Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
Creationists, explain to me why humans and dinosaurs....

Home // Evolution Versus Creationism



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:

Just a thought, but it seems to me that phoneguytim has a point here and fellfire has missed it. At some point in history an individual might reasonably have made similar statements regarding x-rays; not because there was no evidence that they existed, but because--at that time--we did not understand how to recognize the evidence; we lacked the tools to measure x-rays. That did not mean that they did not exist, nor did it mean that it was correct to claim to know that they did not.


Oh, you misunderstand; no one here claims to know that god doesn't exist.

The way i'd put my position on the existence of god is as follows:

"The existence of a god is sufficiently improbable that it is unreasonable to believe that one exists".

That's not the same as saying "there definitely isn't a god".

It's like if i had a friend who was ugly and stupid, and who claimed to have a supermodel as a girlfriend. I would reply with "pfft, no you don't", not because i would be absolutely certain of the nonexistence of said girlfriend, but because the existence of said girlfriend is so improbable that it can simply be dismissed if no evidence can be given for it.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fellfire - okay, let's come at it from another angle. Let me try a hypothetical for fun. (Fun for me, at least.)

Explorers find their way into a secluded corner of the Amazon rain forest where no one in recorded history has visited. They find there a field of flowers of amazing colors and variety, separate from the rest of the landscape. One group believes the field must be the result of intentional planting by some native culture in the distant past. Another group believes the field is just the result of random chance; conditions were simply right for the flowers to grow where and as they did.

To the believer, the simple existence of the field is evidence that a knowing hand was at work in creating what they have found.

It isn't that those who believe in God do so without evidence; it's that they do so without evidence that satisfies your standard. (But of course, it doesn't need to. It only needs to satisfy theirs.)

For my part, I don't know whether God exists or doesn't, but I like to think He does. For what it's worth, I'm not a big fan of people who try to push their belief or lack thereof on others. Believe if you like, or don't, and let others do their own thing.

Buddha said that there are many paths up the mountain, and that they all reached to top sooner or later. Gandhi added to that, saying that while what Buddha said was true, it was also true that the man who circles the mountain trying to convince everyone else of the superiority of his chosen path has ceased ascending.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
One group believes the field must be the result of intentional planting by some native culture in the distant past. Another group believes the field is just the result of random chance; conditions were simply right for the flowers to grow where and as they did.

To the believer, the simple existence of the field is evidence that a knowing hand was at work in creating what they have found.

It isn't that those who believe in God do so without evidence; it's that they do so without evidence that satisfies your standard. (But of course, it doesn't need to. It only needs to satisfy theirs.)


Except, in your analogy there, that really isn't evidence of their belief. It's not possible to reasonably claim that evidence such as you claim exists. It's got nothing to do with standards.

If the field was planted on purpose, the field exists.

If the field wasn't planted on purpose, the field still exists anyway.

The fact alone that the field exists does not help a person differentiate between the two propositions. It therefore cannot be reasonably believed to be evidence supporting one proposition or the other.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Exton - I find a stone that is shaped like a heart; I think it was carved, but you think it just naturally ended up that way. Absent any other data, we each BELIEVE the evidence we have is sufficient to draw a conclusion (at least sufficient to ourselves).

Or put God in Schrodinger's box if you like. He's both dead and alive (exists and does not exist) so long as we never look inside (and it seems to me that we don't know how to look inside). Neither side can prove its argument, so why argue? Let those who believe, believe. Let those who don't, do their thing.

Of course, the point where friction is created is the point where policy is made. Those who believe want their standards, based on those beliefs, to be met when policies and laws are made. On those I have to come down on the side of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. If your religion leads you to believe that life begins at conception, don't have an abortion, but don't expect federal law to reflect that purely religious belief.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2017
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:

Of course, the point where friction is created is the point where policy is made. Those who believe want their standards, based on those beliefs, to be met when policies and laws are made. On those I have to come down on the side of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. If your religion leads you to believe that life begins at conception, don't have an abortion, but don't expect federal law to reflect that purely religious belief.


Here, as in the past, we agree. The point of friction is where policy is made - that's worth repeating.

exton adequately replied to your fun hypothetical. I have no disagreement with someones faith; it is not my place to debate faith. However, do agree with exton's response, the existance of the field is not evidence for either believe - it is merely a data point at best.

That is where disagreement comes about; when a believer feels that "because they know" that is somehow evidence by the definition routinely accepted. I don't have a problem with a believer claim that as "evidence enough for me" but please don't overload the term 'evidence' and claim that ones "belief", that ones "faith", is sufficient evidence to existence. It is not.

IMO, the correct response to the statement "there is no evidence of the existence of God" is a resounding: Absolutely Correct! God requires faith in his existence. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Christians who claim evidence of God or claim to seek evidence of God are risking their faith. If God is found to exist, then there is no need for faith. Arguing semantics of "you don't know that God doesn't exist" is facetious and completely besides the point - for the truely faithful, God exists. Not because they have personal evidence or subjective evidence but because they have faith in him.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
Exton - I find a stone that is shaped like a heart; I think it was carved, but you think it just naturally ended up that way. Absent any other data, we each BELIEVE the evidence we have is sufficient to draw a conclusion (at least sufficient to ourselves).


If, in that instance, either of us believes the mere existence of such a stone can be reasonably considered to be evidence of its origins, then we're both wrong to think that.

The only thing that the existence of something can tell you is that it exists. It does not constitute evidence of origins, not in any form or fashion.

Quote:

Or put God in Schrodinger's box if you like. He's both dead and alive (exists and does not exist) so long as we never look inside (and it seems to me that we don't know how to look inside).


Shrodingers box is a poor analogy, and the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is most likely wrong.

And, as far as his box is concerned, depending on the thing you're measuring, it is equally likely that the cat is dead or alive.

The same cannot reasonably be said of god, as there is no evidence that suggests his existence.

Quote:

Neither side can prove its argument, so why argue? Let those who believe, believe. Let those who don't, do their thing.

Of course, the point where friction is created is the point where policy is made. Those who believe want their standards, based on those beliefs, to be met when policies and laws are made. On those I have to come down on the side of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. If your religion leads you to believe that life begins at conception, don't have an abortion, but don't expect federal law to reflect that purely religious belief.


I totally agree. I think government policy should only be based on what can be observed, measured, and logically deduced. If people want to sacrifice chickens to their gods on their own time, that's their business...providing those aren't my chickens, and chickens aren't an endangered species.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fellfire - Always nice to find a point of agreement, and even more enjoyable to discuss the rest with courtesy. Cool

fellfire wrote:
...the existence of the field is not evidence for either believe - it is merely a data point at best...

Maybe I didn't state it well enough; it isn't the simple existence of the field, but the nature of it... again, this is a hypothetical, but I think you know what I mean.

Theoretically a handful of stones could roll down a hill and land in a perfectly straight line, but if I see a row of stones in a perfectly straight line I assume someone arranged them that way. In much the same way, some perfectly reasonable, highly intelligent people look at the complexity of the world around us and assume that some hand was at play in its creation. Their evidence for the existence of God is the incredible world they believe He created.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:

Theoretically a handful of stones could roll down a hill and land in a perfectly straight line, but if I see a row of stones in a perfectly straight line I assume someone arranged them that way.


And that assumption, given the information you've stated, is unreasonable. There is no evidence with which to conclude that. It is exactly an assumption, and nothing more.

Quote:

In much the same way, some perfectly reasonable, highly intelligent people look at the complexity of the world around us and assume that some hand was at play in its creation.


That's worse than a misrecognition of evidence - it's a logical fallacy. It's begging the question.

They say, "look, it's so complex - it must be a product of a mind. So, someone must have made the universe."

The implicit assumption is that a mind is necessary to create order or complexity. But that jut begs the question: is it?

The belief you describe is not a conclusion based on evidence - it's an unsubstantiated assumption based on a very limited understanding of their world and their failure to understand their own biases.

It's an extremely simplistic line of thought that stretches back to the stone age: "Hmm. That stuff has order. What else causes order? Oh - people do! I don't know of anything else that does. So, someone must have made that."

Quote:

Their evidence for the existence of God is the incredible world they believe He created.


Like i said: that isn't evidence of any such thing. It's a failure in thinking.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
TrespassersW wrote:

Theoretically a handful of stones could roll down a hill and land in a perfectly straight line, but if I see a row of stones in a perfectly straight line I assume someone arranged them that way.

And that assumption, given the information you've stated, is unreasonable. There is no evidence with which to conclude that. It is exactly an assumption, and nothing more.

Then I guess it's good that I used the word "assume." Wink

exton wrote:
Quote:
In much the same way, some perfectly reasonable, highly intelligent people look at the complexity of the world around us and assume that some hand was at play in its creation.

That's worse than a misrecognition of evidence - it's a logical fallacy. It's begging the question.

Yes, it most certainly is.

You make a perfectly valid point. My point was an effort to describe their thinking, not an effort to claim it constituted a logical argument.

My personal belief that there is a God is only that; my personal belief. I do not claim to "know" that there is a God; I only know that I have an innate inclination to believe it is so, and that my life is enriched by that belief. I do not expect others to believe what I believe. (In fact, I'm quite sure there isn't a single person in the church I attend who would agree with me if I tried to describe my personal view of the world.)

At the end of the day--for me--it's about having a philosophy, or religion, or moral code, or whatever you want to call it that makes you happy and inclined to try to treat those around you well. If you have that, I don't care what you call it or where you found it. If you don't, well, that's also your choice, but I probably don't want to know you. (And here I'm using the general "you," not you personally!)
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2017
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
At the end of the day--for me--it's about having a philosophy, or religion, or moral code, or whatever you want to call it that makes you happy and inclined to try to treat those around you well. If you have that, I don't care what you call it or where you found it. If you don't, well, that's also your choice, but I probably don't want to know you. (And here I'm using the general "you," not you personally!)


I appreciate this position and, truthfully, I'm not surprised that it is your position. IMO, it is not the enlightened religious population that are attacking evolution as either "a faith as much as ours" or as "the doom of mankind and civilization as we know it", it is the uninformed and zealots.

I suspect that most religious people answer with "I do not believe in evolution" only because they don't know anything about evolution. A few, I suspect, are mislead by creationist and ID information, but I think the majority simply don't see it as impacting their lives sufficiently to spend many neural firings thinking about it.
Back to top
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Religion has based itself on lack of knowledge and misinformation for all of eternity
What was the name of the tree that Eve took the apple from?
That wasn't a mistake...the powers that be in the Church (and I'm talking about the Christian Church right now...but it's true in every religion)
weaved a tale of quasi-believability taking bits and pieces of different religions so that people would feel comfortable converting
This was done on meetings of the Church heirarchy in the 3rd century
look at the myth of St Nicholas
the Myth of Easter
the Birth of Christ
The resurrection
ALL OF THEM .... were taken directly from the pagan religions of the time

Why do you think the Church burned people in the Middle Ages for stating that the earth wasn't the center of the universe?
Why was Galileo imprisoned for the last years of his life?

The Church is a propaganda machine....and blind faith is its weaponry
Back to top
Vinces
Newbie


Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:12 pm    Post subject: Your good Reply with quote
I'm not an expert but I would ask how could you possibly know what layer every single dinosaur bone ever unearthed came from? I would agree that in the last 200 years yes there is probably a good record of what layer of earth a dinosaur bone was found in (and there have been plenty of surprises dismissed by science as bones reburried) but I would wager that there have been at least as many unrecorded discoveries in all the years before that. It's amazing that you somehow know as a matter of fact what layer they did or did not come from. Your good.

Shoot you'd probably even say that Job must have dug pretty deep to find his brontosaurus tail bones when he lied and described a living creature with a tail like a cedar tree some 4000 years ago.
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1456

PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This seems to be implying that it's required that we know what layer every single bone has ever come from in order to make an argument against creationism, which simply is not true.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:19 pm    Post subject: Or...... Reply with quote
It's answering the question posed to creationists in the title of the thread. Maybe not bluntly enough.

How bout this, because the easiest ones to find were found before there was a record kept of what layer they were found in. I know the Chinese revered dino bones and used them through the millenia believing they had special qualities. They could have been found above ground for all we know.

I mean Evolutionists are the ones saying dino bones have been around for millions and millions of years. Are they also going to base a conclusion on a sample of discoveries made during .0000001 % of that amount of time? Not to mention the fact that if there were bones closer to the surface or on the surface they would be more likely to have been dug up or found long ago??? C'mon guys, bring a real challenge.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Or...... Reply with quote
Anonymous wrote:
It's answering the question posed to creationists in the title of the thread. Maybe not bluntly enough.

How bout this, because the easiest ones to find were found before there was a record kept of what layer they were found in. I know the Chinese revered dino bones and used them through the millenia believing they had special qualities. They could have been found above ground for all we know.

I mean Evolutionists are the ones saying dino bones have been around for millions and millions of years. Are they also going to base a conclusion on a sample of discoveries made during .0000001 % of that amount of time? Not to mention the fact that if there were bones closer to the surface or on the surface they would be more likely to have been dug up or found long ago??? C'mon guys, bring a real challenge.

Okay, here's one...

Can you cite for me any "dino bone" known to exist where carbon dating (or other scientific method of estimating its age) showed the bone to be much less old than evolutionists/conventional theories suggest such bones should/must be?

Thanks in advance.
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Evolution Versus Creationism All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 9 of 10

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics
Politics blogs Politics blogs Article Directory Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites