As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[o_mlly]

Which god? There is no god worshiped by a majority of humans. In fact you can tell anyone on Earth that a majority of humans disagree with their god.

Citation?

 

[AV1611VET]

Creation is the claim, it is not an explanation.

Five and five make ten.

Now explain that.

 

[o_mlly]

On the contrary, having multiple methods by multiple experts that agree on an age decreases the uncertainty. Even carpenters know this basically, ever heard of measure twice cut once.

If the multiple methods all rely on sophisticated apparatuses and highly skilled technicians then the decrease in uncertainty is minimal. Have you ever heard that doing the same thing twice and expecting a different outcome is a definition of insanity?

 

[AV1611VET]

If everyone believed in the same God and all agreed on what He was and what He wanted, then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.

Riiiiight.

100% of Christians ever born, alive today, and will be tomorrow believe IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

So why aren't atheists "seriously doubting their lacks of belief"?

 

[pitabread]

All science

This just goes back to my earlier point in the thread. You seem to be rejecting science as a means of epistemology in favor of theological beliefs.

So what?

 

[o_mlly]

If everyone believed in the same God and all agreed on what He was and what He wanted, then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief. But as you know, not even Catholics can seem to agree. Even disagreeing with each other on matters of basic science.

What's your point? What Catholics must believe as a matter of faith is concretely published. The Church does not make technical judgements and we have no obligation to hold or reject any of science's tentative positions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sounds like you agree.

They're different fields - it's like complaining that the history of car makes & models doesn't include drilling for oil or smelting steel.

But you know that - you're just being provocative.

 

[pitabread]

The most fundamental property of a human being is that they are a living creatures. A comprehensive explanation of human beings, therefore, requires an explanation of how human beings came to life. Creation provides the explanation. Evolution does not.

How does creation specifically explain how human beings "came to life"?

 

[pitabread]

100% of Christians ever born, alive today, and will be tomorrow believe IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

My impression from Christians is they don't seem to believe in the same god. Or at least don't have beliefs consistent with the idea that they are derived from a singular supernatural deity.

 

[o_mlly]

What's the argument here? People interested in dinosaurs pay for dinosaur research? Are we supposed to be scandalized?

Apparently, you live in the world of academia. From "Ghostbusters":

 

[AV1611VET]

This just goes back to my earlier point in the thread. You seem to be rejecting science as a means of epistemology in favor of theological beliefs.

For me, I never accepted it in the first place as an alternative to creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

My impression from Christians is they don't seem to believe in the same god.

Are you serious?

 

[Bradskii]

Riiiiight.

100% of Christians ever born, alive today, and will be tomorrow believe IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

So why aren't atheists "seriously doubting their lacks of belief"?

Because of people like you and o_mlly truth be told. Well, people like you were the start of me dismantling my religious beliefs. I used to think 'What? They really believe this?'

I was shocked then. More amused/bemused these days.

 

[o_mlly]

Go for it!

No need to. The creation account is not proposed as science. Therefore, using science's standards to criticize the creation of man is inappropriate. However, the account must hold up to rational examination. Can you show any of it claims as irrational, or internally inconsistent. Go for it.

 

[o_mlly]

Er, no. Little of that featured in Darwin or Wallace's foundational work on evolution. Prior to molecular biology, there was also evidence from embryology, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, and comparative biochemistry, biogeography, direct observation of natural selection and speciation, and so-on. As paleontology developed, it provided increasing support for the patterns that had become apparent in those other independent lines of evidence.

Evidence gained from examining contemporary living beings does not support the theory of man evolving from eukaryotes. Do you have citations to support the direct observation of speciation? Of course, kindly tell us what "speciation" really means first.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because of people like you and o_mlly truth be told. Well, people like you were the start of me dismantling my religious beliefs. I used to think 'What? They really believe this?'

I was shocked then. More amused/bemused these days.

Nice try / won't work.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If the multiple methods all rely on sophisticated apparatuses and highly skilled technicians then the decrease in uncertainty is minimal.

Not necessarily - any scientist should know that a sophisticated apparatus can have systematic error and highly skilled technicians can make systematic errors. That's why the scientific methodology and independent replication is important.

Have you ever heard that doing the same thing twice and expecting a different outcome is a definition of insanity?

No, but I have heard that, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

It's actually a distortion of the original, which makes much more sense, “Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.”

 

[o_mlly]

For a scientific approach to the origins of life, you need to look at abiogenesis, not evolution.

Why does a self-proclaimed scientist know so little about science?

OK. So, what does your abiogenesis department have to offer?
If I appealed to my own authority then my credentials would be germane; I have not so they are not.

When one sees a veiled ad hominem it's a sign of an exhaustion of arguments. Any other arguments?

 

[Bradskii]

What's your point? What Catholics must believe as a matter of faith is concretely published. The Church does not make technical judgements and we have no obligation to hold or reject any of science's tentative positions.

My point is that if everyone believed in the same God and all agreed on what He was and what He wanted, then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.

To be honest, I agree with much of what the Catholics hold to in regard to living a moral life, as per the catechism - with some exceptions that always seem to involve what I do in my bedroom.

But to suggest that that's all that Catholics believe is obviously wrong. You are allowed ('allowed'?) to interpret Genesis in any way you choose. And the God of Genesis is the one in which you believe. One that skipped a few billion years of evolution and formed 'Kinds' as they are now. I gave that God up not long after I realised that Atlas and Cerebus et al were stories that were meant as a metaphor for the world in which the people who told those stories found themselves and knew no better.

So out went the fundamentalist God of Genesis and I then spent not an inconsiderable amount of time checking out other versions of what He was meant to be. And ended up discounting all of them (well, maybe there's a smidgin of deism hanging around in the dark corners of my psyche).

So as I said to AV, people like yourself and AV, those with, shall we say a more literal interpretation of scripture, were responsible for my little trip down Atheism Avenue. And I would suggest, in no uncertain terms, that people like yourself are the cause of many others following the same route as I did.

So here's hoping you don't nominate another self imposed limit on the posts in this thread and you keep going. It serves a purpose that you probably wouldn't appreciate.

 

[AV1611VET]

My point is that if everyone believed in the same God and all agreed on what He was and what He wanted, then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.

But you're okay with how we got our moon, aren't you?

I'm sure you have selected one of the ten or so beliefs, and don't "seriously doubt" it?