy with Galileo's research and theories; Jesuits even confirmed his findings and he was on mostly amicable terms with the Vatican. It wasn't until other researchers (who were notably not part of the Church) started making a ruckus, since Galileo was contradicting Aristotle, who was the scientific version of the Pope in those days, that the Church's stance shifted.
And yet another fun fact is that from the very begin some Christians accepted and praised Charles Darwin's theories. This wasn't uniform, of course. The Christian opposition to it, however, was galvanized by atheists.
Biologically speaking, there is presently one human race.
Actually, biologically speaking there is presently only one human
species. These things get organized by Kingdom, Order, Species, etc, but not "race."
Still, I think we all understand what he meant, even if the semantics of it are easily debatable.
NO ONE has found the source of the universe, so to me, believing in evolutionism (as presented by Darwin) or creationism completely is just plain stupid. Neither has been proven.
The origins of the universe and the origins of life are two separate things. The Big Bang is not contingent on Evolution, nor is Evolution contingent on the Big Bang. Therefore, the problems (and virtues) of each are a separate matter.
I'm an atheist because at present, there is not evidence for any sort of god, nor is there any evidence that such a being is neccisary to the existence of the universe. With no evidence and evidently no need, I reject the notion of a god as unneccisary and likely false. It is possible that I am incorrect, and that new evidence will force me to re-evaluate the issue. It hasn't come up yet.
Just out of curiosity, what would you consider to be valid evidence of such a thing? I am not trying to be argumentative, but merely attempting to understand a different model. You say there is no evidence for any sort of god, I'd say there is good evidence for the existence of a very specific deity. Thus I am concluding we had different criteria for what we consider valid evidence, and thus I am curious to what this difference is.
As long as we exist in a mostly consistent context, the scientific method still holds as the best method we have for understanding that context, as it is the only one that provides increased, verifiable (in the over-arching context consciousnesses exist in) knowledge about anything and everything within the scope of that context (and perhaps even the context itself).
But historically speaking, chances are the paradigm will someday shift. It might refine the scientific method, it might discard it. But being in the paradigm during a period of relative stability, it could be equally valid to say that there are no significant problem with the method as it is to say that we are just unaware (and are unable to be aware) of the significant problems that exist. Mind you, I am not trying to reject the Scientific Method, just the moderno-centrism that often accompanies it.
Paragraph 1: I believe in the 7 days of creationism. May sound stupid to most people, but it's what I personally believe. I don't see how this is any more silly than the big bang theory, etc. Since no explanation for the creation of the universe has enough evidence to support it.
Literal 7 days? As in 7 24-hour periods? Well, such a stance is "silly" simply because it relies on what may be a linguistic error. Day can mean 24 hours, but it can mean a general period as well (look it up in the
dictionary). Additionally, consider that the word "day" is not accurate in itself; the Bible was not written in English. Thus, you need to return to the original text if you are going to be literal about things. And even in the original, the word that gets translated as "day" can easily mean a general period of time. Thus, without further evidence, the creation story only tells us that creation happened in "seven" general time periods (and even what is "created" during those time periods is debatable; Earth could refer to this planet or it could actually refer to matter in general). However, we do have further evidence... science. Scientifically speaking, the universe developed over nearly unimaginable expanses of time, therefore if we are to believe the creation story at all, it would need to be a story in which "day" is a general time period, not specifically 24 hours as we understand it.
Consider also who is relating this story; though it is recorded in the books of Moses, Moses isn't the narrator (if we accept the story at all). God is the one relating the events, so presumably the events are being related how God would perceive them, not necessarily as humans would perceive them. If the story is true, even then we have the problem of reconciling God's interpretation of events with human interpretations. Unless you'd claim to perfectly know the mind of God, one can not claim to know perfectly the intent of the story.
These aren’t arguments that 7 24-hours of creation are inherently wrong, just that there is no reason to hold specifically to those interpretations in the face of opposing explanations.
Paragraph 4: I think you're picking on my word usage a bit, though I do agree with the statement. If you really want me to go back and edit the previous posts to fix it, I will. But I think everyone is understanding what I mean by the word "theory", since I'm talking about the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism.
Actually, you are talking about the Theory of Evolution and the theory of Creationism. Capital letters are rather important as there is a difference between Evolution and evolution and even Theory and theory. I used to be a creationist myself though I am no longer. Yet even now one of the things that pisses me off the most is when evolutionists willfully switch between Evolution and evolution in the same sentence without proper distinctions. To illustrate, Evolution is a theory (one would even be correct is calling it a Theory), while evolution is a fact. Yet you get people who claim Evolution is both a fact and a theory (if we are going to do that, we might as well say that Evolution is a fact, a theory, the extraction of a root from a quantity, and a form of military movement).
Allow me to state most firmly that evolution is factual. There are fossils, there are species closely related, and there are even lab experiments. Allow me to also state most firmly that Evolution explains this evidence and makes predictions about future finds of similar forms of evidence. And finally, allow me to state most firmly that one is not the other (but certainly they are related). One of the great frustrations is that Creationism makes use of evolution as well, but it cannot predict future finds of similar evidence. Therefore, it is not a scientific theory (and thus, it is never a Theory). Evolutionists seem to overlook this too often.
Now for my question:
If we started as single cell organisms, and over BILLIONS OF YEARS became the complex, multi-celled organisms we are, why hasn't there been any "missing link" fossils found with all the other fossils? That's where the scientific theory of evolution is killed for me. If over billions of years, we would have had HUGE gaps in time of being the "in between" species, if you will. So why do you think that none of these "missing links" have been found?
Actually, some of these "Missing Links" have been found. The problem isn't that Missing Links don't exist (they do exist), but rather the evolutionary tracking of the development of species is not complete. What are the "Missing Links" between humans and primate ancestors? The various forms of Australopithecus are such examples, as are the various forms of Homo not-sapiens (and not-sapien-sapiens, as modern man is really a single subspecies of homo sapiens). Now I'd suspect that you'd claim this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; that these species came before man doesn't necessitate that they led to man. Quite right you are. However, as indicated, Evolution explains these instances and predicts that we will continue to find similar fossil records. Sort of like the discovery of Homo Floresiensis a few years ago.
A new field is also available in genetics; we can measure the rate of mutations entering a genome and thereby trace backwards to determine when certain traits probably evolved. These mathematical formulas usually coincide quite nicely with the fossil records (thus, like the previous noted instance of Carbon Dating and Dendrochronology, one science is used to reinforce another). To be fair, there are some oddities in this method (in that some species should have existed before fossil records currently indicate), and scientists are working on that. It might be basic assumptions will need to be revised, or major theories discarded, or just that more fossils need to be found.
Related to your statement (though you did not state it yourself) is the argument from complexity; eyes, for example, are so complex and interdependent that they could not function if one component was missing, therefore they could not function in a half-evolved state. This, unfortunately, is really an argument from ignorance. There are creatures alive today with no eyes, with light sensitive patches of skin, with light sensitive indentations (which allow for a degree of focus), with light sensitive indentations covered by a gel-like lens, etc. Even the jump from single to multi-cellular life is not without evidence, as there are some single-cells lifeforms that build colonies, even with "specialized" roles within that colony.
And to offer one other example of human evolution: Lactose intolerance. Good, wholesome, un-mutated adult humans are all lactose intolerant, as that is the proper state of things (determined through genetics and just basic observations of animal behavior). Humans should stop producing the enzymes to digest lactate after infancy (as in, after a baby has been weaned from its mother's milk). Ah, but I enjoy a nice bowl of cereal, moistened with milk. I enjoy ice cream, milk shakes, yogurt, cheese, and all those other milk based products. Why? Because I'm a mutant (and so are most Europeans). I might not be able to shoot lasers from my eyes or control the weather, but I can digest something I shouldn't be able to. I suspect a few others on the forum are able to as well.
What has been lost will be found.
Maybe, but not necessarily. And more importantly, it isn't needed.
It is unreasonable to assume we'll find fossils of
every stage of human evolution, no matter how small. But Evolution doesn't need such in order to be true and believable.
Indeed, a complete record is even unreasonable, as when one gets down to the smallest steps of evolution how could one determine between what is variation in a single species and what is variation that leads to another species? I look different than my brothers; if we were all fossils, would a scientist say that one evolved from the others? And yet, it is possible that some genetic mutation exists in my DNA, or the DNA of my brothers, that will someday create a new subspecies of humans. On a
very small scale, there is no discernable difference between evolution and variation.
We're lucky we have so many fossils now. They hardly ever form.
Indeed. Why, if I were a religious man I might claim that so many fossil records to be a miracle
"Practically" doesn't cut it, seriously.
Still leaves the question, among all these "so many" fossils, why isn't there ONE "missing link"?
Actually, practical does cut it, every single day. There is the Theory of Gravity; it is practically fact. That it isn't 100% fact doesn't stop it from keeping you to the surface of the earth. Technically speaking, movement is impossible since you always have to go half the distance before you can go the whole distance. And you always have to go half that distance first, and so on and so forth. As there is always a distance you have to go half of first, you can never go the whole. Curiously, we get around rather nicely in practicality (actually, there is some indication that movement, in fact, does occasionally not go half the distance before going the full distance).
And fossils only leave "missing links" when you keep changing the definition of it. When a "Missing Link" has been found, instead of saying "gee, here we have one of those missing links we were harping about," creationists just move onto the next gap. After all, once a "Missing Link" has been found, it is no longer missing, now is it?
You don’t know for sure that eating breakfast in the morning will not kill you, but you are reasonably sure so eating breakfast is practical.
From my perspective, religious experience is given the same treatment. For example, studies have shown that prayer does not have a measurable effect on reality, thus I find it wanting as a means of affecting change in the world.
Unfortunately such studies are inherently flawed. First of all, try to imagine an investigator who found a positive correlation between prayer and wellness getting published. What journal might accept such a paper? Secondly, consider what the experiments are actually testing and compare that to what prayer is actually for. The experiments are looking for a positive result to the individual's health but prayer (depending on the religion) is never a "if-then" event. Even among religious circles, praying for an individual to make a recovery does not doctrinally necessitate a recovery. Thirdly, such experiments also consider only those unaccountable events of recovery, which negates the possibility of prayer producing a result in mundane manners. From the religious perspective, a prayer for someone's healthy may be realized quite validly from the skills of a caring physician. Such results would be discounted by a study. Fourthly, prayer does not necessitate lineality (is that even a word or did I just make it up?). Religiously speaking, an answer to pray may be set in motion before the prayer is even made. Thus, in such experiments, if prayer is real then it would be impossible for the investigators to actually control the composition of each group. To use a genetics analogy, it is like looking for the effects of a treatment for a genetic anomaly without first distinguishing which group is the wildtype.
But let's assume a thesitic omni-God. Let's further assume that this God, while remaining behind the scenes for the most part, does occasionally reveal itself through revelation. This omni-God must have a nature of some sort, and if it is not a deciever, and not a completely chaotic (within the scope of the above rules) entity, there will be some consistency to the revelations; that is, some pattern will immerge from looking at "true" revelations. And what tool would be best for determinging this? The scientific method. If religious experience is a valid, extra-scientific means of learning about God, this can be determined by science (again, assuming the sort of God postulated in this paragraph).
Depends on what we mean by learning about God. Go study the Notre Dame Cathedral; science can tell you a lot about the building, and it can even suggest certain trains about its builder, but science can't tell you who that builder was or what they were like (or, indeed, even if there definitely was a builder). If we assume the universe has a creator, then that universe can tell us some things about that creator using the scientific method. But in no way can it tell us everything (or even important things).
Pascal's wager is fundamentally broken; it provides a false dilema. Christianity and atheism are not the only positions one can hold on the theistic state of reality. Given that multiple religions promise a hell of sorts for disbelief, Pascal's wager does not provide us with a means of determining what god we should believe in, and thus brings us no further from damnation.
Pish posh. Pascal's Wager doesn't need to be applied to a specific religion; it is still a valid arguement if the choice is between atheism and theism (if that is still a false dilema, please do provide the third unstated option). Under Atheism, there is no benefit to being right or wrong. Under theism, there could be a benefit to being right and an ill to being wrong. Thus, it is more logical to be theistic than atheistic. Other arguments, then, are needed to determine which form of theism (if any known form) is proper.
Furthermore, Pascal's wager is a coward's bet. We can agree on the first life; we're in it, experiencing it. We know we have it. Pascal's wager asks us to reject this in favor of another life, one which has no evidence supporting it, and even if we give the benefit of the doubt to your notion that religious experience is beyond the scope of science, no means to determine which god to believe in. We're left wasting this life in the vain hope that we picked up the right holy book and interpreted it correctly.
Again, pish posh. You are making the false assumption that a thestic life is "wasted," a term that only has meaning if theism is assumed. If atheism is the reality, then any such judgement is merely the result of perspective and not of objective truth. Additionally, a theistic life tends to actually put a person into action (if I do X, then I'll receive Y), thereby increasing the likelihood that a theistic life, at least, would be productive (that doesn't necessitate, of course, that productivity is desirable).
And to note, Pascal's wager may be a "coward's bet" but you are making the appeal to emotion logical fallacy. That it is a "coward's bet" says nothing about its validity.
Perhaps there's something being lost in the communication, but I don't see a proof of aynthing in the Ontological argument; just word play.
Quite right. The Ontological argument was quite compelling at one time, but nowadays the standards of proof are different (at the time it was originally made, thought problems were considered better evidence than physical experimentation, a left over from the Greek philosophers). Really, it is little more than an extraploation on the theory of forms (I can conceive of what a chair is, even though not all chairs fit a single description, therefore there must be the idea of a chair that exists seprately and independent of other chairs; other chairs just being a reflection of that idea).
