The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you cant imagine a universe without order, then how can you say what a uinverse with order is actually like? How do you know this isn't a universe without order.

This doesn't make sense at all.

pts asked me to imagine a universe which is different to our own.

I said, from what I can discern from our universe and how it operates it seems as if there has been order and it seems as if there has been design. Therefore, this indicates to me that there is a designer.

This doesn't involve imagination, this involves perceiving the universe as it actually is.

I don't say that I know that this isn't a universe without order. I have said, that given what I have perceived of the universe, it seems to me that it is a universe with order.

It is yourself, and Sam who are making claims on what you claim to know, I am making claims based on what I think based on observation. I don't by any means know.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Good point. If I were hacking my way through a jungle and suddenly stumbled across a stone obelisk covered in mysterious writing - then I would be justified in inferring that it had not occurred naturally but that someone or something had designed and created it.

But only because you have a point of reference, you know that stone obelisks are created by humans for ritual reasons, you know that writing is created by humans for communication.

That is the point about comparing this universe to something else. How do we determine that this is a universe that is designed? What universe that we know is designed, are we comparing this universe to?

The arguments seems to be that order exists, and then the fallacy that order requires a designer. That is an unfounded (and rather unsupported) assumption.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't say that I know that this isn't a universe without order. I have said, that given what I have perceived of the universe, it seems to me that it is a universe with order.

Why does order require a designer?

What is the natural state for things is ordered, and unordered things are a break from that, rather than the other way around?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You argue that we say that the universe is designed just for us, I argue, no we haven't.

Correct me if I'm wrong but is one of your arguments for the suggestion of a design is that the universe is "fine tuned" for life?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but is one of your arguments for the suggestion of a design is that the universe is "fine tuned" for life?

Are there more life forms than humans? Yes, or no.

I'm not even sure if the universe was created just for life, is what we claim let alone the universe was created just for humans.

I do believe the universe was created in such a way so that life could form however.

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

The argument from design comes from the assumption that certain features of the universe show evidence of design. However, since our intellect and perception are limited, it would be presumptuous and illogical of us to insist that we are capable of detecting every piece of design. However, I wish you luck in demonstrating that something is undesigned - that sounds like you're on a hiding to nothing.

The argument from design is an argument built on the assumption that things with the appearance of function and design must have been designed. This sounds like a perfectly reasonable assumption, but evolution has shown us that it isn't true. It seems that all you need for function and complexity is the unintelligent natural selection of unintelligent random mutations in replicating molecules.

You can suppose that natural laws themselves are designed, but since we've already shown that the assumptions of the intelligent design argument aren't always true, we have no platform to argue such a case.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

This doesn't make sense at all.

pts asked me to imagine a universe which is different to our own.

I said, from what I can discern from our universe and how it operates it seems as if there has been order and it seems as if there has been design. Therefore, this indicates to me that there is a designer.

This doesn't involve imagination, this involves perceiving the universe as it actually is.

I don't say that I know that this isn't a universe without order. I have said, that given what I have perceived of the universe, it seems to me that it is a universe with order.

But how can you say this is a universe with order if you cant imagine a universe without order? If you cant imagine a universe without order then how can you know the difference between one with order and one without? Perceptions are irrelevent. You could be percieving this unordered universe to be ordered and I could be percieving this ordered universe to be unordered. How do you tell which of us is right without knowing what an ordered or unordered universe would look like?

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Are there more life forms than humans? Yes, or no.

I'm not even sure if the universe was created just for life, is what we claim let alone the universe was created just for humans.

I do believe the universe was created in such a way so that life could form however.

But if the universe was designed for something else, something which has absolutely nothing to do with life, something which life cant even recognise the design for, then why have it the same universe? Why not in its own seperate universe?

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But if the universe was designed for something else, something which has absolutely nothing to do with life, something which life cant even recognise the design for, then why have it the same universe? Why not in its own seperate universe?

The universe is how it is. If you want to argue the ins and outs and why they are the way they are, I'm not going to be able to help you (I've already said I cannot explain everything, nor do I seek to), as I didn't design the universe. It's an utterly futile discussion:

Isaiah 29:16 wrote:

You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay? Shall the thing made say of its maker 'He did not make me'; or the thing formed say of the one who formed it, 'He has no understanding'

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The universe is how it is. If you want to argue the ins and outs and why they are the way they are, I'm not going to be able to help you (I've already said I cannot explain everything, nor do I seek to), as I didn't design the universe. It's an utterly futile discussion:

So you want to assert that it seems as if there has been order and it seems as if there has been design without wanting to argue the ins and outs and why they are the way they are. Right so

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you want to assert that it seems as if there has been order and it seems as if there has been design without wanting to argue the ins and outs and why they are the way they are. Right so

I'm not asserting anything as being factual. I'm willing to accept that there may be another conclusion to it. I'm also willing to accept that it is very difficult to get a clear answer on this issue. Finally, and most importantly, I think it is best that all people who are somewhat honest at least accept this much, I accept that I cannot know everything about the universe.

The very best I can say about teleology is that from what we know about it currently fine tuning seems to have taken place to make life sustainable. Whether or not this has taken place just on Earth, or elsewhere isn't really all that relevant to me. This could have been God's intention, and I am willing to accept that I cannot know everything about this

As for the ins and outs. I don't think any of us know in any exact detail about the very minute details concerning how this happened. So enough about it being just me not being willing to discuss it, I'd argue that we are not able to discuss it in such a manner.

I'm quite open to other alternatives on the issue if one can present them in a calm manner.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Are there more life forms than humans? Yes, or no.

Yeah but all the arguments still hold if you assume "us" is biological life on Earth.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not even sure if the universe was created just for life, is what we claim let alone the universe was created just for humans.

The point of the posts about how big the universe is, and how small the Earth is in it, is to point out the fallacy of the idea that the universe is fine tuned for life.

It would be like walking into the Empire state building and thinking the building is fine tuned for the bacteria living on the plant that is sitting beside a bench in the main lobby.

There are so many things the universe is better fine tuned for. Stars for example. There are trillions of stars in the universe and only one, as far as we know, planet with life on it. How can anyone say the universe is fine tuned for that planet? If it was there would be trillions of them as well.

If you were looking at the universe as a whole and assumed there was a designer it would be no more logical to suppose that he constructed the universe in such a way to allow life as it would be to assume the Empire State building was designed to allow that family of bacteria to live on a plant. It seems a tiny insignificant off shoot of the big picture.

But then people don't get excited about the idea that the universe was constructed to allow for the conversion of hydrogen into helium, because we see no purpose in that. We do see (or like to see) a purpose in us existing, so naturally tend to view any purpose to how the universe is in those terms.

It is some what of an oxymoron to suppose that something is "fine tuned" for the production of something it very rarely produces. the only way the universe could appear less fine tuned for life would be if we didn't exist. On a scale of 1 to 10 for how fine tuned to producing life the universe seems to be (1 being not and 10 being totally) the universe seems to be hovering at 1.0000001

Jakkass wrote: »

I do believe the universe was created in such a way so that life could form however.

Apparently despite the best efforts of the designer :pac:

The universe obviously has rules that allow for life as we know it to form, since we are here. But I see little reason to suppose that this is anything more than an insignificant by product of the central rules of the universe that if they have purpose it is clearly not to produce life.

If you made a machine that produced something ever second, like a car part or something, and once in every 10,000 years a build up in the machine produced a small round coin shaped piece of metal to pop out, would you consider the machine to be fine tuned to produce this small piece of metal? I would see it as an unindented consequence of the main purpose of the machine

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but all the arguments still hold if you assume "us" is biological life on Earth.

I don't think such arguments exclude the possibility of life anywhere else. It is possible that God could have created conditions favourable to live anywhere else.

Wicknight wrote: »

The point of the posts about how big the universe is, and how small the Earth is in it, is to point out the fallacy of the idea that the universe is fine tuned for life.

I don't think it does in the slightest. That's why I have suggested that it is a poor argument. It is perfectly conceivable if a God exists that He could have created the universe with multiple forms of live. Perhaps even offering a different revelation to other intelligent life. I am open to that conclusion.

Wicknight wrote: »

It would be like walking into the Empire state building and thinking the building is fine tuned for the bacteria living on the plant that is sitting beside a bench in the main lobby.

If I accepted that this couldn't happen anywhere else, perhaps that might be an argument worth having.

Wicknight wrote: »

There are so many things the universe is better fine tuned for. Stars for example. There are trillions of stars in the universe and only one, as far as we know, planet with life on it. How can anyone say the universe is fine tuned for that planet? If it was there would be trillions of them as well.

This assumes that I think the universe was only designed for one thing along the reasoning of Sam Vimes earlier. I think it is perfectly possible that the universe serves much much more of a purpose than for life to exist. I think I have made this completely clear in my posts. I also argue that we cannot know what exactly the purpose of everything in the universe is due to our limited intellects. The argument of "pointless planets" is also by and large ineffective.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you were looking at the universe as a whole and assumed there was a designer it would be no more logical to suppose that he constructed the universe in such a way to allow life as it would be to assume the Empire State building was designed to allow that family of bacteria to live on a plant. It seems a tiny insignificant off shoot of the big picture.

See above.

Wicknight wrote: »

But then people don't get excited about the idea that the universe was constructed to allow for the conversion of hydrogen into helium, because we see no purpose in that. We do see (or like to see) a purpose in us existing, so naturally tend to view any purpose to how the universe is in those terms.

Likewise see above. I'm quite happy to accept that the universe could exist for numerous reasons.

Wicknight wrote: »

The universe obviously has rules that allow for life as we know it to form, since we are here. But I see little reason to suppose that this is anything more than an insignificant by product of the central rules of the universe that if they have purpose it is clearly not to produce life.

This ignores the fact that conditions have to be reached before life can form. This also ignores the fact that it is hugely improbable that the universe was structured in such a way that life could take place.

The insignificant argument isn't convincing in ruling out God. Quite simply, a greater universe would only serve a greater testament to God rather than the contrary. It's not the best argument you have in the bag Wicknight.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you made a machine that produced something ever second, like a car part or something, and once in every 10,000 years a build up in the machine produced a small round coin shaped piece of metal to pop out, would you consider the machine to be fine tuned to produce this small piece of metal? I would see it as an unindented consequence of the main purpose of the machine

Keep the allegories out of it for now. They will only serve to sidetrack the discussion even further by discussing the analogy rather than the subject itself.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not asserting anything as being factual. I'm willing to accept that there may be another conclusion to it. I'm also willing to accept that it is very difficult to get a clear answer on this issue. Finally, and most importantly, I think it is best that all people who are somewhat honest at least accept this much, I accept that I cannot know everything about the universe.

The very best I can say about teleology is that from what we know about it currently fine tuning seems to have taken place to make life sustainable. Whether or not this has taken place just on Earth, or elsewhere isn't really all that relevant to me. This could have been God's intention, and I am willing to accept that I cannot know everything about this

As for the ins and outs. I don't think any of us know in any exact detail about the very minute details concerning how this happened. So enough about it being just me not being willing to discuss it, I'd argue that we are not able to discuss git in such a manner.

I'm quite open to other alternatives on the issue if one can present them in a calm manner.

The problem here is that the "ins and outs" are the trillions upon trillions of things that don't match your theory of fine tuning. If there was one only one planet and it could support life that would indicate fine tuning but a universe that contains trillions upon trillions upon trillions of lifeless planets and stars does not indicate fine tuning, it indicates that planets formed with no intelligent guidance and that one of the trillions happened to form in such a way that supported life. Your theory explains only one planet in the universe and declares the rest to be a mystery, whereas my theory of undirected chance explains every planet

If I was to draw an X on the pavement, then drop a beach ball from a 100th storey window and hit the X, that would indicate that something guided the ball but if it took me 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 attempts to do it there would be no evidence of guidance, it would be evidence of a chance occurrence.

The ball has to land somewhere so the fact that it landed here instead of there is not particularly amazing, it only appears unlikely if it lands on a pre-drawn X, if landing at that point was pre-planned. In a similar way, a planet has to form some way and the fact that one of the trillions formed this way is not particularly amazing, it only appears unlikely if you think that the production of life was pre-planned. The point is that there is nothing to suggest that it was pre-planned. Marvelling that one of trillions of planets happened to form in such a way that life could survive is akin to dropping the ball out the window, waiting until it lands, drawing an X under it and going "WOW look it landed on the X"

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think such arguments exclude the possibility of life anywhere else. It is possible that God could have created conditions favourable to live anywhere else.

I certainly think there is life in other solar systems, but we know given the requirement for life as we understand this, this is going to be rare.

So again, it is hard to see how the universe is "fine tuned" to produce something so rare, something that we have only found once and that if we assume can exist on other Earth like planets is still ridiculously rare compared to all the other stuff in the universe.

Again it is like a machine that produces a square car part every second but that once every 10,000 years produces a round part. No one would assume the machine is fine tuned to allow this.

If we imagine the universe has a designer it seems far more logical to assume that the universe is fine tuned to preventing life. Habitual zones are quite rare, as are Earth sized planets. There may be millions of habitual planets in the universe but that is nothing compared to the total number of planets and stars.

The odd bit of life sneaks in here and there, but its ok it gets wiped out by an exploding star after a few billion years.

If the universe has a purpose related to life it seems to be to keep it at bay. Interestingly no one is rushing to consider that idea

Jakkass wrote: »

This assumes that I think the universe was only designed for one thing along the reasoning of Sam Vimes earlier. I think it is perfectly possible that the universe serves much much more of a purpose than for life to exist. I think I have made this completely clear in my posts. I also argue that we cannot know what exactly the purpose of everything in the universe is due to our limited intellects. The argument of "pointless planets" is also by and large ineffective.

Not so long as the "fine tuned" argument keeps re-appearing.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem here is that the "ins and outs" are the trillions upon trillions of things that don't match your theory of fine tuning. If there was one only one planet and it could support life that would indicate fine tuning but a universe that contains trillions upon trillions upon trillions of lifeless planets and stars does not indicate fine tuning, it indicates that planets formed with no intelligent guidance and that one of the trillions happened to form in such a way that supported life. Your theory explains only one planet in the universe and declares the rest to be a mystery, whereas my theory of undirected chance explains every planet.

I've already dealt with all of this earlier. Just because we don't know what purpose something has does not mean that it doesn't have one. That would be assumption. It also assumes that we are capable of comprehending everything in the universe, reality however indicates that we cannot. This leaves much more open than closed in the God Debate.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If I was to draw an X on the pavement, then drop a beach ball from a 100th storey window and hit the X, that would indicate that something guided the ball but if it took me 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 attempts to do it there would be no evidence of guidance, it would be evidence of a chance occurrence.

Yes, I've heard of the Texas Sharpshooter Argument before. We still have to deal with the conditions, and the why behind the how. I mean, it's all well and good saying that chance led us to this point. However, one still has to answer the question, what is the purpose of us existing rather than not?

Science doesn't lead us to any answers on this question, or indeed to most of the questions in relation to this.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The ball has to land somewhere so the fact that it landed here instead of there is not particularly amazing, it only appears unlikely if it lands on a pre-drawn X, if landing at that point was pre-planned. In a similar way, a planet has to form some way and the fact that one of the trillions formed this way is not particularly amazing, it only appears unlikely if you think that the production of life was pre-planned. The point is that there is nothing to suggest that it was pre-planned. Marvelling that one of trillions of planets happened to form in such a way that life could survive is akin to dropping the ball out the window, waiting until it lands, drawing an X under it and going "WOW look it landed on the X"

Wow, this one is borrowed from Wicknight. Again, it's another version of the Texas Sharpshooter Argument. However it leads us no closer to the why behind the how.

Saying how the universe was formed, doesn't lead us any closer to determining why the universe was formed. Even at that rate, we don't know truly in a complete manner about how the universe was formed 100%.

Again, if we want to pretend that we know everything about the universe. That's fine. I'd prefer not to though

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'
Yes, I've heard of the Texas Sharpshooter Argument before. We still have to deal with the conditions, and the why behind the how. I mean, it's all well and good saying that chance led us to this point. However, one still has to answer the question, what is the purpose of us existing rather than not?

Would you accept an answer along the lines that the purpose of the universe is to create dark matter (most of the universe is this) for some unknown reason and for some reason you cannot produce a universe to produce dark matter without allow for the occasional occurrence of biological life, which while not being desirable is unavoidable?

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, if we want to pretend that we know everything about the universe. That's fine. I'd prefer not to though

But why are you pretending to know why the universe was formed (God did it because he wanted to)?

Religious people seem to only consider the pleasing possibilities to a designer. Even if there is a designer to the universe it seems ridiclous to suppose we are part of his plan.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I've already dealt with all of this earlier. Just because we don't know what purpose something has does not mean that it doesn't have one. That would be assumption. It also assumes that we are capable of comprehending everything in the universe, reality however indicates that we cannot. This leaves much more open than closed in the God Debate.

You are putting forward a theory to try to explain how life got here. In doing so your theory should explain as many phenomena as possible. Your theory explains one planet and declares the rest to be a mystery where mine explains all of them, therefore my theory is more likely to be true than yours. You should take a look at this "baloney detection kit":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU

Point 6 deals with this: "Where does the preponderance of evidence point to? Anybody can make a claim and then pile up a few points in favour of it but what about all the other evidence, is it also leaning toward this?"

You have one point in favour that can also be explained by my theory and trillions and trillions of points against. Your theory is unlikely to be true

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I've heard of the Texas Sharpshooter Argument before. We still have to deal with the conditions, and the why behind the how. I mean, it's all well and good saying that chance led us to this point. However, one still has to answer the question, what is the purpose of us existing rather than not?

Science doesn't lead us to any answers on this question, or indeed to most of the questions in relation to this.

Wow, this one is borrowed from Wicknight. Again, it's another version of the Texas Sharpshooter Argument. However it leads us no closer to the why behind the how.

Saying how the universe was formed, doesn't lead us any closer to determining why the universe was formed. Even at that rate, we don't know truly in a complete manner about how the universe was formed 100%.

Again, if we want to pretend that we know everything about the universe. That's fine. I'd prefer not to though

All of the above assumes there is a "why". I have seen nothing to suggest that there is a reason or purpose behind the universe. To ask "why" is to assume intelligence behind it which is the very thing we are discussing. We don't ask the deeper purpose behind a snowstorm or lightning strike, the how does us just fine, so I see no reason to impose such a question on the universe. You must first show that there is a purpose behind the universe before you ask what that purpose is.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I've already dealt with all of this earlier. Just because we don't know what purpose something has does not mean that it doesn't have one. That would be assumption. It also assumes that we are capable of comprehending everything in the universe, reality however indicates that we cannot. This leaves much more open than closed in the God Debate.

Which God though?

Jakkass wrote: »

Science doesn't lead us to any answers on this question, or indeed to most of the questions in relation to this.

Well then you've pretty much run out of objective ways to answer any questions after science.

Jakkass wrote: »

Saying how the universe was formed, doesn't lead us any closer to determining why the universe was formed. Even at that rate, we don't know truly in a complete manner about how the universe was formed 100%.

You don't think science is concerned with "why"? If God is the why, why is God?

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, if we want to pretend that we know everything about the universe. That's fine. I'd prefer not to though

Who is in fact doing that?

Turtwig

Damm this thead moves very quickly...

Couple of genaral points, and apologies in advance if they have been mentioned.

Universe may NOT be fine tuned.
Why nothing? What is nothing?
Lastly if God created, said universe, then where did God come from? If God was always there then why couldn't the universe sans God always be there??

@Sam Vines, digging up an old root but I need to clarify , that "Non believers, maybe..." was aimed directly at JC because he was labelling us all as 'traditional' atheists. I was rather counterintuitively accepting his meaning and just changing our label if that makes any sense ??? Anyways I know I defined atheism clearly somewhere but thus far this is the best I could find...:D

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't think anyone can ever be a pure atheist, simply because of the fear religion can instill subconsciously in the mind. Most of us, will always have hesitations,

Not only that but I'd rather not have any label

Malty_T wrote: »

I like it a bit too, unfortunately at the moment I don't want to accept any category of beliefs because I believe that gives us a natural subconscience to adhere to them just so we may be accepted by likeminded individuals. Trying to remain openminded is nigh on impossible - if not impossible.

There is my belief, your belief that is all. I'll respect it as long as you don't impose it on others.

Phew...my eyes are sore
Dam I LOVE this thread

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

The universe is how it is. If you want to argue the ins and outs and why they are the way they are, I'm not going to be able to help you (I've already said I cannot explain everything, nor do I seek to), as I didn't design the universe. It's an utterly futile discussion:

If its an utturly futile discussion to discuss the ins and outs of the universe then what does that make of the discussion about who made it? What does that make of any claims about the universe? You say you cant help with an argument about the ins and outs of the universe, and yet your argument is based on your claim that the ins and outs are ordered and designed. This just seems like avoiding my question.

wolfsbane

Malty_T said:

Universe may NOT be fine tuned.

The solar system - our immediate enviroment - certainly seems to be. I don't know what physics are involved in the survival of the rest of the universe, but I suspect our solar system in turn depends on a fine-tuned galaxy, and so on.

Why nothing? What is nothing?

The logical state of other than Something. I can't think of another option.

Lastly if God created, said universe, then where did God come from? If God was always there then why couldn't the universe sans God always be there??

God was always there - that is a characteristic/quality/attribute of God, eternality. The universe sans God could also be eternal. The materialist just has to have the courage to make that assertion in the face of entropy. He needs to invoke an unknown (material) power that causes a heat-dead universe to Big Bang repeatedly.

Anyways I know I defined atheism clearly somewhere but thus far this is the best I could find...

Could I butt in and ask this question that recently struck me? Can one be an atheist and believe in a material universe that is self-aware, ie, that intelligently designs itself? Or is such naturalistic pantheism also taboo for atheists?

There is my belief, your belief that is all. I'll respect it as long as you don't impose it on others.

I don't respect any false beliefs, but I do the person's right to hold them.

Phew...my eyes are sore
Dam I LOVE this thread

:):D

wolfsbane

munsterdevil said:

Reasons why I don't believe in an omnipotent, benevolent God would be

1. Why go to so much trouble in the intracies in making the universe.

No trouble really - all done in 6 days.

2. The universe is estimated to be around 15 billion years old, and the earth 5 billion (I think, so correct me if I'm wrong), so why not make the a developed earth the first day.

Exactly - though He choose to do in in 6 rather than 1. Maybe to accommodate our physical/mental capacity for work/rest; alternate days off would not be as good as 6 on, 1 off. I know some lazy gits may deny that, but experience says otherwise.

3. It took billions of years for life to appear on earth and it was only a few million years ago that the first recognisable humanoid species first appeared, so why didn't god just put humans on earth the first day, why all the waiting and waiting for development.

Exactly - though He did so on Day 6, not 1.

4. Why were the Israelites the first the first to learn of the Christian Judeo God, when they had no written culture, when for example plenty of cultures in Asia had a written culture thousands of years before them.

Long before Israel existed as a nation, God was known and worshipped. In Eden, and by some in all generations after. Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, etc.

Exactly when Adam's descendants first wrote is unknown, but Israel had the same background as the Babylonians, etc. Abraham in fact came from Babylonia. Having archeological artifacts of writing does not mean there was no writing before then.

wolfsbane

marco_polo wrote: »

Unless I am missing something you are essentially using a model that predicts the expected luminosity of a 4.6 billion year old star of about the same size as the Sun to help 'prove' a creation date of about 6000 years ago?

Correct. The article shows the almost impossible task of having both our present earth and a 4.6-billion-year-old sun, so the other alternative is a recent earth/sun.

How did the Earth’s atmosphere manage to evolve in such a delicate fashion? One possibility is that it just happened that way. The geological and biological processes removed greenhouse gases at exactly the same average rate to compensate for the increased solar luminosity. What would be the probability of this happening by chance?

Because the evolution of such a delicate balance is so improbable, some have suggested that the Earth’s biosphere behaves as a giant single organism. This pantheistic idea, seriously proposed by scientist James Lovelock, has been dubbed the Gaia hypothesis, after the goddess of the Earth. Repelled by the teleological connotations, many scientists reject the Gaia hypothesis, opting for the appeal to chance.

Sam Vimes

I have to admit I find it amazing to see someone talk about the earth being created in 7 days and the garden of Eden etc the way I'd talk about going down to the shops. I had heard of people who believed the literal word of the bible but to hear someone talk about it as if it's hard fact is very strange to me

Do the mountains of evidence that conclusively prove it didn't happen that way not trouble you at all?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I pointed out, fruit-fly change is not proof of evolution - just that fruit-flies can mutate into other types of fruit-fly. Mutating into something other than a fly, that would be evolution.
Nonsense. That is like saying something falling from my hand is not evidence for gravity, I want to see a black hole or gravity doesn't exist.

Leaving aside that nothing is proof of evolution (do we really have to have the proof discussion again), a form of fruit fly evolving into a different form of fruit fly is evolution. It is exactly what happens in evolution, it fits evolutionary theory and is explained by it. Saying you want to see a fruit fly evolve into something other than a fruit fly is ridiculous, "fruit fly" is a human and not particularly scientific, classification. I could easily say the thing it just evolved into is not a fruit fly. I could do that but I wouldn't because your whole premise is ridiculouse. Again it is like saying something has to fall for 100 meters before it hits the ground, hitting the ground at 99 meters then gravity doesn't exist.

And there are far better examples of evolution that you can observe, such as single cell organisms evolving into multicelled organism.

But you are never going to see a billion years worth of evolution happen in front of your eyes unless you are looking at a computer simulation (which you creationists reject because it is just a computer).

Most people wouldn't think that was necessary unless they had some ideological aversion to evolution, in the same way most people don't think it is necessary to see a black hole to accept gravity is real.

The fruit-fly change into other forms of fruit-fly is what creation also accepts. It is consistent with a YEC and the diversification of species, particularly after the Flood. So a process that is common to both Creation and Evolution cannot be proof of either.

And there are far better examples of evolution that you can observe, such as single cell organisms evolving into multicelled organism.

Care to reference that for me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I am not dismissing them as scientists, nor even ridiculing their theories as bad science. Their skills as scientists are immense - but subject to presuppositions and prejudices like the rest of us. It is their belief that they are above such temptation that makes them prey to it.
Groan 1116 page in and you still don't get it.

They don't have a belief they are above "temptation", the scientific method recognises human bias and actively tries to work around it. That is the whole point of science!!!

OK, they recognise they are open to prejudice against creation, but they successfully overcome and are impartial scientists. Not from any of their responses I've read! Maybe it is your prejudice that is blinding you to the fact? Denial is a terrible state.

And that is exactly what Creationists groups such as the Discovery Institute and AnswersInGenesis campaign to be removed from science, because without internal opinion they have nothing to support their ideas.

Their scientific case is strong, so strong that evolutionists demand not just its exposure as flawed science, but that it be banned from discussion in the scientific arena. That exposes evolutionism as more than merely a scientific theory, but rather one that is driven by atheistic dogma.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
When they get their premise wrong, all that follows is false as a whole, even if bits are valid.
But it is not about right or wrong. Again that is the whole point of science. It is about accurate or inaccurate.

That is what I meant here by right/wrong - accurate/inaccurate.

Evolution is accurate. It could still be wrong, some how, but it is accurate.

Not in my understanding of either wrong or accurate. They are mutually exclusive.

That is a fact. You don't have to trust people on that, you can carry out all the experiments yourself. You don't have to trust scientists.

Where is the fact? What experiment can I do that will show evolution in action, that will not also the creation process? Dogs changing into other sorts of dogs or flies into other sorts of flies is common to both theories, as explained above.

Evolution is so accurate that nearly every biologist in the world is happy to take it that it is fact. But again you don't have to believe them. You can measure the accuracy of evolution yourself

Describe exactly how.

It doesn't matter if the scientists have internal bias. Something is or is not accurate.

We agree on that. It's just that an internal bias will cause the scientist to misrepresent what is being demonstrated. If we stick to what actually is before our eyes, we can force the scientists to stick to the facts rather than pass off their theories as fact.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have to admit I find it amazing to see someone talk about the earth being created in 7 days and the garden of Eden etc the way I'd talk about going down to the shops. I had heard of people who believed the literal word of the bible but to hear someone talk about it as if it's hard fact is very strange to me

Do the mountains of evidence that conclusively prove it didn't happen that way not trouble you at all?

I don't see them as conclusively proving anything - other than the capacity of man to twist the evidence to produce a Theory of his own desires.

Evolution has certain explanations for the evidence; so does Creationism. Both make a case for their understanding. I find Creationism's case scientifically much more credible than Evolution's.

But the prime reason I hold to Creationism is that it has been revealed by God in the Bible.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Mutating into something other than a fly, that would be evolution.
Er, no it wouldn't.

So breeding fruit-flies for millions of generations and seeing a non-fruit fly emerge would not be evolution observed? Can you give me an example of what you think evolution means?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
When they get their premise wrong, all that follows is false as a whole, even if bits are valid.
Couldn't have put it better myself.

Glad to see logic recognised. It makes discussion so much easier. One may disagree on facts or on inferences, and still hope for light. But when logic is off, it matters not what is said.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I agree about human nature. But a real atheist will use his reason to recognise morality is only a biological thing thrown up by evolution - and so is free from any of its claims.
Non-sequitur.

So you think a man who recognises that morality is merely a biological conditioning by evolution, is nevertheless bound by its demands? That our self-reflection leads us to conclude we must obey our instincts?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So the Bible can rightly mean anything to anyone? Nonsense.
Indeed, what you've written is nonsense

What I actually implied was that there is no single, fixed meaning for the bible. This is so painfully obvious that I didn't think it needed to be pointed out, however it seems that it must!

If every christian interpreted the text of the bible the same way, then every christian would believe the same thing. It is manifestly obvious that they do not and it is equally obvious that outside of a small number of basic things, they disagree fundamentally disagree about vast numbers of things.

On the contrary, most of the Bible is agreed by most scholars. Many of them don't believe what it says, but they agree that it says it.

Just like this forum - many disagreements with the posters, but not many about what the poster means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Christian morality is based on the Bible and not on one's individual whims.
Not in the slightest -- what you believe is an independent "christian morality" is, in fact, based entirely upon your own personal interpretation of what the bible says.

That's why there are so many divisions in the christian community about what constitutes "morality".

Like seriously, have you failed to notice that these differences exist? Or do you believe that every christian believes exactly the same thing?

Most of those who differ on morality do so by saying the Bible's teaching no longer applies to our modern world - not that the Bible teaches what they hold. Some indeed do seek to pervert the Bible to accommodate homosexuality, for example. But their dishonesty is obvious to any reader.

Only a few cases exist, as far as I can think of, where the Bible's teaching on morality is disputed: Observation of a Sunday Sabbath; Divorce & Remarriage; Drinking alcohol. There may be a few more that haven't sprung to my mind, but it will be few.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
true atheism should acknowledge no morality, even if for practical purposes they live by one.
You should ask an atheist sometime what we understand by "morality". But I'll save you the trouble and say that "morality" is something that's defined by the culture and time you live in, with some guidance from written legal texts, holybooks and so on.

Exactly. But why should they feel obliged to live by such morality? That's what I mean - if they are logical, they will say morality has no obligation on them. For practical purposes they may go along with it, but not because it is an expression of what is truly right and wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is the fact that most of them insist that it really is wrong to murder, steal, etc. that makes me say they are living a lie.
No, we just reject as really quite silly the idea that you can only decide what to do because one's own particular holybook contains a character whose words are interpreted as instructions to do or not do do one thing or another.

I'm not discussing their reasons for rejecting a theistic basis for morality - I'm saying they have no reason to put any morality in its place, but most of them do. Most atheists believe it is really/actually wrong to murder, rape or steal.