Do evolutionists silence the critics?

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
seebs, the picture of the dust in Genesis 3:17-19 cannot mean spiritual death,, so what other death could it be??? ... Not to mention that God said that the "world was good" Physical death wouldn't be good. God created the earth and the garden of Eden to be the habitat of man forever, in their perfect sinless bodies.

You will die a physical death but believe that, because you are saved in Jesus, that you won't die. So what type of life is that immortal life if it is not the physical?

Why wouldn't physical death be "good".  Now you are thinking like agnostics and atheists: the present life is all there is, therefore to die is bad.  Is your physical death "bad" when you are going on to immortal life with God?

Where does it say in the Bible that the bodies were perfect and sinless?  Remember, you say we can't use anything outside the Bible and that the Bible must must explicitly say that something happens (your rules for evolution).  Now apply those same rules for your theological position. 

 

[Jerry Smith]

The problem with this is that, for atheists, this means that atheism is also a faith. Because the existence of a deity can't be falsified by science. Therefore, if atheists also take what science really is, they lose the fiction that their position is backed by science. Once that is gone, then their worldview also gets classified as a faith.

Lucaspa,

As an atheist, I would be proud to see the fiction discarded that pretends atheism is "backed by" science. The intelligent atheist may find answers in science to ward off certain faith-based apologetic attempts, but she also knows that her position is not derived from or dependent on science - and that the validity of science does not necessarily require the position of atheism to be correct.

I would also like to see discarded the fiction that atheism can be properly classified or described as faith. After all, atheism is a lack of faith in the supernatural. It doesn't seem sensible to classify a lack of faith as a position of faith.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by lucaspa
You will die a physical death  

I do not plan to die a physical death. Those who belong to Jesus at the end of this age will just be transformed and receive a new body that will never see corruption or decay.

1 Cor. 15:26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

Romans 8:37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

If we are more than a conquer in everthing, then we will conquer death as well. Through Jesus, there is nothing that we can not overcome, so as to live the life of victory.


 


 

 

[kaotic]

JohnR7, you, and I will both die a physical death. There is no way to get around it.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
Life as we know is cannot exist without death. 

Yes it can, there are roots for example that just keep sending out new roots. Ivy is an example of that. In some cases, you can't even get rid of it if you wanted to.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by notto Lucaspa,

Agreed,

The main problem I have seen with Creationists attempts to provide papers that back their position is that they often involve circular reasoning.

Paper A
The decay rate was higher in the past and we can show where a million fold burst of decay occurred because we have proven that the earth is young (see paper B)

Paper B
The earth is young because we have proven that the decay rate in the past was a million fold higher at a particular time (See paper A)

I hear what you are saying, but this is a different phenonmeon.   You seem to be using radioactive decay rates. What you have outlined is officially called an ad hoc hypothesis.

The reasoning goes:

1. Hypothesis: the earth is young -- 6-10,00 years.

2.  Radiometric dating says the earth is 4.5 billion years old. This falsifies the orginal hypothesis.  However, the data is, in turn, based on a hypothesis of its own: radioactive decay rates are constant.

3. Rather than discard the main hypothesis (1), you propose an ad hoc hypothesis: decay rates are not constant but were a million times faster in the past.

Ad hoc hypotheses were noted by Pierre Duhem in 1905 as he noted that hypotheses are never tested singly, but in huge bundles.  Don't like the results, then don't discard the main hypothesis but decide that one of the underlying hypotheses is wrong.  Ad hoc hypotheses are not, in themselves, wrong. One of the most famous involved Newtonian mechanics.  This was a very successful theory. However, the orbit of Uranus didn't fit. Rather than discard Newton, physicists came up with the ad hoc hypothesis that another,unobserved, planet was perturbing Uranus' orbit by Newtonian mechanics.  Astronomers looked for the planet and found Neptune.  Now, as you note in the next quote, ad hoc hypotheses have to meet two criteria.


Often, this kind of circular reasoning occures in the same paper or article and the conclusions or evidence is not supported by independent data or other lines of evidence (ignoring other data as you stated).

1. Ad hoc hypotheses must be testable separate from the hypothesis they are designed to save. (independent data)  In your example, the ad hoc hypothesis of increased radioactive decay was never tested independent of the hypothesis that the earth is young.

2. The ad hoc hypothesis does not contradict other data or well-established theories (other lines of evidence).

When asked to show independent lines of data that support their conclusions they cannot do so. They do not take into account any other lines of evidence and their theories fail to explain other evidence as well.

Now, the above is important.  Forget how creationists respond.  We are not interested in a debate but in following truth -- no matter where it leads.  What you should do is test the ad hoc hypothesis yourself. For instance, I have done this for radioactive decay.  Radioactive decay gives off heat and it is this heat which provides the earth with its molten core.  IF radioactive decay were a million times faster 10,000 years ago (the ad hoc hypothesis), then the heat released would melt the entire earth (deduction from the hypothesis with observational consequences). Since the earth is not molten, the ad hoc hypothesis is false (deductive logic that true statements can't have false consequences). Notice that this is tested against heat released, totally independent of any hypothesis of the earth's age.

And yes, the increased rate of decay does not account for other evidence falsifying a young earth such as mile deep sediments that could not have been deposited in 10,000 years.

The also fail to try to find other explanations for the evidence they use (again, as you stated) to falsify their conclusions.

The alternative hypotheses do not falsify their hypothesis.  Hypotheses cannot falsify other hypotheses. Only data does that.  However, you have an important point. Remember, since science works by falsification, in order to conclude that a particular hypothesis is the explanation, you have to falsify all the alternative hypotheses that also explain the data. In scientific papers, the controls are the experiments that falsify the althernative hypotheses.

As you stated, creationists don't do that.  That is because they are working under the logical positivist view of science.  So, while the fossil bed in Dinosaur National Monument can be explained by the hypothesis of a global Flood, it is also explained by the hypothesis of a local flood.  There is no attempt by creationists to falsify the local flood hypothesis.

The question of "Could it be explained another way that is consistent with the lines of evidence we are using and other lines of evidence at the same time?" is never asked.

Correct. Which shows that creationists are very poor scientists. 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith Lucaspa,

As an atheist, I would be proud to see the fiction discarded that pretends atheism is "backed by" science. The intelligent atheist may find answers in science to ward off certain faith-based apologetic attempts, but she also knows that her position is not derived from or dependent on science - and that the validity of science does not necessarily require the position of atheism to be correct.

So far, so good. We agree.

I would also like to see discarded the fiction that atheism can be properly classified or described as faith. After all, atheism is a lack of faith in the supernatural. It doesn't seem sensible to classify a lack of faith as a position of faith.

I've just been through this with Morat on another thread.  Jerry, the problem with the negative version of atheism as "lack of faith" version is that it simply isn't stable upon inspection.  It degenerates into "strong" atheism or agnosticism.

Let's see if I can show it in a "short" form. Take this quote from Butler in the Fontispiece of Origin:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."  Butler:  Analogy of Revealed Religion

Now, Butler has a hypothesis here: "natural" processes require an "intelligent agent" (i.e. deity) to function.

Now, how can you respond to this hypothesis with "lack of faith"?  You've got to make a positive response.  If you say "I don't know if natural requires a deity or not" then you are adopting agnosticism.  But, if you say "I don't believe that natural requires a deity" then you have just made a positive statement. And one of belief because science, through the limitation of methodological materialism, can't tell you you are correct.  Of course, if you agree with Butler's hypothesis, then you are a theist.

At its even more basic, you have the original question:  Does a deity(ies) exist?  There are 3 possible answers:
1. I believe deity exists.  This is theism, deism, polytheism.
2. I believe a deity does not exist. This is atheism.
3. I don't know whether a deity exists or not.  This is agnosticism.

Now, please don't do what Morat did and extrapolate that I am arguing for theism.  The claim is only that atheism is a faith.  There is no claim about the relative accuracy of atheism or theism to describe ultimate reality.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JohnR7 I do not plan to die a physical death. Those who belong to Jesus at the end of this age will just be transformed and receive a new body that will never see corruption or decay.

The premise behind this argument is that we are in the "last days" and you will still be alive at the "second coming". It is not an argument that you won't die a physical death. How about St. Paul, Augustine of Hippo, all the 11 disciples, Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of Yeshu, and all the Christians that have lived, and died in the past 1,970 years?  They too are supposed to receive a "new body", right?  Yet they have undeniably died a physical death.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by chickenman
why would anyone want to silence the critics

their "criticisms" are often hilarious, frequently a source of amusement to anyone who knows their biology

Chickenman, you are either missing or misrepresenting the claim. The claim is that scientists suppress legitimate criticisms of evolution by censorship of various forms. Agreed, if you take the professional creationists "criticisms" like we find at ICR, AiG, or ARN as the best that there is, then the criticisms are pretty funny.

I personally would like to see them "suppressed" or silenced because they simply are false and they confuse good people. Just like I want to see a lying used car salesman shut down before he cons an innocent person into buying one of his lemons and the person ends up dying because the car failed.  Also because I would like to spend more time doing science and less time having to defend science from the baseless criticisms of professional creationists.

 

[notto]

Thanks lucaspa!

 

[Jerry Smith]

lucaspa,

I've been trying to keep up with your thread with Morat. Naturally, my position is similar to his, though I haven't felt that I should intrude on that thread. As an atheist, I can assure you that mine is not a position of faith. I do hold some positions of faith, but atheism is not one of them. The source of your confusion seems to be found here:

Now, Butler has a hypothesis here: "natural" processes require an "intelligent agent" (i.e. deity) to function.

This is Butler's hypothesis - not mine!. As with any of the infinite number of hypotheses that can be formulated to answer any given question, the mere formulation of it does not give it any special status. I may freely reject it in just the same way that I may reject any hypothesis no matter how cogent or absurd. Its mere formulation does not create a burden on me to adopt any sort of positive position on it whatsoever.

In short, my answer to Butler would be:
"I don't believe you. Prove it."

This is not faith that Butler is wrong. It is a lack of faith in the premise that Butler is correct. It acknowledges the possibility that Butler may, in the future, prove his hypothesis.

If we do not require faith to accept a proposition: that is, if it is empirically supported, then we may require faith to reject it (or on the other hand, we may not be able to evaluate the proposition, and therefore me must remain agnostic.)

An unscientific proposition, one that is not empirically supported, may well be rejected out of hand under a rational epistemology. There is an infinite search space of possible explanations for any given experience. Logic tells us that there are an infinite number of wrong answers in that search space. We can assume at the outset that the probability of any given proposition in that search space is wrong. Exceptions can be made on the basis of faith (I can choose to have faith in God or leprauchauns, or at least until the last part of the 19th century, could have in evolution by natural selection. That faith can be maintained as faith, or may lead to confirmation as an empirically supported position, an empirically falsified position, or one that is abandoned for lack of confirmation.) However, I cannot be required to take any given hypothesis seriously, otherwise, I could never have hope of freeing myself from the task of evaluating an infinite number of false propositions - including many that are untestable and unconfirmable - in order to spend time evaluating the truth of those which I choose to have (at least provisional) faith in.

Butler's hypothesis if fine for him, but it does not demand faith from me. It demands neither faith that it is false - because by sheer probability it is false, with no other factors to consider. It falls within an infinite search space, populated with only a finite number of correct answers and an infinite number of incorrect ones. Butler has found merit in the hypothesis, and may continue to do so on faith without confirmation. His actions do not obligate me to hold a faith position on this untestable proposition. I will draw another hypothesis from the infinite search space and you will see that you reject it, but that you do not do so out of faith (or confirmed knowledge) that it is wrong:

Life was seeded on earth by a superintelligent race of aliens in the distant past. They are watching us in order to observe us and conclude from our evolution what question 42, or the answer to life, the universe, and everything, is supposed to be the answer to.

 

[Athlon4all]

You will die a physical death but believe that, because you are saved in Jesus, that you won't die. So what type of life is that immortal life if it is not the physical?

I know I am going to die physically, unless as John pointed out, the church is raptured away during my life time. I have been reffered to because that verse is the curse because of sin that the fact that Physical death is in it indicates that there was no physical death before the fall.

Why wouldn't physical death be "good".  Now you are thinking like agnostics and atheists: the present life is all there is, therefore to die is bad.  Is your physical death "bad" when you are going on to immortal life with God?

Again, it is clear to me in Genesis that God created the universe to not be a "pit-stop" or a temporary settlement like it is now . God intended the universe to be the perfect habitat for man, who would live in perfect fellowship with the LORD.

Where does it say in the Bible that the bodies were perfect and sinless?&nbsp; Remember, you say we can't use anything outside the Bible and that the Bible must must <B>explicitly</B> say that something happens (your rules for evolution).&nbsp; Now apply those same rules for your theological position.&nbsp;

I would point to Genesis 1:26-28. Man was made in the likeness of God, and if there is anything which God cannot tolerate it is sin. Also, look at how Adam and Eve were able to live naked and yet not abuse or sin.

What kind of magic vegetables are these that can be eaten and not die?

The fruit of the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22)

LC did not suggest it was <I>figurative</I>. He suggested it was <I>spiritual</I> or non-physical

Should've been more specific. I meant that it isn't a spiritual place. It existed, right here on this earth.

you are human like the rest of us. Your opinion is <I>not</I> infallible.

I could not agree more, but, you are not a believer in Christ, and do not have the Holy Spirit in you, I'll trust my time with the LORD.

I have not forgotten you post at the end of page 6, lucaspa. I'll be back later tonight&nbsp;

 

[Jerry Smith]

I could not agree more, but, you are not a believer in Christ, and do not have the Holy Spirit in you, I'll trust my time with the LORD.

But many who agree with me are believers in Christ and therefore must have the Holy Spirit in them. Is the Holy Spirit so fickle, or is it perhaps that you are too quick to put your ideas into the mouth of God?

 

[seebs]

I have to say, the Holy Spirit guides me in many things, but has never expressed much of an opinion either way on evolution. Could that be because it's not an issue relevant to my salvation or moral development?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Athlon4all I know I am going to die physically, unless as John pointed out, the church is&nbsp;raptured away during my life time. I have been reffered to because that verse is the curse because of sin that the fact that Physical death is in it indicates that there was no physical death before the fall.

That verse, combined with Genesis 3:23-25 makes it clear that it is spiritual death that is being referred to.&nbsp; Also remember that Genesis is a theological document, not a scientific one.&nbsp; If it really was scientific, it wouldn't have the contradiction of having men and women, plural, being created in Genesis 1:25 and only one man and one woman being created in Genesis 2.

Again, it is clear to me in Genesis that God created the universe to not be a "pit-stop" or a temporary settlement like it is now .

And how is that "clear"? Where exactly does Genesis say that. Genesis 1 merely says that creation is "good", not perfect.&nbsp;

I would point to Genesis 1:26-28.

And I point to Genesis 1:31.&nbsp;

Man was made in the likeness of God, and if there is anything which God cannot tolerate it is sin.

Excuse me, but it says "let us make man in our image, after our likeness"&nbsp; That is not very specific. It does not specifically say the bodies were perfect, which is what you claimed.&nbsp; It seems you are reading a lot of your "logic" into this and not doing what you tell us we should do: read the text without interpretation.&nbsp;

Also, look at how Adam and Eve were able to live naked and yet not abuse or sin.

That's because sex isn't a sin. The "sin" was disobeying an order from Yahweh. Notice in Genesis 1:28 God commands people to be fruitful and multiply. They can't very well do that without sex, can they? BTW, you do realize that Adam and Eve weren't married, don't you? No mention of a wedding ceremony anywhere in Genesis 2.

What we have here is a whole doctine based on little more than Adam and Eve disobeyed an order that a competent deity should have known better than to give in the first place, and then were spanked for it.&nbsp; Of course, Adam and Eve were not created in the image of God. That was people, plural, in Genesis 1. Adam was made from dust and Eve from Adam's rib.&nbsp; So instead of knowing what they would do because it is something God would do (in His likeness), God has no idea what Adam and Eve will do because they are not created in His likeness.

You see the trouble here? You have two separate and contradictory creation stories redacted into a single document. That alone should tell you that the accounts are not meant to be read literally. If they were, they wouldn't contradict.

I could not agree more, but, you are not a believer in Christ, and do not have the Holy Spirit in you, I'll trust my time with the LORD.

I think you have confused my post with someone else's, because the quote this is referring to is not mine.&nbsp; Morat would disagree with you about my being a believer.&nbsp; Since you&nbsp;two come to opposite conclusions about my personal beliefs, I guess I am doing a good job at arguing the claims and not my personal beleifs.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I think you have confused my post with someone else's, because the quote this is referring to is not mine. Morat would disagree with you about my being a believer. Since you two come to opposite conclusions about my personal beliefs, I guess I am doing a good job at arguing the claims and not my personal beleifs.

Athlon was replying to two different people in that post - the unbeliever to whom he was speaking was me, I believe... I think that he did not mean to include your comments on his humanity and fallibility, but instead meant to include mine. I could be mistaken.

By the way, I hope you didn't miss my last post that was directed to you...

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith lucaspa,

As an atheist, I can assure you that mine is not a position of faith.

I'm sorry, but you are as mistaken about your own position as Tacoman is about the age of the earth.&nbsp;

The source of your confusion seems to be found here: Now, Butler has a hypothesis here: "natural" processes require an "intelligent agent" (i.e. deity) to function.

This is Butler's hypothesis - not mine!.

Doesn't matter whose hypothesis it is, does it? Evolution is not&nbsp;Hovind's hypothesis, but he has to deal with it anyway.&nbsp; Transdifferentiation of stem cells is not my hypothesis, and I disagree with it. However, in order to effectively disagree, I still have to refute it.

I may freely reject it in just the same way that I may reject any hypothesis no matter how cogent or absurd.

Sorry, but you can reject it as a matter of faith, just as Hector Medina rejects or Athalcon reject anything that doesn't fit with their interpretation of the Bible.&nbsp; But you can't reject it as a matter of knowledge&nbsp; without falsifying it.&nbsp; Remember, the issue isn't whether atheism is accurate, but it's status in relation to knowledge.&nbsp; Is atheism faith or is it knowledge (not faith)?&nbsp;

Its mere formulation does not create a burden on me to adopt any sort of positive position on it whatsoever.

It's formulation does create a burden on you to address it if you are to claim that atheism is not a matter of faith.&nbsp; For atheism not to be faith, then the material processes we observe by science have to work in the absence of deity.&nbsp; If they can't, then atheism, quite obviuosly, isn't viable, is it?

If you say the material processes we observe by science work in the absence of a deity, then you are indeed taking a positive position.&nbsp;

In short, my answer to Butler would be:
"I don't believe you. Prove it."

Sorry, but to use science the answer is: I don't believe you. Falsify it.&nbsp; You must show it wrong for atheism to be viable. As long as it even remains a possibility, then atheism is not knowledge.&nbsp;

This is not faith that Butler is wrong. It is a lack of faith in the premise that Butler is correct.

Sorry, again. But this is mere semantic quibbling.&nbsp; Tell me the real difference between "lack of faith that Butler is correct" and "faith that Butler is wrong"?&nbsp; Again, if your "lack of faith" is rephrased as "do not know if Butler is right or wrong" then that is agnosticism.&nbsp; Your statement that atheism is a lack of faith either degrades into the positive statement that Butler is wrong and that the processes operate on their own, which puts you into a faith that Butler is wrong because you can't show it,&nbsp;or goes to agnosticism.&nbsp;

If we do not require faith to accept a proposition: that is, if it is empirically supported, then we may require faith to reject it (or on the other hand, we may not be able to evaluate the proposition, and therefore me must remain agnostic.)

Well, since you can't evaluate Butler's hypothesis, doesn't that mean you must remain agnostic and not atheist?

An unscientific proposition, one that is not empirically supported,

This is a mistatement of&nbsp;what scientific propositions are.&nbsp;&nbsp;As&nbsp;Popper noted, any scientific proposition can be supported, if that is what you are looking for. What counts is falsification, not empirical support.&nbsp; Empirical support only counts if it is an unsuccessful attempt at falsification.&nbsp; So far you haven't even tried to empirically falsify Bulter's hypothesis.

&nbsp;may well be rejected out of hand under a rational epistemology.

Absolutely NOT!!&nbsp; This merely allows you to reject possible explanations you don't like. Remember, your favored explanation has&nbsp;the exact same probability of being wrong.&nbsp; IOW, that the material processes operate on their own is just as likely, by your&nbsp;&nbsp;"infinite search space of possible explanations for any given experience" to be wrong.&nbsp;

Exceptions can be made on the basis of faith

Thank you. You just proved that atheism is a faith. Because you made an exception in this case based on your faith.&nbsp;

However, I cannot be required to take any given hypothesis seriously, otherwise, I could never have hope of freeing myself from the task of evaluating an infinite number of false propositions including many that are untestable and unconfirmable -

First, "unconfirmable" betrays the same logical postivism that underlies Morat's position.&nbsp; Science works by falsification, remember?&nbsp; Second, congratulations.&nbsp; You have, in trying to keep atheism from being a faith, just destroyed science.&nbsp; Hey, we don't have to take any hypothesis seriously. So what if it is testable?&nbsp; After all, aren't there an infinite number of possible hypotheses out there to explain any evidence?&nbsp;&nbsp; So throw out the hypothesis of an old earth, just like Hovind does.&nbsp; You don't have to take it seriously!&nbsp; Jerry Smith just said so.&nbsp; And, of course, you have just said that creationists don't have to take evolution seriously.&nbsp; After all, you said "any given hypothesis".&nbsp; &nbsp;

You see the problems your "atheism isn't a faith" leads&nbsp;us all&nbsp;into? And why that deception is so dangerous to science?&nbsp; In order to defend your position, you have to destroy science.&nbsp;

Butler's hypothesis if fine for him, but it does not demand faith from me.

The response you make to it is one of faith.&nbsp; Since you don't have the data that it is false, that means that you have faith it is false.

It demands neither faith that it is false - because by sheer probability it is false, with no other factors to consider.

Again, congratulations. You have just destroyed science. After all, by "sheer probability" any theory is false.&nbsp; Therefore there is no need to accept any theory in science. Don't like it?&nbsp; Hey, it's problably false.

I will draw another hypothesis from the infinite search space and you will see that you reject it

Life was seeded on earth by a superintelligent race of aliens in the distant past. They are watching us in order to observe us and conclude from our evolution what question 42, or the answer to life, the universe, and everything, is supposed to be the answer to.

Actually, Darwin stated something very similar:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."&nbsp; C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

I don't see any difference between&nbsp;your statement and Darwin's except you identified "the Creator" to be a superintelligent ET and what the purpose of the experiment is. Both statements end up with the diversity of life we see on the planet because they both use evolution by natural selection to get that diversity.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't reject it.&nbsp; It is possible.

Now, if you would elaborate on that and claim that ETs had to be responsible because it is not possible for life to have come about any other way, then I could&nbsp;falsify that elaboration.&nbsp; But as it is stated, nope. It simply goes into the long list of hypotheses that are possible until and unless we find data to refute it.&nbsp;

If I did reject it, I would be doing so on faith.&nbsp; So, since you do reject Butler's hypothesis, then you agree you are doing so on faith. Which proves my first claim. Thank you.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Lucaspa,

I think you have successfully created a false dichotomy: between faith and knowledge.

True, knowledge is not just faith - and true, faith does not constitute knowledge. However, one can lack faith without having knowledge.

Stay with me here:

1) Atheism is not knowledge. It dis-belief.
2) Atheism is not "scientific." It is a metaphysical matter, not subject to empirical support (or falsification, since you are so keen to point out that criterion of scientific support).

Does this leave atheism to the limbo of agnosticism? No. Atheism is a reasoned disbelief. Confronted with a dubious and unsupportable (yes, unfalsifiable) hypothesis, a reasonable response is to remember that this hypothesis is a member of an infinite set of hypotheses, only a finite number of which model closely to reality. Under a reasonable epistemology, in the absence of a convincing reason to believe, disbelief is an acceptable and often preferable default position - based only on the reasoning that it is easier, when merely guessing, to be wrong than to be right.

I will overlook the inflammatory comments you made to the effect that you understand my position (without holding it) better than I do, but if you continue to harp this tune without demonstrating it to be the case as you seem to have done in Morat's thread, I will become somewhat irate.. Going on to address your points:

The response you make to it is one of faith. Since you don't have the data that it is false, that means that you have faith it is false.

His hypothesis, again, is not my problem. I need not even respond to it. In principle, that is what my rejection is - a failure to respond cast as a statement of disbelief, i.e. "I am unconvinced," which is equal to "I do not believe you."

Sorry, again. But this is mere semantic quibbling. Tell me the real difference between "lack of faith that Butler is correct" and "faith that Butler is wrong"?

No, this is the essence of my position. Butler formulated a hypothesis. In effect, his hypothesis (being untestable) is nothing more than a made up story. My knowledge of the way that humans make up stories is such that I am aware that most made up stories are untrue. I disbelieve them. If my son tells me that he has an invisible friend named Horace --- I will disbelieve him on the same principle. I will allow the possibility that he may be telling the truth and may someday demonstrate it, just as I will do for Butler and his story. I will not remain agnostic on the matter, though. I will disbelieve his story, not out of faith - but from experience and skepticism. My core epistemology is succinctly paraphrased "likely untrue until convincingly demonstrated." As I said - I do make exceptions... such is necessary for the formulation of my own hypotheses, and such is expedient for certain personal issues. Atheism is not one of those exceptions: it is the rule.

First, "unconfirmable" betrays the same logical postivism that underlies Morat's position.

You are incorrectly reading logical positivism into our position. Logical positivism says "that which is not observed does not exist."

It is not the same as "we are not constrained to believe that which is not convincingly demonstrated." It is not the same as "we are allowed to disbelieve that which is not convincingly demonstrated."

True this: my epistemology, a rational one, does allow me to believe false a thing which is true. However my epistemology is a pragmatic one: degrees of certainty can be attained, where absolute certainty cannot. I have prioritized the ability to have a level of certainty in my evaluation of a thing over the desirable but unattainable goal of having absolute certainty in my evaluation of a thing. This unattainable goal is what yields agnostics and believers alike.

Remember, your favored explanation has the exact same probability of being wrong.

Assuming that I have a favored explanation (and for the origin of the universe, I do not) - and assuming that it is one that has been confirmed scientifically, then it does have a much lower probability of being wrong. This is beside the point. My favored explanation for a thing has absolutely **nothing** to do with it! I may confess the inability to explain it just as well. Butler's hypothesis must stand on its own merits - not on the accident of whether I have an alternative explanation or not.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't reject it. It is possible.

So you choose to remain agnostic to panspermia by extra terrestrial design. I don't. I disbelieve in panspermia by extra terrestrial design and expected you to as well. Since you are comfortable with agnosticism on that one, let's go a little further out on the ledge and do another postulate.

There is a fat elf, who lives at the north pole, and who is responsible for the yearly abundance of toys for many boys and girls around the world.

Do you believe?
Do you disbelieve on faith?
Do you remain agnostic on the accuracy of this hypothesis?
or...
....
....
do you maintain a reasoned disbelief in the accuracy of this hypothesis?

I think that fundamentally - if you take the few moments necessary to consider this question, you will see that you do have a reasoned, but unscientific, disbelief in the accuracy of this hypothesis - and you will see where weak atheism fails to "degrade" as you predict into an alternative position. Please bear in mind that I have put no other limits on the properties of this elf, or how he goes about bringing about Christmas toy-time. You cannot reject it on having a better hypothesis. You may have seen mom &amp; dad stuffing the underside of the tree with goodies, but you cannot falsify the possibility that the elf was&nbsp;(ultimately) necessary for this phenomenon, and did&nbsp;(ultimately) bring it about.

 

[Athlon4all]

You see the trouble here? You have two separate and contradictory creation stories redacted into a single document. That alone should tell you that the accounts are not meant to be read literally. If they were, they wouldn't contradict.

No, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to me, complement eachg other, not contradict. I see in Genesis 1, the thing about men and women being made at once reffering to that they were made on that same day. Genesis 2 provides more detailed info on the creation of men and women, at once on the same day, but at different times on that same day.

Also remember that Genesis is a theological document, not a scientific one.

Yes...but, I fail to0 see your point. The Bible is the infallible Word of God, and I starm with the Bible and make the physical world (ie scientific observances)fit it.

Excuse me, but it says "let us make man in our image, after our likeness" That is not very specific. It does not specifically say the bodies were perfect, which is what you claimed. It seems you are reading a lot of your "logic" into this and not doing what you tell us we should do: read the text without interpretation.

Yes it doesn't say it specifically...but, if there is anything that the LORD hates throughout the Bible, it is sin, and I doubt that likeness would be considered "likeness" if it had a nature that rebelles against God.

That's because sex isn't a sin. The "sin" was disobeying an order from Yahweh. Notice in Genesis 1:28 God commands people to be fruitful and multiply. They can't very well do that without sex, can they? BTW, you do realize that Adam and Eve weren't married, don't you? No mention of a wedding ceremony anywhere in Genesis 2.

It is clear that although there were no other humans in the Garden of Eden, that they would've lived without clothing and would not abuse that (ie For example, Cain/Able would not have lustful thoughts for their Mother and vice versa even though they were naked).

What we have here is a whole doctine based on little more than Adam and Eve disobeyed an order that a competent deity should have known better than to give in the first place, and then were spanked for it. Of course, Adam and Eve were not created in the image of God. That was people, plural, in Genesis 1. Adam was made from dust and Eve from Adam's rib. So instead of knowing what they would do because it is something God would do (in His likeness), God has no idea what Adam and Eve will do because they are not created in His likeness.

Again, Genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict each other. They complement each other, as I showed how I see it above. Adam and Eve were perfect, without sin, and had the likeness of God. They did however have free will to disobey God, which is exactloy what they did. Every man does have a certain amount of free will to choose to obey God or to disobey God.

I have to say, the Holy Spirit guides me in many things, but has never expressed much of an opinion either way on evolution. Could that be because it's not an issue relevant to my salvation or moral development?

It may not be necessarily a salvation issue, but it is something that there is a testimony of the Holy Spirit on. That is about how man was created, physical death before the fall, etc, all of which must be compromised in oerder for a Christian to believe in Evolution.

To: Any Christian Evolutionists reading this

I urge you, brothers and sisters, to please, sit down with the Word of God, all by itsellf. Don't take into account any of the science or anything that is not of this world, and examine Genesis 1-3, and assk the Holy Spirit to show you what these chapters mean. Please, get the science out of it, and take the Word of God by itself. This is all I ask.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by Athlon4all


To: Any Christian Evolutionists reading this

I urge you, brothers and sisters, to please, sit down with the Word of God, all by itsellf. Don't take into account any of the science or anything that is not of this world, and examine Genesis 1-3, and assk the Holy Spirit to show you what these chapters mean. Please, get the science out of it, and take the Word of God by itself. This is all I ask.

You seem to be implying that "we" haven't done this. Why?