The Demise of Evolution

[Bungle_Bear]

There are only 18 creatures that live in societal structure with more than 100 individuals. We could never have had a Moon landing if our society was limited to 100 members or less.

It is only these 18 species that have specialized jobs -- where different members perform different jobs. For example, wolves will have one wolf watching the pups, but that same wolf will go hunting if necessary, will fight with other packs if attacked, and will do every job that every other wolf does. This is not true of humans with lawyers, doctors, engineers, blue collar workers, white collar workers, etc.

It is only these 18 species that allow members of the society not directly related to them to watch their young. Without schools our civilization would be greatly hampered in its development.

How is it that we can do this? We have to teach people how to behave in society. We have laws, schools and religion. No other creatures have this. The other "eusocial" creatures do not need to be taught, they don't need police, they don't need laws, lawyers, judges, courts, etc.

Humans are not eusocial, so your argument is meaningless.

 

[Job 33:6]

I am glad I signed off. It allows me to read all the various responses. It is enjoyable to see. However, it does not appear that these threads help us to investigate the truth. Like you said asking the question is apparently a violation of the atheists dogma every bit as much as it is of the creationists dogma.

Yea. Travelling a middle ground can be a challenging task. At least in regard to...making an objective case against either side.

If an objective case could simply be made for Christianity, if it were simple and easy, we would all be believers.

And biblical literalists can likewise be against interpreting scripture in ways beyond just reading the words literally.

But we are here in the middle, knowing the love and power of the message of Christ, while also understanding flaws in a literal understanding of scripture.

 

[Ophiolite]

You are also saying that Science does not try to explain everything, which is true. So not everything need to be explained by science, such as how life began or whether there is God.

Your second sentence does not follow from the first. Let's consider several points arising from this.

First, let's not anthropomorphise science in this context. Science does not try to explain anything. Science is not an agency endowed with action. It is a methodology. Curious humans use science in order to seek and test explanations.

Secondly, I question your use of the word "need". The people who use science certainly feel driven by curiosity to explain things that interest them. Is this a "need"? It is arguable, I suppose, but only if we agree the need is a need to attempt to satisfy curiosity. (I set to one side those individuals who stumbled into science and practice it because they "need" to make a living somehow.)

So, there is a "need" for science to explain how life began because their are people who are curious about the question and science provides a methodology for investigating it.

Science has no role in investigating the existence of God. Why? Because science employs methodological naturalism. That is, it investigates only what is natural, based on the assumption that the universe behaves in consistent and systematic ways. It does not deny, or affirm, the existence of the supernatural but excludes it from investigation because, by definition, it could not be expected to behave in consistent and systematic ways.

Then why do some people insist that science has to prove God or how life began before they would believe it?

I don't intend to indulge in some amateur psychology to explain why some people have dumb ideas. That is not relevant to the power of science, in the hands of curious people, to reveal much about how the universe works.

And there is still a big area that science cannot prove, but which definitely exists - for that, see post #684 (earlier post)

I am almost sure other members have already told you this. Science does not prove anything. Scientists use it to seek out the best explanation for those topics that interest them.

Re-post #684. Anecdotes are great fun, but they are not science. To answer your question about the bowl, science could be used to explain this, if scientists had been on hand to investigate it. Doing it retroactively would be more challenging.

 

[ZNP]

Yea. Travelling a middle ground can be a challenging task. At least in regard to...making an objective case against either side.

If an objective case could simply be made for Christianity, if it were simple and easy, we would all be believers.

And biblical literalists can likewise be against interpreting scripture in ways beyond just reading the words literally.

But we are here in the middle, knowing the love and power of the message of Christ, while also understanding flaws in a literal understanding of scripture.

Not all scripture should be read literally since some of the language is figurative. But I feel much of the error is not in taking the scripture literally, but in the interpretation of what a literal interpretation means. For example, in the account of Noah's flood it says the flood came over the top of the highest mountains. One way to understand that is to think the 40 days of rain made a flood which went to the top of the Himalayas. Another way to interpret that is there was a tsunami that went over the top of the Himalayas. Both are clearly completely unsupported by any geologic evidence. However, the greatest floods recorded in the geologic record did come from the tops of the highest mountains at the end of the last ice age when the ice dams collapsed. Could 40 days of rain have been the straw that broke the back? Well if you understand 40 days of rain as a meteorologic event there is no such thing as a weather event in the last 100,000 years that would cause 40 days and nights of rain over the entire earth. But if you understand that the meteorite that hit the Indian Ocean causing the huge chevrons in Madagascar also sent a huge amount of water into the stratosphere which then circled the globe and took 40 days to return to the earth, then yes, there is a geologic record of such an event. Finally, if you think that the boat held all the animals on earth then it is patently absurd, but if you see that boat as a floating barn holding all the domesticated animals on Earth well then that would explain why there are over 100 different accounts of this flood in many cultures, many of which refer to this boat independent of the Bible, and it would also explain why virtually all the domesticated animals on this planet come from mesopotamia while all the large ungulates went extinct on the other continents at the end of the last ice age.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science neither confirm nor deny God, ie science is neutral, we know that. Science evaluate stuff based on data, knowledge and evidence, we know that too. And science does not investigate everything ie it is not all encompassing - we know that but many people like to think that it is as good as everything. In fact, there are MANY aspects of our life where we do not use science to confirm – instead we use our senses, intuition, power of observation, faith and probability, which works too.


For instance: Do you always use science to prove human feelings (love, anger, greed, hatred etc). Does someone who is dating another person use science?

Secondly, science does not and cannot explain things in the spiritual realm --but spirits do exist on earth. In your part of the world, America and Europe, you may not see this more than people in Asia (even though some Hollywood movies about true stories of haunting in USA and Europe – but science won't confirm the haunting, ghosts or spirits) .

I will try to keep this true incident brief (and it is only ONE of the many such spiritual things that happen). Many years ago, a close friend at same church was on the verge of death, from a lightning strike. He was the only Christian among his many siblings, and as he laid comatose for a few days in hospital, his family decided to consult the temple medium (a pagan priest) who communicated with spirits. Although our church was not agreeable, however, we cannot stop the family. As the medium called upon ithe spirit, he did something to an ordinary porcelain bowl -- he cast a spell, so to speak. He then threw the bowl on the floor and if it broke, my friend would die, and if the bowl didn’t break, my friend would live -- the medium said. At first throw, the porcelain bowl didn’t break. My friend’s family asked him to throw it up in the air so it would fall from a great height. The medium did, the bowl didn’t break. They requested the medium to throw even high, as much as 15 feet – my friend 's brother told me later-- the bowl dropped to ground and didn’t break. He was asked to repeat the highest throw, but the result was same. After the ceremony ended and the spirit’s presence left, the priest, to show that he did not use a fake porcelain bowl, dropped it to the ground, and it broke into pieces. The family told the church members about what they saw. Although I did not witness the process, however, I am sure they would not lie. They even believed that their brother would live. A few days later, however, he died. The siblings, in a state of deep grief, related the same temple process to people who came for the funeral ie they could not be lying.

Can science explain how the bowl didn’t smashed into pieces when thrown a few times from high during the spiritual process, and after the spirit left, it broke when thrown from a few feet above ground?

Now, this is not the only unexplained spiritual phenomena. There are many in this part of the world. In about 2010, in Singapore, one incident even went to court as the woman, who used to have a snake spirit, sued the Catholic church, blaming them for mental and physical pain she felt after she was exorcised. During the hearing, the priests and church members narrated that the woman could move like a snake on the floor during the exorcism. Can science explain such spiritual phenomena? And there are MANY more such cases in Asia.

Today, we travelled in aeroplanes, sent text messages to people far far away in the blink of an eye, and do gene therapy.... but these do not mean that science and technology have found everything, far far from it. But some people seem to think it has discovered most things, as good as all things or almost everything. When science hasn't discovered God, some people claim that creator doesn't exist because science hasn't confirmed it -- ie going against how science reasons, and making a false claim.

Science does not say non-scientific explanations are unreliable or wrong. But some people say that millions of lifeforms does not mean God created them -- just because science didn't prove it. They claim that life started on its own and evolved beautifully into millions of life : and even though they have no proof, they like to imagine that their hypothesis hold water, which is contradictory to their claim to believe in scientific proofs only.

Some people deny the power of observations, common sense, intuition, probability, process of elimination etc. Does science tell you to do so? Or are you denying your basic intelligence in order to make it more complicated and intellectual? Or you deny the Creator's existence and creation because of personal ANTI-GOD feeling --- that's the truth isn't?

Stories from unreliable sources are unreliable. Change the name of the religion and tell us if you heard that story from someone with a Muslim twist would you take up Islam?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are plenty of evidence in creation, even if you claim to follow science. Does Science says you cannot use other means to show that there is creation and God? No, Science doesn't say that. But you are saying or acting as if proofs must come from science -- even science does not claim to prove everything. For more see post #684 (earlier post)

Claiming there is evidence does you no good. Odds are that you do not understand the concept. In the sciences an idea cannot even have supporting evidence unless it is a testable idea. What reasonable test, based upon creationisms own merits could possibly refute creationism? If you cannot think of a reasonable test you do not have evidence. You merely have an ad hoc explanation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See post #674 for a succinct exposition.

What? This one?:

"It doesn't and you can't wedge the bible where it doesn't belong."

That is hardly dogma nor does it apply only to atheists. Countless religion would tell you the same thing.

 

[pitabread]

Can science explain how the bowl didn’t smashed into pieces when thrown a few times from high during the spiritual process, and after the spirit left, it broke when thrown from a few feet above ground?

The problem with these types of stories is they are entirely anecdotal with no way of verifying anything presented. This entire story could be a work a fiction, we have no way of knowing.

The burden here isn't on science to explain an anecdote. The burden is on you to demonstrate that there is any veracity to this story in the first place.

And whenever these types of claims are put to the test, invariably they fail miserably to demonstrate any sort of supernatural involvement.

Or you deny the Creator's existence and creation because of personal ANTI-GOD feeling --- that's the truth isn't?

This is entirely projection on your part.

Though I've noticed this is common among fundamentalists trying to explain why others don't believe the way they do.

If you really wanted to know why people don't believe like you do, perhaps try asking them instead of telling them. You might learn something.

 

[Lazarus Long]

If Science is neutral and silent on God, then why do people who claim to believe so much in science, say that God does not exist?

Does Science say you cannot use other evidence to prove other things or truths? For more see post #684 (earlier post)

Creationism has no evidence, other or otherwise.

 

[Lazarus Long]

See post #674 for a succinct exposition.

What is this atheist dogma? Shouldn't you in all honesty at least attempt to learn what atheism is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is this atheist dogma? Shouldn't you in all honesty at least attempt to learn what atheism is?

He hopefully stated the wrong post since your post had nothing to do with atheism.

 

[Lazarus Long]

But if you understand that the meteorite that hit the Indian Ocean causing the huge chevrons in Madagascar also sent a huge amount of water into the stratosphere which then circled the globe and took 40 days to return to the earth, then yes, there is a geologic record of such an event

Unfortunately for you that wouldn't flood the earth to a height greater than Mt Everest it would simply flow back into the space created in the Indian ocean. Of course no such thing happened but your fantasy doesn't even hold up.

 

[Lazarus Long]

Or you deny the Creator's existence and creation because of personal ANTI-GOD feeling --- that's the truth isn't?

You are anti-invisible flying dragons-----that's the truth isn't it?

 

[ZNP]

Unfortunately for you that wouldn't flood the earth to a height greater than Mt Everest it would simply flow back into the space created in the Indian ocean. Of course no such thing happened but your fantasy doesn't even hold up.

That is an interpretation of what is said, I have already said that didn't happen, but it only proves that interpretation is wrong. It is a reasonable interpretation from the word because it says the high mountains were covered, however it also says the waters rose up 15 cubits. That is less than 45 feet. So clearly it is not saying the water was a mile deep which is how many interpret it similar to what you just wrote.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

This is why we need geologists to step in and explain. At the end of the last ice age as the ice melted there were great ice dams in the mountains with huge lakes. From that dam upward the mountains were covered with ice and water. When these dams broke geologists have discovered the biggest floods ever seen swept down from the mountains and across the land. This is true in India (Himalayas) and the US (Rockies). So yes, the tops of the highest mountains were covered, and yes we can calculate that this flood that rushed across the land was between 30 and 40 feet deep.

 

[ZNP]

What is this atheist dogma? Shouldn't you in all honesty at least attempt to learn what atheism is?

The atheist dogma is that the Bible is a myth. They will tell you that this term "myth" is very respectable, etc, but the term is contrary to a believers use of the term "word of God". To a believer the Bible tells you not just that God created man but how. Therefore the process of evolution is also woven in. To an atheist the creation of man account in the Bible is a myth written long before the theory of evolution and therefore is not in the Bible. The post I pointed to illustrates these basic tenets of the atheist dogma:

1. Bible is a myth, not the word of God. It was written by man and does not reveal anything other than man's imagination.
2. Stories in the Bible written long before scientific discoveries like evolution have nothing to do with them and shed no light on them.

 

[ZNP]

This is why we need geologists to step in and explain. At the end of the last ice age as the ice melted there were great ice dams in the mountains with huge lakes. From that dam upward the mountains were covered with ice and water. When these dams broke geologists have discovered the biggest floods ever seen swept down from the mountains and across the land. This is true in India (Himalayas) and the US (Rockies). So yes, the tops of the highest mountains were covered, and yes we can calculate that this flood that rushed across the land was between 30 and 40 feet deep.

The geologists will tell you that at the end of the last ice age there were great ice dams in the mountains that collapsed causing massive floods to sweep across the land with the water 30-40 feet thick. But that doesn't make sense. We are watching glaciated highlands melt and there are no ice dams. What happens is as the glacier melts the water seeps down through cracks and fissures to the ground, then flows under the glacier down the mountain. The glaciers dry up little by little retreating a few feet each year.

So why would there be huge ice dams? The adiabatic effect is simple physics, the higher the altitude the colder the air. There is no reason glaciers would melt from the top down. If the present is the key to the past then we know they don't melt from the top down, they melt from the bottom up. At the same time a glacier is retreating up a mountain you will still get snow at the top of the mountain. The glacier retreats because there is more melting than snow.

However, this meteorite that hit the Indian ocean at the end of the last ice age, leaving a crater on the ocean floor and causing a huge tsunami that left giant chevrons on Madagascar composed of sediment from the ocean bottom, this meteorite would have vaporized a huge amount of water that would have gone up into the stratosphere. That is higher than all the mountains of Earth, so this water vapor would have circled the globe without being squeezed out in rain due to the rain shadow effect of mountains (orographic effect).

Now when it rains for 40 days and 40 nights it will rain on all these mountains and now, this water could be damned up by the glaciated valleys on these mountains at the end of the last ice age.

Since everyone agrees that the evidence is there for these huge ice dams collapsing, there needs to be a theory on how all this water got on top of the mountain behind the ice?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is an interpretation of what is said, I have already said that didn't happen, but it only proves that interpretation is wrong. It is a reasonable interpretation from the word because it says the high mountains were covered, however it also says the waters rose up 15 cubits. That is less than 45 feet. So clearly it is not saying the water was a mile deep which is how many interpret it similar to what you just wrote.

Glacial Lake Missoula and the Ice Age Floods

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

This is why we need geologists to step in and explain. At the end of the last ice age as the ice melted there were great ice dams in the mountains with huge lakes. From that dam upward the mountains were covered with ice and water. When these dams broke geologists have discovered the biggest floods ever seen swept down from the mountains and across the land. This is true in India (Himalayas) and the US (Rockies). So yes, the tops of the highest mountains were covered, and yes we can calculate that this flood that rushed across the land was between 30 and 40 feet deep.

No, those floods in no way were even close to the tops of the highest peaks. For example the floods that formed the Channelled Scablands was 4,200 feet at its highest level. The floods that it created would have all have been lower than that. Even rather short mountains tend to be over five thousand feet in the Rockies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The atheist dogma is that the Bible is a myth. They will tell you that this term "myth" is very respectable, etc, but the term is contrary to a believers use of the term "word of God". To a believer the Bible tells you not just that God created man but how. Therefore the process of evolution is also woven in. To an atheist the creation of man account in the Bible is a myth written long before the theory of evolution and therefore is not in the Bible. The post I pointed to illustrates these basic tenets of the atheist dogma:

1. Bible is a myth, not the word of God. It was written by man and does not reveal anything other than man's imagination.

Actually that is an observation, not dogma. And much of it is known to be mythical. I don't know of any atheists that claim it is all mythical. And the Bible does not even claim to be the "word of God". That phrase arises from taking vague references to an undefined "scripture" in the Bible out of context.

2. Stories in the Bible written long before scientific discoveries like evolution have nothing to do with them and shed no light on them.

Again, observation, not dogma. If it was the word of God why weren't there any clear warnings or even predictions of what would be discovered later? Instead there are only lame attempts to reinterpret verses after the fact.

Trying to use the Bible as a scientific source is probably the quickest way to refute it. If your God is real it is clear that the Bible was not meant to be a scientific source.

 

[Speedwell]

The atheist dogma is that the Bible is a myth. They will tell you that this term "myth" is very respectable, etc, but the term is contrary to a believers use of the term "word of God". To a believer the Bible tells you not just that God created man but how. Therefore the process of evolution is also woven in. To an atheist the creation of man account in the Bible is a myth written long before the theory of evolution and therefore is not in the Bible. The post I pointed to illustrates these basic tenets of the atheist dogma:

1. Bible is a myth, not the word of God. It was written by man and does not reveal anything other than man's imagination.
2. Stories in the Bible written long before scientific discoveries like evolution have nothing to do with them and shed no light on them.

You left out some options, in particular that the creation stories are mythical in nature and they are the word of God.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The atheist dogma is that the Bible is a myth. They will tell you that this term "myth" is very respectable, etc, but the term is contrary to a believers use of the term "word of God". To a believer the Bible tells you not just that God created man but how. Therefore the process of evolution is also woven in. To an atheist the creation of man account in the Bible is a myth written long before the theory of evolution and therefore is not in the Bible. The post I pointed to illustrates these basic tenets of the atheist dogma:

1. Bible is a myth, not the word of God. It was written by man and does not reveal anything other than man's imagination.
2. Stories in the Bible written long before scientific discoveries like evolution have nothing to do with them and shed no light on them.

I think you do not understand the meaning of "dogma". Dogma is an assertion made by an authority figure which is held as being incontrovertibly true. What you have described is more of an opinion.