Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Use of Science to Support Creationism
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 122 (153841)
10-28-2004 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Ooook!
10-28-2004 6:10 PM


It may not be a million miles away from your beliefs, but I just can't discount the possibility.
The possibility of invisible ninjas, or the possibility of God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Ooook!, posted 10-28-2004 6:10 PM Ooook! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by nator, posted 10-28-2004 6:48 PM crashfrog has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 107 of 122 (153844)
10-28-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
10-28-2004 6:33 PM


quote:
The possibility of invisible ninjas, or the possibility of God?
Either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2004 6:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2004 5:16 PM nator has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 108 of 122 (154467)
10-30-2004 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by nator
10-28-2004 6:48 PM


Either.
Congratulations, you're an atheist.

"What gets me is all the mean things people say about Secular Humanism without even taking the time to read some of our basic scriptures, such as the Bill of Rights or Omni magazine." - Barbara Ehrenreich

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by nator, posted 10-28-2004 6:48 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by nator, posted 11-01-2004 9:53 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 109 of 122 (154498)
10-30-2004 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Loudmouth
10-28-2004 5:20 PM


Re: Original title: Asking for a clarification from Creationists.
It is your own worldview that is entering the arena.
I have always said my worldview is contained in all my interpretations and conclusions.
I have constantly protested and argued how atheists deny that their worldview is in the same arena.
The question becomes how an interpretation of Genesis can contradict the very Creation that it speaks about.
Yes I agree.
If God created the universe and the life in it, then shouldn't we trust the evidence in the creation?
Of course.
Why is human evolution alleged as proven fact based upon a paucity of physical fossil evidence ?
Millions of years to get erect yet an amount of disputed body of evidence that could fit into a medium sized box at best = so much based on so little = irrational belief not supported by the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Loudmouth, posted 10-28-2004 5:20 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by wj, posted 10-31-2004 4:13 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 111 by sidelined, posted 10-31-2004 7:34 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 114 by Loudmouth, posted 11-01-2004 11:43 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 122 by Gary, posted 11-02-2004 10:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 122 (154568)
10-31-2004 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Cold Foreign Object
10-30-2004 9:46 PM


Re: Original title: Asking for a clarification from Creationists.
willow writes:
Millions of years to get erect yet an amount of disputed body of evidence that could fit into a medium sized box at best = so much based on so little
Leaving aside the inaccuracy of your initial assertion, what quantity of humanoid fossils do you think is necessary to prvide compelling evidence for the evolution of humans?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-30-2004 9:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 111 of 122 (154577)
10-31-2004 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Cold Foreign Object
10-30-2004 9:46 PM


Re: Original title: Asking for a clarification from Creationists.
Willowtree
Millions of years to get erect yet an amount of disputed body of evidence that could fit into a medium sized box at best = so much based on so little = irrational belief not supported by the evidence.
Sounds like my wife discussing our love life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-30-2004 9:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 112 of 122 (154817)
11-01-2004 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
10-30-2004 5:16 PM


...but I don't discount the possibility of either.
The probability of either is very small, of course, but anything is possible because we are not all-knowing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2004 5:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2004 11:03 AM nator has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 113 of 122 (154851)
11-01-2004 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by nator
11-01-2004 9:53 AM


..but I don't discount the possibility of either.
Who said you did? I'm satisified that you're an atheist if you believe the existence of God is as unlikely as any of the other imaginary things we invent around here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by nator, posted 11-01-2004 9:53 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by nator, posted 11-02-2004 6:45 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 122 (154863)
11-01-2004 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Cold Foreign Object
10-30-2004 9:46 PM


Re: Original title: Asking for a clarification from Creationists.
quote:
Why is human evolution alleged as proven fact based upon a paucity of physical fossil evidence ?
It is not a proven fact. Nothing in science is a proven fact. Every theory is tentative.
Next, what fossils we do have fit into an evolutionary tree, no surprise. The more human like the younger the fossil, the more ape-like the older the fossil.
You also forget about the large amounts of genetic evidence, such as pseudogenes and ERV's. Our DNA reflects what we see in the fossils which only strengthens the theory. I have recently posted an article here at EvC, a quick search of my recent posts should uncover it for you.
quote:
Millions of years to get erect yet an amount of disputed body of evidence that could fit into a medium sized box at best = so much based on so little = irrational belief not supported by the evidence.
Last I knew, a medium sized box could not fit hundreds of non-human hominids. Another lie that demonstrates removal of Godsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-30-2004 9:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2004 1:52 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 115 of 122 (154884)
11-01-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Loudmouth
11-01-2004 11:43 AM


Clarification on Fact
I think that just commenting on the real place of "proof" in the mathematical sense doesn't adequately cover this kind of case.
What are facts (in as close a way has we are going to get for anything at all complex) are the fossils, their differences and similarities to humans and their place in the geology of where they were laid down.
When these 100,s of specimens are examined we note that they suggest a change from more ape like to less ape like and to fully human over the time frame involved. Since the suggestion is so very strong for this and no one has suggested a reasonable alternative explanation we start to treat this apparent linkage as a "fact" as well. When we are not being pedantic about the language involved then it seems perfectly reasonable to say: "That humans have evolved from earlier forms is a fact." If we are being more pedantic then "The available evidence strongely supports the theory that humans have evolved from somewhat ape like forms." is a perfectly good statment too.
The problem is using the second one sounds, to the untrained ear, like we aren't very sure of this conclusion. However, it is really just the cautious scientific way of saying that humans have evolved as a matter of fact.
Here is a famous example of this kind of cautious understatement in Watson and Crick's famous 1953 paper:
quote:
It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Loudmouth, posted 11-01-2004 11:43 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 116 of 122 (155280)
11-02-2004 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by crashfrog
11-01-2004 11:03 AM


quote:
I'm satisified that you're an atheist if you believe the existence of God is as unlikely as any of the other imaginary things we invent around here.
Well, OK, you can call me an Athiest if you want to, but I'll call myself an Agnostic.
Absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2004 11:03 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2004 6:51 PM nator has replied
 Message 118 by Lindum, posted 11-02-2004 6:59 PM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 117 of 122 (155283)
11-02-2004 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by nator
11-02-2004 6:45 PM


Absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence.
Yes. Agreed. But atheism isn't the position that there is an absence of gods. It's the position that there is an absence of evidence for gods, and having enough confidence about that to say so.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-02-2004 06:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by nator, posted 11-02-2004 6:45 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by nator, posted 11-02-2004 7:06 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Lindum
Member (Idle past 3396 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 118 of 122 (155285)
11-02-2004 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by nator
11-02-2004 6:45 PM


Hi Schraf,
Schraf writes:
Absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence.
I think we're down to semantics again on this one. I used to consider myself an agnostic, but since i don't believe in any god, I'm happy to call myself an athiest. I still have the same open mind to the supernatural, but lack of belief is lack of belief. Also, I don't discount the possibility of knowing of 'god', yet still consider myself an athiest. The term sometimes gets a bad rap, but that's what I am!
This is likely to be horribly off-topic, for which I apologise.
Cheers.
[edit: formatting]
This message has been edited by Lindum, 11-02-2004 07:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by nator, posted 11-02-2004 6:45 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 119 of 122 (155286)
11-02-2004 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by crashfrog
11-02-2004 6:51 PM


No, I think that is the definition of Agnosticism.
Athieism, from everything I have read, says that there is no supernatural and could never be, not that we have no evidence for it so we don't know if it exists or not.
However, I guess I could be considered a "Strong Agnostic/Weak Athiest" by the second definition below.
Page not found - American Atheists
Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural
forces or entities, nor can there be any.
NOT AVAILABLE - FreeServers
An agnostic is a person who does not know if a god or gods exist. An agnostic who also believes that it is impossible to know whether or not gods exist is a strong agnostic, otherwise he or she is a weak agnostic.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. An atheist who actively believes that gods do not exist is a strong atheist, while an atheist that merely lacks belief in gods is a weak atheist. Many people who identify themselves as agnostics are also weak atheists. Note that since it is perfectly consistent to hold the position that the evidence for the existence or nonexistence of gods is not entirely conclusive (so knowledge is not possible) but points heavily towards the nonexistence of any gods (so a tentative belief in the nonexistence of gods is justified), it is possible to simultaneously be a strong agnostic and a strong atheist.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-02-2004 07:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2004 6:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2004 7:13 PM nator has not replied
 Message 121 by Lindum, posted 11-02-2004 7:52 PM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 122 (155287)
11-02-2004 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by nator
11-02-2004 7:06 PM


However, I guess I could be considered a "Strong Agnostic/Weak Athiest" by the second definition below.
Or, "agnostic atheist", like we both are.
I will grant you that there are atheists that overreach, and claim to know for sure that the supernatural doesn't exist. These people are equally irrational, or maybe non-science minded, as folks on the other side of the spectrum of belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by nator, posted 11-02-2004 7:06 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024