Creationism vs. Evolution

[Fonceai]

Did you? 1217 and 1218 are in there somewhere.

[RickSp]

In simple terms CC, your suggestion is that if you can imagine it that it must therefore exist, if the probability of your imaginings is non zero and infinite time and space is assumed. That is fine, if in practical terms, meaningless - supposititon compounded by supposition extended to infinity. An interesting thought game perhaps, but nothing else.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: RickSp In simple terms CC, your suggestion is that if you can imagine it that it must therefore exist, if the probability of your imaginings is non zero and infinite time and space is assumed. That is fine, if in practical terms, meaningless - supposititon compounded by supposition extended to infinity. An interesting thought game perhaps, but nothing else.

My imagining it does not affect the probability of its existence - I am not saying that.

There is no compounding of supposition here, and I assure you it is not meaningless.


Strong Atheists are driven to find any excuse for God to not exist, just as Christians are driven to find any excuse for their God to exist. Such meaningless reasoning takes the edge off of the Strong Atheist position. This can be useful in opening their minds to possibilities.

The concept of infinite emergence leads directly to the question "do the laws of physics allow for a god to exist?"


If we at some point establish that, indeed, the laws of physics do allow for this, then we can use that knowledge to guide us in our own evolution. After all, we are now entering the phase where humanity's evolution will be controlled, rather than random. In a billion years, will we be god-level beings, capable of creating our own realities?



I guess I just really object to the idea that speculative reasoning is meaningless, because I feel it is the first step towards great discoveries. How much speculative reasoning did Einstein (another deist) engage in, before it became quite meaningful indeed?



I will concede this point, though. If God (or gods) does exist, he keeps his nature hidden from us. Thus, our belief (or lack thereof) in him is clearly not all that important.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Strong Atheists are driven to find any excuse for God to not exist, just as Christians are driven to find any excuse for their God to exist. The concept of infinite emergence leads directly to the question "do the laws of physics allow for a god to exist?" If we at some point establish that, indeed, the laws of physics do allow for this, then we can use that knowledge to guide us in our own evolution. After all, we are now entering the phase where humanity's evolution will be controlled, rather than random. In a billion years, will we be god-level beings, capable of creating our own realities?

I wouldn't agree that virtually any athiest is driven to disprove "God." If there is no evidence of God, there is simply no reason to believe. That is enough. To argue that a particular dogma makes no sense and therefore the God described by that dogma is unreasonable is another matter.

The problem I have is that the idea of god is perpetually undefined and as such is effectively meaningless. You ask "do the laws of physics allow for a god to exist?" What do you mean by god? If god is a bullfinch, of course physics allows god to exist. If god is some vague idea which cannot be defined then there is no answer to the question as the question itself doesn't mean anything.

Quote by: Captain Chaos I guess I just really object to the idea that speculative reasoning is meaningless, because I feel it is the first step towards great discoveries. How much speculative reasoning did Einstein (another deist) engage in, before it became quite meaningful indeed?

Not all speculative reasoning is meaningless. Nor is all of it full of portent. I think we should be all be careful when comparing ourselves to Einstein for obvious reasons.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: RickSP If there is no evidence of God, there is simply no reason to believe. That is enough.

There is no evidence (well, no good evidence) of the existence of extraterrestrial life. Do you therefore believe that there is no extraterrestrial life?

The problem I have is that the idea of god is perpetually undefined and as such is effectively meaningless. You ask "do the laws of physics allow for a god to exist?" What do you mean by god? If god is a bullfinch, of course physics allows god to exist. If god is some vague idea which cannot be defined then there is no answer to the question as the question itself doesn't mean anything.

Any being that is capable of designing and implementing a reality such as the 3D space in which we reside.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Captain Chaos There is no evidence (well, no good evidence) of the existence of extraterrestrial life. Do you therefore believe that there is no extraterrestrial life?

You mean you do? Why believe in anything for which there is no evidence? The existence of terrestrial life can be used as an argument for the potential of extra-terrestrial life but is not in itself a reason to believe in little green men (speaking figuratively.)

Quote by: Captain Chaos Any being that is capable of designing and implementing a reality such as the 3D space in which we reside.

Still rather broad and vague, don't you think? Even this being is one for which you have no evidence. The argument that such a being must exist, the argument from "First Cause" is as ancient and tattered as the Watchmaker argument.

And at this point we should return to the topic before Matt beats us around the head and ears.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: RickSp You mean you do? Why believe in anything for which there is no evidence? The existence of terrestrial life can be used as an argument for the potential of extra-terrestrial life but is not in itself a reason to believe in little green men (speaking figuratively.)

Belief is a matter of weighing out probabilities. Even though we lack evidence for LGMs (little green microbes), we have every reason to believe that it is very likely that life exists elsewhere. Why? Because of the absolutely enormous size of our universe.

Tell me, if you had to guess one way or the other, would you guess that earth-size planets exist outside of our solar system, even though we have no evidence for them (yet)?

Still rather broad and vague, don't you think? Even this being is one for which you have no evidence. The argument that such a being must exist, the argument from "First Cause" is as ancient and tattered as the Watchmaker argument.

First cause arguments imply acausality, which is just magical reasoning. I do not believe there was ever a first cause. Watchmaker arguments are just ultimately inconclusive, but they are not necessarily false.


As for that definition being broad - that is appropriate. A narrow definition would exclude valid possibilities.

[gallo]

Quote by: kubedawg How can they 100% confirm that the dinosaur was 70 Million years old?

Who said anything about 100%? I know that they didn't give any margin of error. Perhaps you wouldn't have become confused if they has said "about 70 million years." But we know that the T. rex bones are older than 65 million years beyond a reasonable doubt since they lie below the K-T boundary. The K-T boundary is easily dated by several methods and it is quite easy to find in many parts of Montana. At any rate, the fossils were found either in a volcanic ash layer (which gives the age), or between two ash layers that give a high and low to the age.

Quote by: kubedawg The ways in which we are able to date bones back for a couple thousands of years may be completely different than that of dinosaurs because there are no living dinosaurs today.

While it is true that different methods are used for older fossils than younger ones, neither method of dating has anything to do with whether or not examples of the organism are living today.

Quote by: kubedawg But lets just say, for science sake, there are. Like the ostrich. How are we able to determine the age of dinosaur bones?

By radiometric dating of volcanic ash layers.

Quote by: kubedawg We weren't there so there is no way to do so.

Why would you expect that someone had to be there? What does that have to do with it?

Quote by: kubedawg We can confirm the age of ostriches because they live today.

Right. And we don't find fossil ostriches.

Quote by: kubedawg But something existed before our time, or that existed before these studies were first being made, may not be true.

Why not? Anyway, there does exist a small possibility that the calculated date is wrong, but the evidence is so secure that only a fool would refuse to accept the date, at least tentatively, until new data are found.

Quote by: kubedawg Therefore, the theory of creationism cannot be ruled out, and that evolution is no more fact than that of creationism.

First, creationism isn't a theory since it is based on no evidence whatsoever. Creationism is based on mythology. You see, no one was there and there is no reliable way to date events the events anyway. In fact, not a single event preached by creationists can be shown to have occurred. So evolution is much, much more factual than creationism. Creationism is based on the mythology of nomadic herdsmen, while evolutionary theory is an explanation for observed data.

[gallo]

Quote by: Fonceai Just an idea, and an interesting and fun one if you try to elaborate on it.

But first you have to assume that the Bible creation stories are anything more than mythology. That's a big assumption based on no evidence.

[gallo]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Strong Atheists are driven to find any excuse for God to not exist, just as Christians are driven to find any excuse for their God to exist.

Atheists are driven to do no such thing. An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of god, why would they be "driven" to find evidence against something that doesn't exist? In fact, there is no evidence either way for the existence of god. It would be silly to be "driven" to seek something for which there is no hope to find. It doesn't exist.

Christians, on the other hand, may be "driven" to search for evidence, since they believe that some god exists. In fact, they seem "driven" to accept assertion and mythology as evidence.

[Fonceai]

@gallo

It is a big assumption, but one that isn't so much a God Of Gaps but a merging of the two.

I know it's taking parables about the Others (who are more than likely just descendants of Adam and Eve who stopped living the way of God) and making them a bit more scientific, but it's still a fun little gee-whiz exercise.

Not all of this stuff has to be so serious... <grin>

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Gallo Atheists are driven to do no such thing. An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of god, why would they be "driven" to find evidence against something that doesn't exist?

First of all, I said Strong Atheists. Secondly, I used the term "find any excuse." I said nothing about being driven to find evidence.

In fact, there is no evidence either way for the existence of god.

Actually, there is evidence. Some interpret that evidence as being in favor of the existence of god, others, such as yourself, interpret it otherwise. It is a common atheist deception to characterize weak evidence as 'no evidence.'

Regardless, Strong Atheists believe God does not exist (at least, that is what I mean by the term). This is different from lacking a belief in God. In my experience, Strong Atheists resort to all sorts of foolishness to support their belief. See Zhavric's arguments as an example.

It would be silly to be "driven" to seek something for which there is no hope to find. It doesn't exist.

This is a statement of faith.

Christians, on the other hand, may be "driven" to search for evidence, since they believe that some god exists. In fact, they seem "driven" to accept assertion and mythology as evidence.

Just as strong atheists seem drive to accept absence of strong evidence as evidence of absence.



Just a comment on evidence. Sometimes, in the absence of evidence, we might still suspect that a thing probably exists, simply because it seems reasonable that it might exist. For example, I assume that you believe there exists earth-sized planets elsewhere in our universe? We have no evidence for it, but I'd bet my left nut they are out there.

[RickSp]

CC, most of your statements regarding atheists are simply silly as are your claims about evidence. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or creationism.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: RickSp CC, most of your statements regarding atheists are simply silly as are your claims about evidence. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or creationism.

Rick, most of your statements about my statements are simply silly, as are your claims about absence of evidence. Which, yes, has little to do with the topic of this thread.


Condescension is simply a fall back when one cannot present an argument.



For one thing, I notice that you failed to respond to my question to you about whether or not you believe that Earth sized planets exist outside of our solar system.

[Jack]

Actually, there is evidence. Some interpret that evidence as being in favor of the existence of god, others, such as yourself, interpret it otherwise.

And that evidence would be...?

Sometimes, in the absence of evidence, we might still suspect that a thing probably exists, simply because it seems reasonable that it might exist.

Because we have examples of those things already existing and being consistant with scientific knowledge. Gods do not fit that category.

To me, atheism is the state of disbelief in an unproven entity. If proof can be offered that can be tested and verified, I might consider changing my view. But to ask me to believe in the gods of Jesus and Moses, not a chance. They are so obviously products of human imaginations from that period and region that it boggles my mind that anyone can accept those stories as real.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood And that evidence would be...?

For example: Anecdotal evidence of a burning bush speaking with God's voice.

Yes, you and I do not consider it to be reliable evidence. Nevetheless, it exists. Thus it is weak (very weak) evidence, which is different from non-existent evidence.

Because we have examples of those things already existing and being consistant with scientific knowledge.

We have no evidence of gravity waves existing. We believe they exist purely based on reasoning and other evidence.

Gods do not fit that category.

Gods, as I define them, are not inconsistent with scientific knowledge. Given forever, how could they not evolve?

To me, atheism is the state of disbelief in an unproven entity.

OK, but I used the term 'strong atheist' just now.

If proof can be offered that can be tested and verified, I might consider changing my view.

I'll let you know as soon as I have it - should be next week sometime.

They are so obviously products of human imaginations from that period and region that it boggles my mind that anyone can accept those stories as real.

It boggles my mind as well.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Rick, most of your statements about my statements are simply silly, as are your claims about absence of evidence. Which, yes, has little to do with the topic of this thread. Condescension is simply a fall back when one cannot present an argument. For one thing, I notice that you failed to respond to my question to you about whether or not you believe that Earth sized planets exist outside of our solar system.

And what does the belief in Earth sized planets have to do with evolution vs creationism? The obvious answer is that there probably are, but who knows ?

As a theist, your bizarre labeling of atheists is pretty condescending as well. Your claims about evidence are ridiculous. Folklore about a burning bush is evidence? Sure. If you consider that evidence you might consider worshiping the Easter Bunny.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: RickSP As a theist, your bizarre labeling of atheists is pretty condescending as well.

Strong Atheists, not all atheists - I thought I made that clear. I am speaking from my experience in debating with them.

Your claims about evidence are ridiculous. Folklore about a burning bush is evidence?

I deliberately used something ridiculous as an example. My point is that, no matter how weak a bit of evidence may be, it is not the same thing as non-existent. Do you understand the difference?

Sure. If you consider that evidence you might consider worshiping the Easter Bunny.

People did:

Origin of the Easter Bunny




My point about evidence is that it is dishonest to say that there is no evidence for a thing, when millions of people worhsip based on what they consider evidence. The Bible is the evidence that Christian's rely upon.

I think it is terrible evidence, but I do not consider it non existant.



To say there is no evidence for creationism is false. One should instead say that the evidence for creationism is all mythological, and thus not believable. Poor evidence, rather than non existent.



In mathematical terms - extremely close to zero is not the same thing as zero. Do you understand that?


And yes, I am using a condescending voice to you. I will stop if you will.

[Jack]

The Bible is the evidence that Christian's rely upon. I think it is terrible evidence, but I do not consider it non existant.

OK, I see what you're saying. However, to admit the bible "into evidence" with no more outside verification than it has would allow the works of L. Ron Hubbard to be considered as evidence of the reality of scientology. A book written by believers in the concept under investigation isn't reliable evidence of much beyond their belief.

[gallo]

Quote by: Captain Chaos My point about evidence is that it is dishonest to say that there is no evidence for a thing, when millions of people worhsip based on what they consider evidence.

I see. So there is evidence that people are out to get me because I believe that people are out to get me.