Social Question

JLeslie's avatar

Creationists: When remains are found of species that seem to be a step between primate and human what do you think?

Asked by JLeslie (46168 points ) August 2nd, 2010

Do you believe it is simply a species that was on earth and now is extinct? But, is not a stepping stone to human development? Do you think it is a hoax? I was just wondering how you see these types of discoveries? Here is a recent video done by 60 Minutes if you are interested, it is not necessary to watch it to answer the question. http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/ it is the second story, you can click on the second dot and it will force you to see two ads, and then the report will start.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

264 Answers

Your_Majesty's avatar

I love this major discovery! (I didn’t see the video since it’s kinda slow here,and I just don’t have 60 minutes for that). This is a realistic evident(especially if they’ve scientifically prove the DNA correlation) that we’re evolved animals.

I think if they’ve 100%ly success to prove this discovery many/all religion will torn apart.

Seek's avatar

@Doctor_D

Seriously? Because there are a ton of people in the US alone that think the Devil hid the dinosaur bones underground so scientists would think Man didn’t live at the same time as them.

JLeslie's avatar

@Doctor_D It is about 17 minutes long if you are interested. There are three separate reports in the hour, this is the second one. You can fast forward to the second dot, it will force you to watch a couple of ads and then the story will begin.

shilolo's avatar

I think the devil planted those bones to confuse us. ~

Actually, we need not look so far in the distant past for proof of human evolution, as this New York Times article describes.

JLeslie's avatar

I wanted to be clear that I am not trying to jump all over people who do not believe in evolution, I am genuinely interested in their thoughts. I would prefer they don’t get jumped on by the collective :).

sleepdoc's avatar

I have never understood why those that believe in evolution can’t allow those who believe in creation to just believe that. If you are on the side of evolution every step that links species together is more proof and if you are on the creation side the answer is always the same. The creator can go about creating what he wants when he wants to create it. Those who are firm believers on either side of the argument will never convince the others of their point.

JLeslie's avatar

@sleepdoc I am not trying to change minds or argue with this question, just understand how these types of discoveries are viewed. So believers do agree that being did exist? Just is not a part of an evolutionary process if I understand what you are saying. I know people who believe the earth is only 4,000 years old, or 7,000, I hear all sorts of things, so when a discovery is made of fossils over a million years old, how do the believers explain that?

sleepdoc's avatar

@JLeslie I can’t intellegently answer that question. But what I can tell you is that when someone believes that something is true, it is hard for you use any type of “logic” to expalin away what they believe. So I guess if you are just asking for what their response is that is fair. But I am willing to bet that most would say somethig similar to what I wrote. That the creator is capable to creating things whatever way he wanted to do it.

Your_Majesty's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr Could it be just an urban legend? But it’s funny if most people think like that.

@JLeslie OK I saw that clip (even though it was ‘jumpy’ here/bad connection) It will really convince me as a rational person if they can prove that the fossil remains really came from Paleozoonic depth/terrain.

JLeslie's avatar

@sleepdoc I am purely asking for how they explain it, not trying to poke holes in their thought process. The last part, my second question in my last post is not about creating, but about how long ago things were created. I should have put it in my original question.

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc Because education is the path to a successful future, and creationists tend to want to prevent the teaching of evolution or are the types of people not swayed by logic and reason. Appropriate education in the scientific method is already severely lacking in the US, and the more that the populace believes in a fairy tale rather than legitimate scientific data, the further behind we (as in the US) become in education. Of course, I’m not the only one who thinks this. Bill Gates has championed a need for improvements in our schools for years (as have others).

Jabe73's avatar

@Doctor_D Yes but it still does not disprove spirituality. As a spiritual deist even I think evolution is very likely.

@JLeslie You know full well there aren’t many creationists on Fluther. The creationists on here always avoid these topics to begin with.

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo I have a hard time believing that just because one supports creation or opposes the teaching of evolution means that they cannot learn the scientific method. One does not follow from the other.

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc I beg to differ. You cannot simultaneously believe in the genesis of Adam and Eve while disregarding a hundred years of rigorous scientific research (besides, whose creation myth is “correct”, anyway). It’s like saying you can still believe in a geocentric model of our solar system yet understand Newtonian physics. The two are diametrically opposed.

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo I am living proof that one can. To me your argument bears no weight. It is like saying because I believe in God I can’t learn math.

Your_Majesty's avatar

@Jabe73 each religion hold its own way of ‘spirituality’. What kind of religion? Could you elaborate? Not all religion believe in ‘Evolution’. I don’t see that Evolutionarism will disprove spirituality but rather to clear it. It’s,however,has some aspects that contradict with religion itself.

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc Well, then I would argue you don’t have a concrete understanding of the science of evolution.

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo you are making a gross generalization about what a creationist believes. You are choosing to define what a creationist can and will believe and then saying that your definition cannot in any regard except science. And in response to your last statement I would argue that you don’t understand creationism as well as you claim to.

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo .. your argument is that if one believes that there is a creator there can’t be evolution. Mine is that a creator can guide creation in any way he wishes in fact the very nature of the creator would mandate that he create scientific rules and then follow them in his creation. Not just wave around his hands with his eyes closed and hope for the best

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc By all means, enlighten me on how a creationist addresses evolution, or how discoveries of different stages of evolutionary development (as highlighted by this question) are in line with the Judeo-Christian creation myth.

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc You’re mixing messages. Believing in a higher power that “drives and controls” evolutionary changes (even down to the minute and infinite DNA mutations occurring constantly in billions of organisms) is one thing. Believing in Adam, Eve and the ontogeny of humans ~6000 years ago is another.

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo I don’t think so…. there have to be a first set of humans… those would be Adam and Eve. This is why I said what I said earlier. Just because you believe what you do does not make what I believe any less. And just because I believe in creation does not make me ignorant and requiring better education. I understand the scientific method just fine.

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc So Adam and Eve lived 5770 years ago, according to you? Just so we are clear on this point.
Also, I don’t “believe” in evolution. That phrase is a mistake. Belief requires faith, but science does not require faith. I understand the data to point to evolution as the best possible explanation for the development of humans and all other species on Earth.

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo…. I don’t know the answer to that and neither can you…... there is still no evidence to say that number is exactly when the first humans came into existence.

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc But we wouldn’t have the story of Adam or Eve if not for the Jewish tradition. When did Adam and Eve exist then, roughly? How do we know their names or their history? Who was around to record their story?

Also, this is where your version and the scientific one diverge (and the problem with this whole issue). There is nothing that says there had to be a “first” anything. We (as in humans) gradually evolved from our precursor, which gradually evolved from its precursor, etc., until we go all the way back to bacteria. You evidently aren’t familiar with the fact that we share 96% of our genomes with chimps, or that many human genetic diseases can be recapitulated in the fly.

JLeslie's avatar

I believe God and evolution do not need to be mutually exclusive. God, the creator, could have put things in motion for evolution to take place. I don’t really understand not believing in evolution, that is part of the reason I asked the question. I don’t understand ignoring the science. Well, to me it is ignoring science.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

Is that true? About people believing that the devil hid the dinosaur bones to mislead us?

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo Ok so now you who are a evolutionist are going to school me on the bible as it pertains to evolution. The answers I give will not satisfy you because if have a belief structure different than yours. You have already decided that because you believe in evolution what is found in the bible as to be wrong. You are proving the very point I made at the onset. This discussion is unwinnable on both sides. Ever time one side offers an explanation the other counters with a question. This could go on for every single portion of history.

Rarebear's avatar

@sleepdoc Actually, there is substantial genetic evidence that species Homo sapien diverged from Homo neanderthalensis about 500,000 years ago. There is further DNA evidence to show that genus Homo diverged from genus Pan about 6.5 mya.

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc But where is your explanation? You cite a myth (one of many creation myths). I would add that this proves my point earlier about the scientific method (and the lack of understanding of it).

Jabe73's avatar

@TheOnlyNeffie Yes this is true. I was a guest on a Christian forum website (similar to fluther in some ways) and I would definitely say at least ¾ of them had this mindset of satanic omphalism to “test our faith”.

johnnydohey's avatar

I’m agnostic, but if I were to answer this from a creationist standpoint, I would ask, what’s wrong with saying that God created everything through an evolutionary process? Also, the bible only writes down what is relevant to guide a person through life, therefore, if it started from 5.000 years ago, then it’s telling you that 5,000 ago is your first lesson on how to live life according to God’s will. Since the billions of years of information were excluded from the bible, then it just means no valuable information can be extracted from it on how to apply it to live life.

ragingloli's avatar

“You have already decided that because you believe in evolution what is found in the bible as to be wrong.”
You know, there is a thing called “evidence”. There is a massive mountain of evidence supporting evolution. Evolution is an indisputeable fact, it is reality. And because it is reality, we know that the bible has to be wrong.
Something tells me you would not make this same argument for the bible’s claims of a flat earth or geocentrism, both of which are factually contradicted by science.

Linda_Owl's avatar

Creationism is just another myth, to go along with all the religious myths that preceeded it. The claims about the bible being the “true word of god” is hokum – the bible was written by man & man will (with great regularity) embroider the tale he is telling, especially when he is trying to persuade others to accept his view point. There are so many contradictions contained within the ‘bible’ that (chapter to chapter, book to book) it states the opposite views on a regular basis. Science & the study of evolution requires intelligence, there is no scripture in the bible that praises intelligence as being a virtue – as a matter of fact, the early church did their best to keep their ‘flock’ ignorant & fearful, so as to be better able to control them. Science deals realistically with what it studies, but religion falls back on “because God said so”. One has to wonder if any of the ‘faithful’ has ever questioned why (since God is supposed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, & love us completely) that such terrible things are allowed to happen to really good people? Why, if “God” is in complete control (as the Baptists keep insisting) does he not help the innocent children? He would not even have to reveal himself to do this (according to the bible), he could just cause the minds of the murderers – to decide not to starve this child to death, or cause the minds of men who are willing to stone to death a woman who has been raped – to decide that maybe it was not her fault? No one would know that God had a hand in it, but life would improve. This has not happened because “God” is not real. We can only depend upon each other, depend upon our intelligence, & depend upon science to make our lives better. Hopefully we are still evolving & one day we will be capable of much greater understanding of science, math, chemistry, & medicine. Creationism is simply putting your trust in something that does not exist.

SuperMouse's avatar

I have a dear friend who is also an Evangelical Christian. She believes that evolution and the creation story of the Bible do not have to be mutually exclusive. How you may ask, could she believe this? Her explanation is simple, God’s time is not human time. The seven days that it took in the Bible to create the earth could be millions of years in God’s time.

johnnydohey's avatar

@Linda_Owl, how do you know “God” does or does not exist? Evolution explains a process, it doesn’t discredit or credit God. How do you know bible was written by man? Bible is based on God because that’s what the bible says and worships. If the bible is based on God, and God cannot be proven or dis-proven, then how exactly can science say the bible is wrong or right? Why haven’t you mentioned the flaws of science? Why can’t science explain the ancient Egyptian artifacts such as the sphinx, or Easter island? How do you explain how homosexuals are still around if natural selection is at work?

whitenoise's avatar

@johnnydohey re:
“How do you explain natural selection when homosexuals are still around?”

Are you serious? This to me seems you are either bigot, having a daft moment, or uneducated on the theory of natural selection.

In short… do you really want an answer or would you rather say
“oops… that was daft…. sorry”

johnnydohey's avatar

@whitenoise, I asked a question and you reply with abusive speculations. What does that say about you? Perhaps the arrogance of ignorance? Do you know the central for natural selection? Is it not fitness? This is the very essence of the problem. How does the homosexual survive fitness? Obviously a flaw in fitness if the homosexual is still around?

SuperMouse's avatar

@johnnydohey how does homosexuality serve to undermine the scientific theory of evolution?

whitenoise's avatar

It says about me that I recognize that in part of the question that you put forward you have wrapped an assumption that is rather uneducated / prejudiced / bigoted.

Now you could indeed seriously wonder whether the phenomenon of homosexuality disproves the concept of natural selection, in which case I wanted to make sure you really wanted an answer. Or…. you could just have been baiting.

Now let me try…

*Natural selection is about favoring genes that produce better reproduction. Man is a social animal, for the reproductive qualities of his/her genes, man depends on survival of his group/family rather than the individual.

*Homosexuals can produce fairly well…. as they have proven quite often.

The list can go on… but I truly hope you don’t need more.
I feel daft myself, for picking up your question.

johnnydohey's avatar

@SuperMouse, read in deph what fitness means in natural selection. Then apply it to homosexuals. Nature is supposed to be eugenics, but it doesn’t work.

SuperMouse's avatar

@johnnydohey it kind of sounds like you are insinuating that homosexuals are unfit according to natural selection.

johnnydohey's avatar

@whitenoise wrote, “man depends on survival of his group/family rather than the individual.” Really, prove it? Do humans not have biological imperative? Then how does a homosexual do what he/she does? They use surrogates and modern science, that’s not homosexual reproduction..

@SuperMouse, that’s exactly what I’m saying, but it isn’t true because homosexuals are still around, hence, the flaws of evolution, which is targeted towards @Linda_Owl, to show her that nothing is as certain as she makes it.

whitenoise's avatar

@johnnydohey

You really want me to explain how homosexuals reproduce? Are you over 18?

Well… just like me and you… with a partner of the opposite sex. Silly you

JLeslie's avatar

Well, so much for finding out what Christians think.

@johnnydohey homosexual men are just as likely to be fertile. Gay men have babies all of the time. Heterosexuals participate in sexual acts all of the time that do not lead to pregnancy. It God and nature did not want heterosexuals to reproduce, then they would be born sterile.

Rarebear's avatar

It seems to me that this discussion has gone way off topic. The OP asked how the Creationists explain transitional fossils, and now it’s a debate about homosexuality.

JLeslie's avatar

@Rarebear So true. I was hoping I could get the few Christians on fluther to share their thoughts with me, but alas, I think it is too difficult on fluther for this sort of topic. I have trouble discussing it in real life, because people get too defensive generally, they assume I want to question their beliefs.

johnnydohey's avatar

@whitenoise, @JLeslie, thank you for making my point. A homosexual by itself is unfit to reproduce. If fitness is the central for evolution theory, then how can the unfit homosexual survive? It survives through surrogates and modern science. Does this not show the discrepancy with evolutionary fitness now?

JLeslie's avatar

@johnnydohey Homosexuals have sex with women sometimes. I know many homosexual men who have children without help from medical science.

SuperMouse's avatar

@johnnydohey it would be helpful to have a link to the proof or at least the plausible theory from a quality source that evolution selects or deselects based on sexual orientation. FYI, anyone by themselves is unfit to reproduce – it takes an egg and the sperm to create a child and no one by his or her self has both.

@JLeslie it is kind of a bummer that not a single Christian was able to answer this question. I am not Christian, but I hope I provided a decent rational answer and I know it represents the opinion of at least one devout Christian.

johnnydohey's avatar

@JLeslie, I wrote that.. surrogates(women). This point shows that they are unfit by evolution, they rely on other means to survive. You are proving my point that there is a problem with evolution. This homosexual discrepency was targeted for what @Linda_Owl said, in regards to the undisputable evolution and science as a whole. I was pointing out how evolution and science in general has many flaws.

johnnydohey's avatar

@SuperMouse, when I said homosexuality by it self, I ment same sex practices. A human being is biological imperative. Any other would not survive unless done in such practices as stated above.

SuperMouse's avatar

@johnnydohey I find your line of reasoning very dubious and somewhat confusing. I would seriously love to see some kind of scientific information to back it up and hopefully clear up some of the confusion.

JLeslie's avatar

@SuperMouse Yes, I appreciate your answer, it mirrorred what I wrote about 9 posts ahead of yours. I think I needed to write the question better, and I See I checked Social, I wanted people who believed in creationism to be able to meander in their discussion, but I think that was a mistake on my part also. @Rarebear just made another question to try again.

I’m fine if the debate on homosexuals continues on my thread.

@johnnydohey Ironically it is people who are intollerant of homosexuals help along gay people to reproduce. When society does not readily accept them, they follow the path of conformity, marrying a woman and having babies.

whitenoise's avatar

I would suggest we do no longer honor @johnnydohey with responses to his/her remarks on homosexuality. There seems to be no intent on understanding.

johnnydohey's avatar

@SuperMouse, I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. Do you know what biological imperative means? The needs of all living organisms to keep going to survive. This is part of evolution. Same sex practices defies this very principle. If fitness is central in evolution, then all same sex practices are deemed unfit and would not survive, because they can’t reproduce. Yet they do? How? Through biological imperatives and modern science. The flaw here is that if evolution is about fitness and homosexuals are still here, the problem is with the theory. You are all making my point that evolution has flaws. One of many.

@whitenoise wrote, likewise to you. You don’t argue points, you dismiss things you don’t understand.

Ron_C's avatar

“The Language of God” about the human genome project by the head of the project Francis Collins who said “Today we are learning the language in which God created life.” Collins explains that as a Christian believer, “the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship.”

I read the book, as an atheist. I found it reasonable and Dr. Collins is knowledgeable in his subject. I think his view is about the same as the Catholic church in that they both use genetics to explain how God created life on this planet.

I suppose that, if I was a Christian, I would buy into this “explanation”. I believe in evolution because of the evidence for it but this in no way explains god. In fact, I would say that it shows that the Judeo-Christian-Muslim concept of god is just a way to rationalize the physical world without knowing anything about science. Just like von Daniken’s “Chariots of the Gods” It is a way for primitive people to somehow explain their environment. Actually, there’s probably more evidence for ancient astronauts that for a real God.

shilolo's avatar

@johnnydohey There is no problem with the theory, and really no problem at all explaining the existence of homosexuality within the framework of evolution (note, it is YOU who fail to understand natural selection and fitness). First, homosexual behaviors have been observed in many non-human species, arguing against any cultural affects. For example, certain macaques engage in same sex partnerships even when presented with opposite sex partners. Indeed, many other species engage in similar behaviors, and they’re still around…

Second, it is only recently (and in Western countries) where it has become acceptable for homosexual couples to live openly and together. In many countries and cultures (and in older cultures predating the modern times), homosexuals were in heterosexual relationships but participated in homosexual practices in secret (take a wide stance….). Thus, homosexuality could easily be linked with a beneficial trait (maybe the genes for homosexuality also promote greater intelligence…).

Third, it could very well be that the genetics of homosexuality are linked to another trait in ways we don’t understand. Take for example sickle cell anemia. That is viewed as detrimental to survival and health in modern times. But, having sickle cell trait (being heterozygous for the “bad allele”) is protective against severe malaria. There are many other rare traits that when viewed teleologically have no “benefit”, but clearly are around owing to some selective advantage (or have not been under sufficient selective pressure to be eliminated).

In summary, it is your argument that falls apart. The continued presence of homosexual behaviors is either evolutionary neutral (no impact) or likely beneficial, for how else could it be maintained?

absalom's avatar

@johnnydohey

Do you know what biological imperative means? The needs of all living organisms to keep going to survive. This is part of evolution. Same sex practices defies this very principle.

Many things beside homosexuality defy the so-called ‘principle’ you seem to have arbitrarily defined w/r/t to the theory of evolution. Contraception, for example. War, for example. Even monogamy, it could be argued. You can call it maladaptive behavior or you can call it free will. Whatever phrase you use, the point is that we are an extremely complex species which has developed a consciousness that allows us to act in accordance with something other than the purely instinctual / biological principles you’re talking about.

Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me you’ve just reworked the very old and very incorrect argument that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ or detrimental to humanity by placing it in an evolutionary context.

JLeslie's avatar

I can’t get over how many GQ’s I have on this question, and the question was barely answered. LOL. Thanks :)

Rarebear's avatar

@JLeslie What the heck. Let’s make it 9.

Response moderated
SuperMouse's avatar

@johnnydohey the source on the link you provided is somewhat one sided at best. BTW, it occurs to me that if you are arguing that homosexuality is an argument against evolutionary theory then by extension you are arguing that homosexuality is genetic. Training someone to overcome a genetic trait is impossible. That is like asking someone to suck it up and learn to overcome Sickle Cell Anemia. Your link is negating your argument.

johnnydohey's avatar

@SuperMouse, “the source on the link you provided is somewhat one sided at best.”

Explain how it’s one sided and what the other side is?

@SuperMouse wrote, “BTW, it occurs to me that if you are arguing that homosexuality is an argument against evolutionary theory then by extension you are arguing that homosexuality is genetic.”

No, I never said homosexuality is genetic, quite the opposite, it isn’t at all as far as studies showed. Haven’t you read the link I posted? Anyway, as I said, Homosexuality is deemed unfit in natural selection because same sex practices can’t reproduce. Now according to this article I linked and the many others available, there is no homosexual gene, therefore, whatever @shilolo said is not true, or it’s the research done in the link I posted vs what @shilolo said and linked. If @shilolo is wrong, which the article says he/she is, so, how did the homosexuals survive then? As you all said, through women who are willing to conceive, or with modern technology. I said this too, but does this mean homosexual genes survived through these methods or is the way the article puts it? I fore one stand by the article, hence, I feel homosexuality is a perfect example of a flaw in evolution.

By the way you can thank @whitenoise, for taking this question off topic. He/she focused on one point of an entire commentary that I gave which he/she clearly missed the point I was making because of his blind arrogance of ignorance. I shall repeat, that this homosexuality with natural selection question, the sphinx in egypt, easter island, and the many other points out there, show that science is as flawed as everything else out there.

johnnydohey's avatar

To rely on one tool that attempts to explain the physical universe and then to use it on the bible which is based on God who is beyond the scope of physicality and comprehension is just plane foolish. The fact that @Linda_Owl, and anyone else who claims to be a theist, is a fool, fore he/she can never support such statements, yet everyone is who is a theist is quick to say what’s right and wrong using flawed tools to justify it. Everyone is so bent up on science that all logic and reason goes out the window. Not saying that science is all bad, but know that it’s flawed and that it can’t be applied to spirituality.

whitenoise's avatar

@johnnydohey

Please don’t blame me for your own stupidity.

You wrote an answer that contained a question-wrapped remark that was off-topic, spiteful and bigoted.

Even the total answer you wrote was an attack on science and defending the bible which had only very indirectly had something to do with explaining the findings of remains of a species that may be perceived as man’s ancestor.

But you’re right… I should not have engaged on your post and I should have just flagged you. Next time I will.

(PS. Whitenoise is a he.)

Qingu's avatar

@johnnydohey, here’s what you need to understand. “Fitness,” in evolution, is actually quite complicated.

Look at a peacock’s feathers. Do they make the male peacock more fit? In many senses, no. They make him slower, more attractive to predators, etc. However, his gaudy feathers make him more noticeable to female peacocks, so the male peacocks with the gaudiest feathers end up mating more with females… which selects for gaudy feathers… etc.

You’re also confusing a trait in an individual with a trait in a population, and you’re assuming that a complex behavior like homosexual has a single (or at least simple) genetic cause that can be selected for, or turned on/off by evolution.

The reason people are getting upset with you, I think, is that you’re not actually attempting to understand evolution on its own merits. You’ve probably heard this argument against evolution before, and you’re continuing to flog it even while people try to explain to you that no, that’s not how evolution actually works.

johnnydohey's avatar

@whitenoise wrote, “Please don’t blame me for your own stupidity.”

Uh, you didn’t even argue my points, you just said men have sex with women, then you dismissed everything because you didn’t have enough information, so someone else stepped in for you. Now you call me stupid, haha, you are the stupid one, sir.

@whitenoise wrote, “You wrote an answer that contained a question-wrapped remark that was off-topic, spiteful and bigoted.”

How was it off topic? The fossil finding has to do with evolution, therefore, I had to explain that evolution is flawed by bringing in examples. How did my question show spitefulness or bigotry? Do explain?

@whitenoise wrote, “Even the total answer you wrote was an attack on science and defending the bible which had only very indirectly had something to do with explaining the findings of remains of a species that may be perceived as man’s ancestor.”

How did I attack science? I pointed out flaws in science through a series of questions. I wasn’t defending the bible, I was giving a viewpoint and I also was saying that science has no business with bible and visa versa.

The problem with you is, you don’t argue anything, you just say I did or said something without any explanation. I think you don’t understand anything at all, but you like to be involved and see yourself write.

whitenoise's avatar

Well @johnnydohey

I find it upsetting that, out of the blue, you write that homosexuality is incompatible with natural selection theory. Surely you should be able to understand that writing a question in that way implies a negative attitude towards homosexuality and implies that homosexuality is detrimental to our species’ survival? Because that is what natural selection theory is about: survival of a species, not so much that of an individual.

Now, how come you feel that qualifying homosexuality as unfit for our species is something that can be done on a thread about fossil remains, merely because people discuss the bible and the existence of God.

edit
technicality: I didn’t call you stupid, I referred to your answers as being stupid. Please note the difference.

johnnydohey's avatar

@whitenoise, why couldn’t you understand the question from the other viewpoint, that homosexuals surviving evolution is a clear example that homosexuality has nothing to do with survival of the fittest? And they weren’t just discussing bible and God, evolution got involved. That’s why I brought it up.

@Qingu wrote, “Look at a peacock’s feathers. Do they make the male peacock more fit? In many senses, no. They make him slower, more attractive to predators, etc. However, his gaudy feathers make him more noticeable to female peacocks, so the male peacocks with the gaudiest feathers end up mating more with females… which selects for gaudy feathers… etc.”

You just explained sexual selection. Now fit what you just said into the discussion.

@Qingu wrote, “You’re also confusing a trait in an individual with a trait in a population, and you’re assuming that a complex behavior like homosexual has a single (or at least simple) genetic cause that can be selected for, or turned on/off by evolution.”

Explains this clearer, I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.

@Qingu wrote, “The reason people are getting upset with you, I think, is that you’re not actually attempting to understand evolution on its own merits. You’ve probably heard this argument against evolution before, and you’re continuing to flog it even while people try to explain to you that no, that’s not how evolution actually works.”

I see, because I argue with somebody on the points they make, I automatically don’t know what the heck I’m talking about? Interesting logic you have there. Have you even bothered to read the article I linked?

whitenoise's avatar

@johnnydohey
re “Why couldn’t you understand the question from the other viewpoint, that homosexuals surviving evolution is a clear example that homosexuality has nothing to do with survival of the fittest? ”

Now you have me confused…. I am actually convinced they have little to do with each other, yet you are the one who brought it up as to ‘prove’ that the natural selection theory is false. You linked them, not me.

johnnydohey's avatar

@whitenoise, well yes, the existence of homosexuality in this day and age shows that natural selection has flaws. How are you interpreting this as something derogatory? Is it because according to natural selection, homosexuals shouldn’t survive? Wouldn’t the fact that they do survive cancel out the derogatory?

whitenoise's avatar

@JLeslie

Sorry, BTW, for continuing this derailment of the thread, but as you wrote before, it was kind of lost already anyway…. I gave you a GQ, though, because I too am actually interested in the creationist’s reasoning on this topic.

JLeslie's avatar

@johnnydohey I think people might like to know where you stand on gay rights, and gay marriage, and whether being gay is something to be corrected. If I remember correctly you are agnostic, so somehow I doubt you have some sort of religious thing about how it is unnatural to be gay.

If we accept natural selection then we also know it is not a cut and dry perfect process, it is a slow process over time with very small changes over generations. As @Qingu pointed out a peacock with pretty feathers might get the girl, but might have more trouble getting around quickly. I think what I would want to know is if we except that gay sex, not being gay, but gay sex does not keep the race going, are you also willing to accept that even people who do not have offspring can still have just as much value in the group. Making babies is not the only important thing especially among human beings, our societies are more complex. It for sure does not mean a homosexual man or woman is less human. Just like a woman who is injured and can not have children. Human beings are much more complex, and we cannot be compared directly to the animal kingdom.

sleepdoc's avatar

OK for all those who wanted to criticize my understanding of scientific method and my belief system, let me start out by saying this. I freely support all of your decisions to believe how and what you may. I am sure many of you have very strongly rooted feelings on the existence of God, evolution versus creation, the existence of miracles and many other topics. My point when I made my first comment was not to enter a debate with shilolo about how creationism could possibly hold a shread of truth to it and to prove every point of the old testament rendition of the creation story. It was simply that I don’t understand why people can’t except that others think differently than them and allow them that opportunity. Is that not one of the fundamentals that the USA was built on?

I see the thread has now taken a totally different direction and I don’t wish to interrupt the ongoing discussion, but I did want to say one more thing. I believe in a higher power that knew the beginning from the end and because of that was able to place the appropriate life on the earth at the appropriate time to allow it to flourish. I also believe in miracles, you know those things that happen that the scientific method doesn’t explain. The events where people scratch their head and think I don’t know how this could have happened, but it did. And I have seen these things happen often enough to know that we still don’t understand everything based on science and the scientific method. And because of that I can say that our understanding of how man can to be is still not complete.

JLeslie's avatar

@sleepdoc I too was not looking for a debate, but rather simply how people who believe in creationism explain these things, because I simply never really investigated it before. People get upset when they perceive a different opinion as causing harm. Like how the Republicans think the Liberals are going to cause harm to the country (and vice versa) because of how they think ideologically on many topics. Scientists believe understanding evolution and science helps the species, so people who seem to stand in the way of that research are seen as causing harm in a way.

Even scientists are trying to fill in all of the pieces. If you watched the clip, you see them talk about how this new discovery might be a piece of the puzzle that scientists had not had proof of before the discovery, and that scientists are still debating and evaluating if this is actually to be deemed part of the evolutionary process.

Miracles, in my mind, are happenings outside of nature as we understand it. But, over time we begin to understand nature better through science. I wonder how many miracles back in 300 CE/AD are now explained by science?

I am not trying to challenge your beliefs, just maybe give more perspective on where the science minded people are coming from.

johnnydohey's avatar

@JLeslie wrote, “I think people might like to know where you stand on gay rights, and gay marriage, and whether being gay is something to be corrected. If I remember correctly you are agnostic, so somehow I doubt you have some sort of religious thing about how it is unnatural to be gay.”

It doesn’t matter what I think about homosexuals. What does matter is the role homosexuals play in natural selection. Throughout the thread I was showing how they apply to natural selection but also how they don’t apply to natural selection, hence, the discrepancy with natural selection.

JLeslie wrote, “If we accept natural selection”

Wasn’t the point I made putting a flaw in natural selection?

JLeslie wrote, “As @Qingu pointed out a peacock with pretty feathers might get the girl, but might have more trouble getting around quickly. ”

@Qinqu was talking about sexual selection. I’m asking him to fit what he/she wrote in the discussion now.

@JLeslie wrote, “are you also willing to accept that even people who do not have offspring can still have just as much value in the group. ”

This is going into another topic, has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

“and we cannot be compared directly to the animal kingdom.”

@shilolo, is saying exactly that, that since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.

The research link I provided says otherwise.

Still waiting to here back from @shilolo and @absalom about what I linked. Either their silence shows that they are wrong in what they were saying and that my linked arguments is right, or that they are just dismissing me entirely. This applies to you too @SuperMouse.

whitenoise's avatar

@johnnydohey

The natural selection theory says nothing about homosexuality. You, however, imply that “according to natural selection, homosexuals shouldn’t survive”. That implies thinking of homosexuality as a negative property for survival of our species. I feel that is ‘not a nice thing to say’.

But…. if I am to accept that your question is not negative at all, and you view homosxeuality as just another phenomenon, then i would interpret your question as:

“In our world, homosexuality is around. Its existence cannot so easily be explained through natural selection theory. If natural selection theory cannot explain something, then natural selection theory is false.”

I disagree with your reasoning. The reason I do, is that natural-selection-theory is about the development of species. It is a theory that is based on the assumption that spontaneous differences within a population on genetic traits that favor reproduction and species survival will become dominant over time and those that hinder it will eventually dissipate.

Natural selection theory says little to nothing about traits that do not influence the reproductive rate or survival/reproductiveness. It is not necessary for it to be right or wrong, either. But even still… homosexuality could be the consequence of natural selection.

For instance: (thought experiment!)
A gene that would create a chance of ±10% of homosexuality amongst men, could create a society that may proof better at survival than one without the homosexuality. The homosexual men could, for instance, be more willing to travel away from home for a longer period of time, on hunting trips or in the military.

The Greek seemed to favor homosexuality in their military ranks, for instance. They might have believed it to make their military more brave, if they would truly love one another. As Plato wrote: ”... he would prefer to die many deaths: while as for leaving the one he loves in a lurch, or not succoring him in peril, no man is such a craven that the influence of Love cannot inspire him with a courage that makes him equal to the bravest born”

Such as a society would have a shared genetic set that would equip them better and may therefore promote their survival over that of other groups.

Anyway… this is not an intent to make natural-selection-theory actually proof that homosexuality is a naturally preferred genetic predisposition. I am just writing thi to show it doesn’t necessarily exclude it.

JLeslie's avatar

@whitenoise GA. You explained the basic idea I had in my head with so much more elegance than I ever could have.

whitenoise's avatar

Thanks, @JLeslie, and thank you for turning a blind eye on my typos. :-)

johnnydohey's avatar

@whitenoise wrote, “I disagree with your reasoning. The reason I do, is that natural-selection-theory is about the development of species. It is a theory that is based on the assumption that spontaneous differences within a population on genetic traits that favor reproduction and species survival will become dominant over time and those that hinder it will eventually dissipate.”

Well, I have to disagree with you on your definition of what natural selection is. Natural selection is the process by which those certain heritable traits make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce as well as become more common in a population over successive generations.

Now this is where I applied homsexuality. Same sex practice cannot reproduce, therefore, it cannot survive. Yet it does, thus setting a flaw in this theory.

@whitenoise wrote, “Natural selection theory says little to nothing about traits that do not influence the reproductive rate or survival/reproductiveness. It is not necessary for it to be right or wrong, either. But even still… homosexuality could be the consequence of natural selection.”

Why would natural selection say anything about traits that don’t influence?

@whitenoise wrote, “For instance: (thought experiment!)
A gene that would create a chance of ±10% of homosexuality amongst men, could create a society that may proof better at survival than one without the homosexuality. The homosexual men could, for instance, be more willing to travel away from home for a longer period of time, on hunting trips or in the military.”

Why did you bring this in? You are entitled to your thought experiment but we are trying to clarify facts here, not hypothetical scenarios. The fact remains (at least according to the researched link) that there is no homosexual gene.

@whitenoise wrote, “The Greek seemed to favor homosexuality in their military ranks, for instance. They might have believed it to make their military more brave, if they would truly love one another. As Plato wrote: ”... he would prefer to die many deaths: while as for leaving the one he loves in a lurch, or not succoring him in peril, no man is such a craven that the influence of Love cannot inspire him with a courage that makes him equal to the bravest born. Such as a society would have a shared genetic set that would equip them better and may therefore promote their survival over that of other groups.”

No certainty here.

@whitenoise wrote, “Anyway… this is not an intent to make natural-selection-theory actually proof that homosexuality is a naturally preferred genetic predisposition. I am just writing thi to show it doesn’t necessarily exclude it.”

Well, from what I just wrote it does exclude it.

whitenoise's avatar

@johnnydohey If all you do is refer to the document that you attached as validity for your point of view, I will retreat. (I read it and it gives me no compelling reason to give it any credence.)

Somehow, I do not get any feeling that you want a truly open discussion. I will comfort myself with the idea that your ideas on homosexuality are not common place. On the other hand, I worry, because I realize you are far from alone.

SuperMouse's avatar

@johnnydohey I have no intention of reading your document because I give no credence to what is quite obviously propaganda. How do I know it is propaganda? Because NARTH’s reason for being is to help folks overcome homosexuality. In other words this is a group with a very clear agenda; therefore they would include only articles that clearly support that agenda. There is no way to conclude that this is unbiased research. I am more than willing to read and consider information that comes from a non-biased point of view. The other side you are asking about is the side that believes that homosexuality is not a choice and not something to be “overcome.”

It seems that by arguing that the existence of homosexuality disproves evolution you are arguing that it is genetic. I base this on the fact that the theory of natural selection selects for genetic traits that favor survival. If you are arguing that homosexuality is not genetic, you are effectively removing homosexuality from any argument relating to evolution.

johnnydohey's avatar

@whitenoise, @SuperMouse, haha. No credence? How quick you are to dismiss experts (that’s more then one..) who attained PHD, when neither of you have either? What research have you shown besides thought up scenarios and misinterpreted definitions? I call you out to critique what was written (researched< keyword) but instead you are not looking for knowledge or an intellectual argument, you are looking for validations for your flawed concepts. Ignoring facts doesn’t make it untrue. You are no different then the people that thought the world was flat. Well, that said, I shall dismiss you as you did me. Discussion over.

rpm_pseud0name's avatar

@EVERYONE PLEASE CREATE A NEW QUESTION IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS SIDE DISCUSSION FURTHER! THANK YOU!

rpm_pseud0name's avatar

@whitenoise not the side discussion I was talking about

johnnydohey's avatar

I’ll take it back to topic. The question of this thread is problematic to begin with. Why? Creationist attempt to put science and religion as one and the same. What is the problem in doing so? Science deals with physicality while the bible deals with spirituality. The key element of the bible is God, science has no explanation for God, so how then can the bible use science? Now the other problem in the question of this thread is the same as I mentioned, you compared a scientific discovery to a section of a religion that is problematic to begin with. However, there is another possibility here, an attempt to show no discrepancy between bible and science, but first, I ask the questionnaire (@JLeslie) what was the implication you had when writing this question? Meaning, since this discovery was found, how does this relate to a creationist and why did you specify the question to creationists?

augustlan's avatar

[mod says] This discussion is in the Social Section, and topic drift is acceptable here.

Buttonstc's avatar

Most of us on the original topic are populating Rarebears restatement and focus in General.

Even the OP acknowledged that this one went off the rails.

shilolo's avatar

@johnnydohey You really don’t get it, do you? Do you even understand evolution and genetics? Homosexual practices alone would not, by themselves, be selected against. There are many examples of individuals who participate in both hetero and homosexual practices, and are quite capable of reproducing. Moreover, it is entirely too simpleminded to assume a single gene or genetic element predisposes for specific sexual behaviors. Even if there is one “gay gene”, there could be multiple polymorphisms or alleles, and one child could be born carrying two alleles that more strongly select for homosexuality, while another child (from the same parents) will only have one allele, which could be passed on to her offspring. Finally, that we cannot explain it’s existence at the moment to some satisfactory and complete scientific level (like Newtonian physics) does NOT invalidate the theory of evolution. As I said above, the continued existence of homosexual behaviors could just as easily have been positively selected for over time.

BTW, I’ve read your link (and I have a PhD), and basically it says in a nutshell, “we don’t understand animal homosexuality, therefore human homosexuality is an abomination…” The lack of research and insight in your link is appalling.

@sleepdoc I have no opposition to people thinking whatever they want in the private. What I don’t want is creationists exposing/forcing themselves onto our public education system. Creationism (or it’s bastard cousin intelligent design) has no place in science education (though it can be taught in social studies, or other non-scientific domains).

ragingloli's avatar

Homosexuality is not a binary trait. It is not “either you like men or you like women”.
It is a fluid continuum, with most of it being lot of bisexuality.
A lot of people who call themselves heterosexual are actually bisexual (i.e. will react with arousal to either gender).
So it is like this: Bisexual people reproduce with the other gender, and the resulting offspring may deviate to either side of the spectrum, either becoming more homosexual, less homosexual or will stay the same in relation to their parent.
Then there is the fact that homosexuals may get cozy with females anyway, because a hole is a hole. And homosexuality could have positive features that may be in demand by a prospective female mate, like being a better caretaker for the offspring, and thus may result in homosexual mates specifically being sought out by the other gender.

Brian1946's avatar

@ragingloli

“It is a fluid continuum, with most of it being lot of bisexuality.”

I know what you mean- I’ve had some very fluid sexual fantasies. ;-)

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo Did you at any point see me make a statement about what should or should not be taught in schools in any particular subject. And by the way I am entitled to believe what I want in public just like you are.

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc Are you really a pulmonologist? Do we breath oxygen and exhale CO2? There is a right and wrong answer to this question…

JLeslie's avatar

@johnnydohey As I have explained, I asked for people who believe in creationism to only answer, because I know how the scientists and evolutionist think about these discoveries. I wanted to know how the people who look to the bible for explanation view these discoveries. I was curious, because I do not know, and I wanted an opportunity to hear it straigt from them, rather than what atheists, scientists, and evolution minded people assume would be the answer. I put my question in social, because I wanted the creationists to feel empowered to drift in their answers, because I felt I might learn somethng more I did not expect to know, outside of the typical assumptions I make about religious people.

I should have been clear in my question that this was not a question to debunk their belief set, but purely to learn and understand how and what they think. That was a mistake on my part. Live and learn. I have learned some answers I had never heard of before, not sure if it was on this thread or the new one created, that some believe those fossils were put their by God, that the earth was created with a history, all interesting to me, so it is not a total loss.

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo No I am no a pulmonologist I am an anesthesiologist. Your opinion is that there is your right answer to this question and all others are wrong.

JLeslie's avatar

Makes sense SLEEPDOC anesthesiologist. Cute.

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc So, if I believe ardently that an ancient book that cannot be verified says that we survive by breathing sunlight through our skin, and you know empirically through scientific study that the lungs mediate gas exchange, we can both be “right”? I don’t think so.

Qingu's avatar

People should have the right to believe that the sun revolves around the earth and the sky is a solid dome that holds up an ocean, just like the Bible says.

This idea also shouldn’t be taught in schools, because it isn’t true. People have the right to believe bullshit in America; that doesn’t mean our schools should teach bullshit.

sleepdoc's avatar

@ shilolo Your assertion that evolution has to have occured because we have DNA links and fossil links cannot be proven. It will never be able to be proven unless someone can actually record one species changing to another. Yes it is true that some species disappeared and others appeared around the same time. But we cannot prove that one is an actual product of the other. That is what we have postulated based on the data that we have gathered. But there is no experiment to date that shows the evolution of a species as far as I know.

ragingloli's avatar

It will never be able to be proven unless someone can actually record one species changing to another.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

googled “observed speciation”, first result
eagerly awaiting excuses for why those “do not count”

sleepdoc's avatar

@ rangingloli I have not yet read all of these examples. But so far all of these are are someone who tried to make two different “species: crossbread. Does that count as natural selection? My understanding is that an external influence selection a different species to survive at the expense of the other. When you read this was that your understanding of what was seen in this article?

ragingloli's avatar

You should skip the plant hybridisation and go straight down to 5.2 onwards.

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc We conduct these types of experiments every day. You are, I assume, familiar with the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, or antiviral resistance in influenza and HIV (to name but a few medical examples)? That is natural selection at work. Experimentally, here is a recent example of in vitro natural selection with a eukaryote, the budding yeast, and this is a slightly older review of in vitro experiments that address the same issues. Thus, your assertion is wrong: we have witnessed evolution, and continue to do so (no one can live long enough to directly observe human evolution, but we have already reconstructed some of the selective pressures on humans by observing polymorphisms in the human genome).

sleepdoc's avatar

@ragingloli I am still reading. Throwing aside the crossbreading examples that appear there. I can see that there is some selection of one trait over another within the same species, but nothing that results in the elimnation of one species in favor of another. I will keep reading though.

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo… One bacteria developing an ability to survive in different conditions is not natural selection. The other bacteria have not died out from the species. The same is true of HIV it is still the same virus exhibiting new properties. We as Humans do this as well while staying withing our own species. Are you trying to say that the polymorphisms are going to create a new species from the Human race? Eventually if you assertion is true and individuals continue to watch species we should see a new species evolve into being correct? History would be able to record this even if one human life cannot right? I will read the links you provided.

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo I can only get to the abstract on one of those so I can’t read too much about it. But if I am not mistaken, there were genomic changes in the yeast but nothing that produced a new species of yeast. Did I read it wrong?

shilolo's avatar

You misunderstand evolution. It isn’t a straight line but more like a tree. One bacteria that evolved a unique trait CAN coexist next to it’s predecessor. Take the evolution of various species of bacteria for adaptation to specific niches. Likewise, different species of finches evolved at the Galapagos Islands, and live side-by-side.

We can actively observe evolution in action only in rapid growing organisms under harsh selective pressures. However, genomics has allowed us to reconstruct the evolution of humans for consumption of milk as adults and adaptation to high altitude.

sleepdoc's avatar

@ shilolo…. The assertion of evolution is that new species develop through natural selection and external pressures in their environment correct?

ragingloli's avatar

@sleepdoc
You might want to read “this” too:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
It is about endogenous retroviruses, genetic remnants of viral infections in our DNA that we share with several ape species, that is, identical viral genes in identical locations on the same chromosomes in several ape species including humans.
There are only two possible causes for this:

1. There have been several incredibly improbable occurences where identical viruses infected both humans and several ape species and inserted their viral genes in identical positions on identical chromosomes on all ape species including humans

2. There have been viral infections in a common ancestor of both humans and other apes and the inserted viral genetic material was passed down to its descendants.

The first one is out of the question, since its probability is next to zero. It is like scribbling 20 random words into several books, each a few million pages thick, on 20 randomly selected pages and miraculously ending up with the same words being written on the same pages across in every one of the books.

That leaves option 2 as the only viable solution.

sleepdoc's avatar

@ragingloli… I am simply asking this for informational purposes. What about #1 makes in so improbable, there are viruses that infect both human and ape species correct?

ragingloli's avatar

Yes.
Here is the thing though: Not all members of the original species will be subject to the new environmental pressures.
You will end up with 2 or more descending lineages, each one with different environmental pressures.
They will thusly develop differently, change in different ways. At one point, the 2 lineages will have diverted so far from another, that they can no longer interbreed, that means, can not produce fertile offspring with each other. That event is called speciation and you have 2 or more different species.

sleepdoc's avatar

@ragingloli So your assertion then as well will be that this would have to happen within the Human species?

ragingloli's avatar

@sleepdoc
It is not the fact that a virus infected humans and the apes that makes it improbable, but the fact that the virus that infected human and apes would have to be
1. identical in every infection of humans and apes.
2. the virus would have to have inserted its genetic material on the same chromosome in both humans and apes.
3. the virus would have to have inserted its genetic material in the same position on these chromosomes in both humans and apes.

1. falls flat because viruses are different and it is incredibly unlikely that a viral strain can infect several different species at once.
2 and 3 fall flat because genetic insertion by viruses is random, and to achieve identical insertion locations on the same chromosomes across several different species that have 3 billion basepairs each, and that for several different viruses that apes and humans share, purely by a random insertion process is a virtual statistical impossibility.

ragingloli's avatar

@sleepdoc
As it is now, Humans are unlikely to undergo a new speciation event, where you end up with two simultaneously existing species that are unable to interbreed with each other, because we live in a global society where populations mix and interbreed all the time.
But there will undoubtedly come a point in the future where a member of the human species can no longer produce offspring with a human that lived at the beginning of the stoneage.

sleepdoc's avatar

@ragingloli Your assumption on #1 is that you know what the entirety of the genome looked like and it was the same because what is left inserted in the same.

#2 and #3
If a viral insertion needs to occur in a specific place to accomplish what it does would it not look for the same or similar place to insert ie if you find it always in the same place in the human genome would it not look for a similar place in a different species genome?

Ok so if we can’t see it in humans, then what species can we look to to see evolution occur over history?

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc I’ve already given you examples of both prokaryotic and eukaryotic evolution in action (and I’ve left out molecular evolution). What more do you require? Do bacteria and yeast not count as species?

sleepdoc's avatar

@shiolo… you gave me examples of genomes changing within the species. I didn’t see that new species were produced.

ragingloli's avatar

@sleepdoc
Viruses do not have any mechanism with which to scan the target genome, they are just protein shells with an RNA strand inside. They can not look for specific places in a genome.

As for #1, genomes do not undergo the kind of tremendous upheavel and shuffling in few million years that you seem to imply. If they did, the outcome after the shuffling would be very different from the original, if it would survive such a massive mutation.
What you seem to imply is that different viruses infected apes and humans in wholly different chromosomes and chromosome locations and that over millions of years, the genome was rearranged so that not only the viral genes would look identical, but would also be in the same positions on the same chromosomes.
Do you know how unlikely that is? To make an analogy, it is like writing random words into several million pages long books on different pages, then cutting the books to pieces, shuffling the pieces around randomly, glueing them together and end up with identical words on identical pages across all books. It is next to impossible.

sleepdoc's avatar

@ragingloli… evidently I cannot describe what I mean cause what you got from what I wrote is totally not what I was intending it to be.

shilolo's avatar

There are multiple cases of observed speciation in the literature, but they are in obscure or hard to link journals. The fact remains that evolution is occurring constantly, even on humans, though as @ragingloli said, it will become harder and harder to identify given the lack of isolation of groups. The only way I could envision this happening is if there were a major cataclysm and humans became separated once again from each other and evolved uniquely based on their environments.

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo… Ok just to use some of the logic you used earlier, the scientific method is hypothesis, experiment and the prove the hypothesis for it to become a theory, correct? So now what you are saying is there is no way currently to conduct an experiment which would allow evolution, meaning one species changing enough to become another (now using ragingloli’s words) whch would then be unable to reproduce with the first. And this is because the 2 species cannot co-exist at the same time? Am I following your logic here?

ragingloli's avatar

They can coexist at the same time, just not easily the same habitat. If we had a population of tortoises and half of that population swam to a remote island, both groups would exist at the same time, but evolving separately into different directions, until they are so different from each other that they are genetically incompatible.

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc No. We can follow evolution at the molecular level easily. We can observe evolution in bacteria, yeast and flies as well. You are asking about only one aspect, which is observed speciation. That is more challenging, simply because of how speciation is defined (particularly for bacteria). Here is a reference on the issue.

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo…. I am just pointing out that what you are saying is proof of evolution is changes at the molecular level which is speculated will lead to what you are talking about with things like the evolution of chimps to man. Which ragingloli has cited above.

ragingloli's avatar

@sleepdoc
Chimps did not evolve into man. Humans and Chimps (and Gorillas, Orangutans, Babboons, etc.) have a common ancestor.
And it is not speculation, it is a fact.

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc I was about to say exactly the same as @ragingloli. Like I said above, we are branches of a tree, not the linear relationship that most people imagine.

ragingloli's avatar

I mean, we have a massive amount of evidence for it. We have the fossil record, we have incontrovertible genetic evidence (for example, endogenous retroviruses), we have observed speciation, we have reproduced speciation in the lab, hell we have used evolution for ourselves for thousands of years.
THIS
is a descendant of THIS.
And we know it is because we did it ourselves by human forced Evolution by artificial selection.
If you did not know, would you recognise the relationship between these two?

sleepdoc's avatar

@ragingloli A fact defined by what? I cannot get to either of the links you posted, because they are blocked from work. So I can’t really comment on using evolution for thousands of years. Learning and experimenting is not evolution so I hope that is not what you are referring to.

@shilolo At the onset you accused me of not understanding the scientific method. Was my statement above correct for how the scientific method works?

ragingloli's avatar

@sleepdoc
The first link is a picture of a long haired dog the size of a cola can, and the second is a proud wolf.

Evolution is a fact because of the evidence. It is apparent from the fossil record: Life changed in chronological order from simple organisms, to more complex organisms over hundreds of millions of years. That is the evolution of life and that is a fact. It is further compounded by genetic evidence.
The Theory of evolition is the explanatory framework that explains the fact of evolution, just like the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravitation, or the germ theory explains the fact of infectious diseases.

sleepdoc's avatar

@ragingloli Have you ever thought that maybe the reason that there is progressing complexity of organsims is because of the fact that perhaps that was all the earth was capable of supporting at the time?

ragingloli's avatar

It is well known that the early earth was very much hostile to modern life. Life had to start out simple, it does not just poof into existence as a complex organism.
Life is also what transformed the planet. Life filtered the water, enriched the atmosphere with oxygen, created the soil. Life shaped and shapes its own environments.
But that is irrelevant to the question. All that matters is that there factually was a progression of increasingly complex organisms. This progression is Evolution.

sleepdoc's avatar

@ ragingloli You are using evolution as a term to define many different things.
“Because we see that there is progressively increasing organisms” is the current definition are using. You have taken a fact “we see progressively complex organisms” and stated that to be definition of evolution. That is not a hypothesis that is provable.

ragingloli's avatar

“Evolution” is the name we have given this progression, just as we have given the name “gravity” to the phenomenon that “things fall down”. This is different from the Theory of Evolution/Theory of gravity, which is the explanation of the phenomenon.

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc I don’t know what statement you are referring to. But, the scientific method that I use in my day to day work can be boiled down to establishing a hypothesis, designing rigorous experiments to test the hypothesis, and then analyzing the data in an unbiased way to determine if the experimental outcomes support or refute the hypothesis. In any event, we’re talking in circles. You don’t quite understand the sheer volume of evidence in favor of evolutionary theory. Until strong evidence is presented that refutes evolution (which will be a real challenge), it will stand as one of the pillars of modern biology.

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo you are right about talking in circles. But mainly I fail to see that you have proven what you initially set out to. As I just said to ragingloli what is the hypothesis of evolution that you are trying to validate with the data you two keep trying to say is the proof.

shilolo's avatar

@sleepdoc Are you deliberately trying to be dense? There are probably 20 posts in this thread just in the last day that have a significant amount of data distilled for you. I will not rehash them as I tire of this (it appears you are playing a game, and I will not be party to it.)

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo I am not dense and actually find it somewhat offensive that you would say that. I have seen the data. My last question was not for you to “rehash” the data, but simply asking you to define evolution in a hypothesis format which this data supports. The word evolution is not itself a hypothesis and the articles you cite use the term to define any change in the genome as evolution. Is a gene with develops that predisposes one to cancer evolution? You may quit the discussion any time you wish. But that is all I was asking of you in the previous question. If you actually read what I wrote.

ragingloli's avatar

@sleepdoc
You should watch AronRa‘s video’s. Start from the beginning with his “the foundational falsehoods of creationism” series.
That guy is a former fundamentalist christian and a genius.

sleepdoc's avatar

@ ragingloli So you are going to answer my direct question by telling me to watch a video?

eden2eve's avatar

@ragingloli The examples you linked of the wolf and the dog are not proof of evolution. It is common knowledge that wolves and dogs can be fertile when mated, and that dogs are considered to be a sub-species of wolves. Same species. Dogs are the result of selection, not necessarily natural selection, of course. Nobody here has said that selection, natural or otherwise, has not been proven. But that fails to establish proof of one species evolving into another, which are not able to produce fertile offspring.

sleepdoc's avatar

as an aside @ragingloli none of what you have said here goes against anything I have said about what I believe in terms of the creation most of which is posted in the other question

ragingloli's avatar

@sleepdoc
I am referring you to his video’s because he is an expert and explains things better than I can.
@eden2eve
The evolution from wolf to this pathetic excuse of a dog is an example of the drastic phenotypical change that creationists demand from evolution, and by artificial selection, we accelerated the otherwise slow process of evolution so that we arrived at this little gremlin like thing in just a few thousand years.
And you can be almost certain, that these two would not interbreed on their own. The wolf’s penis is bigger than that whole small dog. Left alone they would diverge further until speciation.

What effectively proves evolution is the genetic evidence. Scroll up and read the posts and links about endogenous retroviruses for example. The site also has other examples of clear cut evidence for evolution.

eden2eve's avatar

Why then did you use it as an example? Of course the two would not interbreed independently, but that doesn’t mean that they would produce infertile offspring if they were interbred artificially. I fail to see how you can state so authoritatively that they would diverge further until speciation. There is no evidence of that in any information you have provided, nor, to my knowledge, has anyone produced such proof

sleepdoc's avatar

@ragingloli What it now appears to me, is that you have thrown out a whole bunch of data which has been collected on genes, genomes and fossils and said this is proof of evolution. We understand so little about genes in respect to what their is to understand about them, that we have just scratched the surface. It is hard for me to believe that what we know now about them will not be looked at almost laughingly in years to come.

Qingu's avatar

@sleepdoc, I’ve seen multiple citations of observed speciation in this question. Others have also pointed out how we can observe the buildup of changes on a genetic level that eventually lead to speciation.

I don’t understand what more you want. It almost seems like you want an instance of a frog magically turning into a lizard in one generation. That wouldn’t be evolution, though, that would be magic. “Evolution” is the gradual buildup of genetic changes that eventually cause an organism to be adapted differently than its ancestors—i.e. speciation.

Out of curiosity, what’s your explanation for the diversity of species? Do you believe that a Mesopotamian deity made them one by one? When criticizing scientific theories, it’s useful to have an alternative explanation in mind.

sleepdoc's avatar

@Qingu If you check out the other Q on here, you will see my explanation of creation.

Qingu's avatar

Can you link to it?

sleepdoc's avatar

@Qingu still learning fluther. Let me figure it out.

Qingu's avatar

Can you summarize?

I mean, if organisms didn’t evolve from common ancestors, how did they get here? There are for example at least 1.5 million species of insects, and probably millions more species of extinct insects. (Most species that have ever existed are extinct). Where did they come from?

sleepdoc's avatar

@Qingu I didn’t bother with it here, because I don’t think the parties involved were interested in discussion creation.

“http://www.fluther.com/92359/creationists-how-do-you-explain-the-presence-of-transitional-fossils/”

Qingu's avatar

I see. You believe “a creator did it.”

I’m confused as to what exactly you think your creator did. Can you be more specific? How exactly did he/she/it create 1.5 million species of insects, and 10 million extinct species?

And why do you believe this?

Also, would this be the creator from the Bible? Yahweh, the Mesopotamian storm god?

sleepdoc's avatar

@Qingu… in respect to the orginal Q I am not going to answer that here.

shilolo's avatar

It is the height of irony for creationists to demand direct data on human speciation (an “event” that occurred long ago) but themselves cannot (and make no effort) provide a shred of evidence for the biblical story of creation. As @Qingu has said, I’ve provided several examples of verified speciation both in the lab and in nature. I’ve given examples of molecular and cellular evolution. What more can I do? Shall I make a Neanderthal appear?

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo I have not asked you to change what you believe. I don’t expect that you are going to. What I believe has come as a result of what I have studied. I never made a claim that there is empiric proof of a creator. You were the one that insisted that evolution has been proven by the scientific method. All I have maintained is that I don’t think evolution has been proven. Also I said what I belive not what is proven.

Qingu's avatar

That depends on what you mean by “proven.” The word proof means something different in science than it does in math, or in a court of law.

In science, an idea is said to be proven if it accounts for and elegantly explains a huge range of observed evidence. Ideas like evolution, relativity, and thermodynamics do this, so they are considered “proven.”

Do you believe that the existence of your creator has been proven in the way you are demanding evolution needs to be proven?

sleepdoc's avatar

@ Quingu The existance of a creator will never be proven and I have not maintained that it would be. I just answered the intial question. And then others on here have been nice enough to indulge me in asking for explanation about why they feel evolution has been proven. I just don’t feel that they have convinced me.

Qingu's avatar

Do you believe that any idea can be proven?

sleepdoc's avatar

@ Qingu Are you asking if I ever believe an idea could be proven or if any old idea someone comes up with can be proven.

shilolo's avatar

By the way, you never answered my question about respiration. I believe we survive because the sun warms our body and sunlight provides energy for our bodies to function. You must know that the lungs function to exchange oxygen and CO2 and that oxygen is vital for cellular energetics. Who is right, and why?

sleepdoc's avatar

@shilolo I am not going to answer that .. it is off the topic of this Q.

Suffice it to say like I said on the other Q, I believe in a creation that began with the earth and continued with all life until the arrival of human kind. I can’t prove it and it can’t be disproven either.

JLeslie's avatar

until the arrival of human kind Makes me think of the theory we came from space. I always liked that theory. I’m not making fun of you @sleepdoc or trying to take the thread of track, just trying to put some levity into the conversation. They’ll probably mod me.

Qingu's avatar

@sleepdoc, I’m asking you to define what you mean by “proof.” When is an idea considered proven? Is there any idea, in human history, that you think is proven?

I ask because you keep on moving the goalpoasts as far as what counts as proof for evolution. And it’s also pretty interesting that your’e criticizing evolution because you think it’s unproven, but are willing to believe in a creator you admit is unproven. Some would say “hypocritical,” rather than “interesting.”

sleepdoc's avatar

@JLeslie I am getting bit fatigued and am probably not being as good with my word choice.

JLeslie's avatar

@sleepdoc Understandable. You gave it a good effort. :) Two threads at once, and not many people to help you out.

JLeslie's avatar

@sleepdoc I was hoping there would be more than one or two voices representating creationists. To hear varied points of view and reasoning.

sleepdoc's avatar

@Qingu I have arrived at my conclusion after a study of things both scientific and spiritual. If you know of a way to prove any spiritual belief then enlighten me. I don’t. —And although some may not choose to accept this, being spiritual does not make you uneducated and ignorant, I know of top law, medicine, civic and military minds who are spiritual and belive in creation—.Near the end of the exchange I asked both ragingloli and shilolo to define the hypothesis of evolution for me. The reason I asked that is data which is cited is not of much use without something to compare it to. Even the papers they cited used the term evolution in varying ways. You can call me hypcritical if you wish. If won’t offend me.

@JLeslie Maybe some of them felt intimidated to state what they believe. But I can tell by how much my lurve went up that many were reading this an probably agreed with at least some of what I said.I still don’t define myself as a creationist although I do believe in creation.

JLeslie's avatar

@sleepdoc Interesting. I was not watching the lurve.

sleepdoc's avatar

Off topic but brief I apologize, @JLeslie Mine has gone up more in these 3 days than it does most months.

eden2eve's avatar

@JLeslie I have been watching this and the other similar thread, and I agree with every part of what @sleepdoc has said. I would not necessarily class myself as a “Creationist”, as most of you seem to define it, which is one of the reasons that I hesitated to post here. I think that the Creator can use the methodology He sees fit to create and populate an Earth, and that He uses scientific methods. I am just not sure exactly what those are. I do think that Evolution may be possible, but that it has not yet been proven to my satisfaction. I have no instinctive disgust for the theory, only for the people who demand that I accept their conclusions based upon what I consider to be incomplete and unsubstantiated data.

shilolo's avatar

@eden2eve “Proven to your satisfaction…” What, pray tell, would that be? The data favoring evolution is neither incomplete or unsubstantiated. On the contrary, there are thousands of papers in peer reviewed journals that substantiate evolution.

@sleepdoc I believe that my metaphorical question is perfectly on topic and an apt one. That you refuse to answer it is as enlightening as what I suppose your answer would be. I suspect you recognize the disconnect between using empirical and scientific data in your job (i.e. based on the patient’s recent ABG and relative to his last ABG and current hemodynamics, and the way the case is going, does this patient’s ventilatory status require more PEEP, a higher tidal volume, increased rate, or higher FIO2, etc, etc.) but rejecting scientific and empirical data with respect to evolution in favor of mysticism. You BELIEVE in an all powerful deity/creator, but you recognize that the science favors random events occurring by chance over millennia.

shilolo's avatar

Also, to @eden2eve and @sleepdoc I have the following simple question(s). Do you concede that DNA is the genetic code? If yes, how do you explain the marked similarity of human DNA sequences to chimpanzee DNA, or even Drosophila (fly) DNA? Evolution predicts (and has been experimentally verified) that we share common ancestors (thus the marked similarities) and that the sequence differences occur because of mutations spanning millennia. What would be your alternative explanation, and what is your data supporting said explanation?

Qingu's avatar

@sleepdoc, so according to your logic, I could just say I have a “spiritual” belief in evolution and that would be okay, since it’s okay to believe in spiritual things without proof?

What if I said I have a spiritual belief that the sun revolves around the Earth (like the Bible says)?

And you still haven’t answered my question. Is there anything you believe—anything at all—that you actually consider “proven”? I’d really appreciate it if you could define what you mean by proof. Because it seems like you don’t believe scientific proof exists.

Another way of putting this: how can you “prove” that the Earth revolves around the sun?

sleepdoc's avatar

@ shilolo the reason that I didn’t answer that question is it will not shed any light on this topic. What it appears is that you are trying to use something which is a good example of application of the scientific principle and then say well one would have to apply the same principle to evolution. I hope you will indulge me to back up from the whole thing for just a minute and let me back away and explain what I have a hard time grasping in the story of evolution. Maybe this doesn’t represent all individuals and you are welcome to say it is not representative of your views (which I why I asked the question for a definition of evolution).

Using the analogy both shilolo and raginloli gave of evolution follow more of a tree pattern than a linear one, this is where I have a hard time explaining the whole picture. Is that trunk merely the trunk for all genetically similar species? If so then where do all the non genetically similar organisms come from? If you don’t believe that the trunk belongs to just genetically similar organisms, then you have to conclude that all organisms come from one original life form. For me I cannot fathom how that many random changes can happen to produce all the different forms of life that exist. Ragingloli stated “genomes do not undergo the kind of tremendous upheavel and shuffling in few million years that you seem to imply. If they did, the outcome after the shuffling would be very different from the original, if it would survive such a massive mutation.” (which yes was in response to a different question, but if the principle holds true there it would have to here as well) And that was offered as an answer to why apes and humans have to have a common ancestor. So if you subscribe to that belief, how can you believe that all life has one common ancestor?

sleepdoc's avatar

@ Quingu I am not asking you to believe anything one way or the other. I was just stating that you cannot prove or disprove spiritual things. As a side note, I was wondering which passage of the bible you were cititing with the earth revolving around the sun?

Qingu's avatar

@sleepdoc, there isn’t really a trunk. I actually prefer “bush” to “tree” in terms of an analogy.

The non-genetically similar organisms are more distant cousins. For example, we are more closely related to chimpanzees than we are to starfish. We humans “branched off” from chimps fairly recently (a few millions of years ago).

Humans and chimps are both primates. Primates, in turn, branched off from other mammals tens (or hundreds?) of millions of years ago.

Mammals are tetrapods, along with the reptiles. Mammals branched off from other reptiles hundreds of millions of years ago, in the time of the dinosaurs.

Tetrapods are a kind of land vertebrates (they lay eggs with a solid shell). Tetrapods branched off from other land vertebrates—the amphibians—several hundred millions of years ago.

Amphibians (frogs, toads) are vertebrates (they have a backbone). They branched off from other vertebrates—namely, the fish—even earlier.

Fish are chordates. The earliest fish looked like lampreys and hagfish—they looked like worms. These early fish probably branched off from other wormlike creatures.

These wormlike creatures are deuterostomes. That means that when their embryo is developing, their mouth develops second, after their anus (deuterostome means “second mouth”). Starfish (along with other echinoderms) are also deuterostomes. So the wormlike ancestors of fish branched off from the echinoderms very very long ago.

Now, most species on Earth aren’t deuterostomes, they’re protostomes—mouth first, anus second. All insects are protostomes. So this means that we are more closely related to starfish than we are to insects.

going back even further, we can see how the deuterostomes and protostomes shared common ancestors, and we can trace evolution back to jellyfish, corals, and sponges. Sponges, in turn, are barely even animals; they are more like loose colonies of individual cells. We can trace those cells’ evolution too. We can trace all of it, not only from the fossil evidence, but also because we can look at all these creatures’ genes and see how the patterns line up, and where they’ve shifted.

sleepdoc's avatar

@Quingu So for you the evidence is strong enough to support that over time all species including plants are derived from one single organism?

Qingu's avatar

Yes, absolutely. All organisms—plants, animals, eukaryotes, and prokaryotes—share essential features. They all use DNA, RNA, and proteins. They are all based on lipid-enclosed bubbles of chemicals dissolved in water (i.e. cells). Furthermore, we can trace how this “common ancestor” branched out simply by looking at the diversity of species today, and this branching out is supported both in the fossil record and from genetics.

Do you have an alternate theory?

JLeslie's avatar

@eden2eve Thanks for your input :). It seems we need more terms on this topic. Meaning just calling people “creationists” is unsatisfactory. I can’t remember if it was on this thread that I said almost all of my Catholic friends, some of whom are quite religious, believe in evolution and believe in God and a Creator. So what do we call them? No real label for them, we have to explain their thinking on the matter to be clear. These same friends consider themselves pro-life, but do not want to be associated with pro-lifers, and are actually pro-choice typically as voters in political elections. This is why generalizations and stereotypes don’t work well for so many things.

shilolo's avatar

@Qingu did an excellent job of explaining how over eons, small changes at the genetic level can create millions of different species, all related to one common ancestor. That said, I don’t begrudge anyone the notion that the entire process was initiated by a deity, or even that said deity created the physical and biologic laws of the universe. That requires faith, which is totally fine. I don’t have to agree, but there is nothing inherently missing from that viewpoint (one shared by the leader of the human genome project, Francis Collins).

What I have a major issue with is the notion that all life forms sprung up simultaneously, by the hand of said deity, and that it all happened according to the Biblical story. My concern is magnified when creationism is taught alongside biologic (experimentally proven) evolution. As I said originally, teaching creationism in school fosters an educational climate devoid of legitimate scientific thought and analysis. Evolution is with us every day, it shapes the world around us, and we (as in, all of us) need to understand it. Making it seem like some false theory or vague notion, or comparable to “intelligent design” is a travesty.

Oh, and @sleepdoc, I have a hard time understanding how someone in such an empirically and science driven career as anesthesiology cannot apply the same standards to creationism-evolution.

Void's avatar

@shilolo, You are making a separation between science and creationism when there isn’t one to begin with. Evolution is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen. Also, mind you, a little opposition for you, consider consciousness and information theory. Anyway, science explains the physical, not the spiritual, nor can it. This leaves room for the creationist to believe and make claim that God (who is not physical) created the physical universe and all within it by creating the laws of physics and the process of evolution, etc. Therefore, when the bible says the earth is around 5000 years old while science says the earth is 4.54 billion years old, then it’s just a matter of proper interpretations. As someone said earlier in the thread, numbers in regards to spirituality can be interpreted differently but can be in sync with the science. 1 day could be considered X amount of years in God’s terms, etc. This works with any discrepancy the bible may have with the science without having to alter any scriptures, but rather it is the priests that need to provide proper clarification of the scriptures to show that there is no discrepancy, which depending on the individual groups of the creationist movement, do as such. You are making a mistake by generalizing the entire creationist community when you should know that there are individual groups within the whole community. In fact, those that teach creationism along side with science classes do exactly that(accepting the science and explaining the religion along side with no discrepancy or alterations). Therefore, creationism taught side by side with science is perfectly acceptable.

Ron_C's avatar

@Void you are exactly wrong. One definition that I heard says that science describes how things work and religion explains why they are. Of course I disagree with that too.

Religion was invented as a precursor to science because humans are curious and want to know about nature and themselves. That is what set us apart and why we evolved and other branches died out.

Science had become advanced and religion has stagnated and in some cases regressed. The idea of teaching creationism in science class is an example of that regression. Creationism in itself is counter-productive. If a creationist doesn’t understand how something works, he just says that god created it. That is not an answer, it is an evasion. When you add the evasions together with belief, you end up with people that are absolutely convinced that the estimate of 6000 years for the age of the earth is fact, not allegory.

When the two sides fight, science uses logic which is completely lost by people fighting as if the fundamentals of the universe depend on them winning the fight. That attitude starts with hard feelings towards science, progresses to disdain, then to violent action. People that thing that “god is on our side” are not restrained by logic, virtue, or even humanity. I am sure that the 9–11 attackers were deeply religious. So deeply religious that it over came the scientific training that some of them had.

When you consider creationism as a valid subject to teach in public school you end up with schools similar to the Texas school system. You can now use your religion to justify a wide range of radical reforms even to writing out Tomas Jefferson from history courses. You fill your children’s minds with nonsense and detract from basic education which has ripples all the way to the White house. We already had a couple presidents that believe in the infallibility of the bible and got war, recession, and suppression. We don’t need any more of that.

Void's avatar

@Ron_C, ”Religion was invented as a precursor to science because humans are curious and want to know about nature and themselves. That is what set us apart and why we evolved and other branches died out.”

Prove that religion was invented rather then divine dictation?

@Ron_C, ”Science had become advanced and religion has stagnated and in some cases regressed.”

Religion doesn’t attempt to explain the physical universe, it teaches a way of life. It doesn’t focus on the development of trees unless it helps you in some way become a better person. Around 90% of the world population believe in religion and you call this stagnation? Haha.

@Ron_C, ”The idea of teaching creationism in science class is an example of that regression.”

Example of what regression? You mean your false accusation of religious stagnation or your lack of understanding the goal of the bible, perhaps both?

@Ron_C, ”Creationism in itself is counter-productive.”

How? Also, if that was the case why is 90% of the world religious?

@Ron_C, ”If a creationist doesn’t understand how something works, he just says that god created it. That is not an answer, it is an evasion. When you add the evasions together with belief, you end up with people that are absolutely convinced that the estimate of 6000 years for the age of the earth is fact, not allegory.”

Wrong. As I said, creationist have many groups within the community. There are many creationists that accept all scientific evidence and explain scripture to be perfectly in sync with all science. Those are the one’s that teach it in schools. I gave you an example already, 1 day in God’s terms can mean X amount in physical terms.

@Ron_C, ”When the two sides fight, science uses logic which is completely lost by people fighting as if the fundamentals of the universe depend on them winning the fight. That attitude starts with hard feelings towards science, progresses to disdain, then to violent action. People that thing that “god is on our side” are not restrained by logic, virtue, or even humanity. I am sure that the 9–11 attackers were deeply religious. So deeply religious that it over came the scientific training that some of them had.”

The two sides don’t fight. Only certain groups within the creationist movement discredit the science, and to that I agree that it’s wrong, but to generalize the entire movement is no different that saying all people are bad because a lot of them are.

@Ron_C, ”When you consider creationism as a valid subject to teach in public school you end up with schools similar to the Texas school system. You can now use your religion to justify a wide range of radical reforms even to writing out Tomas Jefferson from history courses. You fill your children’s minds with nonsense and detract from basic education which has ripples all the way to the White house. We already had a couple presidents that believe in the infallibility of the bible and got war, recession, and suppression. We don’t need any more of that.”

Refer to previous statements.

JLeslie's avatar

@Void The idea that the bible when it states a day means a year, or 5,000 years equals 4 million is a way for the Christians to marry (there is that word again being used for something besides a man and a woman in matrimonia, but that is another subject) science and religion so they can continue to believe the bible is 100% accurate. It kind of proves that either we should agree the bible can be misenterpreted, that it probably has some mistakes in it, and that thinking it is the exact word of God is illogical and improbable. I don’t see why that is so hard to accept for some people? It was written by men, not by God. It has been translated, and meaning can always be lost in translation. I think @shilolo gave a fantastic answer in his last post, which respects a persons belief in God and that God is the original Creator. I don’t see why creation and science have to be at war? One is the topic of religion and they other is science. The only thing I can figure for why creationists don’t want to accept science is because they cannot fathom the idea that something they have believed is not true. It is a Cognitive Dissonance problem in my opinion. Their whole construct of how they perceive the world might crumble. Now, of course I am not talking about Christians who do evaluate the science. I am talking about the people who dismiss it out of hand out of fear. Those people should come up with a different title, so they can separate themselves from the hard core, die hard, won’t listen to a word of science and evolution. That way we will all be clear who we are refferring to in conversation.

About teaching in school. Creation is a religious concept, not to be taught in public school period. Teaching evolution does not exclude God or the concept of a Creator. Teaching that God plunked everything down at once does exclude evolution however.

Your stat that 90% of the world is religious caused me to look up in wikipedia some stats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism looking at the whole world does not really give an accurate view, because it varies greatly by country. The stats from my link are about atheism, not identifying with a religion, not sure how that would pan out? Lots of people identify with a religion, but are not religious.

Seek's avatar

@Void

@Ron_C, ”Religion was invented as a precursor to science because humans are curious and want to know about nature and themselves. That is what set us apart and why we evolved and other branches died out.”
Prove that religion was invented rather then divine dictation?

Simple – God is imaginary. Thus, god didn’t dictate anything.

Ta-da!

Now, prove that your god isn’t imaginary, and I might discuss the rest of that ridiculous post.

Void's avatar

@JLeslie, ”@Void The idea that the bible when it states a day means a year, or 5,000 years equals 4 million is a way for the Christians to marry (there is that word again being used for something besides a man and a woman in matrimonia, but that is another subject) science and religion so they can continue to believe the bible is 100% accurate. It kind of proves that either we should agree the bible can be misinterpreted, that it probably has some mistakes in it, and that thinking it is the exact word of God is illogical and improbable. I don’t see why that is so hard to accept for some people? It was written by men, not by God. It has been translated, and meaning can always be lost in translation.”

The scripture in the bible can be understood on many different levels. You can derive more then one idea from one line. The bible is automatically accurate because we believe God dictated it and God is absolute truth, perfection, therefore, anything we do not understand or lack interpretation or misinterpret is our fault and the priest do a good job at correcting it to keep it in sync with science and anything else that may cause discrepancy. Why believing in God is illogical? Can you disprove God? Can you prove it’s improbable? Can you prove religion was man written? We believe the bible wasn’t lost in translation, that it was passed down from generation to generation, and the fact that archaeological findings have show bible scripture to be the same as is today, while dating back thousands of years.

@JLeslie, ”I think @shilolo gave a fantastic answer in his last post, which respects a persons belief in God and that God is the original Creator. I don’t see why creation and science have to be at war?”

They don’t. This is the point I was making, but @shilolo was making a separation, which causes “war”.

@JLeslie, ”One is the topic of religion and they other is science. The only thing I can figure for why creationists don’t want to accept science is because they cannot fathom the idea that something they have believed is not true. It is a Cognitive Dissonance problem in my opinion. Their whole construct of how they perceive the world might crumble.”

For the third time, as I said, creationist have many groups within the community. There are many creationists that accept all scientific evidence and explain scripture to be perfectly in sync with all science. Those are the one’s that teach it in schools.

@JLeslie, ”Now, of course I am not talking about Christians who do evaluate the science. I am talking about the people who dismiss it out of hand out of fear. Those people should come up with a different title, so they can separate themselves from the hard core, die hard, won’t listen to a word of science and evolution. That way we will all be clear who we are refferring to in conversation.”

Even if they dismiss it, so what? They aren’t the one’s teaching it in schools. Why must you instill your scientific beliefs on people and then get angry when they reject it. If they want to worship a stick, that’s their business. Why can’t you mind your own business?

@JLeslie, ”About teaching in school. Creation is a religious concept, not to be taught in public school period. Teaching evolution does not exclude God or the concept of a Creator. Teaching that God plunked everything down at once does exclude evolution however.”

Why can’t religion be taught in schools? Creationism doesn’t teach that God “plunked” everything down at once. Creationism just believes and claims that God who is not physical, created the physical realm, and all within it, putting in physical laws and created a process(evolution).

@JLeslie, ”Your stat that 90% of the world is religious caused me to look up in wikipedia some stats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism looking at the whole world does not really give an accurate view, because it varies greatly by country. The stats from my link are about atheism, not identifying with a religion, not sure how that would pan out? Lots of people identify with a religion, but are not religious.”

Here you go,
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
http://www.wholesomewords.org/missions/greatc.html#religions
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

Void's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr, ”Simple – God is imaginary. Thus, god didn’t dictate anything. Ta-da! Now, prove that your god isn’t imaginary, and I might discuss the rest of that ridiculous post.”

Prove God is imaginary?

Seek's avatar

@Void

The Bible says that Pi = 3. This is not in synch with the science of mathematics. Thus, the Bible is not perfectly in synch with science. Period.

The Bible also states that the sun revolves around the earth, that the sky is a solid dome holding up an ocean, the earth sits atop a pillar (attached to what I don’t know…) and any number of other absurd claims that we know for a fact are not true.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Religion can be taught in schools. Provided it’s not taught as fact. I would love to see a comparative religions class in every high school in the country. We should know what we, as rational human beings, are up against. However, I had a biology teacher who taught the chapter on evolution with a “Well, we know what really happened” attitude, and I wanted to beat her in the head with a book.

I think your previous two statements are contradictory:
If they want to worship a stick, that’s their business. Why can’t you mind your own business?

and

Why can’t religion be taught in schools?

I don’t worship a stick, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Jewish sky-god Yahweh. That’s my business. I don’t need a school shoving their random deities down my kids’ throats.

Prove God is imaginary?
Burden of proof rests on the believer. If your god is there, prove it.
I know, we’ll do a scientific test.

I have rather poor vision. I’ve worn glasses since I was nine years old. Your Bible states that if you, as a believer, ask for any thing in Jesus’ name, it shall be granted to you.

Pray for my eyes. If I can take off my glasses and read this screen without my nose touching it, I’ll concede that your god exists.

JLeslie's avatar

@Void On some points you seem to be arguing when basically we are in agreement. There are many diffierent types of people and views that are within the group of creationists, we agree on that. If Creationists want totally dismis science I am fine with that, just please don’t vote for policy that affects scientific discovery, and don’t try to teach my children those beliefs.

Which brings me to Creation and God in public school. Separation of church and state. I am actually fine with teaching a comparative religion class at the high school, level, and I would even agree to not teaching evolution, except in the sciences that it directly applies to at the high school level as well. If you teach religion in school, which one are you going to pick? If you live in a very Christian community you may have no concept of what it is like to be a minority, the minority. Do you want to risk empowering teachers, the schools, the state to teach religion or God to your children? In Boca Raton, FL that would be influenced by a lot of Jews, and in Dearborn, MI it would be influenced by a lot of Muslims. Maybe in ther towns there are a lot of Buddhists? There are creationsists who believe the earth was created with it’s history, like 5,000 years ago when God created the earth He created it with evidence of it having been around for 4 million. I just learned this one theory/explanation on these creation threads. You seem to not believe this idea, but I guess some do. So, again, if we just leave this to the churches we are better. I would be unhappy if a teacher told children there is no God, just as annoyed as if they were teaching God.

Ron_C's avatar

@Void I applaud and thank you for the deep inspection of my statement so please believe that I am sorry that you either did not understand most of my points then actually asked me to “Prove that religion was invented rather then divine dictation?” How can I do that when I have explicitly said that I don’t believe had anything to do with writing the bible. The bible was written by committee and as such has a wide range of divergent and occasionally barbaric views. It seem the me that it is up to Christians to prove the bible, not us lowly atheists.

By the way 90% of the world may have some sort of religious views but I believe that Christians are way below the 90% level. Maybe I should ask you to prove your statistics.

Nice work anyway,

JLeslie's avatar

@Ron_C @Void In fact Christianity is not the majority of the worlds religions, but it has pretty high numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups there is a table ⅓ of the way down. Also, keep in mind that is all Christians, and many Christians don’t count the Catholics, and possibly they are counting Mormons and Jehovahs and others under the umbrella of Christian on this particular Wikipedia page.

Ron_C's avatar

@JLeslie thanks for the link. The most important statement is at the bottom of the article. I am paraphrasing but it states that the poorer the nation the more important the religion.

I think that is part of the religious resurgence in the U.S. We are becoming poorer and subsequently more religious. People need a crutch and for a country’s leaders religion becomes a very useful crutch. If you can control people’s emotions, promise them a bright future (even if it isn’t on earth), and make it a sin to disobey the ruler’s law a dictator can have a very peaceful rule. Especially if you couple it with a threat from the outside group, like blacks, Jews, or our current favorite Hispanic immigrants.

JLeslie's avatar

@Ron_C I agree, although like all generalizations it is not always true. I do know wealthy religious people. I find it surprising many times the US is so religious, when you look at stats of other industrialized nations. Maybe it is because we are so diverse, and new to our new country relatively speaking? That our religions are part of what binds us to our roots, our history, our tradition, where in many of the European countries they have their roots right there.

I actually have no problem at all with people who are theists, but religiousity in place of common sense bothers me.

Ron_C's avatar

@JLeslie I think that Christopher Hitchens said that the reason that Britain, with its state supported church is so secular and the U.S.,which is supposed to be secular,is so religious is that Britain was inoculated against religion because every village had a mild mannered innocuous minister assigned.

People in Britain go to church more as a social and patriotic exercise than for a religious service. The Church of England, Anglican over here, keeps a pretty low, profile. They don’t evangelize, they don’t hold anti-anything protests, and they seem to have a sense of decorum. Our country with its “freedom of religion” spawns some really boisterous brands of religion because we weren’t inoculated.

JLeslie's avatar

@Ron_C Check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States go to church attendance by state. Much lower than I would have guessed actually for the southern states, but of course they are still mostly near the top.

Void's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr, ”@Void The Bible says that Pi = 3. This is not in synch with the science of mathematics. Thus, the Bible is not perfectly in synch with science. Period.”

The diameter was measured from the outside rim while the circumference was measured along the inner rim. This interpretation implies a brim 0.22535 cubit (or, assuming an 18-inch “cubit”, some 4 inches) thick, or roughly one “handbreadth” (cf. 1 Kings 7:24 and 2 Chronicles 4:3).The measurements are given in round numbers (as the Hebrews tended to round off measurements to whole numbers, or that cubits were not exact units, or that the basin may not have been exactly circular, or that the brim was wider than the bowl itself. Many reconstructions of the basin show a wider brim (or flared lip) extending outward from the bowl itself by several inches. In 1 Kings 7:23 the word translated ‘measuring line’ appears in the Hebrew text spelled QWH, but elsewhere the word is most usually spelled QW. The ratio of the numerical values of these Hebrew spellings is 111⁄106. If the putative value of 3 is multiplied by this ratio, one obtains 333⁄106 = 3.141509433 – within 1/10,000th of the true value of π, a convergent for π which is more accurate than 22⁄7, although not as good as the next one 355⁄113. Maimonides states (ca. 1168 CE) that π can only be known approximately, so the value 3 was given as accurate enough for religious purposes. This is taken by some as the earliest assertion that π is irrational.

More answers in detail.

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm
http://www.icr.org/article/does-bible-contain-mathematically-incorrect-value-/
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/pibible.htm

@Seek_Kolinahr, ”The Bible also states that the sun revolves around the earth, that the sky is a solid dome holding up an ocean, the earth sits atop a pillar (attached to what I don’t know…) and any number of other absurd claims that we know for a fact are not true.”

Here you go,
https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2178
http://creationwiki.org/Bible_says_the_sun_goes_around_the_earth
http://creationwiki.org/Bible_says_the_sun_goes_around_the_earth_-Part_2%28Talk.Origins%29

@Seek_Kolinahr, ”Religion can be taught in schools. Provided it’s not taught as fact. I would love to see a comparative religions class in every high school in the country. We should know what we, as rational human beings, are up against. “

Haha, you are irrational just for saying that. How is believing in God irrational when you cannot discredit God, bible, or anything spiritual for that matter in anyway? Nice try though.

@Seek_Kolinahr, _”I think your previous two statements are contradictory:
If they want to worship a stick, that’s their business. Why can’t you mind your own business?And Why can’t religion be taught in schools?”_

What does religion being taught in schools have to do with minding own business? These concepts are entering a domain(school) to educate, it’s different because what I said applies to a no situation, middle man being school. Does the scientific community somehow stake claim for schools? Why then is creationism being allowed to be taught all over? It’s just a curriculum like anything else. Again, why should one be allowed and not the other?

@Seek_Kolinahr, _”Prove God is imaginary?
Burden of proof rests on the believer. If your god is there, prove it.
I know, we’ll do a scientific test.I have rather poor vision. I’ve worn glasses since I was nine years old. Your Bible states that if you, as a believer, ask for any thing in Jesus’ name, it shall be granted to you. Pray for my eyes. If I can take off my glasses and read this screen without my nose touching it, I’ll concede that your god exists.”_

First of all this is a faith. I cannot stick it into a scientific method, hence the word belief. The knowledge has been past down from generation till the events of God speaking to man, etc. Furthermore, archaeological findings have shown the same biblical scripture written today dating back to thousands of years, which shows no alternations since then, therefore, it has been authentic all this time. We can further provide logic and reasoning arguments but ultimately it’s up for the individual to decide. There will never be a 100% guarentee, however, this is what faith is all about.

@Ron_C, ”@Void I applaud and thank you for the deep inspection of my statement so please believe that I am sorry that you either did not understand most of my points then actually asked me to “Prove that religion was invented rather then divine dictation?” How can I do that when I have explicitly said that I don’t believe had anything to do with writing the bible. The bible was written by committee and as such has a wide range of divergent and occasionally barbaric views. It seem the me that it is up to Christians to prove the bible, not us lowly atheists.”

I understood your points just fine, and called you out on them. If you don’t believe anything about the writings of the bible then why are you mouthing of that it was _“written by a committee and as such has a wide range of divergent and occasionally barbaric views.”_Is this just an opinion or do you like to deem your opinions as facts because you feel like it?

@Ron_C By the way 90% of the world may have some sort of religious views but I believe that Christians are way below the 90% level. Maybe I should ask you to prove your statistics.“_

I sent you four different links and I’ll do it again, each is valid statistically.

Here you go,
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
http://www.wholesomewords.org/missions/greatc.html#religions
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

Now, a question for you. You say you are atheist? That means you believe God doesn’t exist. Prove God doesn’t exist? Oh that’s right you can’t, because you can’t test tube God. Interesting, yet you believe God doesn’t exist anyway, without any proof necessary. How sad.

Here is a little something for all three of you, @JLeslie, @Ron_C, @Seek_Kolinahr
An Atheist Professor of Philosophy was speaking to his Class on the Problem Science has with GOD, the ALMIGHTY. He asked one of his New Christian Students to stand and . . .

Professor : You are Christian, aren’t you, son ?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor : So, you Believe in GOD ?

Student : Absolutely, sir.

Professor : Is GOD Good ?

Student : Sure.

Professor : Is GOD ALL – POWERFUL ?

Student : Yes.

Professor : My Brother died of Cancer even though he Prayed to GOD to Heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?

(Student was silent )

Professor : You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, Young Fella. Is GOD Good?

Student : Yes.

Professor : Is Satan good ?

Student : No.

Professor : Where does Satan come from ?

Student : From . . . GOD . . .

Professor : That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this World?

Student : Yes.

Professor : Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?

Student : Yes.

Professor : So who created evil ?

(Student did not answer)

Professor : Is there Sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the World, don’t they?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor : So, who Created them ?

(Student had no answer)

Professor : Science says you have 5 Senses you use to Identify and Observe the World around you. Tell me, son . . . Have you ever Seen GOD?

Student : No, sir.

Professor : Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?

Student : No , sir.

Professor : Have you ever Felt your GOD, Tasted your GOD, Smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any Sensory Perception of GOD for that matter?

Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.

Professor : Yet you still Believe in HIM?

Student : Yes.

Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my Faith.

Professor : Yes, Faith. And that is the Problem Science has.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as Heat?

Professor : Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as Cold?

Professor : Yes.

Student : No, sir. There isn’t.

(The Lecture Theatre became very quiet with this turn of events )

Student : Sir, you can have Lots of Heat, even More Heat, Superheat, Mega Heat, White Heat, a Little Heat or No Heat. But we don’t have anything called Cold. We can hit 458 Degrees below Zero which is No Heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as Cold. Cold is only a Word we use to describe the Absence of Heat. We cannot Measure Cold. Heat is Energy. Cold is Not the Opposite of Heat, sir, just the Absence of it.

(There was Pin-Drop Silence in the Lecture Theatre )

Student : What about Darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as Darkness?

Professor : Yes. What is Night if there isn’t Darkness?

Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the Absence of Something You can have Low Light, Normal Light, Bright Light, Flashing Light . . .But if you have No Light constantly, you have nothing and it’s called Darkness, isn’t it? In reality, Darkness isn’t. If it is, were you would be able to make Darkness Darker, wouldn’t you?

Professor : So what is the point you are making, Young Man ?

Student : Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is flawed.

Professor : Flawed ? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality. You argue there is Life and then there is Death, a Good GOD and a Bad GOD. You are viewing the Concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a Thought. It uses Electricity and Magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view Death as the Opposite of Life is to be ignorant of the fact that Death cannot exist as a Substantive Thing. Death is Not the Opposite of Life: just the Absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your Students that they evolved from a Monkey?

Professor : If you are referring to the Natural Evolutionary Process, yes, of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shook his head with a Smile, beginning to realize where the Argument was going )

Student : Since no one has ever observed the Process of Evolution at work and Cannot even prove that this Process is an On-Going Endeavour, Are you not teaching your Opinion, sir? Are you not a Scientist but a Preacher?

(The Class was in Uproar )

Student : Is there anyone in the Class who has ever seen the Professor’s Brain?

(The Class broke out into Laughter )

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s Brain, Felt it, touched or Smelt it? . No one appears to have done so. So, according to the Established Rules of Empirical, Stable, monstrable Protocol, Science says that You have No Brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then Trust your Lectures, sir?

(The Room was Silent. The Professor stared at the Student, his face unfathomable)

Professor : I guess you’ll have to take them on Faith, son.

Student : That is it sir . . . Exactly ! The Link between Man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that Keeps Things Alive and Moving.

Ron_C's avatar

@Void the first link I opened rated christianity at 33% rate is about equal to the accuracy of your criticisms. That’s it for now. I will have other answers later when I can read your previous comments in more detail.

Void's avatar

@Ron_C, exactly, making it the biggest religion? I didn’t say christianity was 90% of the religion in the world, I said the amount of religious people in the world is 90%. You are so fixated on numbers, the point was that a lot of people are still religious, hence, there is no stagnation.

JLeslie's avatar

@Void But being a religious Buddhist is very different than being a religious Christian in my book. And, a large percentage of Jews identify Jewish, but are not religious, I wonder how they are counted? Not that it matters much I guess, since Jews are such a small number. Catholics also, identify strongly as Catholics, but then many don’t practice their religion. And just because something is statistically high in numbers, does not make it correct. In North America we thought tomatoes were poisonous until the early 1800’s. An Umbrella of belief that caught on at the time.

Void's avatar

@JLeslie, “But being a religious Buddhist is very different than being a religious Christian in my book. And, a large percentage of Jews identify Jewish, but are not religious, I wonder how they are counted? Not that it matters much I guess, since Jews are such a small number. Catholics also, identify strongly as Catholics, but then many don’t practice their religion.”

You missing the point and focusing entirely on what’s irrelvant to everything I was saying. These are religion statistics throughout the world. My point is simply to show that there is no stagnation due to the mass amount of people still practicing it. You don’t have to be religious to practice religion. You can practice religion to a degree of your capability. The point is that they believe in the religion, identify themselves as such, and practice it to the best of their ability. Not everyone is a priest at start. Furthermore, how do you know who practices what, this is speculation on your part. Do you have statistics to say otherwise?

@JLeslie, “And just because something is statistically high in numbers, does not make it correct.”

I gave you four seperate sources taken on a wide scale. All four sources have similiar numbers, yet you feel all four sources are wrong. Statistics is a formal science, are you going against your belief system now?

@JLeslie, “In North America we thought tomatoes were poisonous until the early 1800’s. An Umbrella of belief that caught on at the time.”

Provide me with a link of the statistics taken and information about this.

Seek's avatar

@Void

Typical apologetics bullshit.

- Yes, you do have to prove God exists. It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. I can’t prove the sky isn’t pink and purple striped without first proving that it is blue.

- If God wrote the Bible, and God doesn’t know that Pi =/= 3, God is fallible, and thus your religion is based on nothing. I am not even going to justify the apologetics links with a click, much less a response.

- Evolution is taught because it has been proven to exist. Religion should not be taught as fact because it hasn’t. Also, it raises the question as to which religion should be taught as fact. Does the world sit atop a pillar, on the shoulders of Atlas, or does it rest in the branches of Yygdrassil?

- And when I give you the opportunity to prove your god, you refuse to do so. Why do you and your god wish me to have such poor eyesight, when my cure is only a whispered prayer in faith away?!

- That old nugget again, huh? If I wanted to see the professor’s brain, I could perform an MRI. Does God show up on an MRI? By the way, here‘s how the story really goes.

Void's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr,”Typical apologetics bullshit.”

This is a rational argument? Interesting.

@Seek_Kolinahr,”-Yes, you do have to prove God exists. It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. I can’t prove the sky isn’t pink and purple striped without first proving that it is blue.”

You’re an athiest. That means you are claiming God doesn’t exist. This is your belief as an atheist. Therefore, prove God doesn’t exist.

@Seek_Kolinahr,”If God wrote the Bible, and God doesn’t know that Pi =/= 3, God is fallible, and thus your religion is based on nothing. I am not even going to justify the apologetics links with a click, much less a response.”

I gave you a variety of arguments explaining this matter, yet you still stick to your falsehood arguments. Interesting, why not argue the points? Who’s irrational now?

@Seek_Kolinahr,”- Evolution is taught because it has been proven to exist. Religion should not be taught as fact because it hasn’t. Also, it raises the question as to which religion should be taught as fact. Does the world sit atop a pillar, on the shoulders of Atlas, or does it rest in the branches of Yygdrassil?”

You seem to be missing the point here. Religion doesn’t need to prove anything, it’s a faith, and you comparing it to the scientific method, is apples and oranges. This is not a reason that it shouldn’t be taught in schools, especially if it doesn’t contradict the science.

@Seek_Kolinahr,”Does the world sit atop a pillar, on the shoulders of Atlas, or does it rest in the branches of Yygdrassil?”

You can’t even argue back my refutes to your two original questions and now you want me to waste my time with this question? I don’t think so. Check mate.

@Seek_Kolinahr,”And when I give you the opportunity to prove your god, you refuse to do so. Why do you and your god wish me to have such poor eyesight, when my cure is only a whispered prayer in faith away?!”

You are just being condescending now. Clearly, ethics isn’t your favorite subject.

@Seek_Kolinahr,”- That old nugget again, huh? If I wanted to see the professor’s brain, I could perform an MRI. Does God show up on an MRI?”

Missed the entire main point of the conversation. Good work. I will keep throwing the same question back at you. Can you prove God doesn’t exist, you being an atheist of course?

@Seek_Kolinahr,”By the way, here‘s how the story really goes.”

I will give you the same response you just gave me. @Seek_Kolinahr,“I am not even going to justify the apologetics links with a click, much less a response.”

JLeslie's avatar

@Void Tomatoes were thought to be poisoness http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/botany/botany_map/articles/article_35.html and brief mention of it under North America on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato

You miss my point about 90% of people being religious. I do not question that 90% of people say they are a particular religion, but how do they/you define religious? And, so what that there are so many religious people, does that prove religion is a good thing, or that God exists?

Back to identifying with a religion, but not being religious http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175700 states that 42% of Jews in Israel identify as secular. I have read stats that range from 30–50% of Jews in America are atheists, a lot of us are on this site. I am pretty sure these Jews, including myself, are being counted as Jewish, but are not religious. And, I guess you are only concerned with being religious and not a belief in God? Pretty sure the Buddhists are atheists, at minimum agnostic, probably there are other religions that are atheist I just am not familiar with them.

JLeslie's avatar

@Void You seem to be missing the point here. Religion doesn’t need to prove anything, it’s a faith, and you comparing it to the scientific method, is apples and oranges. This is not a reason that it shouldn’t be taught in schools, especially if it doesn’t contradict the science.

I can’t tell you how much this line of thought pisses me off. Can I teach any religious thing I want in school? Are you ok with that?

Void's avatar

@JLeslie, ”Tomatoes were thought to be poisoness http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/botany/botany_map/articles/article_35.html and brief mention of it under North America on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato”

This is an article that says tomatoes were thought to be poisonous. How does this show that statistics are wrong? In fact, where are the statistics?

@JLeslie, ”You miss my point about 90% of people being religious. I do not question that 90% of people say they are a particular religion, but how do they/you define religious?”

They and I define religions, not religious, which is what the statistics are showing. A person who associate themselves with a religion, not necessarily being religious. All they need to say is, I am Jewish, I am christian, etc. How they practice the religion and who practices it, is all speculative, unless statistics are available.

@JLeslie, ”And, so what that there are so many religious people, does that prove religion is a good thing, or that God exists?”

You keep asking the same question and I keep giving the same answer. You are dwelling into this way to much. The point is, the fact that they associate themselves with a religion shows no religious stagnation. That’s it.

@JLeslie, ”http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175700 states that 42% of Jews in Israel identify as secular. I have read stats that range from 30–50% of Jews in America are atheists, a lot of us are on this site. I am pretty sure these Jews, including myself, are being counted as Jewish, but are not religious.”

Exactly what I wrote to the previous reference.

@JLeslie, ”And, I guess you are only concerned with being religious and not a belief in God? Pretty sure the Buddhists are atheists, at minimum agnostic, probably there are other religions that are atheist I just am not familiar with them.”

Speculations are free to all. Not the point here.

@JLeslie, ”I can’t tell you how much this line of thought pisses me off. Can I teach any religious thing I want in school? Are you ok with that?”

Yes, you can. A person can accept and reject information on his own accord. This doesn’t mean that he/she should be deprived of all types of knowledge.

augustlan's avatar

@Void So you would be ok with your child’s school teaching any religion they choose? Even if it was, say, Muslim? How about Satanism?

gypsywench's avatar

Monkey see, Monkey do.

Void's avatar

@augustlan, “So you would be ok with your child’s school teaching any religion they choose? Even if it was, say, Muslim? How about Satanism?”

Why wouldn’t/shouldn’t I be okay with this if there is no scientific conflict? Islam creationism is already being taught in various schools, so is Hinduism. I don’t know if satanism is though.

Ron_C's avatar

@Void you seem to emphasize the idea that since 90% of the people associate themselves with religion, then there is no stagnation. Association does not imply vigorous religious faith and practice. Look at Europe, Italy is mostly Catholic yet they have a liberal divorce law. A “good” Catholic believes that marriage is until death do you part. Belgium is mostly Catholic and has a growing Islamic population, I believe they still had a tax to support the churches. They also have very liberal laws involving everything from a low legal drinking age, low attendance at church services and all the trappings of a fading religious devotion.

England has an officially supported religion but church attendance is a mostly social aspect. The only place where religious faith is strongly adhered to is in the growing poor, Muslim immigrant community. Children born (of any faith) in England drift away from strict adherence as affluence increases, even though they declare themselves associated with a particular religion for survey purposes.

Deep religious belief is more associated with alienation and poverty than with the particular brand of faith. Maybe stagnation is too strong a word. Increased apathy proportion to income and education is probably a better description. In the U.S. increased poverty and alienation, increased religiosity. Higher education and income, increased apathy.

By the way it is not our job to prove the non existence of god, it is the believers job to prove its existence to non-believers. Otherwise, what is the purpose of evangelicals?

Void's avatar

@Ron_C,

All this information you wrote is excellent except it lacks details. The details being the amount of people that are religious (practicing) and the amount that are stagnant or noncaring. In order for religions to be stagnant/noncaring, majority of the members must not practice it. Therefore, provide me with the same type of statistics I provided you, except you provide me now with how much people practices the religions and how much don’t.

@Ron_C, “By the way it is not our job to prove the non existence of god, it is the believers job to prove its existence to non-believers. Otherwise, what is the purpose of evangelicals?”

Non-believers, believe, God doesn’t exist. If it’s not a belief, then prove God doesn’t exist.

Void's avatar

@Ron_C,

Also, the statistics have to contain all the religions, not just one, since that was the statement of your original argument, that science advanced while religions were stagnant/apathetic.

Ron_C's avatar

@Void first of all it is not my job to collect statistics about people’s “feelings” about religion and all the surveys either state or imply that there is a difference between people that claim a religion and how well they follow the precepts. My statements are a direct result of personal experience and real life observation.

Non belief is not the opposite of belief as your own parable showed. You must know it is difficult or impossible to prove a negative. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That goes for god, aliens, and the companies that claim to sell time shares in Orlando.

Void's avatar

@Ron_C,”first of all it is not my job to collect statistics about people’s “feelings” about religion and all the surveys either state or imply that there is a difference between people that claim a religion and how well they follow the precepts. My statements are a direct result of personal experience and real life observation.”

In that case, I say the same, accept in opposition to yours.

@Ron_C,”Non belief is not the opposite of belief as your own parable showed. You must know it is difficult or impossible to prove a negative. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That goes for god, aliens, and the companies that claim to sell time shares in Orlando.”

Then why do you believe in a negative that is difficult or impossible to prove? As you said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”.

Ron_C's avatar

@Void if you want to play word games and your opinion is the opposite of mine, are you saying that you have not personal experience or real life observation in how people follow their claimed faith.

I don’t believe a negative. I don’t believe the claim that there is a god as described by the “revealed” religions.

Void's avatar

@Ron_C, “_if you want to play word games and your opinion is the opposite of mine, are you saying that you have not personal experience or real life observation in how people follow their claimed faith.”_

I said that I have the same type of personal experiences and real life observations as you, except that I see people practicing the religion rather then being stagnant or apathetic.

@Ron_C, ”I don’t believe a negative. I don’t believe the claim that there is a god as described by the “revealed” religions.”

You believe the claim that a God doesn’t exist. This is an extraordinary claim which requires an extraordinary proof. If you can’t prove this claim, then I’m asking you why do you believe in this claim?

Ron_C's avatar

@Void how do you equate the statement “God is omnipotent, omniscient, and is involved in all aspects of every living person’s life” with “I don’t think so”.

The first statement is an extraordinary claim, the second just expresses doubt with no claim spoken or implied.

I have been to a Church of England service and a Southern Baptist service. There is a vast contrast between the number and exuberance of the attendees.

Seek's avatar

@Void

I do not hold the belief that god does not exist. I agree that such a claim would require evidence that I do not have. It would, in short, require that I be as omniscient as the Jewish Sky-God Yahweh.

I hold the belief that there is no proof of the existence of a god, and thus no point in believing in one. I don’t believe in a cosmic deity for the same reason I don’t believe in Bigfoot: If he were there, we’d have some proof. No Bigfoot poop, no Bigfoot.

I have already stated that I would love to see a comparative religions course in every public school in the nation. I do not believe that a course on apologetics and creationism should stand in as a Science credit. Comparative Religions should teach the basics of the five to ten major religions currently practiced on Earth, studying their impact on world culture, with no bias expressed toward one or the other.

It is not a school’s purpose to teach things that are unproven and based entirely on “faith” – which ultimately amounts to the rantings of the insane, and the dictate of the oppressors.

Void's avatar

@Ron_C, ”how do you equate the statement “God is omnipotent, omniscient, and is involved in all aspects of every living person’s life” with “I don’t think so”.The first statement is an extraordinary claim, the second just expresses doubt with no claim spoken or implied.”

Doubt = Lack of faith in a creator. Belief = having faith in a creator.

@Ron_C, ”I have been to a Church of England service and a Southern Baptist service. There is a vast contrast between the number and exuberance of the attendees.”

That’s just great. You experienced something, therefore, all world religions must act the same way. What a wonderful philosophy. How about we just agree to disagree instead of comparing our experiences and then utilizing these experiences to generalize how the rest of the world behaves. This is precisely why statistics are necessary. Generalizations are dangerous. If people of a particular ethnic group commit crime, and you personally experience this and see real life observances, then are you going to say that it must be that the entire ethnic group behaves this way?

Seek's avatar

According to your parable (which every atheist on the planet has been subjected to in countless emails for the last 15 years at least), there is simply existence and non-existence. That is silly.

Life and death, for instance. A rock isn’t alive, but you certainly wouldn’t call it “dead”. There is nothing in the definition of “cold” that depends upon an absence of heat – it is a subjective term. Only in the Kelvin scale is there an absolute zero – a “lack of heat” as it were.

The entire parable is based on faulty logic, and was obviously written by a theist who was very likely not college-educated. That professor, had he been living in the real world, would have seen a mass-exodus of his students after they realised he was that incapable of defending himself against a horrible argument.

Void's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr, ”I hold the belief that there is no proof of the existence of a god, and thus no point in believing in one.”

I hold that there is no disproof for God to not exist, therefore, I am free to believe in God and use the bible as proof for my belief which we can trace back our heritage to the events of when God dictated to man what is written today in the bible.

@Seek_Kolinahr, ”I do not believe that a course on apologetics and creationism should stand in as a Science credit. “

I believe it should, could, and does.

@Seek_Kolinahr, ”It is not a school’s purpose to teach things that are unproven and based entirely on “faith” – which ultimately amounts to the rantings of the insane, and the dictate of the oppressors.”

Again, it is proven. The bible through heritage, and no, ultimately it doesn’t amount to that. The science works just fine with the bible, no conflicts. You already attempted to find conflicts with the two arguments that you wrote to which I refuted back. You ended up being condescending and dismissing me because you couldn’t refute the points. You thus, lost all credibility due to your immaturity. This is precisely why I said proper interpretations are necessary. There are no conflicts. Did you just use the word insane? How do you measure consciousness?

@Seek_Kolinahr, ”According to your parable (which every atheist on the planet has been subjected to in countless emails for the last 15 years at least), there is simply existence and non-existence. That is silly. Life and death, for instance. A rock isn’t alive, but you certainly wouldn’t call it “dead”. There is nothing in the definition of “cold” that depends upon an absence of heat – it is a subjective term. Only in the Kelvin scale is there an absolute zero – a “lack of heat” as it were.”

The law of conservation of energy(energy cannot be created nor destroyed). That means everything within this universe is a form of energy, rocks, humans, etc. However, this is only the physical universe. Why can’t there be a spiritual universe? God, immaterial, infinite, etc.. outside of the physical universe. There is no scientific conflict here in believing in such.

Seek's avatar

@Void

Believe what you want to believe. Doesn’t affect me one bit. Do I think you should have “delusional” tattooed on your head? I’ve considered the time it would save me.

Science doesn’t work at all with the Bible.
The world was not created in seven days, there wasn’t life before sunlight, or days before the sun. Bats are not birds, and whales are not fish. Rain comes from clouds, not the “windows of heaven”. The whole earth had many languages already at the time of the Tower of Babel, not one. Insects do not have four feet – they have six. A brass serpent on a pole is not an appropriate cure for a snakebite. Sheep will not bear striped offspring if you stick a striped stick in their watering trough. Rabbits do not chew the cud. A lump of figs will not cure a boil. The sky is not “hard and strong like a mirror” nor is it a “terrible crystal” nor “stretched forth like a curtain”. Ostriches are not cruel and inattentive parents. The world is not built on a foundation, supported by pillars, fixed in stone, made to shake when God is angry, nor does the sun revolve around it. The moon does not produce its own light. The mustard seed is not the smallest seed – the tropical orchid is. It is not impossible to know which way the wind is blowing – even idiots in Jesus’s day knew not to piss into the wind.

Want some more?

Void's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr, _”Believe what you want to believe. Doesn’t affect me one bit. Do I think you should have “delusional” tattooed on your head? I’ve considered the time it would save me.

Now I’m delusional? Prove me wrong. Oh, you can’t, spirituality doesn’t fit within the scientific method. Tough luck.

@Seek_Kolinahr, ”Science doesn’t work at all with the Bible.”

What part of you lost credibility don’t you understand. Everything you just wrote was previously attempted by you when you pointed out that pi = 3 and sun revolves around the earth. I refuted you. Did you refute it back? No. What did you do instead? Displayed unethical behavior. You kept repeating pi=3, and mocking the religion, dismissing my arguments without refuting my explanations and insulting me personally. Why? My guess is because you are an unethical, unintelligent, child. In fact, you have been displaying such behavior throughout the conversations of this thread. Now you expect me to explain all the that you wrote now only so that you can repeat the same behavior? I don’t think so. To continue conversing with you would be unhealthy for anyone. Check mate.

Seek's avatar

You made the claim that the Bible lines up perfectly with science. I have listed many instance where this is not the case, and have more if you’d like them.

There’s a reason these so-called “Apologists” have a job – if the Bible weren’t full of such nonsensical Bronze-age mythological tripe, Theists wouldn’t need anyone to make excuses for it.

Void's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr ,”You made the claim that the Bible lines up perfectly with science. I have listed many instance where this is not the case, and have more if you’d like them.”

Still at it huh? The first two instances that you listed, I refuted. No need to list more if you can’t refute back the first two, therefore, bible works just fine with science.

@Seek_Kolinahr, ”There’s a reason these so-called “Apologists” have a job – if the Bible weren’t full of such nonsensical Bronze-age mythological tripe, Theists wouldn’t need anyone to make excuses for it.”

Nope. All scriptures in the bible make sense. If someone doesn’t understand it, then someone much wiser needs to clarify it.

Seek's avatar

They really do call you “sheep” for a reason.

Void's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr, I think you are “delusional” for thinking you aren’t. Thanks for proving my point regarding your behavior. Why don’t you call me a “poopie-head” next.

Seek's avatar

The idea I have a problem with is that this book (that is well known to have been extensively altered MANY times throughout history) is perfect, and anything that suggests otherwise is wrong, flawed, or stupid.

It is clearly well known that rain falls as precipitation from clouds in the atmosphere – not from windows magically opened by your sky-god. Anyone who states otherwise is far from a “wise man”.

I find it odd that you would take offense to the “sheep” comment. Jesus is the “great shepherd”, is he not? “Pastor” is a common term for your clergy – the word means “shepherd”. A pastor’s congregation is often referred to as a “flock”. Is not your god going to separate the sheep from the goats?

If you find being compared to a sheep so insulting, perhaps you should choose a different religion.

Void's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr, ”The idea I have a problem with is that this book (that is well known to have been extensively altered MANY times throughout history) is perfect, and anything that suggests otherwise is wrong, flawed, or stupid.”

It was always perfect, not altered but properly interpreted, for people like you. who don’t understand and misinterpret.

@Seek_Kolinahr, ”It is clearly well known that rain falls from clouds condensing in the atmosphere – not from windows magically opened by your sky-god. Anyone who states otherwise is far from a “wise man”.”

I’ll just keep repeating what I wrote. You gave me two examples of scripture that contradicts the science, I refuted you. You didn’t refute back, therefore, no problem. .

Seek's avatar

And so, you’re basically sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “LA LA LA… I’M NOT LISTENING!”

Void's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr, No, that’s basically what you are doing by not refuting back my arguments. Instead you call me names.

Seek's avatar

@Void

You have made no arguments. You stated that 3 is close enough to pi (which it isn’t, especially for an all-knowing creator-god), and then posted links to a Creationist wiki.

Now, if you’d like to explain in some semblance of a rational dialogue why exactly you are under the impression that your bronze-age mythology has any right whatsoever to be taught in a secular, public school next to tested, proven science that clearly contradicts it, I’m all ears.

ragingloli's avatar

The problem with “interpreting scripture” is that you are basically inventing a new meaning for the text out of thin air because the original plain text contradicts your own preconceptions. The same is true for people who claim that the stories in the bible are all just methaphors and allegories. They do this because the literal content contradicts known reality.

It all reminds me of the story where a group of art professors were told to interpret a painting and they started to pull countless interpretations out of their own arses about the artist’s intentions, state of mind, the meaning behind the painting, etc.
Until it was revealed to them that the “painting” was splattered together by a chimpanzee.

Anyone can invent creative interpretation of a text, song, picture, sculpture, etc, but it is completely meaningless because your interpretation will invariably be a result of twisting and bending the source material to reconcile it with your own preconceptions, while you are completely unaware of the artist’s/writer’s/sculptor’s intended meaning, if there even was one in the first place.
There was no refutation, only the presentation of a strawman that is not equal to the source.

Void's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr, ”You have made no arguments. You stated that 3 is close enough to pi (which it isn’t, especially for an all-knowing creator-god), and then posted links to a Creationist wiki.”

Nope maybe you should reread everything. It was on par. I pasted you this,

The diameter was measured from the outside rim while the circumference was measured along the inner rim. This interpretation implies a brim 0.22535 cubit (or, assuming an 18-inch “cubit”, some 4 inches) thick, or roughly one “handbreadth” (cf. 1 Kings 7:24 and 2 Chronicles 4:3).The measurements are given in round numbers (as the Hebrews tended to round off measurements to whole numbers, or that cubits were not exact units, or that the basin may not have been exactly circular, or that the brim was wider than the bowl itself. Many reconstructions of the basin show a wider brim (or flared lip) extending outward from the bowl itself by several inches. In 1 Kings 7:23 the word translated ‘measuring line’ appears in the Hebrew text spelled QWH, but elsewhere the word is most usually spelled QW. The ratio of the numerical values of these Hebrew spellings is 111⁄106. If the putative value of 3 is multiplied by this ratio, one obtains 333⁄106 = 3.141509433 – within 1/10,000th of the true value of π, a convergent for π which is more accurate than 22⁄7, although not as good as the next one 355⁄113. Maimonides states (ca. 1168 CE) that π can only be known approximately, so the value 3 was given as accurate enough for religious purposes. This is taken by some as the earliest assertion that π is irrational.

Further detailed information can be found on these sites.
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm
http://www.icr.org/article/does-bible-contain-mathematically-incorrect-value-/
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/pibible.htm

I don’t see any creationist wiki’s for pie. It was for the sun-earth, and the first link wasn’t creationist in sun-earth. Also, what’s wrong with creationist wiki. Either you can refute the arguments or you can’t, simple.

Seek's avatar

Pi. Not Pie. Pie is delicious. Pi is 3.14.

“value 3 was given as accurate enough for religious purposes.”
What about scientific purposes, since you’re so convinced that the Bible should be admitted into public school as a science credit?

The problem with creationist wiki is that it’s sole purpose is to read meaning into meaningless things. Like @ragingloli mentioned, you can make up all the meaning you want, the painting was still splattered by a chimpanzee.

The Bible was written by bronze-age shepherds, to distract them from the fact that they didn’t have air conditioning. That is why the Bible talks about the Earth sitting on pillars, and rain falling from the “windows of heaven”.

Void's avatar

@ragingloli, ”The problem with “interpreting scripture” is that you are basically inventing a new meaning for the text out of thin air because the original plain text contradicts your own preconceptions. The same is true for people who claim that the stories in the bible are all just methaphors and allegories. They do this because the literal content contradicts known reality. It all reminds me of the story where a group of art professors were told to interpret a painting and they started to pull countless interpretations out of their own arses about the artist’s intentions, state of mind, the meaning behind the painting, etc. Until it was revealed to them that the “painting” was splattered together by a chimpanzee. Anyone can invent creative interpretation of a text, song, picture, sculpture, etc, but it is completely meaningless because your interpretation will invariably be a result of twisting and bending the source material to reconcile it with your own preconceptions, while you are completely unaware of the artist’s/writer’s/sculptor’s intended meaning, if there even was one in the first place. There was no refutation, only the presentation of a strawman that is not equal to the source.”

The correct meaning was always there, it’s perfect. Again, God word is absolute truth. If something wasn’t understood correctly by man, that doesn’t make the bible invalid. Means we made errors in understanding what God was saying. Therefore, when bible says X but science says XYZ, it’s really all in sync. Science is fully excepted and when conflict arises, this helps us understand the scripture the proper way, there are no conflicts. The same source is used. Nothing get’s altered, twisted, bent in the text, simply understood correctly, thus fit’s in just fine. Yes, but regards to the bible, we have a tradition and know the source. Yes, there was a refutation. Bible said X, science said XYZ, now the refutation clarified that X was always XYZ using the same sources as was.

ragingloli's avatar

@Void
That is precisely the kind of twisting and bending that I was talking about.

Void's avatar

@ragingloli,

This is precisely the kind of behavior I expect when you can’t refute statements, resorting to accusations, name callings, mocking, etc.

ragingloli's avatar

@Void
I am under no obligations to refute your claim that “scripture” meant from the beginning, whatever we discover to be true, because your claim has no factual back up.
You start from a completely unsupported a priori assumption that “scripture” was sourced directly from “god” and is infallible.
The facts are that
A) you have no idea who wrote the contents of the bible, especially the old parts,
B) you therefore can not know the intended meaning of “scripture”, and
C) you therefore have no basis on which to claim that scripture is infallible, which ultimately leads to
D) your claim that scripture always meant whatever science discovers to be true is completely without any factual basis.

What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Void's avatar

@ragingloli,”A) you have no idea who wrote the contents of the bible, especially the old parts,”

Sure we do. Traditions passed down by generation to generation, dating back to the original events all the way to the old testament to which Moses wrote through God’s dictation. You are going to try and say lost in translation. Well, archaeologists found and are finding scripture dating back 3,000+, which contains the exact same scripture we have today, nothing lost in translation.

@ragingloli,”B) you therefore can not know the intended meaning of “scripture”, and”

Yes we can, refer above.

@ragingloli,”C) you therefore have no basis on which to claim that scripture is infallible, which ultimately leads to”

We can, refer above.

@ragingloli,”D) your claim that scripture always meant whatever science discovers to be true is completely without any factual basis.”

The factual base is the ability of refutation to show no discrepency without altering, bending twisting anything. Scripture was always correct, absolute truth. If refutation was not available then discrpency would persist, but that’s not the case, all is in sync when understood correctly.

@ragingloli,”What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Was asserted with evidence, therefore, refutable evidence is required.

Seek's avatar

Moses didn’t write the old testament. He is credited with the Pentateuch, but even in those five books there is massive evidence pointing to a number of authors. Particularly when you get to such iffy things as Moses’ own death, which he clearly couldn’t have written about. That’s why there are two accounts of the Creation story, and even they don’t line up.

You don’t even have to get past Genesis chapter 2 to find inconsistency in the Bible.

I agree the scripture was passed down through tradition. Have you ever played “telephone”? Now, play that game for several thousand years, and see how close you get to the original myth.

Void's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr, “Moses didn’t write the old testament. He is credited with the Pentateuch, but even in those five books there is massive evidence pointing to a number of authors. Particularly when you get to such iffy things as Moses’ own death, which he clearly couldn’t have written about. That’s why there are two accounts of the Creation story, and even they don’t line up. You don’t even have to get past Genesis chapter 2 to find inconsistency in the Bible.”

Wow, you clearly don’t know anything about religion. You never heard of the oral tradition which was later written down after prosecution which is called the talmud? It is the explanation of the written text. Can’t understand the written without the oral explanation. I’m not even going to bother having this discussion with you, due to the fact that you didn’t even know this and the fact that you ignored my refutes and pretty much everything I said.

@Seek_Kolinahr, “I agree the scripture was passed down through tradition. Have you ever played “telephone”? Now, play that game for several thousand years, and see how close you get to the original myth.”

Refer to previous statements.

Seek's avatar

@Void I was a member of your religion for 15 years.

For some reason, I have this annoying habit of reading something, and understanding it for what it says.

Any document that needs a band of apologists, the Talmud, the Haftorah, and any number of other “support documents” to be “properly understood” was clearly not written by an all-knowing, divine being.

If your god wrote it and wanted you to understand it, he would have just written it right the first time.

ragingloli's avatar

Well, archaeologists found and are finding scripture dating back 3,000+, which contains the exact same scripture we have today, nothing lost in translation.
False.
For example, old manuscripts recovered revealed that the number of the beast is actually 616, not 666.
Older gospel manuscripts have less details about Jesus alleged life than newer versions. What that means is that a lot of the parts of Jesus life were invented later. The oldest ones had no mention of a virgin birth whatsoever.
The entire flood story is a ripoff of the much older Epic of Gilgamesh, just with names changed.

“_The factual base is the ability of refutation to show no discrepency without altering, bending twisting anything. _”
The very act of claiming that scripture means something other than what it literally says is an act of twisting and bending.
When I say “I am going to beat you savagely.” and then claim that it means that I am going to buy you some flowers, and then claim that it actually means that I am going to cook you dinner, and then claim that it actually means that I am going to drive my Lamborghini into the sunset(which is what you are essentially doing), then that is bending and twisting.
Without twisting and bending you end up, for example, with two incompatible creation stories, and incompatible stories about Jesus alleged life and resurrection.

To be even close to any validity, scripture must be consistent without having to reinterpret anything, it must be consistent when read literally.

which Moses wrote through God’s dictation.
How do you know that god dictated anything? There is no evidence supporting any deity’s existence, much less the abrahamic god’s. (And no, the bible is not evidence of god since that is called a circular argument. “god exists the because the bible says that god exists, which was written/inspired/dictated by god.”)
Since the existence of god is unsupported, it makes it extremely uncertain and unlikely that god dictated anything to moses, which creates the possibilities that either moses was a raving lunatic, simply a lying demagoge, or an author of fiction.

Void's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr, “I was a member of your religion for 15 years. For some reason, I have this annoying habit of reading something, and understanding it for what it says. Any document that needs a band of apologists, the Talmud, the Haftorah, and any number of other “support documents” to be “properly understood” was clearly not written by an all-knowing, divine being.If your god wrote it and wanted you to understand it, he would have just written it right the first time.”

Wrong, if you knew anything, you would know the concept of reward and punishment. If God gave us everything clear cut, we would be robotic. Receiving an undeserved present. God wants to reward but reward is appreciated when earned through struggle of understanding and such.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Ron_C's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr “Do I think you should have “delusional” tattooed on your head?” good one!

This thread has become quite long and there is one thing that I do believe and that is no matter what the argument or which facts or opinions are presented @Void is going to hold to his beliefs and will use any argument and possibly create a supporting “fact” or two to support them.

Well it’s his right and I wish Mr. Void well. While none of his arguments (IMHO) are convincing to me or apparently anyone else in this thread he is entitled to hold them, hopefully privately. I would also hope that this type of creation science stays out of public schools. Kids have enough to contend with, they don’t need their mind clouded by superstition.

Since this thread is a time consuming and apparently fruitless endeavor I will try to refrain from further comment and stop following the arguments and fables.

I feel the same as @Seek_Kolinahr but am trying to refrain from profanity.

Void's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr, that’s right, stick to your primitive behavior. When no refutation available, refer to vulgarity.

Void's avatar

@Ron_C,”This thread has become quite long and there is one thing that I do believe and that is no matter what the argument or which facts or opinions are presented @Void is going to hold to his beliefs and will use any argument and possibly create a supporting “fact” or two to support them.”

No arguments were presented except for personal distastes, “personal experiences”, primitive behavior such as condescending remarks, vulgar remarks, dismissal of refutations without actually refuting, mocking, putting quotations in titles to demean, etc. etc. Good you wrote argument, that’s precisely what I’m doing, providing refutations to the main points and it’s not “fact” but fact.

@Ron_C, ”Well it’s his right and I wish Mr. Void well. While none of his arguments (IMHO) are convincing to me or apparently anyone else in this thread he is entitled to hold them, hopefully privately. I would also hope that this type of creation science stays out of public schools. Kids have enough to contend with, they don’t need their mind clouded by superstition.”

You are free to refute anything I say, but you haven’t other then deeming your personal experiences as global facts. It already is in public schools and shall remain along with other religions getting in on the action because there is no discrepancy between science and religion, nor is it superstition.

Void's avatar

@ragingloli, “For example, old manuscripts recovered revealed that the number of the beast is actually 616, not 666. Older gospel manuscripts have less details about Jesus alleged life than newer versions. What that means is that a lot of the parts of Jesus life were invented later. The oldest ones had no mention of a virgin birth whatsoever. The entire flood story is a ripoff of the much older Epic of Gilgamesh, just with names changed.”

You do realize there are more then one archaelogical findings? Here is an example for you, Codex Sinaiticus.

@ragingloli, ”The very act of claiming that scripture means something other than what it literally says is an act of twisting and bending. When I say “I am going to beat you savagely.” and then claim that it means that I am going to buy you some flowers, and then claim that it actually means that I am going to cook you dinner, and then claim that it actually means that I am going to drive my Lamborghini into the sunset(which is what you are essentially doing), then that is bending and twisting. Without twisting and bending you end up, for example, with two incompatible creation stories, and incompatible stories about Jesus alleged life and resurrection. To be even close to any validity, scripture must be consistent without having to reinterpret anything, it must be consistent when read literally.”

All you are doing is repeated what we already discussed and I answered for you. Refer to previous explainations. This is exactly what Seek_Kolinahr was doing, not arguing anything and sticking to the same principles with repetition and primitive behavior. At least you haven’t displayed any primitive behavior.

@ragingloli, ”How do you know that god dictated anything? There is no evidence supporting any deity’s existence, much less the abrahamic god’s. (And no, the bible is not evidence of god since that is called a circular argument. “god exists the because the bible says that god exists, which was written/inspired/dictated by god.”) Since the existence of god is unsupported, it makes it extremely uncertain and unlikely that god dictated anything to moses, which creates the possibilities that either moses was a raving lunatic, simply a lying demagoge, or an author of fiction.”

Circles and circles. Refer to previous statements. You are just saying everything again in different words. Since we are going in circles, then all was presented. Take it as you will.

ragingloli's avatar

It just needs one counter example to disprove your claim that nothing in scripture changed over time. It is called disproof by counter example. I gave you three of them.

All you are doing is repeated what we already discussed and I answered for you.
Apparently I have to, because you do not understand. What I am trying to tell you is that you claim to not twisting/bending scripture, but in reality you are twisting/bending, because the very act of interpretation/reinterpretation is twisting and bending.
What you fail to realise is that the certainty with which you state your claims is not based on anything but circular reasoning. “Circles and circles” applies to your very claims and unless you realise that, there is no point in further arguing with you.

This is Admiral Petrarch, commanding officer of the GTD Aquitaine, flagship of the GTVA 3rd fleet, signing off.

Void's avatar

@ragingloli, “It just needs one counter example to disprove your claim that nothing in scripture changed over time. It is called disproof by counter example. I gave you three of them.”

Nope. It’s not that simple. You aren’t considered the many other factors involved, but it doesn’t matter now.

@ragingloli, “Apparently I have to, because you do not understand. What I am trying to tell you is that you claim to not twisting/bending scripture, but in reality you are twisting/bending, because the very act of interpretation/reinterpretation is twisting and bending.”

Nope, I explained this issue already, furthermore, you are not considering the other principles within all this that would change your viewpoint drastically. Again, doesn’t matter now.

@ragingloli, “What you fail to realise is that the certainty with which you state your claims is not based on anything but circular reasoning. “Circles and circles” applies to your very claims and unless you realise that, there is no point in further arguing with you.”

That’s a nice opinion you have there, but circles was actually referring to you and all those I conversed with. Therefore, unless you understand anything what was said here, you said it correctly, no point in arguing, doesn’t matter now.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Ron_C's avatar

Despite all of the arguments and statements of the certainty of god’s existence; real proof would be very easy. All that is required is for god to write into clouds around the world “I exist, I am here”. Absent of any direct evidence there are only two conclusions to be drawn:

1. God does not exist.
2. God exists but isn’t as great as described in the bible, therefore he remains hidden to cover his fallible nature.

gypsywench's avatar

I am religious. I believe in Jesus Christ. I also believe that everything in the Bible shouldn’t be taken so literary. That’s just silly. It doesn’t make my faith any less strong. I think creationism is for people that have doubts in their own faith, period. People that are afriad of science. It’s backwards, and absurd. As for the whole ape thing, NO, I don’t think we envolved from apes. Hello people, it’s a theory. Missing link? It’s not a fact. Why get your panties all up in a wad over a theory? Anyways, there is profound evidence of evolution in nature. So what? You don’t think that is the work of God? Shit, the same people would have stoned Galileo, if givin the chance. Ignorance is bliss in the eye’s of lord? I have enough faith to where I don’t need God to be proven to me through cockamamie anti-science activist. God created science. Deal with it.

Ron_C's avatar

I don’t think that you know the difference between a scientific theory and the word theory.

The people that wanted to burn Galileo were the religious that didn’t like his theory that the earth was not the center of the universe. At that time, saying anything that seemed to contradict the bible was punished by an extremely cruel and violent death. Galileo was brave and well connected to the church and political power. Nonetheless, he was imprisoned and put into house arrest for years by the same type of people that are creationists today. Don’t think for one minute that, if they regained power, they would not regress into the same policies again.

Look at present day fundamentalist that have political power. Women in Saudi Arabia are still stoned to death for moral infractions and apostasy is a death sentence that can be carried out by any Muslim. The present day Muslims, in political power, are exactly like the Christians when they had power. I suspect that the fundamentalist Christian animosity against the Muslim fundamentalist is mostly driven by jealousy. They want a return of the power to control their followers.

Ironically, their first victims would probably be catholics.

gypsywench's avatar

I know all about Galileo.
I used him as an example of how stupid it is to take the bible literary. he was ahead of his time.
Oh no! I used the term “stoned”. Don’t take that so literary.
I don’t think you understood my answer. At all.

gypsywench's avatar

Did you catch in my answer that I’m anti-creationism?

gypsywench's avatar

Opps, I’m a Catholic.

Ron_C's avatar

@gypsywench I don’t mean to start an argument with you, it is just that I see red when I see people equate the word theory with a scientific theory.

I am an catholic turned atheist but suspect that when the fundamentalist start searching us out, they won’t see much differences between catholics, atheists, or ex-catholics, we all go into the pot.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther