Creationist Ham appearing at Cork + UCD

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

The argument above would validate the Ptolemaic Universe. It is both predictable and useful. Although useful, it must not be considered valid because it is NOT true. Useful and predictable does not equal true.

Except the Ptolemaic Universe has been shown to be incorrect by a more detailed and realistic theory that followed it. Until it was replaced it was studied and this study eventually lead to a better understanding of the universe and theories that reflect a truer idea of our Universe.

It might be the case that through the study of Evolution theory we discover evidence that completely turns what we thought we knew on its head. That is the way of science, Darwin completely turned science on its head with his complete theory of evolution (evolution was not first put forward by Darwin).

But saying, as JC and other Creationists do, that we should completely ignore evolution because they have trouble with some areas of it is nonsense. Science has always studied and persude the "best" theory until it is further developed, which either leads to a more refined theory or leads to a better theory taking its place.

Right now everything we know about biology, chemistry and history support Evolution, and the more we develop the theory the more support we find. The only way that could (should) change is through further study of Evolution until such a time that a better theory is developed (just as what happened to the Ptolemaic universe) if Evolution is not actually what happened.

Turley

J C wrote:

Yes, ONCE we have an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED and COMPLEX computer and an equally INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED and COMPLEX programme, we can step away. Your example is actually very analogous to the Biblical account of creation – where God supposedly designed all of the “software” and “hardware” of life and then stepped back and allowed it to “go forth and multiply” using it’s own, mind bendingly complex information base. Again I would classify this as a well-founded faith-based statement – unlike faith in evolution, which lacks both logical AND evidential support.

I agree. A Creator that planned for bacteria and antibiotics is reasonable given the nature of a Creator of so much complex information. I can accept both a Creator and an evolving universe. The alternative replaces faith in God with faith in man.

Aristotle, called "The Father of Biology," was one of the great thinkers. He wrote that "there is some immortal and divine thing." The Philosopher was not a Christian or ever a follower of the self-discrediting, Ken Ham. Aristotle was reasonable man. Reasonable men can accept a Supreme being.

Myksyk

Turley wrote:

The argument above would validate the Ptolemaic Universe. It is both predictable and useful. Although useful, it must not be considered valid because it is NOT true. Useful and predictable does not equal true.

No it wouldn't. I said the theory helps make useful predictions, not that it was predictable. Simple predictions based ion this theory can be shown to be wrong through empirical observations and invalidate the idea of Ptolemaic Universe.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

Except the Ptolemaic Universe has been shown to be incorrect by a more detailed and realistic theory that followed it. Until it was replaced it was studied and this study eventually lead to a better understanding of the universe and theories that reflect a truer idea of our Universe.

It might be the case that through the study of Evolution theory we discover evidence that completely turns what we thought we knew on its head. That is the way of science, Darwin completely turned science on its head with his complete theory of evolution (evolution was not first put forward by Darwin).

But saying, as JC and other Creationists do, that we should completely ignore evolution because they have trouble with some areas of it is nonsense. Science has always studied and persude the "best" theory until it is further developed, which either leads to a more refined theory or leads to a better theory taking its place.

Right now everything we know about biology, chemistry and history support Evolution, and the more we develop the theory the more support we find. The only way that could (should) change is through further study of Evolution until such a time that a better theory is developed (just as what happened to the Ptolemaic universe) if Evolution is not actually what happened.

I think you missed my point which was that just because something works does not mean it is necessarily true. Myksyk said, "As long as the theory is consistent with what we DO know and is indispensible in terms of explanation and prediction it must be considered a valid and useful scientific theory, which of course it is."

Science and mathematics often confuse "what works" with what "is true." For example we use the Pythagorean theorum because it works. However when the length of two equal sides of a right triangle are "one" the length of the hypotenuse is equal to "the square root of two" and an infinite number is the distance between two points. The problem is that there is no number in the continuous square on the hypotenuse.

Men use centimeters or inches on sticks to measure because it works. The numbers are arbitrary and we use them because they work but they do not exist. There is no number in the continuous. We use things that work but we don't have to believe it is true.

Men use straight lines to measure curves because it works but this does not represent reality. A cannon ball does not travel in a straight line.

Science need not represent reality to be useful and predictable. Thus, I am saying useful and predictable does not mean something is true.

Myksyk

Turley wrote:

I can accept both a Creator and an evolving universe.

This is an individual choice to which of course you are very much entitled. I am agnostic on this argument and simply do not know if there was a creator or not ... nobody does. However ... two things ... I am happy to live with the honesty of agnosticism than to 'fill the gap' (I am not agnostic with regard to the evolution of life which has overwhelming evidence in its favour and which I believe has fundamental implications for our 'place' in the universe). Secondly, The fundamental problem for me as I touched on earlier is that this belief in a creator simply sets the problem back a step. If we ARE to accept that something complex must have a designer then you cannot pick and choose the comlexities to which you apply this criterion. If God is a complex entity, who designed him/her/it?

robindch

> Of course you're not interested in the vasts amount of knowledge
> that are consistent with the theory, just the gaps.

This behaviour is normal for hard-line fundamentalists, and the reason for it is interesting -- in their own world view, they are the possessors of an absolute, all-encompassing Truth and they are unable, either through laziness or inability, to concieve of, or believe in the worth of, any system of thought which includes an element of doubt. The fact that there are regions of biology which are not well understood, or which are open to debate, indicates to such people that the entire system (not just the debatable bits) is fundamentally flawed, since it doesn not provide such an absolute, all-encompassing Truth, and that's why they concentrate only on a few, specific areas and ignore the wider body of evidence elsewhere. This notion also explains, as I mentioned on this thread a while back, why evolution is referred to as a 'religion' by many such people -- if your universe is entirely defined by your religion, then you'll only ever be able to view anything within your own universe as being a religion, particularly if it queries, even indirectly, anything which is proclaimed by your own particular holy book (BTW, this is just the kind of linguistic/cognitive determinism that had Mssrs Sapir and Whorf so excited back in the early 30's).

- robin.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Men use straight lines to measure curves because it works but this does not represent reality. A cannon ball does not travel in a straight line.

Well that is slightly different. You are talking about abstraction, the real world approximation mathematical ideals. For example, a cirlce cannot be drawn in the real world, only the approx. of a circle, as a circle is a mathematical ideal that is infinitely complex (Pi is an infinite number). To represent a circle we draw an approx. and people understand what you are talking about.

Turley wrote:

Science need not represent reality to be useful and predictable. Thus, I am saying useful and predictable does not mean something is true.

The theory of evolution is "true" as far as we can possibly tell it is true, and so far nothing has come along to say that it is false. That does not mean it is certainly true, but it is impossible to be certain that any scientic theory is certainly true, only that one is certainly false (eg. Ptolemaic theory). We often only find out that a theory is not true when a better one comes along.

Zombrex

That last point i made above (^^^) got me thinking about the Creationist attacks on Evolution.

In modern science a theory based on evidence is normally disproved by a better theory that deals with the evidence in a more convincing manner. For example if Theory A explains evidence 1, 2 and 3 but has trouble with evidence 4 then it is a valid theory but more study needs to be done. If a completely different theory (B) comes along and explains evidence 1,2,3 and 4 and remains logical, then it is safe to say that Theory A was a mistake, and Theory B should take over. And things can go back and forth, B might have serious flaws that are only later discovered and people go back to A or C might come along.

My problem with Creationist is that they attempt to pick away at Evolution Theory but their own theories do not fit any evidence, or even attempt to explain the evidence. And when they do you get totally ridiculous theories such as the Flood water was sucked out into space, or the Dinasours were hunted to extinction by early Humans.

Hard-line Creation theory (earth only 5000 years old blah blah) is a theory that goes against every bit of scientific evidence for the last 200 years. Therefore it is not a valid scientific theory.

Soft-Line Creation theory (earth is old, evolution may happen, but God started line of earth) is a theory that has no evidence behind it at all, other than people saying because life is so complex it must have had a creator. There is no evidence for this, at all.

So both Creation theories do not fit any supportive evidence in the scientifc world. Therefore they should not be considered at all as Science.

So what do we have left? AFAIK no serious theory exisits for life apart from Evolution. So what should scientists do? They should study evolution. It fits the facts. It is logical. It is probable. It is supported by evidence (despite what Creationists say).

Through the study of evolution another theory may develop that better explains things. Until another theory comes along that disproves Evolution, there is currently no reason not to explore Evolution, to teach Evolution or to believe Evolution.

And there is no reason in the world to follow, teach or believe Creationism apart from your own person religous beliefs.

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

If we ARE to accept that something complex must have a designer then you cannot pick and choose the comlexities to which you apply this criterion. If God is a complex entity, who designed him/her/it?

By definition the Supreme Being would be the first mover unmoved. This is what is understood to be God.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

The theory of evolution is "true" as far as we can possibly tell it is true, and so far nothing has come along to say that it is false. That does not mean it is certainly true, but it is impossible to be certain that any scientic theory is certainly true, only that one is certainly false (eg. Ptolemaic theory). We often only find out that a theory is not true when a better one comes along.

God is defined as a perfect being that cannot deceive nor be deceived therefore I can place my trust in God. A theory of evolution that admittedly may be not be true is not a better option. If I must place my faith in something, God seems to be a reasonable choice.

Some people believe in pink goats or crocodile dieties and evolution. People may defend these beliefs as firmly as Dr. Ham might defend the Genesis story. I prefer God the Creator of an evolving universe. Belief in God seems more sensible to me than pink goats and crocodile diety.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

My problem with Creationist is that they attempt to pick away at Evolution Theory but their own theories do not fit any evidence, or even attempt to explain the evidence. And when they do you get totally ridiculous theories such as the Flood water was sucked out into space, or the Dinasours were hunted to extinction by early Humans.

I share your concern with ridiculous theories of some creationists but perhaps for a different reason. Perhaps they should be judged by their effect, which may be to turn people away from Christianity. They actually lend support to atheism and agnosticism. It is curious that Jerry Falwell, Ken Ham's supporter, gets so much free publicity in the press. Who decides to make Falwell, Pat Roberson or Ken Ham popular figures? and why?

Christ said, "a tree is known by its fruit." Matt. 12:33

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

God is defined as a perfect being that cannot deceive nor be deceived therefore I can place my trust in God. A theory of evolution that admittedly may be not be true is not a better option. If I must place my faith in something, God seems to be a reasonable choice.

Some people believe in pink goats or crocodile dieties and evolution. People may defend these beliefs as firmly as Dr. Ham might defend the Genesis story. I prefer God the Creator of an evolving universe. Belief in God seems more sensible to me than pink goats and crocodile diety.

That is fine, but my objection is when religion crosses into the realm of science. If you don't believe in evolution that is ok, but it is not ok when someone (such as JC) says that science should not persue evolution.

Belief in a creator is outside the realm of science, because there is no evidence for a creator that can be factored in any meaningful scientific way, it is only a feeling people have. It is when creationists move into the realm of science and start attacking evolution as a scientific theory i object (example being wanting creation taught in schools, or more commonly wanting evolution not taught in schools).

J C

Quote
That is fine, but my objection is when religion crosses into the realm of science. If you don't believe in evolution that is ok, but it is not ok when someone (such as JC) says that science should not persue evolution.

Has science not persued Evolution for the past week on this thread - and found Evolution "wanting" as a valid scientific theory?

My precise point is that Science explains what is manifestly observable - all the rest is faith/religion based belief.

If Evolution was a valid scientific theory I wouldn't have to believe or not believe in it - I could verify it anytime that I wanted through observation/experimentation. Your word above "believe" (in evolution) is a "faith" word - not a "Scientific" word.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

If Evolution was a valid scientific theory I wouldn't have to believe or not believe in it - I could verify it anytime that I wanted through observation/experimentation.

The last 10 pages have presented you links to evidence for evolution that you have ignored :rolleyes:

robindch

> God is defined as a perfect being that cannot deceive
> nor be deceived therefore I can place my trust in God.

This is *your* definition of 'god', and consequently, your 'placing of your trust' in this entity (whatever that might mean, because I've never received any coherent answers to my questions about the concepts involved, from anyone who says such things) is debatably useful and depends critically upon your definition of 'god'.

My definition of 'god' is closer to "a concept which people create in their own minds, so that they are then able to devolve to it (a) any questions to which they don't already have an ready answer, or (b) responsibility which they are unable to assume themselves". In this case, your 'placing of trust' in 'god' becomes the placing of your own trust within yourself -- a reasonable thing to do, but self-referential, and consequently, inherently useless as a means assuring yourself of the truth of any proposition which requires this as an answer or an axiom. You may disagree, but my definition of 'god' is as valid as yours.

> It is curious that Jerry Falwell, Ken Ham's supporter, gets so
> much free publicity in the press.

Not really. These guys are relentless self-publicists and the vast majority of the press is endlessly hungry for easy copy of one kind or another -- the more salacious, usually the better.

> Who decides to make Falwell, Pat Roberson or Ken Ham
> popular figures? and why?

An odd question, because it begs the question whether anybody is able to make somebody a 'popular figure' at will. In Clive James' words, the famous are frequently simply famous for being famous and in the cases of the people you list here, it seems that they simply acquire fame by articulating the unpleasant or ludicrous views which many people are unable to articulate themselves and which, consequently, make such people feel good (or more specifically, part of a powerful ingroup which is much the same when it comes to the second-hand opinionated pillocks who go along with Falwell, Robertson, O'Reilly and the rest of that unpleasant, wheezing, ranting lot).

- robin.

robindch

> If Evolution was a valid scientific theory I wouldn't have to believe
> or not believe in it - I could verify it anytime that I wanted
> through observation/experimentation.

As Wicknight has pointed out, you have ignored the many, many pages of text pointing out the basic errors in this statement.

> Your word above "believe" (in evolution) is a "faith" word - not
> a "Scientific" word.

Yes, that right and Wicknight's usage is accurate and to-the-point because, not apparently having understood any of its basic principles, you *deny* evolution, another faith-based position that you have no choice but to adopt in the absence of either facts or understanding.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

My definition of 'god' is closer to "a concept which people create in their own minds, so that they are then able to devolve to it (a) any questions to which they don't already have an ready answer, or (b) responsibility which they are unable to assume themselves".

We have different definitions of "god." Most dictionaries define the term as a supernatural, immortal being and with words like, almighty, all-powerful, all-knowing, infinite, and eternal. If you consider the term "god" to merely be a figment of the imagination to answer any question then we are not in agreement about what we are talking about. Your definition of the term is not the commonly used meaning of the word.

robindch wrote:

> It is curious that Jerry Falwell, Ken Ham's supporter, gets so
> much free publicity in the press.

Not really. These guys are relentless self-publicists and the vast majority of the press is endlessly hungry for easy copy of one kind or another -- the more salacious, usually the better.

You can't get any more gullible than that. That old idea is, of course, popularized by the press. Not unlike the magician telling the suckers that his "hand is quicker than the eye." Do you believe that too?

robindch wrote:

> Who decides to make Falwell, Pat Roberson or Ken Ham
> popular figures? and why?

An odd question, because it begs the question whether anybody is able to make somebody a 'popular figure' at will.

Do you think the American people actually chose the "popular figures", John Kerry and George W. Bush. Do you think Bush could walk down any street without bodyguards without being spat upon?

The American "popular figures" are not walking among the people like Gandhi.
We could start a new thread on this topic.

Turley

robindch wrote:

My definition of 'god' is closer to "a concept which people create in their own minds, so that they are then able to devolve to it (a) any questions to which they don't already have an ready answer, or (b) responsibility which they are unable to assume themselves".

We have different definitions of "god." Most dictionaries define the term as a supernatural, immortal being and with words like, almighty, all-powerful, all-knowing, infinite, and eternal. If you consider the term "god" to merely be a figment of the imagination to answer any question then we are not in agreement about what we are talking about. Your definition of the term is not the commonly used meaning of the word.

robindch wrote:

> It is curious that Jerry Falwell, Ken Ham's supporter, gets so
> much free publicity in the press.

Not really. These guys are relentless self-publicists and the vast majority of the press is endlessly hungry for easy copy of one kind or another -- the more salacious, usually the better.

You can't get any more gullible than that. That old idea is, of course, popularized by the press. Not unlike the magician telling the suckers that his "hand is quicker than the eye." Do you believe that too?

robindch wrote:

> Who decides to make Falwell, Pat Roberson or Ken Ham
> popular figures? and why?

An odd question, because it begs the question whether anybody is able to make somebody a 'popular figure' at will.

Do you think the American people actually chose the "popular figures", John Kerry and George W. Bush. Do you think Bush could walk down any street without bodyguards and not be spat upon?

The American "popular figures" are not walking among the people like Gandhi.
We could start a new thread on this topic.

Myksyk

Turley wrote:

By definition the Supreme Being would be the first mover unmoved. This is what is understood to be God.

Sorry Turley but this is just defining something in a way that suits your needs. It appears pretty meaningless to me. If existence requires an explanation and a cause, then 'all' existence requires such explanations including a 'supreme being'

Zombrex

Myksyk wrote:

Sorry Turley but this is just defining something in a way that suits your needs. It appears pretty meaningless to me. If existence requires an explanation and a cause, then 'all' existence requires such explanations including a 'supreme being'

The old "Who created God?" question that every 8 year old asks his religion teacher, the response normally being "No one, now don't ask silly questions" :rolleyes:

Myksyk

J C wrote:

Has science not persued Evolution for the past week on this thread - and found Evolution "wanting" as a valid scientific theory?

Em...No...A few Joe Publics have debated evolution and creationism in the extremely limited setting of an internet forum over the last week.

Science, on the other hand, has studied evolution for the past 180 years or so in every conceivable fashion and found that it is an astonishingly useful and undoubtedly vaild scientific theory.

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

Sorry Turley but this is just defining something in a way that suits your needs. It appears pretty meaningless to me. If existence requires an explanation and a cause, then 'all' existence requires such explanations including a 'supreme being'

No. I am not defining God to suit my needs. The dictionary definition does not change each time I open the book, as if to suit my needs. Long ago I said it is important to agree on what we are talking about.

Others have been defining the term "god" to suit their needs. On the one hand Robin's god is "the nine-foot crocodile living in my specially-extended broom cupboard. Invisible, all-powerful, and living outside of space and time..." then on the other hand Robin's god is, "a concept which people create in their own minds, so that they are then able to devolve to it..."

Robin's all-powerful crocodile living outside of space and time is infinite and therefore does not require a cause as it is a supreme being.

The problem arises when Robin's position changed and his god was no longer all-powerful and living outside of space and time. Then Robin changed his god into a mere figment of his imagination. Once again violating a first principle of rational reasoning that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time.

Most people including Shinto, Christian, Jew, and Muslim accept the dictionary definition. And an atheist would reject the existence of god as in the dictionary. An atheist would not necessarily reject Robin's latest definition, which is not in the dictionary. Thus one could then argue an atheist is a "believer in god" when he is meaning god as defined to be only imaginary.

You are quibbling.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

The old "Who created God?" question that every 8 year old asks his religion teacher, the response normally being "No one, now don't ask silly questions" :rolleyes:

You are besmirching religion teachers. It is unfair to suggest a teacher of religion (Jew, Muslim, Shinto, Christian, etc.) would call a student's question about God, "silly."

All religions and most athiests and agnostics agree that we should be kind to our fellow man. Your statement an example intolerant religious bigotry.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

It is unfair to suggest a teacher of religion (Jew, Muslim, Shinto, Christian, etc.) would call a student's question about God, "silly."

You have obviously never been in a R.E class in a Ireland School

Questioning any basis of the Catholic religion has been considered blasphemy for the last 2000 years. In these more "enlightened" times, questioning what you were taught in R.E class was frowned on as an annoyance. My uncle tells a very funny story about a friend of his who continued to question his priest when the Catholic church decided that in fact it wasn't a mortal sin to go to Trinity College. My uncles friend in class was asking did all the people who were in hell for going to Trinity get to go to Heaven now. And how could it have been a sin and now not a sin. What else was also a sin now but would soon not be a sin. This greatly annoyed the priest who eventually gave my uncles friend a clip around the ear and told him not to question the wisdom of the church.

Turley wrote:

All religions and most athiests and agnostics agree that we should be kind to our fellow man. Your statement an example intolerant religious bigotry.

What religious people agree to do and what they actually do are entirely two different things, as 1200 years of Christianity in Ireland can testify to

Myksyk

Turley wrote:

No. I am not defining God to suit my needs. The dictionary definition does not change each time I open the book, as if to suit my needs.

You are quibbling.

I don't mean to quibble. I am sure the dictionary definition is as you say but this is only a reflection of the way the word is actually used in real life. Collins' or Oxford are not actually defining God, only the use of the word God. In my mind this definition is meaningless as it is simply defining an unknown an how this has been construed over the ages. It does not impact on the argument that if on the one hand you say that all complex entities require a 'cause' then you must apply this criterion consistently. Quoting a dictionary which is merely reflecting common use does not address the problem with this common use.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

What religious people agree to do and what they actually do are entirely two different things, as 1200 years of Christianity in Ireland can testify to

We all know this and I did say that people "agree that we should be kind to our fellow man." I did not say that we are.

I also included atheists and agnostics. You left them out by saying, "What religious people agree to do and what they actually do are entirely two different things..." To be fair we should note that atheists and agnostics also do not always behave as they say they should.

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

It does not impact on the argument that if on the one hand you say that all complex entities require a 'cause' then you must apply this criterion consistently.

Well, I do not think I said "all complex entities require a 'cause'."

Even if "all complex entities require a cause" you may be wrong to assume that God is a complex entity. Some have written of the simplicity of God, Aquinas for example, (See, Question 3, First Part of the First Part of Summa Theologica).

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

To be fair we should note that atheists and agnostics also do not always behave as they say they should.

That is true of course, but atheists and agnostics do not use a belief in religion as an automatic sign of "goodness", as many religious people do, ie a Priest must be a good person etc.

The phrase "God-fearing" springs to mind, also the fact that Bush probably won the election because he is a born again Christian, a sign for many middle-Americans that he is a "good, moral person"

But anyway I was originally replying to this statement -

It is unfair to suggest a teacher of religion (Jew, Muslim, Shinto, Christian, etc.) would call a student's question about God, "silly."

It is not only fair, but all too common, having witness hundreds of such events in my life time

Myksyk

Turley wrote:

Well, I do not think I said "all complex entities require a 'cause'."

Even if "all complex entities require a cause" you may be wrong to assume that God is a complex entity. Some have written of the simplicity of God, Aquinas for example, (See, Question 3, First Part of the First Part of Summa Theologica).

I am referring to the general theme in a number of posts (not specificaly yours) that there must have been a creator/prime mover to explain the complexity we see, but which then begs the question I have asked.
I cannot see how a conscious being capable of creating, understanding, controlling and maintaining everything that exists could be viewed or decribed as 'simple' (except in reference to characteristics of purity, perfection etc). Either way, it's hard to accept that such an immensely powerful, intelligent, creative, emotional being does not itself require an explanation. As I said, the argument demonstrates fairly basic inconsistency and merely takes the mystery of origins back a step.

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

I cannot see how a conscious being capable of creating, understanding, controlling and maintaining everything that exists could be viewed or decribed as 'simple' ...

You can see how by looking at what has been written, then make up your own mind if God is simple or not. The pages from the Summa can be viewed with the click of a mouse at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100300.htm

Searching "simplicity" and "God" at google brings thousands of hits.

Christ said, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." -Matt 7:7