<p>" if you’re so confident in your scientific arguments against evolution then write up a paper presenting your arguments and submit it to a respectable scientific journal"</p>
<p>I have never implied that creation by God or by some other method can be proven scientifically. On the contrary, my opinion is that the actual method used in creation cannot be proven by any scientific method. You can show that a particular theory is fairly consistent with recent observations, but it is impossible to scientifically prove that the physical laws have always been the same. Even if you think you have a method that can accurately explain the evolution of the world from nothing (no matter, no time, etc.), this would not prove that it DID happen this way. Only that it might have. You can only decide what really happened at the beginning by faith in something.</p>
<p>By the way, any implication that the Catholic Church is more in tune with science than is the Bible is ridiculous. It was the Catholic Church, not the Bible, that unnecessarily harassed Galileo. Can you point out specific verses in the Bible that are contrary to scientific truth?</p>
<p>I would agree that, on a spiritual level, religion and science can coexist. The theory of evolution describes how species changed over time, not that they weren’t ever created. </p>
<p>Based on current evidence, evolution happens to be the best model of natural history. While one could concievably observe gradual changes in the future that agree with evolution, that humans evolved from a primitive life form into their present form is technically unprovable, as is the existence or non-existence of God. Science is simply a useful model for the physical world; explaining anything non-physical would be beyond the scope of science. </p>
<p>As an aside, I recently came across a group of people who attempted to use “science” to justify their belief in God. Their argument was that creationism, a science, proved the existence of God. I was disturbed by the implication that their belief in God was grounded in what they believed to be science, not in genuine faith. Would they deny the existence of God if science every “proved” that He didn’t exist? Their belief that science could serve as an argument for, or “prove” God, is very naive. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s wrong with this? Or rather, what leads you to believe in an anthropomorphic God? I am not an atheist, but I do not see why God would/should be interested in human affairs. (The first part of my post is not directed at pafather.)</p>
<p>“what leads you to believe in an anthropomorphic God? I am not an atheist, but I do not see why God would/should be interested in human affairs.”</p>
<p>I certainly do not pretend to speak for all Christians, but the only way I believe in an “anthropomorphic” God is that the Bible says He created us in His image. I take that to mean that, contrary to other animals, we have a spirit or a soul. I do not believe that God has a human-like body (although Jesus Christ certainly took on a man’s body when he was on earth a couple thousand years ago).</p>
<p>Why should God be interested in human affairs? My answer is that God should not be interested in me, because I do not deserve it, but he has decided to be interested anyway. There are numerous Bible verses along this line of thought.</p>
I was not asking you to prove that creationism happened, instead I was suggesting that you attempt to publish your statements that current scientific theories are not robust because they rely too much on ‘assumption’ (which isn’t true). Scientific theories don’t rely on assumption, they rely on observation, experimentation and the testing of hypotheses and consider all the information at hand. </p>
<p>Contrastingly, it is your creationist beliefs that purely rely on assumption… the assumption that despite any observable evidence to support the idea, what is described in the bible is the truth. Why do you so strongly subscribe to the ideas published in the bible about creationism, but casually ignore the other ideas that are pushed with equal vigor in the text? It’s the selective quoting and selective use of ‘biblical values’ that really only further degrades the credibility of such arguments.</p>
<p>Where were the humans when the dinosaurs were around? Why did the bible forget to mention the dinosaurs… was it because that’s the way God wanted it and he placed the bones and fossils on Earth for our enjoyment or is it because those that wrote the Bible hadn’t yet developed the scientific expertise to discover that the dinosaurs existed and didn’t have the technical knowledge to develop experiments that quite conclusively show that the dinosaurs existed before humans did? </p>
<p>History has shown there are two types of people in the world. Those that blindly believe what they are told because they have unquestionable faith in the source, and those that listen to everything that is said but seek, and place more faith in, their own defensible and tangible evidence on the subject at hand. Those that fall into the former can often never be convinced that their beliefs are wrong or irrational, but those in the latter are usually right.</p>
<p>pafather, there are plenty of theists who believe in evolution. Kindly stop trying to frame the discussion as a disagreement between theists and atheists. It isn’t.</p>
<p>Wow. Bravo CWalker. What will it be tommorrow? More hooks for your CC trotline? More entreaties for us to debate the almost undebatable for your personal amusement? Global warming? Tax policy? Dancing With The Stars? </p>
<p>Biblical literalists and biblical inerrantists are easy pickings on this one. Once you move to an even tiny bit more nuanced view (how long is a “day”? What does “in his own image” mean? Can “created” mean set in motion a process?) it becomes a bunch of lip flapping with no real purpose. (Edit: This discussion will change not a single mind. It will only serve as an opportunity for some to feel superior to others.) JMO</p>
<p>Pafather, Galileo was born in the 1500s. Do you think there is any value whatsoever in viewing the Church’s treatment of Galileo 400 years ago through a modern day lens? He was a true revolutionary & it is not surprising that his groundbreaking ideas shook things up. Isn’t he considered the father of modern science? By the early 1700s, the Church was allowing his books to be published as they opened their minds to science & reason. </p>
<p>As to Bible verses being contrary to scientific truth…where to begin? Noah’s ark springs to mind immediately. If taken literally, much of the Bible contradicts science.</p>
<p>“pafather, there are plenty of theists who believe in evolution. Kindly stop trying to frame the discussion as a disagreement between theists and atheists. It isn’t.”</p>
<p>I have only tried to point out that there are two general types of evolution: microevolution, with which nearly everyone agrees; and macroevolution, which is related to creation and initial conditions. My point is that even if it were possible to scientifically demonstrate that the modern world and its inhabitants could have evolved from a big bang or some other physical event and its aftermath, it would still be impossible to scientifically prove that the world could not have begun at some later time with non-zero initial conditions.</p>
<p>“History has shown there are two types of people in the world. Those that blindly believe what they are told because they have unquestionable faith in the source, and those that listen to everything that is said but seek, and place more faith in, their own defensible and tangible evidence on the subject at hand. Those that fall into the former can often never be convinced that their beliefs are wrong or irrational, but those in the latter are usually right.”</p>
<p>I have found another quite common category of people. Those who have convinced themselves that they have carefully considered all evidence when in fact they are rather biased and ignorant of other arguments. Rocketman08, from the context I assume you place me in your “former” category, so please enlighten me by detailing what is scientifically “wrong or irrational” about my second paragraph.</p>
<p>owlice, Darwin Shmarwin. DWTS is IMHO the single defining issue of the New Millenium. It divides neighborhoods. It divides families. Brother against brother. Sister against sister.</p>
<p>pafather, you didn’t only try to “point out that there are two general types of evolution.” If you were trying to do that, you wouldn’t have mentioned theists or atheists at all, but ya did, Blanche, ya did:</p>
<p>
</snip></snip></snip></snip></p>
<p>Emphasis mine.</p>
<p>Believe what you want, and argue what you want, but do it on the basis of speaking only for yourself. Unless you have documentation that you are the Lord High Poobah Speaker For All Theists, elected by 100% of all theists everywhere, kindly desist in attempting to speak for others. Thanks.</p>
<p>curmudgeon, are you sure you haven’t confused DWTS with So You Think You Can Dance? I thought SYTYCD was the divisive force currently working on our societal fabric.</p>
<p>From medieval theologists ruminating on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (fyi 389), to how many stars can effectively dance on network
television(fyi 0). We’ve come a long way.</p>
<p>pafather, the fallacy in your second paragraph is allowing the assumptions from your religious arguments to pass over into your supposed scientific arguments. When you suggest that there is serious scientific dispute between macro and micro evolution, that is simply false. That is a suggestion brought on by some religious figures in order to rework their own beliefs to fit the current body of scientific evidence. One can’t deny that evolution can occur in a laboratory, because it does and can be seen right before your eyes… therefore some people have been forced to adapt their views on the subject to create some false distinction between ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ evolution. Science, however, does not consider humans to be fundamentally different from bacteria because it does not have the same bias that religious figures sometimes have. Science recognizes that any theory can be debunked by a single experiment and when evidence is discovered to contradict current theory, the theory is further developed to include this new evidence (as opposed to creationists who generally just come up with increasingly elaborate excuses as to why the new evidence can not be trusted). </p>
<p>Science openly admits that there can be multiple solutions to the same problem (eg the uncertainty principle)… pure creationists generally do not accept anything other than what the bible says. Scientific theories continue to develop and will increasingly move towards securing the ‘correct’ answer… creationist theories stay constant and become less and less credible as time moves on because they are increasingly inconsistent with the available evidence. </p>
<p>P.S. You forgot to enlighten us as to where the dinosaurs fit into the bible and your creationist theory. Or is that just more evidence that will just be casually ignored?</p>
<p>Angels who dance on the head of a pin
Must by necessity be very thin</p>
<p>Thanks a LOT, musicamusica. My H wrote a song using a poem which started with the couplet above, and I now have that playing on the radio in my head!</p>
<p>This would be okay, except that I cannot remember all the words so can’t sing along…</p>