Creationist have problems with evolution because evolution makes sense.

Oncedeceived said:

WEll the same should hold true of God. WE don't know how yet but that is the beauty of life, we can study and research to our hearts content and say "we don't know yet".

Click to expand...

Small correction: Creationists have a problem with "we don't know yet". The closest they can get is "We don't know HOW yet, but we know god did it."

Oncedeceived said:

I don't have time to go back and find what this is referring to so I'll have to come back to this later.

Click to expand...

I'm not holding my breath.

mont974x4 said:

evolution fails at the start unless you can accept that something can appear from nothing as an act of nothing with influence from no one.

Click to expand...

Evolution is not the origin of life, it's the origin of species.

There is a difference.

Jester4kicks said:

Small correction: Creationists have a problem with "we don't know yet". The closest they can get is "We don't know HOW yet, but we know god did it."

Click to expand...

That's not a problem for us.

Read John 9.

Notice how a miracle was performed on a man, and the "scientists" there interrogated the man almost relentlessly --- even calling him back for more interrogation later, as well as his parents.

They continually asked him over and over: HOW, HOW, HOW.

Finally, in the end, they drew the wrong conclusion, because they were unwilling to accept that GOD DID IT.

Oncedeceived said:

Indeed. Now if I were to take Genesis one and show the different ways that our current knowledge supports it, would you still feel that it had the same merit as those same unproven avenues in a naturalistic explanation?

Click to expand...

Interesting. I don't know if I've seen anyone do that despite claims that it is the case. The "order of creation" doesn't necessarily match the order of appearance of animal and life-types recorded in the rock record and the rocks weren't "written" by someone.

The Christian God can be described, we may not be capable of describing Him but it in principle is possible to do so.

Click to expand...

Anything can be "described", the key is that your description bear some compelling reason to assume such a description has an external reality from the mind of the describer.

There's a lot of stuff in quantum theory that is very hard to understand and some that really can only be understood as nearly pure mathematical concepts. Things that defy any sort of description you or I can grasp because the world at the quantum level is completely different from the macro world we live in.

The key difference is, the effects can be modelled and calculated and will occur, within statistical limits, according to the model and calculations.

The same thing cannot be said for God. God has an "independent will" which defies any sort of actual "modelling". Suppose you wish to "describe" God.

Here's an example: "God is all-merciful". OK, fine. That means that God cannot be simultaneously "all-just" as "justice is tempered by mercy". If it is just that a person be punished to the full extent of the law, then if that person is "spared" any punishment and shown "mercy" the punished was not given full "justice".

If you describe God as "all-knowing" then you eliminate "free will" for humans in that as long as God knows what will happen it has a "fore-ordained" component. We are not, technically, free.

This is the problem with "describing" or "modelling" God. In order to "utilize" the God Hypothesis we must have a clear handle of "God Cause and Effect".

Let's take another example: we are told God answers prayers. Prayer studies show no statistical improvement with prayer involved vs without in medical issues time and again (Example). Perhaps we simply dont' know at what rate God answers prayers. What if God only answers 17% of prayers? What are the conditions that cause God to answer a prayer, or is it a matter that in 2% of the cases God answers prayers "positively" and in 98% negatively? What is the reason for the 2%? Perhaps a study in and of itself.

The problem is, these issues have never lent themselves to proper, unbiased study. Religion is a deeply personal and deeply subjective experience. At least that is how it has been pursued time immemorial.

This does NOT say that "God doesn't exist" or whatever, what it does say is that God as a proposed hypothesis doesn't really provide any useful information simply because, after millenia of trying, we still have no single idea of what God is such that his "actions" are not equally explained by more "naturalistic" processes.

You may have a very strong faith and attachment to God. You may "feel" him in everything in your life. You may "see" his works everywhere. But then there are people of different religions who "see" and "feel" with equal strength their god. And their ancient texts speak of different actions and different events.

The value comes in when one of the multiple competing "hypotheses" comes forth with more explanatory power than the others, something that can be modelled, and will provide some explanatory (and in some cases maybe even predictive) capabilities for the model with that factor included.

This isn't an easy topic. It does require suspension of "feelings" and a "dispassionate" assessment of the rules of the "game" . That is why you can have a scientist who is a christian but who doesn't try to publish papers that say "This reaction didn't procede as expected and it is assumed that Jesus intervened to alter the reaction rate by this amount..."

The Burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position (this may be either a negative or positve claim).

Click to expand...

To my knowledge "proof of a negative" is never required as that is a logical impossibility. Certain in the case of a universal negative which cannot be proven.

AV1611VET said:

That's not a problem for us.

Read John 9.

Notice how a miracle was performed on a man, and the "scientists" there interrogated the man almost relentlessly --- even calling him back for more interrogation later, as well as his parents.

They continually asked him over and over: HOW, HOW, HOW.

Finally, in the end, they drew the wrong conclusion, because they were unwilling to accept that GOD DID IT.

Click to expand...

AV, why do you even bother posting challenges when the answer's already a foregone conclusion in your mind and you won't even listen to people pointing out their flaws?

Also, please stop with the "scientists" line (quote marks or not). I'd hate to have to take you to task for using generalising language that lumps Christian scientists in with the ones who reject God, YET AGAIN.

Oncedeceived said:

the general rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains."

Click to expand...

That is an excellent analogue to the current discussion. In the present case of abiogenesis we have a set of wholly self-consistent natural items which show evidence that they are the only aspects to life but are, themselves, "non-living". We even have aspects in which these non-living elements can naturally combine to make the same building blocks found in life. We have numerous possible avenues by which life arose, all using only natural events.

In the present case "the one who complains" is the one who wants to add an unevidenced supernatural factor into the mix. It then becomes incumbent upon you to make the positive proof of your requirement.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim.

Click to expand...

Assumption and prima facie cases should, one assumes, carry more compelling reason to believe. In the case of law, for instance, one makes a prima facie case by merit of some "self-evidence", or the pre-established rules. When one introduces something new and unevidenced into the mix then the one who introduces that bears the burden of proof.

Also, if you feel that the God hypothesis is somehow a prima facie case, I suggest you not confuse that with res ipsa loquitor, (The thing speaks for itself). Because clearly it does not "speak for itself" to many of us.

Fulfilling the burden of proof effectivly captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.
The burden of proof is an especially important issue in law and science.

Click to expand...

Correct. In my line of work (research and development chemistry) I not only have to deal with supporting my claims, but even with legal matters when I get ready to patent. As such I find this area of discussion very interesting.

This is at the heart of how science must be conducted. Just because you and your parents and grandparents "believe" in God does not make God a prima facie case for God's role in the origin of life. A prima facie case would be if there was some outstanding reason to assume life bore some fundamentally supernatural aspect that simply could not be explained using natural-only factors.

If, however, you can provide that (apart from you most intense feelings) then the God Hypothesis will gain some traction. It is still something that should be developed since it doesn't necessarily "speak for itself" to everyone.

(Oh, and, in future, could you do us the favor of referencing where you got the "quote". You might have overlooked this accidentally. It is the "right" thing to include citations, but we all forget at times. In the event that others wonder where Oncedeceived found this unattributed quote about the requisites of "Burden of Proof" it is HERE. -Sorry we scientists and former journalist-wanna-be's tend to be a bit pedantic about quotes which are presented without indication that they are indeed lifted verbatim from a source without reference.)

Cabal said:

AV, why do you even bother posting challenges when the answer's already a foregone conclusion in your mind and you won't even listen to people pointing out their flaws?

Click to expand...

Did you see what I was responding to, Cabal?

The "Christians have a problem with..." remark.

Name me one thing on earth Christians have a problem with, when it comes to explaining the Creation.

We don't have problems with it --- you guys [apparently] do.

Cabal said:

Also, please stop with the "scientists" line (quote marks or not). I'd hate to have to take you to task for using generalising language that lumps Christian scientists in with the ones who reject God, YET AGAIN.

Click to expand...

No comment --- except to say that I'm starting to get a little fed up with my brothers and sisters stumbling their way around in front of atheists and scientists and not being able to answer their questions.

To be honest --- I find it embarrassing.

You guys are the ones that should be sweating (or getting fed up with us) --- not us.

AV1611VET said:

Did you see what I was responding to, Cabal?

The "Christians have a problem with..." remark.

Name me one thing on earth Christians have a problem with, when it comes to explaining the Creation.

We don't have problems with it --- you guys [apparently] do.

Click to expand...

"Creationists have a problem with," I think you'll find. And they have problems aplenty, apparently, with other people disagreeing with their views on creation. All the while refusing to accept the fact that those self-same others don't have a problem with creation either, of course.

AV1611VET said:

No comment --- except to say that I'm starting to get a little fed up with my brothers and sisters stumbling their way around in front of atheists and scientists and not being able to answer their questions.

To be honest --- I find it embarrassing.

You guys are the ones that should be sweating (or getting fed up with us) --- not us.

Click to expand...

And here was me thinking that we were discussing the blatant generalising language in your latest challenge. But I guess ameloriating your embarrassment is more important than keeping an eye on the words you speak.

And I guess that the fact that I'm not sweating about this scenario shows how accurate that last statement is. Although I am quite fed up of being treated like a second class fellow-believer by the people who are supposed to be on the same side as me. One's belief on the mechanism or timescale of the creation has nothing to do with salvation, after all. But you'd swear many forgot that at times.

/thread

AV1611VET said:

/thread

Click to expand...

Don't forget AV, running away counts as self-pwnage.

Later

AV1611VET said:

Did you see what I was responding to, Cabal?

The "Christians have a problem with..." remark.

Name me one thing on earth Christians have a problem with, when it comes to explaining the Creation.

Click to expand...

Reality?

No comment --- except to say that I'm starting to get a little fed up with my brothers and sisters stumbling their way around in front of atheists and scientists and not being able to answer their questions.

To be honest --- I find it embarrassing.

Click to expand...

Your brothers and sisters are discussing in-depth, complicated issues, and in the process, learning that they weren't as knowledgable on those issues as they once thought they were.

Be glad that they are learning -- even if they do stumble along the way. If they can do it, so can you.

You guys are the ones that should be sweating (or getting fed up with us) --- not us.

Click to expand...

I assure you, AV -- plenty of people are fed up with you; just not for the reasons you think they are.

AV1611VET said:

/thread

Click to expand...

AV, could I ask you a favor? When you type "/thread" it sounds to me like you think the entire thread is over, not just that you are feeling in a snit about something in the thread.

I hope that is not the case because there are other discussions ongoing in the thread that have nothing to do with you. So if you are no longer interested in the thread could you type something that lets us know that the "/thread" really only applies to your interest and not that you think that the entire thread is over.

(This is something I think about everytime I see your patented "/thread" line, so if you could correct me if I'm wrong about your intent by this type of post, please do so. Thanks).

thaumaturgy said:

AV, could I ask you a favor? When you type "/thread" it sounds to me like you think the entire thread is over, not just that you are feeling in a snit about something in the thread.

I hope that is not the case because there are other discussions ongoing in the thread that have nothing to do with you. So if you are no longer interested in the thread could you type something that lets us know that the "/thread" really only applies to your interest and not that you think that the entire thread is over.

(This is something I think about everytime I see your patented "/thread" line, so if you could correct me if I'm wrong about your intent by this type of post, please do so. Thanks).

Click to expand...

I suspect it just means AVET is done with the thread. If not, it is a mote point... the thread does not end regardless of any individual's decision to no longer participate.

AV1611VET said:

That's not a problem for us.

Read John 9.

Notice how a miracle was performed on a man, and the "scientists" there interrogated the man almost relentlessly --- even calling him back for more interrogation later, as well as his parents.

They continually asked him over and over: HOW, HOW, HOW.

Finally, in the end, they drew the wrong conclusion, because they were unwilling to accept that GOD DID IT.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry... I must have missed the part in the scripture where the "scientists" collected a sample of the solution that the man rubbed in his eyes. I must have missed where they tested the solution for the presence of antibodies, enzymes, or anything else that might be able to account for it...


..oh, and I REALLY must have missed the part where a fairy-tale in the bible meant anything for a real scientist.


I'll tell you what I didn't miss though... I didn't miss you, in your own post, saying that you didn't know how, but you knew that god did it." You're the second person lately to actually manage contradicting themselves in their own post. Congrats.

Split Rock said:

... it is a mote point...

Click to expand...

Doesn't that describe every one he tries to make?

...

consol said:

Religion has a lot to answer for, damaging brains being the most obvious.

Click to expand...

Really? You have some sort of proof that the belief in a "God or Gods" and worshiping the deities, somehow damages the brain? Can you provide scientific studies to prove your point(and wikipedia is not a scientific source.)

Ignorance and the inability to evolve intellectually is what causes corruption, not the belief in God. By you generalizing religion and it's teachings, you come across just as arrogant and ignorant as those who refuse to believe in evolution. I fully believe we were created in the beginning, and I fully believe we have evolved as has everything else on the planet. Evolution does not establish when we began, but what we have evolved from and will continue to evolve into.

Eazy E said:

Really? You have some sort of proof that the belief in a "God or Gods" and worshiping the deities, somehow damages the brain? Can you provide scientific studies to prove your point(and wikipedia is not a scientific source.)

Ignorance and the inability to evolve intellectually is what causes corruption, not the belief in God. By you generalizing religion and it's teachings, you come across just as arrogant and ignorant as those who refuse to believe in evolution. I fully believe we were created in the beginning, and I fully believe we have evolved as has everything else on the planet. Evolution does not establish when we began, but what we have evolved from and will continue to evolve into.

Click to expand...

While consol perhaps had a poor choice of words there (due to his...abrasive nature, to put it kindly...), you have demonstrated quite nicely that indeed, even more moderate religion hinders thought. While the theory of evolution itself says nothing whatsoever about the start of life, there is as yet no reason to believe that that start was anything but natural. You are clearly failing to engage your brain when you espouse belief in a supernatural cause where none is evidenced.

Eazy E said:

Really? You have some sort of proof that the belief in a "God or Gods" and worshiping the deities, somehow damages the brain? Can you provide scientific studies to prove your point(and wikipedia is not a scientific source.)

Ignorance and the inability to evolve intellectually is what causes corruption, not the belief in God. By you generalizing religion and it's teachings, you come across just as arrogant and ignorant as those who refuse to believe in evolution. I fully believe we were created in the beginning, and I fully believe we have evolved as has everything else on the planet. Evolution does not establish when we began, but what we have evolved from and will continue to evolve into.

Click to expand...

Yes; you are using blue font! Is something wrong with your brain?