I wouldn't be surprised if entire planets and galaxies could appear from space, it's probably full of more spiritual dimensions beyond its apparent emptiness, just like ancient mythology teaches.
That's more like the nfq that we know and love. For a moment I was wondering if you actually had become more rational. Maybe it was just temporary sanity.
Btw, about this:
We have evolved technologically so much in just a couple of hundred years, so imagine if we could live just 500 millions years more, how supernatural our technology would seem.
That's not how evolution works. We don't "evolve technologycally" (in the same sense as living being evolve biologically). (You could use the word "evolve" in relation to technology, but it would be just using the same word for two completely unrelated things.)
Humans keep evolving biologically, but we are not heading for a better versions of ourselves. In fact, we are probably heading towards worse versions of ourselves. That's because we have overcome much of natural selection thanks to advanced medicine and things like genetic diseases are not being removed from the gene pool. This means that they will become more and more prevalent as millenia pass. (The only hope that humanity has is that we might be able to develop technology to fix these genetic defects. Hopefully by that time religion will not be an impediment to do so, as it is now.)
Warp, I can tell it is useless trying to convince you because you always just say that I am making up all my evidence. If you won't believe me, I don't see any reason to argue with you. I have a lot more I could say, but I know you will simply either make an excuse or say I made it up. This is not me saying you won the argument, but me saying I know that it's useless to go on further. A few things I still want to say though.
I was not saying that if a god were created in another universe that he is the Christian God. I was simply saying that some of them would create a "god" that would find its way into other universes. With a bunch of gods there, they may start fighting over the universes (I never said they would be good gods) and I'm sure we would see something of them.
It is also historical that there was a man named Jesus and that he died on a cross.
And Kuwaga, I am watching the video. I'm not done with it yet. When I finish, I'll say something about it. I have been kind of busy (I have barely had time to say stuff here) so it may still take a while for me to finish (I still also have to write some things about it). I will say that I'm half way through and have found other reasons for everything he said so far.
Proof of God:
God said his name is "I am", in other words God is consciousness.
Consciousness exists, therefore God exists.
Warp wrote:
That's more like the nfq that we know and love. For a moment I was wondering if you actually had become more rational. Maybe it was just temporary sanity.
:P But Warp, if you want to be rational, why make the assumption that there is a world outside your consciousness? The idea of an external world outside the mind is unfalsifiable, because there's no way to prove it, because consciousness is the only way of gaining information about the world. For consciousness, we don't need to make any assumptions, because we know we exist. This is a more scientific basis for a worldview, which makes it easier to explain the existence of the universe and consciousness. It's no longer surprising how something can exist instead of nothing, rather, it's just a logical necessity.
If you're interested, here's how galaxies probably come from space:
Galaxies form very slowly over billions of years. First there is just clouds of plasma or gas appearing from space, but over billions of years, it turns more and more physical, and eventually they turn into space (and spirituality) again. There is evidence of this happening: when stars implode, they can turn into black holes, which have very little, or no matter in them. Then there is also the theory by Hawking about the evaporation of black holes. You know all this. Then there is of course evidence of stars forming from clouds of gas.
When Einstein said that matter is energy, people thought he was crazy. Just like people think I'm crazy now, when I say that even space is the same. Einstein probably knew that matter and space were the same thing, that's why he had these theories about the infinite spacetime curvature of black holes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
That's not how evolution works. We don't "evolve technologycally" (in the same sense as living being evolve biologically). (You could use the word "evolve" in relation to technology, but it would be just using the same word for two completely unrelated things.)
Yeah, I wasn't talking about biological evolution obviously, just technological evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_evolution
The word evolution just means change over time, so it can be used for things like that.
That being said, I do believe that humans become "better" all the time, also physically, eventually evolving into spiritual entities. It's similar to the evolution of stars and galaxies that I mentioned earlier.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Warp, I can tell it is useless trying to convince you because you always just say that I am making up all my evidence.
I have never said that you are making up evidence. What I have said is that you seem to be making up your own terminology for things that already have a well-defined meaning (such as "mutation") or that are obsolete (such as "microevolution" and "macroevolution").
Every single time you have brought up actual evidence (such as a miracle healing) I have not dismissed said evidence. I have simply pointed out that your deduction that the evidence demonstrates the existence of a god doesn't follow. (Whether the evidence is correct and accurate is a different topic.)
If you won't believe me, I don't see any reason to argue with you.
I have never cast doubt on your personal experience. Also, the things that I have said you are wrong have always been your personal definitions of terms which contradict their established meanings, or if you have made a claim that's contrary to observation.
Can you tell me exactly what is it that I don't believe that you have said, that I should?
I have a lot more I could say, but I know you will simply either make an excuse or say I made it up.
Please point out specifically where have I made any kind of excuse, and explain why it's an excuse. (It's easy to throw such accusations without backing up your claim with actual quotes and explanations.) If there's a flaw in my argumentation, I would like to correct it.
As for your personal definitions of terminology, you may be right: Perhaps you have not made it up, but instead you have read it in some creationist website. It makes little difference in practice, though.
This is not me saying you won the argument
It's not about winning or losing an argument. It never has been. Winning or losing an argument is completely meaningless. It doesn't prove anything, nor does it change the truth of things.
The reason why I engage in this argument is in the faint hope that perhaps people will realize that arguments like "miracles happen, hence God" are fallacious, and why they are so. (It's basically a non-sequitur.)
It is also historical that there was a man named Jesus and that he died on a cross.
Even if that's completely true and accurate, what does it demonstrate, exactly?
nfq wrote:
Proof of God:
God said his name is "I am", in other words God is consciousness.
Consciousness exists, therefore God exists.
If that had been written by anybody else, I'd assume it's a joke. With you, I'm not so sure.
sudgy, have you watched the video I've posted? I think it raises some interesting questions for creationists.
I'm done.
First, when he's talking about scientific "truths", he isn't quite getting it right. While there are some things that I feel are true beyond doubt (other than things from the Bible), the way he puts it isn't true. People believed in spontaneous generation (the creation of complex organisms from certain things (like raw meat turning into maggots)) because they looked at the evidence, thought the evidence was true, and most scientists at the time believed it. More experiments were done that showed it isn't true.
Theories do not turn into facts. Scientists originally form hypotheses, and when they get a bit of experiments to agree with their hypothesis, it turns into a theory. When generations of experiments/data continue to agree with the theory, it turns into a scientific law. Scientific laws are not foolproof though.
As I already said earlier, the geological column (which he mistakingly refers to as "the fossil record" (the fossil record is the fossils themself. The geological column is what he's talking about)) can't be used as evidence for or against macroevolution (I'll use this term because this is what he is trying to provide evidence for). We don't know how the geological column was formed, so we can't say if it is evidence for it or not. It could have been formed slowly, which would make it evidence for macroevolution, but it could also form quickly, where it would not be evidence for it. He says that this is evidence against all life forming at the same time, but it only is if you think that the geological column formed slowly. I believe that the geological column formed quickly.
The evolution of the horse is completely false. Macroevolutionists (the ones that have the courage to admit it) have even said so. The fossils were found on different continents, are all placed randomly in the geological column (so that if you think it was created slowly, this means that they all existed at the same time), and, the amount of ribs and vertebrae in them change randomly. Only the feet/hooves and the skull seem to show a clear macroevolutionary sequence.
Birds having some similarities to reptiles doesn't show anything. They could have been created with those similarities.
The "feathered dinosaurs"
here is a page talking about whale evolution (there are probably more like it).
I’m going to clump all the vestigial organs together. He says that they are the remains of older organisms we have evolved from, but this isn’t the case. There was once a list of 180 vestigial organs in humans, but now that list has been reduced to 0. While some aren’t necessary, they still have a role to play. That’s probably why other organisms have “vestigial” organs too. Here is what the yolk sac does (this includes a few other things too).
Here is a page talking about pseudogenes (genes that don't have any aparrent reason). It also shows that the "partial" vitamin C gene can still be used. I think this case is similar to the "vestigial" organs.
The oceanic islands might have been made in some catastrophic event. Then, species migrated there. If you believe the Bible, you say that all the species migrated to all the parts of the world anyway. I don't even see how he took this as evidence against creation.
Here are the flaws with the argument from poor design:
(quoted from this page)
1.It is self-defeating, since under evolutionist theory, any supposed design flaw would have been eliminated by natural selection.
2.It does not take into account the advantages that supposedly poor designs offer, such as those afflicted with sickle cell anemia having immunity from malaria.
3.Even if a poor design were shown, it would not counter the other aspects of creation that are unarguably the result of good design; since an absolute rule can be disproved by a single counterexample, a single showing of a biological feature that is unarguably designed and designed well suffices to disprove the argument from poor design.
4.What appears to be poor design could actually be a result of the Fall of Man. As CreationWiki notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."
5.God did not design organisms to be perfect. To do so would be to create an equal of Himself.
The examples of natural selection are examples of microevolution.
I feel that the graph of how many people believe evolution to how many believe in God shows what it shows for the exact opposite reason than he says. I think it's because the people who don't believe in God don't want to believe in God, so they decide to believe the hypothesis that explains how we got here without God.
Now here is another question to people who believe in macroevolution: if there was a lot of scientific evidence for something that clearly contradicts macroevolution, would you believe it? I feel that has already happened.
You know who makes all the good things in a succesful society? Christians. A good book to read about this (it's not scientific though) is What if Jesus had Never Been Born?
Speciation can still be the result of microevolution. They still can change enough that they can't reproduce with each other any more.
We all have the same DNA code because we have a common ancestor? I think that we have similar DNA because it works, so God put it in all species.
Sorry it took so long. While you may think some of these explanations aren't quite right (I did a lot of times link to apologetics sites) it still shows that there are explanations besides macroevolution. And, he didn't even mention a lot of the true evidence against macroevolution (structural homology, molecular biology, etc.), which is typical of macroevolutionists. A few parts of this video is the perfect example of macroevolutionists lying to make their case seem better (although he may have heard these lies from somebody else and actually believed they are true).
I stil think there is a God (I've linked to this page before), that all the evidence points to him, and that all the evidence clearly points against random creation and macroevolution.
It's also making fun of them, which I find kind of unfortunate though.
I'm used to it.
Warp: Sorry, I was being a bit accusatory, but what I meant is that I feel you haven't quite listened to certain parts of my evidence (you have shown things that might be able to explain some of the stuff I said, though)
Warp wrote:
Can you tell me exactly what is it that I don't believe that you have said, that I should?
I could basically say the things I've been trying to convince you about.
It is also historical that there was a man named Jesus and that he died on a cross.
Even if that's completely true and accurate, what does it demonstrate, exactly?
I was just making sure you knew what was historical. I would find it strange that someone would say a dead person is the Messiah though...
And last, pirate_sephiroth, just curious, why did you post that picture again?
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
sudgy wrote:
And last, pirate_sephiroth, just curious, why did you post that picture again?
In response to the picture Bisqwit posted in the previous page. Also, that's my face when I read this thread.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
Bisqwit wrote:
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
We don't know how the geological column was formed
You keep saying that. Can you give some references to actual papers published in the field of geology to back that up? (Don't bother linking to creationist websites. They are useless. You could just as well link to ufology or urantia websites.)
Birds having some similarities to reptiles doesn't show anything. They could have been created with those similarities.
And you having similarities to other humans doesn't necessarily mean you are a human. Perhaps you were created yesterday to look like one.
Did you know that a good majority of Christians do not have any problem in accepting that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs? It's only the young earth creationists that can't accept it. Are you so bold that you claim to know the truth better than all those other Christian believers?
I’m going to clump all the vestigial organs together. He says that they are the remains of older organisms we have evolved from, but this isn’t the case. There was once a list of 180 vestigial organs in humans, but now that list has been reduced to 0. While some aren’t necessary, they still have a role to play.
You are repeating creationist propaganda without even understanding it.
"Vestigial" does not mean "useless, without role". It means "it has lost its original role". For example the wings of an ostrich, as well as the ones of a penguin, are vestigial because they have lost their original role (ie. flying). It doesn't matter that they have adapted for a secondary role.
Besides, there are many animals which have vestigial organs that are truly completely useless and serve no purpose whatsoever. For example many animals living in deep caves have vestigial eyes that are completely blind and do not serve any purpose. (But, as said, even if they had adapted to use them for some other purpose, that doesn't make them any less vestigial. They do not serve their original purpose, ie. seeing, anymore.)
You know who makes all the good things in a succesful society? Christians.
The slave owners of the American south were all Christians. The witch hunting was performed by Christians. The inquisition was created by Christians.
(I'll wait for your "no true Scotsman" fallacy to follow.)
Likewise there are many secular countries, especially in Europe. For example in many of the mid and northern European countries something like 85% of people are atheists. Are these corrupted and depraved societies?
How about countries where the predominant religion is not Christianity? Are they all corrupted and depraved?
macroevolutionists lying
Please stop repeating that. It only makes you sound like a conspiracy theory nutjob. It isn't helping your case.
Warp wrote:
Can you tell me exactly what is it that I don't believe that you have said, that I should?
I could basically say the things I've been trying to convince you about.
Like what, exactly?
It is also historical that there was a man named Jesus and that he died on a cross.
Even if that's completely true and accurate, what does it demonstrate, exactly?
I was just making sure you knew what was historical.
You didn't answer my question.
You also didn't answer my question about where exactly I have made an excuse. You ought to back that up with a quote and an explanation. Else I expect you to admit that you can't, rather than just avoiding it.
We don't know how the geological column was formed
You keep saying that. Can you give some references to actual papers published in the field of geology to back that up? (Don't bother linking to creationist websites. They are useless. You could just as well link to ufology or urantia websites.)
I don't know where to look for scientific papers, but if you just google search "how was the geological column constructed" you either get someone claiming that it's how macroevolutionists say it is with barely any evidence to back up their claim, or you get a creationist website that gives lots of evidence that it was made quickly. So I would say to just search it.
Birds having some similarities to reptiles doesn't show anything. They could have been created with those similarities.
And you having similarities to other humans doesn't necessarily mean you are a human. Perhaps you were created yesterday to look like one.
Did you know that a good majority of Christians do not have any problem in accepting that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs? It's only the young earth creationists that can't accept it. Are you so bold that you claim to know the truth better than all those other Christian believers?
I have heard that some Christians believe this, but I have never (you may say that this is because I only read creationist "pseudoscientific crap") heard that they are the majority. Please show some evidence that this is the case.
I’m going to clump all the vestigial organs together. He says that they are the remains of older organisms we have evolved from, but this isn’t the case. There was once a list of 180 vestigial organs in humans, but now that list has been reduced to 0. While some aren’t necessary, they still have a role to play.
You are repeating creationist propaganda without even understanding it.
"Vestigial" does not mean "useless, without role". It means "it has lost its original role". For example the wings of an ostrich, as well as the ones of a penguin, are vestigial because they have lost their original role (ie. flying). It doesn't matter that they have adapted for a secondary role.
The person in the video was saying that these have no use whatsoever. He said that this was evidence against creationism. I was showing that it wasn't evidence against it. If you believe in macroevolution, it makes perfect sense that they came from older species. I was just saying that it would also make sense that God had designed them.
Besides, there are many animals which have vestigial organs that are truly completely useless and serve no purpose whatsoever. For example many animals living in deep caves have vestigial eyes that are completely blind and do not serve any purpose. (But, as said, even if they had adapted to use them for some other purpose, that doesn't make them any less vestigial. They do not serve their original purpose, ie. seeing, anymore.)
How do you know they have no purpose at all? That was what was thought about a lot of organs in humans, but they still serve a purpose.
You know who makes all the good things in a succesful society? Christians.
The slave owners of the American south were all Christians. The witch hunting was performed by Christians. The inquisition was created by Christians.
(I'll wait for your "no true Scotsman" fallacy to follow.)
Likewise there are many secular countries, especially in Europe. For example in many of the mid and northern European countries something like 85% of people are atheists. Are these corrupted and depraved societies?
How about countries where the predominant religion is not Christianity? Are they all corrupted and depraved?
All of the bad things done by Christians are (in my point of view) done by people who weren't Christians. Also, many more people were killed by atheists in the last century than by Christians in the last two millenia. Atheist people like those communist leaders kiled millions of people. World War 2 was caused by Hitler. How many people died by these atheists?
Warp wrote:
Can you tell me exactly what is it that I don't believe that you have said, that I should?
I could basically say the things I've been trying to convince you about.
Like what, exactly?
Well, first I was thinking more the things like macroevolution not being true and God being true (which I feel you should believe (lets not get into that again)) but by thinking more I realized it's basically all the things you dismissed saying they were "pseudoscientific crap".
It is also historical that there was a man named Jesus and that he died on a cross.
Even if that's completely true and accurate, what does it demonstrate, exactly?
I was just making sure you knew what was historical.
You didn't answer my question.
Why would Paul say a dead man is the messiah?
You also didn't answer my question about where exactly I have made an excuse.
Mainly, as I said before, "pseudoscientific crap". And all the creationist things you say can't be accurate because you think so. How do you know they aren't accurate? Every single one of them I've seen have a bunch of references to scientific works.
It's funny* because Warp thinks he is rational. Would a rational person continue an argument with an opponent who has clearly stated they will not be swayed no matter what you say or how convincing you are? I think a rational person would not waste their efforts on such a useless venture.
*It's not funny.
I don't know where to look for scientific papers, but if you just google search
That's like making a google search for "911 truth" or "the moon landing". Of course you are going to find a majority of websites with conspiracy theories in them because the conspiracy theorists are most vocal. Likewise creationists inundate the internet with their arguments, while actual geologists don't care about such nutjobs. They have more interesting things to do than to engage in endless discussions with people who won't listen to them anyways.
you either get someone claiming that it's how macroevolutionists say it is with barely any evidence to back up their claim
Ok, you are a conspiracy theorist in my books from now on. Believe whatever you want.
I have heard that some Christians believe this, but I have never (you may say that this is because I only read creationist "pseudoscientific crap") heard that they are the majority. Please show some evidence that this is the case.
Catholicism is not a young earth creationist denomination, and catholics are by far the majority of Christians. The official catholic dogma has nothing against evolution. (Save your "no true Scotsman" fallacy; no need for it.) Most protestant denominations aren't young earth creationists either.
How do you know they have no purpose at all? That was what was thought about a lot of organs in humans, but they still serve a purpose.
What exactly do you not understand in "vestigial does not mean useless"? It doesn't matter if an organ has been adapted for a secondary purpose; it doesn't make it any less vestigial.
(I'll wait for your "no true Scotsman" fallacy to follow.)
All of the bad things done by Christians are (in my point of view) done by people who weren't Christians.
You are so predictable.
Also, many more people were killed by atheists in the last century than by Christians in the last two millenia. Atheist people like those communist leaders kiled millions of people. World War 2 was caused by Hitler. How many people died by these atheists?
Sure, if your definition of "Christian" is "someone who doesn't kill anybody" (as it seems to be), then no Christian has ever killed anybody. Obviously if an atheist has killed even one single person, then "atheists have killed more than Christians".
The difference is: Even if someone responsible for a genocide was truly an atheist, did he commit the genocide because of his atheism? Did they proclaim things like "there is no God, hence these people deserve to be exterminated"? In contrast, most genocides performed by religious leaders were motivated by their religion. Their religion directly caused them to commit the genocides.
(Inconsequential, but Hitler being an atheist is just creationist propaganda that contradicts what Hitler actually wrote. It's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy all over.)
it's basically all the things you dismissed saying they were "pseudoscientific crap".
Why should I believe the pseudoscientific crap?
There's a lot of pseudoscientific crap out there. Tons and tons of "evidence" is presented about lots of irrational things, such as for a flat Earth (yes, seriously), for a hollow Earth with inhabitants inside (I'm not joking), about cryptozoology, ufology, homeopathy, psychic powers of the human mind, parapsychology, against vaccines, aids denial, holocaust denial, against the germ theory of disease, about the various conspiracy theories out there... The list goes on. Young Earth creationism is not any different from those. (You won't accept that, but it's just a fact.)
All of those movements, all of them, claim that their evidence is valid, and that the scientific community is in a huge conspiracy to deny it.
However, once you understand how science actually works, and that that kind of worldwide conspiracy is a physical impossibility, it all comes crumbling down. Those people will not be convinced, but that doesn't change the facts.
Why would Paul say a dead man is the messiah?
I don't understand your question. (Is it completely out of the realm of possibility that a person could lie? Like that has never happened in the history of mankind.)
You also didn't answer my question about where exactly I have made an excuse.
Mainly, as I said before, "pseudoscientific crap". And all the creationist things you say can't be accurate because you think so. How do you know they aren't accurate? Every single one of them I've seen have a bunch of references to scientific works.
I have written a small book worth of explanations in this thread about your claims, about the things I'm familiar with. You ignore all of them and just shove them into a "because you think so" dismissal.
I'm not an expert in every single field of science. I can't respond to every single claim. However, I don't have to, because all of them have been explained elsewhere already. If you honestly wanted to find information about them, then you could. Of course you don't want to.
You don't dismiss scientific evidence about things that you don't know about in the vast majority of cases either. It's only when said evidence contradicts your young Earth creationism, that you oppose it based solely on principle.
jimsfriend wrote:
Would a rational person continue an argument with an opponent who has clearly stated they will not be swayed no matter what you say or how convincing you are? I think a rational person would not waste their efforts on such a useless venture.
Perhaps another person reading this thread might get some useful information about it, and learn to spot argumentative fallacies (such as "miracles happen, hence God", which is an extremely common fallacious argument).
Of course the longer the thread is, the less likely for this to happen, so you might be right.
(I'm not answering the other things because I feel like it's useless)
Warp wrote:
Sure, if your definition of "Christian" is "someone who doesn't kill anybody" (as it seems to be), then no Christian has ever killed anybody.
My definition of a Christian would be something like "someone who has decided to entrust his or her life to Jesus Christ." I feel (now I think you will say that this doesn't count because this is what I feel) that if you truly entrust your life to Jesus, you will trust Him, do what He says, have faith in Him, etc. The Bible explicitly says that Christians aren't supposed to kill people.
Why should I believe the pseudoscientific crap?
There's a lot of pseudoscientific crap out there. Tons and tons of "evidence" is presented about lots of irrational things, such as for a flat Earth (yes, seriously), for a hollow Earth with inhabitants inside (I'm not joking), about cryptozoology, ufology, homeopathy, psychic powers of the human mind, parapsychology, against vaccines, aids denial, holocaust denial, against the germ theory of disease, about the various conspiracy theories out there... The list goes on. Young Earth creationism is not any different from those. (You won't accept that, but it's just a fact.)
The idea that the Earth was round was probably considered something like "pseudoscientific crap" when it was first said. The heliocentric view of the Earth was probably considered some type of "pseudoscientific crap" when people first started mentioning it. Tons of things have been called "pseudoscientific crap" but were actually true. You shouldn't simply dismiss "pseudoscientific crap" because it doesn't seem that there is much evidence for it. At one time, it made sense that the Earth was flat. It made sense that everything revolved around the Earth. But, more evidence came that showed they weren't true. You shouldn't dismiss these things because they are "pseudoscientific crap." (I'm not saying that I believe some of the things you put on the list up there)
Also, if there was no evidence for these things, then why have there been many cases of scientists/atheists (I even heard this happened to a certain lawyer) who decide to look at the evidence for creation, then get converted? A lot of people have decided to write books about the evidence against it and instead write a book about the evidence for it. I could give you many examples of this.
the scientific community is in a huge conspiracy to deny it.
The whole scientific community isn't in a huge conspiracy to deny it. There are multiple reasons that people would believe these things when they aren't true. The first reason is that people are indoctrinated at very early ages that things are true. The second reason is that people who don't believe are constantly getting ridiculed about their belief. The third reason is that most scientists have never looked at the data. The reason for this, of course, is that scientists who spend time researching other things get left behind in the field that they are in. This is why there doesn't need to be a "huge conspiracy." The few people who have looked at the evidence either actually think the evidence points that way, or they do just lie about it. Barely anybody would have to lie, so they probably do so independently. As soon as one person lies and publishes (in some way) the lie, other people see it as truth and start spreading the lie. Also, people are pressured to either believe those things or not say anything. People have been fired from their jobs for believing in creation.
You don't dismiss scientific evidence about things that you don't know about in the vast majority of cases either. It's only when said evidence contradicts your young Earth creationism, that you oppose it based solely on principle.
I have been thinking the same way about you when it's turned the other way around. And, with a lot of the things you said, I have dismissed the evidence but didn't say it.
Sure, if your definition of "Christian" is "someone who doesn't kill anybody" (as it seems to be), then no Christian has ever killed anybody.
My definition of a Christian would be something like "someone who has decided to entrust his or her life to Jesus Christ." I feel (now I think you will say that this doesn't count because this is what I feel) that if you truly entrust your life to Jesus, you will trust Him, do what He says, have faith in Him, etc. The Bible explicitly says that Christians aren't supposed to kill people.
Do you see how this is a "self-fulfilling" claim? You say "atheists have killed more than Christians", and then you define that someone who kills people isn't a true Christian. Of course your claim becomes true when you define the terms like that. This is precisely the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in action.
The idea that the Earth was round was probably considered something like "pseudoscientific crap" when it was first said.
You are reversing the entire issue. There has been, of course, lots of misconceptions and wrong ideas during the history of humanity. In the vast majority of cases, however, the misconception in question was someones proposed explanation for something presented without proper evidence, measurement and controlled tests (or, in more colloquial terms, a total ass-pull). When the explanation was later actually tested for verification, using a more scientific method, it was then found to be completely unjustified and discarded.
Of course there have also been actual scientific hypotheses that were wrong. Invariably, the direction has always been: 1) Hypothesis based on limited evidence and experimentation. 2) More evidence and experimentation. 3) Discard the wrong hypothesis. (The luminiferous aether hypothesis is an example. It was not an unreasonable hypothesis, but it was not backed up by actual evidence.)
Also other hypotheses have not been wrong per se, but have required fixes to account for new evidence discovered afterwards. (Newton's laws of physics would be a good example. The Theory of Evolution itself also counts. Both of the original authors were definitely on the right track, but didn't have all possible evidence available at the time.)
What the young earth creationists try to accomplish is more or less the reverse of this. Rather than drawing unbiased conclusions from evidence, measurements and testing, they have a preconceived conclusion and try to find evidence for it (and try to explain away evidence that seems to contradict the preconception). They are precisely like the old philosophers of antiquity who pulled explanations for natural phenomena from their behinds, and then refused to acknowledge any evidence of the contrary. Rather than letting evidence lead to conclusions, they make a preconceived conclusion and try to find evidence for it. And then they accuse science of doing this very thing (ie. psychological projection).
You also seem to promote this view that if someone presents lots of evidence that seemingly contradict a currently established scientific theory, it would be reasonable to doubt the validity of the theory in question. Having studied conspiracy theories quite a lot, I can say that enticing evidence against something can be no more than smoke and mirrors. All kinds of evidence can be distorted, presented out of context, misinterpreted and given a plausible-sounding (at least to the layman) but ultimately wrong interpretation, and if you are talented enough, you can construct something that looks convincing (again, mostly to a layman) but has no truth whatsoever in it. This isn't even very difficult.
I like to compare conspiracy theorists to magicians: A magician can present you with a magic trick to which you have no explanation whatsoever. You simply have no idea how it works or how it's possible. Should you conclude from this that something physically impossible, something supernatural happened? Of course not! You always know that it's just a trick. You might not know what the trick is, but it's just a trick. There's nothing supernatural about it.
In the same way a conspiracy theorist can present you with some piece of evidence for the conspiracy, and you might not have no idea whatsoever what the true explanation for that evidence might be. Should you conclude that the conspiracy theory is true and accurate? No!
You'll respond to that with: "The scientific community can also do that!" No, it can't. It takes but one person to build up a plausible-sounding conspiracy theory. He doesn't need the cooperation of anybody else. However, the world-wide scientific community couldn't do that even if someone wanted, because the other people in the community would object. Not all of them (and not even a significant portion) can be in the same conspiracy to create a lie and create fake evidence.
The scientific community is much more reliable at interpreting evidence than some conspiracy theory nutjob. They have studied the required fields of science and they know what they are talking about. The explanation does not depend on a few individuals, but on the world-wide community as a whole. If there are flaws in the explanation, they will be pointed out. The explanations will be backed up by actual experimental evidence rather than someone's personal interpretation of it.
Also, if there was no evidence for these things, then why have there been many cases of scientists/atheists (I even heard this happened to a certain lawyer) who decide to look at the evidence for creation, then get converted?
"Many"? From the hundreds of thousands, if not even millions of scientists, how many is "many"? A hundred? Why is it that when the other hundreds of thousands of scientists examine these things they do not convert?
A direct correlation can be seen between how closely related the person's degree is to the relevant field of science, and how unlikely it is for them to "convert". In other words, the better they understand the subject, the less likely it is for them to discard it.
The whole scientific community isn't in a huge conspiracy to deny it. There are multiple reasons that people would believe these things when they aren't true.
Scientists are not idiots. They are smart. You are basically saying that they can be fooled in the very things they study.
The few people who have looked at the evidence either actually think the evidence points that way, or they do just lie about it.
You claim that you are not a conspiracy theorist, yet everything you write is pure conspiracy theory material. I'm sorry to say this, but the above text is just idiotic. You are basically telling that the very people whose life work is to examine evidence do not examine evidence, and only a very small minority of them actually do. The majority are just mindless cultists who have been brainwashed into not doing their jobs.
I think scientists might lie about these things because they don't want to accept the idea that they could have wasted huge junks of their lives on believing a lie, instead of following the Biblical Truth. They've made this huge investment in having faith in science for years, now they are in denial, refusing to accept any of the sheer endless amount of contrary evidence to their positions. ;)
I think scientists might lie about these things because they don't want to accept the idea that they could have wasted huge junks of their lives on believing a lie, instead of following the Biblical Truth. They've made this huge investment in having faith in science for years, now they are in denial, refusing to accept any of the sheer endless amount of contrary evidence to their positions. ;)
Again: That idea doesn't work because of the scope of the conspiracy that would be necessary. Hundreds of thousands of scientists from all over the world, from different countries, cultures and religious backgrounds, for over a hundred years. Not very likely.
(Many of them have only a cursory knowledge of Christianity, so it would be rather strange for them to have an anti-Christian agenda. Why would they?)
I think scientists might lie about these things because they don't want to accept the idea that they could have wasted huge junks of their lives on believing a lie, instead of following the Biblical Truth. They've made this huge investment in having faith in science for years, now they are in denial, refusing to accept any of the sheer endless amount of contrary evidence to their positions. ;)
I think religious people might lie about these things because they don't want to accept the idea that they could have wasted huge junks of their lives on believing a lie, instead of following the truths found in nature. They've made this huge investment into having faith in god for years, now they are in denial, refusing to accept any of the sheer endless amount of contrary evidence to their positions.
Not sure why you even considered using this as a one-sided argument, or why you think it's bringing this discussion forward.
Not sure why you even considered using this as a one-sided argument, or why you think it's bringing this discussion forward.
It is called psychological projection: religious people are especially subject to this because they not only have a very deep emotional investment in their worldview and its inerrancy, but they also emphasize feelings and emotions over logic and evidence as tools to analyze and understand the world.
Actually, I've intentionally tried to put forward an argument that is even more easily applicable (as Warp pointed out) to the opposite party (what Tub did) to make a point. The point being what marzojr said. Combine [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy]loss aversion[/URL] with some confirmation bias as well as some indoctrination as a child and you have a believer ("I want to avoid the situation where I'd have to admit that I have been a fool for believing in all of this stuff for so long, so I dismiss contradictory evidence and collect loads of evidence to support my beliefs"). I have even included a ;) emoticon to make it more obvious. Once again, Poe's law. I am sorry. I thought it was obvious enough this time. I don't believe in God, which I thought should have been obvious from what I've written in this thread so far.
The only point I disagree with is that I don't think we can claim that it's unlikely that any God at all exists, if we use the term "God" very loosely. Regardless of this, it's not reasonable at all to believe that a God exists, and it would surprise me if I had ever said it was in this thread. Especially not any specific kind of God, the more random attributes you ascribe to a certain God, the less likely he is to exist.
But... If the complexity of whichever phenomenon has brought this universe into existence (in case there should be such a thing) comes close to or surpasses that of the human brain, I think it would be justified to call that phenomenon God. And I don't think we can determine how likely it is for that to be true at this point. I thus think it's wrong to say it's very unlikely for there to be any God at all. All we can say is that it makes no sense to assume that there is one at this point, for lack of evidence so far, so it doesn't seem to be likely so far, but I don't think we can say that it definitely is unlikely.
I have chosen to present the argument this way to make it easy for believers to accept it, "bypass their self-protection filters" (they'd be quick to disagree if I had presented the argument without the camouflage), then when it is pointed out that obviously the opposite could be said even moreso to hopefully trigger some deep self-reflection processes in them. I also thought it was more fun and elegant to present it this way. I predicted that somebody would set things straight as a reply to my post to prevent others from misunderstanding it, but I didn't think that nobody (who chose to reply to it) would detect the intentional irony of my argument.
The debate about religion vs science is actually just a debate about two sciences: a spiritual science and a material science. Mind and body, you know, the wave and particle duality. If you solve the puzzle of this duality you know why anything exists, like this discussion and this universe.
Both religion and modern science are partially wrong with their creation and evolution stories, and the other half of them is right. As science progresses, natural selection will only make the true ideas survive, because only they are useful.
Both material science and spiritual science is good. Spiritual science once allowed us to communicate telepathically, but today we have invented cellphones, which will evolve into telepathic-type of communication in the future, because it's more convenient and fast.
Spiritual science once, and still does to some degree, let us explore illusive worlds of dreams and astral realms, but since most humans have lost the ability to control this ability properly, material science has given us videogames that can let us into these virtual worlds again, which will become more and more like reality in the future.
It's interesting how material science lets us get all our superpowers back. There are many other examples but that'll do for now.
Some people today are impressed by computer graphics, like those in Battlefield 3, and argue that natural laws couldn't have created that game, but those graphics are bad compared to those in lucid dreams and the astral (other senses like touch and taste are emulated accurately), so it's not likely that blind mindless natural laws created our brains, because we need great minds and planning to create even these relatively simple computers with i7 processors and Radeon HD 7970s.
Warp wrote:
What the young earth creationists try to accomplish is more or less the reverse of this.
Both modern science and YECs are wrong about the age of the earth. YECs believe the earth is about 6666 years old while modern science says it's 4.5 billion years old. The real age of the earth is about 2 billion, which puts the YECs a bit closer to reality than modern science, although both miss the real age by a couple of billion years.
I like to compare conspiracy theorists to magicians:
Magicians in the past used real supernatural magic, but when the science of magic was lost, people who didn't know real magic started using tricks to imitate what was once real magic.
When science allows us to communicate telepathically once again using technology, and this technology will be lost in the future (because of a natural catastrophe like an asteroid or maybe a global flood), people will laugh at the technology of telepathy, and the word technology will have about the same meaning as magic has today, but all that stuff was once reality.
Oh, and the internet, I forgot to mention earlier... it's a recreation of the natural astral light medium that is all around that stores all information and events that has ever existed... the internet will one day become similarly efficient if something does not destroy us.
I've been reading this page too much, read here if you want: http://www.futuretimeline.net/
The debate about religion vs science is actually just a debate about two sciences: a spiritual science and a material science.
When you put it like that, you simultaneously give too much credit to religion and strip the word "science" of its meaning. You also acknowledge in the process just how much important and useful you perceive science to be by trying to frame non-science as science -- you are basically saying fields of knowledge are worthless unless they are science. Nice job :-p
Spiritual science once, and still does to some degree, let us explore illusive worlds of dreams and astral realms, but since most humans have lost the ability to control this ability properly, material science has given us videogames that can let us into these virtual worlds again, which will become more and more like reality in the future.
This is my favorite paragraph in the whole internet.
The only point I disagree with is that I don't think we can claim that it's unlikely that any God at all exists, if we use the term "God" very loosely.
As I commented earlier, it's probably a good idea to avoid using the label "God" when talking about something that's not what people usually understand by that term. For example, using it in the pantheistic sense (iow. using it just as a synonym for "the Universe") can only cause confusion.
What do most people think when they hear the name "God"? I'd say that it would be something like:
- A supernatural sentient being that's not bound to this universe and who existed before it.
- He created this universe by his own will.
- He created it with the explicit purpose for humans to be able to live here.
- He either directly created humans, or at the very least put the gears in motion for humans to eventually appear.
- He still exists today, is everywhere and is actively observing us and, perhaps, interacting with us.
In the vast majority of cases, also:
- There's only one.
- He was not himself created, but has always existed.
If your definition of "God" does not include all those properties, then it may be a good idea to avoid the label, to avoid confusion.
nfq wrote:
The real age of the earth is about 2 billion
From all your nonsense, this is the only one I couldn't pass. Please amuse us with your argument why that's so.
(Let me guess: It has something to do with the recession rate of the Moon? But please, don't let me interrupt your explanation.)
