Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 111
  1. #81
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Please don't take it as an insult, but this is the sort of thing I'd expect to hear from a madman or heroin addict. Or the victim of some cult. It sounds inane and silly to me.
    I fully understand that and of course I don't take it as an insult. It sounded really silly to me until I experienced it. And I assure you I am neither mad nor a heroin addict. What else can I say but, "taste and see that the Lord is good"?



    Reality is not reality. Life is a dream. The world moves beyond the veil. Sorry but this kind of talk again sounds like false mystique that masquerades as wisdom.
    That's not at all what I am saying. I detest that kind of new-age type mysticism. What I experience is real and has real effects in my real everyday life. I couldn't be bothered with anything that didn't. I simply don't do that kind of stuff. I want my trust in God to work in reality on a daily basis - and it does.
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  2. #82
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In the hands of God
    Posts
    180
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Sigfried,
    Carbon dating has been shown to be consistent over and over, as has the speed of light, as has most of the other principles it is based on. Indeed whenever carbon dating fails, we always have discovered why precisely it does.
    Just for the sake of accuracy, please provide the experiments and consistencies of Carbon Dating. A link to an actual experiment would be nice, rather than simply a news article. Also, just for the sake of accuracy, provide some of these failings that carbon dating "had" and the discoveries telling us 'why precisely it does.'
    I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. - Albert Einstein
    If Satan can turn God's Word upside down and pervert the Scriptures, what will he do with my words -- or the words of others? - Martin Luther

  3. #83
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    Are you sure that's true? Doesn't that depend on a uniform rate of decay? Are you 100% positive that the speed of light, say, has not decayed? Are you 100% sure (or, perhaps I should ask, is "science - that amorphous body" 100% sure) that the speed of light is constant and if so that it has always been constant? If you answer yes, are you not denying science itself which by definition is always in a state of flux? Or are you claiming that science has now provided ALL the definitive answers for EVERYTHING? That all scientific knowledge today, this minute, reflects unchangeable, unalterable FACT?

    Yes - I am sure to a 99% probability that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And yes I am sure to 99.9999999999999999999999% probability that the speed of light in a vacuum has NOT changed (increased or decayed). And so is science. There has never been a successful experiment to challenge either of these facts. I am sure to the degree that ANYONE can be. There is absolutely no empirical evidence of a young earth or the variance of the speed of light in a vacuum. Period...
    *zip*

  4. #84
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by bradfeaker View Post
    Yes - I am sure to a 99% probability that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And yes I am sure to 99.9999999999999999999999% probability that the speed of light in a vacuum has NOT changed (increased or decayed). And so is science. There has never been a successful experiment to challenge either of these facts. I am sure to the degree that ANYONE can be. There is absolutely no empirical evidence of a young earth or the variance of the speed of light in a vacuum. Period...
    And within that 1% uncertainty does there exist the possibility that the earth is not 4.5 billion years old and that the speed of light HAS changed?

    And if so, should not a scientist worth his title (falsfiy, test, repeat) explore that uncertainty as being a more meaningful test than endlessly regurgitating the 99% certainty?
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  5. #85
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saved by Grace View Post
    Sigfried,

    Just for the sake of accuracy, please provide the experiments and consistencies of Carbon Dating. A link to an actual experiment would be nice, rather than simply a news article. Also, just for the sake of accuracy, provide some of these failings that carbon dating "had" and the discoveries telling us 'why precisely it does.'
    The link I am providing is th the Wikipedia article on the Age of the earth - here. There a numerous links to specific peer reviewed research using carbon and potassium argon dating techniques.

    Here is a direct link to the abstract of just such a paper. I apologize for not being able to cite specific details - most of these research papers are behind a subscription wall.

    Most of the technical issues with radio carbon dating seem to stem from calibration methods. However - I am not a geologist and cannot speak with any great authority to all of said details.

    ---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    And within that 1% uncertainty does there exist the possibility that the earth is not 4.5 billion years old and that the speed of light HAS changed?

    And if so, should not a scientist worth his title (falsfiy, test, repeat) explore that uncertainty as being a more meaningful test than endlessly regurgitating the 99% certainty?
    It is being explored even now. There are in fact several (controversial to say the least) cosmological theories that contend that the speed of light may have been different at some point in the past (some of this is based on the WMAP data). No experiment has yet demonstrated this.
    *zip*

  6. #86
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In the hands of God
    Posts
    180
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    bradfeaker,
    I did you the courtesy of reviewing the wiki article as well as many of its sources. I found no actual experiments, only quotes of experiments or summaries of experiments. I opened your direct link, but to see the PDF, I must purchase it, which I am not prepared to do.

    The basic problem I have with almost everything proposed in the articles are the presuppositions that they use. I specifically asked for articles in reference to Carbon Dating, so for the sake of time I shall only address my misgivings upon this particular topic.

    The entire principle of carbon dating is as follows: There is a given substance X. X has a half life of Y, at which point, on average, half of the substance can be expected to have changed atomic structure to result in Z.

    The problem I have with how many people date the earth, using this method, is this: they see a rock composed of X and Z. They calculate how long it would have taken for that amount of Z to form from X. They find this to be xY (x being a variable and Y being the half-life). They thus conclude that the rock is at least xY years old. However, there is the problem. They have started with the assumption that the rock was not initially composed of X and Z together, and they have assumed that this rock was not affected by outside forces, and they have not accounted for the possibility of events such as The Flood of Genesis (Unless you can disprove the flood ever happened, you cannot rule out the possibility of its happening, though you don't need to accept its happening), and they have not accounted for the possibility that the rock could have been created with X and Z together initially. (You cannot start with the presupposition that creationism is false to use a method to then prove that creationism is false). All four of these assumptions make any calculation done based upon this principle incredibly shaky as there need be only one presupposition that is wrong and their estimate is wrong.

    Sadly, to my knowledge, much of the dating methods share many of these presuppositions, especially the presupposition that things were not created near what we see today which, while not proven to be true (to some people), is nonetheless a consideration and possibility which cannot be ignored.

    By the way, you still have not answered my previous questions.
    I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. - Albert Einstein
    If Satan can turn God's Word upside down and pervert the Scriptures, what will he do with my words -- or the words of others? - Martin Luther

  7. #87
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saved by Grace View Post
    bradfeaker,
    I did you the courtesy of reviewing the wiki article as well as many of its sources. I found no actual experiments, only quotes of experiments or summaries of experiments. I opened your direct link, but to see the PDF, I must purchase it, which I am not prepared to do.

    The basic problem I have with almost everything proposed in the articles are the presuppositions that they use. I specifically asked for articles in reference to Carbon Dating, so for the sake of time I shall only address my misgivings upon this particular topic.

    The entire principle of carbon dating is as follows: There is a given substance X. X has a half life of Y, at which point, on average, half of the substance can be expected to have changed atomic structure to result in Z.

    The problem I have with how many people date the earth, using this method, is this: they see a rock composed of X and Z. They calculate how long it would have taken for that amount of Z to form from X. They find this to be xY (x being a variable and Y being the half-life). They thus conclude that the rock is at least xY years old. However, there is the problem. They have started with the assumption that the rock was not initially composed of X and Z together, and they have assumed that this rock was not affected by outside forces, and they have not accounted for the possibility of events such as The Flood of Genesis (Unless you can disprove the flood ever happened, you cannot rule out the possibility of its happening, though you don't need to accept its happening), and they have not accounted for the possibility that the rock could have been created with X and Z together initially. (You cannot start with the presupposition that creationism is false to use a method to then prove that creationism is false). All four of these assumptions make any calculation done based upon this principle incredibly shaky as there need be only one presupposition that is wrong and their estimate is wrong.

    Sadly, to my knowledge, much of the dating methods share many of these presuppositions, especially the presupposition that things were not created near what we see today which, while not proven to be true (to some people), is nonetheless a consideration and possibility which cannot be ignored.

    By the way, you still have not answered my previous questions.
    I am not willing to purchase it either - just to make a point to you. And parroting the arguments from AIG, ICR and the DI don't cut it.

    I start from the position that creationism makes testable statements about the natural world and evaluate the veracity of those statements. NONE have any scientific support.

    If you have evidence to the contrary - please present it.

    What questions did I not address?
    *zip*

  8. #88
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by bradfeaker View Post
    The link I am providing is th the Wikipedia article on the Age of the earth - here. There a numerous links to specific peer reviewed research using carbon and potassium argon dating techniques.

    Here is a direct link to the abstract of just such a paper. I apologize for not being able to cite specific details - most of these research papers are behind a subscription wall.

    Most of the technical issues with radio carbon dating seem to stem from calibration methods. However - I am not a geologist and cannot speak with any great authority to all of said details.

    ---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 PM ----------



    It is being explored even now. There are in fact several (controversial to say the least) cosmological theories that contend that the speed of light may have been different at some point in the past (some of this is based on the WMAP data). No experiment has yet demonstrated this.
    I am aware of them. The enquiry into the constancy (or otherwise) of the speed of light was begun in recent years (as far as I am able to tell) by a creationst scientist - Barry Setterfield - and has lately been taken up by secular scientists/cosmologists. I find that very encouraging - that the 1% that science is humble enough to admit it might not know is actually being explored. (Although I personally doubt that it is only 1%!!)
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  9. #89
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    I am aware of them. The enquiry into the constancy (or otherwise) of the speed of light was begun in recent years (as far as I am able to tell) by a creationst scientist - Barry Setterfield - and has lately been taken up by secular scientists/cosmologists. I find that very encouraging - that the 1% that science is humble enough to admit it might not know is actually being explored. (Although I personally doubt that it is only 1%!!)
    disinterested,

    Oops - you could not have picked a worse example than good ole Barry. He is a young earth creationist (YEC) who is trying to prove that the Universe is only 6-7000 years old. In other words, he is a crank in the scientific world. Take down of of Barry here.

    And I think you missed something I said earlier...

    You said
    Yes, I fully understand that. But whereas you would say it is an omission on God's part, that is, God is less than He claims to be, I would say it is an omission on your part. You have not really known God for yourself. You may have believed in his existence (as do the devil and his cohorts) but you have not known God in an experiential way which is the ONLY way to know God - individually, by faith, as with the experience of taste - no-one else can do it for you, it cannot be achieved vicariously. Which is why God says; "O taste and see that the Lord is good."

    I recognise the difference because I've been there, too.
    I replied
    If I had a nickel for every time a believer has told me 'You have not really known God for yourself' I could retire in Acapulco right now. I'm sorry - that is insulting. Just as I cannot know your experience - you cannot know mine.
    Please don't do that - I would appreciate it.

    Cheers...
    *zip*

  10. #90
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by bradfeaker View Post
    disinterested,

    Oops - you could not have picked a worse example than good ole Barry. He is a young earth creationist (YEC) who is trying to prove that the Universe is only 6-7000 years old. In other words, he is a crank in the scientific world. Take down of of Barry here.
    Sure, you're just showing your bias - how could a YEC ever possibly be right - even within that 1% science doesn't know?

    And I think you missed something I said earlier...

    You said

    I replied

    Please don't do that - I would appreciate it.

    Cheers...
    What is it I must not do? Suggest that you have not known God yourself? Why is that so offensive to you?
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  11. #91
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    733
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Sorry, Clive, didn't mean to ignore you here.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    ...um, what? I could understand if you meant "If you do not accept their axioms as true, then you cannot be certain of the truth of their conclusions." But by and large humans do accept scientific axioms as true.
    There's a difference between acceptance and proof, don't you think?

    If Bradfeaker wants to construct a straw man and knock it down, he's free to.
    What do you mean? Where do you think is the straw man here?

    ---------- Post added at 05:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    Yes; the scientific method requires falsibility [i.e. falsifiability], testability, repeatability before it can be considered conclusive. Have I missed anything in my understanding?
    I'd consider Occam's Razor to be part of the scientific method as well. Otherwise, it sounds like you understand it well enough.

    No, what I am saying is that the evidence, that is, the observable universe including fossils and plate techtonics and deposition in the form of rock strata etc etc etc IS the evidence.
    Of course. To say "the evidence is the evidence" is to express a tautology.

    How one interprets that evidence (which is the same for every observer) is all that makes the difference between a creationist and an evolutionist. We all observe the same evidence, but some interpret it differently from others. The creation itself IS the evidence, just as a crime scene IS the evidence. It's how one interprets and presents that evidence that differs. The scene (evidence) itself does not. That remains unalterable.
    If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the difference between the doctrine of creationism and the scientific theory of evolution is a matter of interpretation, namely whether one interprets the evidence as coming from God or from unconscious emergent processes.

    At this point, assuming I'm correct above, I'll have to appeal to Occam's Razor. Why prefer a more complicated theory over a less complicated theory, if both seem to explain the same phenomena or evidence?
    Last edited by Autolykos; September 18th, 2009 at 09:10 AM.
    “When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves."

    - Herbert Spencer

  12. #92
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Autolykos View Post
    Sorry, Clive, didn't mean to ignore you here.



    There's a difference between acceptance and proof, don't you think?



    What do you mean? Where do think is the straw man here?

    ---------- Post added at 05:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------



    I'd consider Occam's Razor to be part of the scientific method as well. Otherwise, it sounds like you understand it well enough.



    Of course. To say "the evidence is the evidence" is to express a tautology.



    If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the difference between the doctrine of creationism and the scientific theory of evolution is a matter of interpretation, namely whether one interprets the evidence as coming from God or from unconscious emergent processes.

    At this point, assuming I'm correct above, I'll have to appeal to Occam's Razor. Why prefer a more complicated theory over a less complicated theory, if both seem to explain the same phenomena or evidence?
    Not sure which you side you are supporting with Occam's Razor. Nevertheless........

    Which is more complicated:

    1) God said and it was.

    2) There was a Big Bang that arose from a singularity (not quite sure how) and out of that proceeded matter, and from that a pre-biotic soup eventually formed, and out of that crawled a single-celled amoeba which after many million years became a two celled organism, and then a few million years later it grew a leg (or a snout or a gill or a flipper *insert your own preference*) and several million years later became a lizard, and a few million years later became a bird....and... (fast forward a few billion years) .....became MAN! Yay!!

    Reminds me of my 5 year old daughter who came home after her first day at school and said: "Mum! Mum! I can count to a hundred!" Well impressed, I said: "Well, go on, darling, couunt to a hundred."

    "One, two, miss a few, ninety-nine, a hundred!"

    That's evolution for you!
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  13. #93
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    733
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saved by Grace View Post
    bradfeaker,

    So, you are basically admitting that science cannot cover all possible scenarios. You have just stated that if God does exist, we would not be able to observe him, nor verify his actions by experiment in a scientific context. So, science is not a viable tool for making claims against or for God, or against or for the actions of God. This means that we must consider science not as ultimate, but rather that logic and philosophy trump science, since God, if he exists, is discernible by both. Thus, any question in regard to evolution is not simply a scientific one but also a philosophical one. Otherwise, we are not covering every possibility.
    As Bradfeaker pointed out, depending on how one defines "God", even the hypothesis "God exists" can be falsifiable, and thus testable.

    With that said, I don't understand your statement about whether to consider science as "ultimate". What do you mean by "ultimate" and why do you bring it up?

    How do logic and philosophy "trump" science, in your opinion? How do you think God (if he exists) is discernible by both?

    So, basically, you can neither confirm nor deny creationism on a scientific basis, since the only fundamental claim made across the board by creationists is that "God created..." There are numerous variances, but that would be to discuss particular theories of creationism, not creationism itself. So, since you have openly admitted that Science cannot test the above claim, we must turn to philosophy to either confirm or deny this claim.
    There is no certainty in science, ever. Hence there can never be any "final" or "ultimate" confirmation or denial of any hypothesis.

    ---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    Not sure which you side you are supporting with Occam's Razor. Nevertheless........

    Which is more complicated:

    1) God said and it was.

    2) There was a Big Bang that arose from a singularity (not quite sure how) and out of that proceeded matter, and from that a pre-biotic soup eventually formed, and out of that crawled a single-celled amoeba which after many million years became a two celled organism, and then a few million years later it grew a leg (or a snout or a gill or a flipper *insert your own preference*) and several million years later became a lizard, and a few million years later became a bird....and... (fast forward a few billion years) .....became MAN! Yay!!

    [Snipped cute but irrelevant personal anecdote]
    By your reasoning, the following is the simplest explanation for everything:
    “When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves."

    - Herbert Spencer

  14. #94
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Autolykos View Post
    As Bradfeaker pointed out, depending on how one defines "God", even the hypothesis "God exists" can be falsifiable, and thus testable.

    With that said, I don't understand your statement about whether to consider science as "ultimate". What do you mean by "ultimate" and why do you bring it up?

    How do logic and philosophy "trump" science, in your opinion? How do you think God (if he exists) is discernible by both?



    There is no certainty in science, ever. Hence there can never be any "final" or "ultimate" confirmation or denial of any hypothesis.

    ---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------



    By your reasoning, the following is the simplest explanation for everything:
    What is "the following"? Your tag line by Herbert Spencer? Interestingly (or not) he is one of my forebears.
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  15. #95
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In the hands of God
    Posts
    180
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    bradfeaker,
    And parroting the arguments from AIG, ICR and the DI don't cut it.
    Please explain to me what you are saying here. I'm not understanding what you are trying to communicate here.
    I start from the position that creationism makes testable statements about the natural world and evaluate the veracity of those statements.
    And I have pointed out that creationism doesn't, at its core, make such testable statements.
    What questions did I not address?
    You never responded to Post #77
    I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. - Albert Einstein
    If Satan can turn God's Word upside down and pervert the Scriptures, what will he do with my words -- or the words of others? - Martin Luther

  16. #96
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    733
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    Are you sure that's true? Doesn't that depend on a uniform rate of decay? Are you 100% positive that the speed of light, say, has not decayed? Are you 100% sure (or, perhaps I should ask, is "science - that amorphous body" 100% sure) that the speed of light is constant and if so that it has always been constant? If you answer yes, are you not denying science itself which by definition is always in a state of flux? Or are you claiming that science has now provided ALL the definitive answers for EVERYTHING? That all scientific knowledge today, this minute, reflects unchangeable, unalterable FACT?
    Again, there is no (absolute) certainty in science -- meaning that no scientist is every 100% sure/positive about anything. On the other hand, 90% confidence is greater than 80% confidence, which is greater than 70% confidence, and so on.

    ---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    What is "the following"? Your tag line by Herbert Spencer? Interestingly (or not) he is one of my forebears.
    Not at all. Look to the right of the colon. What do you see there?
    “When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves."

    - Herbert Spencer

  17. #97
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Kelowna BC, Canada
    Posts
    40
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    Not sure which you side you are supporting with Occam's Razor. Nevertheless........

    Which is more complicated:

    1) God said and it was.

    2) There was a Big Bang that arose from a singularity (not quite sure how) and out of that proceeded matter, and from that a pre-biotic soup eventually formed, and out of that crawled a single-celled amoeba which after many million years became a two celled organism, and then a few million years later it grew a leg (or a snout or a gill or a flipper *insert your own preference*) and several million years later became a lizard, and a few million years later became a bird....and... (fast forward a few billion years) .....became MAN! Yay!!

    Reminds me of my 5 year old daughter who came home after her first day at school and said: "Mum! Mum! I can count to a hundred!" Well impressed, I said: "Well, go on, darling, couunt to a hundred."

    "One, two, miss a few, ninety-nine, a hundred!"

    That's evolution for you!
    That is such a ridiculous overview of evolution. Talk about an appeal to ridicule.

    First of all, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the big bang theory. Secondly, abiogenesis and evolution are entirely different theories. Thirdly, the modern synthesis of evolution is a pragmatic multidisciplinary scientific approach that is supported by a mountain of scientific observation and another mountain of scientific experiment. Reducing these mountains to a conclusory anecdote about a child's mathematical shortcomings is intellectually dishonest.

    Ockham's Razor: principle stated by William of Ockham (1285–1347/49), a scholastic, that Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate; “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” The principle gives precedence to simplicity; of two competing theories, the simplest explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.(emphasis mine)” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/.../Ockhams-razor

    "God said, and it was" violates Ockham's Razor in two ways. First, the existential import of god is unnecessary to explain the diversity of life. This diversity can be explained using natural elements that we already know are present (i.e., these natural elements are known to exist as they are observable, measurable, and testable). Secondly the existential import of god is unjustified, as there is no empirical evidence to even remotely suggest such an entity exists. Existentially importing an entity (without reasonable justification) and using this entity (without reasonable justification) as a causal agent explaining the diversity of life (which can already be explained without the existentially imported entity) completely lacks parsimony.
    "*" --Kurt Vonnegut

  18. #98
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    Not sure which you side you are supporting with Occam's Razor. Nevertheless........

    Which is more complicated:

    1) God said and it was.

    2) There was a Big Bang that arose from a singularity (not quite sure how) and out of that proceeded matter, and from that a pre-biotic soup eventually formed, and out of that crawled a single-celled amoeba which after many million years became a two celled organism, and then a few million years later it grew a leg (or a snout or a gill or a flipper *insert your own preference*) and several million years later became a lizard, and a few million years later became a bird....and... (fast forward a few billion years) .....became MAN! Yay!!
    Disinterested. I think the way you relied on simplicity in the above post is not entirely fair. I hope this was just due to some misunderstanding on your part. Let me illustrate what you have done by taking the flip-side of your argument.

    1) There is an omnipotent and omniscient and benevolent entity that transcends time and space and that had always existed. This entity created the world as we know it some 6,000-10,000 years ago. On the 6th day it created a man from mud and then a woman from the man's bone.

    2) We evolved.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  19. #99
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Collierville, TN
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    Sure, you're just showing your bias - how could a YEC ever possibly be right - even within that 1% science doesn't know?

    What is it I must not do? Suggest that you have not known God yourself? Why is that so offensive to you?
    No - not bias - his 'science' is crap...don't know the man. He is no better than Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons who are not creationists. I apply the same standard to ALL scientific claims. Some are credible and some are not - Barry falls into the latter category.

    And what you are doing is preaching at me and presuming to know what my spriitual journey was like. It is arrogant and insulting to my intelligence. You know nothing about me, my background or really - anything else.

    For Christian edification - I do NOT fit in any of the following categories...

    1. You’re looking for an excuse not to believe.
    2. You’re being manipulated by Satan.
    3. You’re indulging your desire to live hedonistically.
    4. You want instant gratification.
    5. You’re not thinking about the future/afterlife.
    6. You never had a true personal relationship with Jesus.
    7. You never experienced/received the Holy Spirit.
    8. You were “religious” but not born again. (OR, in better church jargon) You had a “said faith, not a real faith.”
    9. Your decision is based on other Christians’ behavior, not on Jesus’ teachings.
    10. You were hurt by your pastor/other Christians.
    11. You were in the “wrong” denomination or sect.
    12. People disappointed you and so you “threw out the baby with the bathwater”.
    13. You weren’t following the real (or historical) Jesus.
    14. You’re angry and resentful and taking it out on God.
    15. You’re mad at God for some misfortune in your life.
    16. You were never saved/Christian to start with. (Good ole Calvinism)
    17. You’re harboring sin in your heart.
    18. You’re too prideful/arrogant to humble yourself before the Lord.
    19. You have a rebellious spirit.
    20. You didn’t pray/read the Bible enough.
    21. You forsook assembling together.
    22. You can’t accept authority.
    23. You never dealt with sin in your life. (i.e. You were a carnal Christian.)
    24. You are having a mid-life, or some other life wide, crisis.
    25. You’re, “going through a phase.”
    26. You are self-centered/serving yourself.
    27. You are shutting your eyes to the obvious truth of God.
    28. You love/serve science/job/hobbies more than God.
    29. You were unequally yoked (e.g. wife is Catholic, you were Protestant).
    30. You looked to your own will/emotions instead of God’s will.
    31. You’re mind was poisoned by man’s philosophy.
    32. You became “wise in your own eyes.”
    33. You were trying too hard to see God, and your own efforts kept you from success. (OR, said a little differently) You never “let go and let God.” (OR, said a little differently) You depended too much on your own strength/intellect.
    34. You quit seeking, or stopped “growing in the faith”, or allowed your faith to become stagnant.
    35. You didn’t “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”
    36. You were too legalistic.
    37. You want to be your own god.
    38. You didn’t really understand the scriptures (Bible).


    ---------- Post added at 10:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Saved by Grace View Post
    bradfeaker,
    Were you or were you not saying that it is untestable?
    You said very specifically that it was unverifiable and unobservable, both of which are necessities for science to be a useful tool. Do you agree with this or not?

    Correction:
    "Short-day Creationism" - ...
    "Long-day Creationism" - The earth was created slowly over a period of about 4 billion years, God creating creatures slowly and eventually
    "Evolution Creationism" - God created the universe, the necessities and prerequisites for life and the sustainability of life, then let it go (In this theory, evolution is a process which God designed and created to fulfill his plan)

    There are countless variations of those three theories. You cannot box all creationists into one particular theory. The only thing the three theories share are "God created..."

    Is the statement "God created..." testable by science?
    You are correct - all creationists are not YECs. Theistic evolution has it's own issue - believing that evolution was 'guided by god' when it is a random, blind process.

    The existence of the Judeo-Christian God IS testable as I pointed out in post #72. I am assuming that you are a Christian from you sig - please correct me if I am wrong.

    My point is that if you falsify the existence of the god in the first place - falsifying any idea about what he/she created is ludicrous. A non-existent being cannot 'create' anything.

    As to logical proofs - here are 2 short logical proofs for the non-existence of God - there are many, many others. And I actually think these types of formal logical statements are a waste of time - but here we go:

    This only references the God defined by the Protestant Bible

    The 'no perfect creator' proof:

    1. God is perfect
    2. God created the Universe
    3. Anything created by a perfect being should be perfect
    4. The Universe is not perfect
    5. God does not exist

    The 'lack of evidence proof'

    1. If God exists there will be objective evidence for said existence
    2. No such objective evidence exists
    3. God does not exist

    The most common Christian response to this statement is ''Well - God created a perfect Universe but sin ruined it all' Poppycock. That is why I think these type of 'proofs' are useless as tools of debate. You can alway get out of one of these proofs by relaxing the premise or changing the definitions.


    Cheers...
    *zip*

  20. #100
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In the hands of God
    Posts
    180
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do you need 'faith' to believe in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by bradfeaker
    ...believing that evolution was 'guided by god' when it is a random, blind process.
    Well, I guess if you assume it is random, then it cannot be guided by God, though it doesn't discredit his creating it. However, if you assume that God guided evolution, evolution is not random. Interesting how our assumptions influence our conclusions to such great extents. *Sarcasm*
    The existence of the Judeo-Christian God IS testable as I pointed out in post #72.
    Yes, you did point that our in post #72. You supplied one link to support this claim. (Officially, according to ODN policy, I shouldn't have to open any link. You should have copied the portion that you wished me to read in your post, but your new so I won't hold it against you.) This link referenced an article about a book. This article was one paragraph long and presented no arguments, but rather simply a summary. Thus the link did not back up your claims at all. Thus you have made a claim and have failed to provide proof. (This also is not allowed by ODN policy.) So, you have made a claim, but, seeing as you have not provided any evidence, I have chosen to discount it. If you would like me to reconsider this assertion, please provide proof.
    I am assuming that you are a Christian from you sig - please correct me if I am wrong.
    I do consider myself to be a Christian. All the theories that I presented are believed by Christians, thus I am confused as to why you have referenced this point.
    My point is that if you falsify the existence of the god in the first place.
    I'm sorry, but I did not know you were making this claim in this thread. Thank you for informing me. I will now expect a proof for this as well.
    The 'no perfect creator' proof:

    1. God is perfect
    2. God created the Universe
    3. Anything created by a perfect being should be perfect
    4. The Universe is not perfect
    5. God does not exist
    The error in this is in points 3 and 4. You make several assumptions here:
    1) A perfect being must create perfect creations.
    2) Our understanding of the concept of "perfect" is perfect.
    3) Our observations of the universe are sufficient to determine whether the universe is perfect or not.

    Please provide proof for each of these assumptions.
    The 'lack of evidence proof'

    1. If God exists there will be objective evidence for said existence
    2. No such objective evidence exists
    3. God does not exist
    I'm sorry, but I am unconvinced by this. First of all, if God is an omni-omni being, he could hide his very existence from the universe, or create the universe so that no being had the ability to comprehend any evidence for his existence. This objection alone discredits this proof, but I must continue.

    You say that there is no objective evidence for the existence of God. You offer no backing for this claim. Secondly, you do not give criteria for what form this objective evidence would look like. Thirdly, in order to make a claim that is an absolute negative, you must prove that in every case possible, no exception to this absolute negative can exist. To make such a claim means that you either are using purely logic not derived from observation, or you claim that you have universal observation skills, in which case you are making the claim that you are omni-observant.

    I believe I have given you enough to think about and to defend, so I will end with your proofs here.
    The most common Christian response to this statement is ''Well - God created a perfect Universe but sin ruined it all' Poppycock. That is why I think these type of 'proofs' are useless as tools of debate. You can alway get out of one of these proofs by relaxing the premise or changing the definitions.
    I'm sorry that you have had such a bad experience. Please don't bring it to debate. I have not used this argument, so to use it is superfluous.
    I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. - Albert Einstein
    If Satan can turn God's Word upside down and pervert the Scriptures, what will he do with my words -- or the words of others? - Martin Luther

 

 
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution is not PROVEN
    By Apokalupsis in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: February 25th, 2013, 09:06 AM
  2. Pope St. Victor
    By Montalban in forum Religion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: April 24th, 2006, 02:38 PM
  3. Galendir is Wrong!
    By PerVirtuous in forum General Debate
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 18th, 2006, 04:02 AM
  4. Criteria to get into Heaven.
    By Jamie in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: October 13th, 2005, 11:59 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •